« Own Your Own Sin
Risk & Reward »

The American Heresy

In the comments on my last post I had a spirited conversation with a friend from high school regarding the existence of hell. To summarize my understanding of his argument, he believes that hell is not a real place because hell is evil and God being all good cannot create evil. The references to hell in Scripture, therefore, are metaphors. This is one of the many variations of this idea the United States today. I’d like to take a moment here to share my thoughts on the matter.

First, I believe hell is a literal place where people who do not receive God’s forgiveness for their sin through Jesus in their earthly lives will spend eternity. Hell is a place where those who have not received salvation in Christ receive eternal punishment for their sin (Matthew 25:30, 41; Revelation 14:9-11; 19:3).

This is not inconsistent with God’s goodness. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If God were not to punish sin then he would not be wholly good because he would allow evil to exist without consequence. In this sense, hell is no more evil than prison.

What about the length of punishment? Is eternal punishment really justified for temporal sin? Ultimately, I don’t think we can answer that, because we are incapable of ascertaining the true extent of sin. We do not know the damage that sin does beyond the obvious things that we see and feel. Yet we know that sin is wrong even when there are no apparent damages to the people around us (for instance sex between to single consenting adults is sin although there are no apparent negative effects). We cannot judge whether eternal punishment is fair or not, only God knows.

While this is not comfortable for me, I trust God. I know that God is good. I know that he will do what is right. So, I trust him to do the holy, righteous, loving, good thing. Even when I don’t understand it. I must hold myself to God’s standard and not attempt to hold him to mine. He’s God. I’m not.

There’s a lot more that could be said here but this is enough for one post. What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 at 8:51 am and is filed under Bible & Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Brian Walker

    I do believe that Hell exists and it IS a “real” place, but it was not created by God. It is the one place that is the “absence of God”, by our own doing. In a certain way, this is another mystery of God, where he can be the “Creator”, yet have something that exists that he did not create. I know you thought the argument was irrelevant (or non sequitur), but it is the same type of arguement that “the rock that can not be moved” is founded on. “Can God create the universe, yet hell exists and it wasn’t created by God?”. The answer is “Yes”. While puzzling, it is the truth.

    Additionally, I’m very pleased as to your “length of punishment” question, as your argument is the basis of the existence of “Purgatory”. Way to go!!!

    ~BW

  • http://bryonharvey.com BryonHarvey

    I’m sorry about misrepresenting your view. Thanks for clarifying.

    I have two problems with the view of hell as you have presented it. It denies two fundamental biblical principles one about creation and one about God.

    First, regarding creation. It is not biblically tenable to state that anything that exists was not created by God. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). There is no substance in existence that was not made by God. As creative beings made in the image of God we are able manipulate the substances that God has made but not able to create new substances.

    Second, regarding God. The statement that hell is the “absence of God” is biblically impossible it denies God’s omnipresence. Refer to Psalm 139:7-10 which states that God is both present in heaven and Sheol which is the only concept of afterlife the early Jews had. It is safe to say that hell is the absence of God’s blessing but not the absence of God. There is nothing that exists outside of God. To be outside the presence of God is to be outside of existence.

    Now let’s throw another concept into the hopper. My consistent refrain has been that a loving God has to punish sin and hell is that punishment. This is the reason for the creation of hell. Yet, what is the experience of hell? As stated earlier there is the absence of God’s blessing, but I propose that there is more to hell than that. An attribute of God that we don’t often talk about is wrath. Scripture is clear that one of God’s attributes is wrath. The best definition of God’s wrath that I have found is in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. “God’s wrath means that he intensely hates all sin” (Grudem 206). For more on this attribute of God read Exodus 32:9-10; Deuteronomy 9:7-8; 2 Kings 22:13; John 3:36; Romans 1:18 to get started there are many others. How does this fit with our conversation regarding hell? I propose that hell is both the absence of God’s blessing and the presence of of God’s wrath.

    Well, that’s a pretty long comment. I’ll leave it there for now. I think we should save purgatory conversation for another post, but I’m happy to address it from the Protestant perspective.

  • Kerri

    I have also always thought of hell being the “absence of God”, as you have not accepted Him, so you can not be with Him, so you are apart from Him, eternally in death, in hell. Never really thought about how hell was created or God still being “present” there. Contemplating God’s blessings and wrath and thankful that He’s in control.

  • Brian Walker

    Let me ask you this… Is there ANY “goodness”, “love”, or even “hope” in hell? Whereas, I would start to understand your logic if hell isn’t actually the epitome of “ALL-evil”.

    If your answer is “yes”, then I would argue that’s not “actually” hell.

    ~BW

  • http://bryonharvey.com BryonHarvey

    Before I answer, how do you define hell and from where do you derive that definition?

  • Brian Walker

    This is personified in Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve “die” to God, therefore separate themselves from God. They hid themselves, and so do we. You can almost picture the separation from God… It was and still is, not God pushing us away, it is us walking away. God is not “Judge Judy”-like whereas he looks at our list of crimes of sin and determines our punishment (Besides, the keys of the kingdom were handed over to St. Peter). God is Love. Our punishment, if you can even call it that, is that we continue to fall into our own self-serving means (sex, drugs, alcoholism, gossip, etc.). These false joys, BECOME the punishment. Anyone who falls deep into sin, by any of these means, will tell you, especially at their respective “rock bottoms”, that there is an emptiness. They feel abandoned, lost, no love. If we die, and are completely separated by God, through sin, it is only by the Mercy of God that we can be saved.
    This is also written about by Paul to the Romans (Ch6), and Peter’s 2nd letter (Ch2). Also, in an implicit fashion, in the Battle for Heaven (Rev 12), when the Devil was kicked out of heaven, it was to Earth, not Hell.
    So, let me either ask you my question again, or you could answer your own question…

  • Brian Walker

    While this article doesn’t have a lot of scripture references, it does seem to have a good grasp of hell.
    http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/is-hell-real.htm

    Disclaimer: I’m not sure of the origin or theological background of this website, and there may be other aspects of this website that I don’t agree with. I just think that their view of hell is accurate, and they actually put the time into putting it online.

  • http://bryonharvey.com BryonHarvey

    Thanks again for the great conversation. Let’s wrap things up like this since later today I’m going to put up another new post.

    The reason I asked from where you derived your definition is because you defined hell as “the epitome of ‘ALL-evil’”. That is not the definition of hell nor is that definition supported in any way by the Scripture references that you provided. I respectfully disagree with your definition. Hell is a place where those who failed to receive redemption in Christ experience eternal punishment for their sins (Matthew 25:30, 41; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 16:22-24; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). So to answer your question I believe there is good that is derived from the existence of hell. It is good for sin to be punished.

    With regard to this comment, Genesis does not describe hell. It describes why humanity does not experience the intimate relationship God for which we were designed. The Hebrew people did not develop an understanding of an afterlife until the Babylonian captivity.

    I will grant this. The redeemed relationship provides for us a foretaste of the eternal blessing we will one day experience with God. The unredeemed relationship, therefore, provides us a foretaste of the eternal punishment those who are not redeemed will experience. That, I believe, is what you have described above.

    I love the conversation. Thanks for engaging with me. I’m looking forward to you comments on my later posts.

  • Brian Walker

    Ok, it is becoming clear to me that this is not the correct venue to continue these conversations. I was under the impression that this would serve as a format for the search of truth, in regards to Christian faith. However, it seems to be more of a “food for thought” for whoever reads this blog, from two or more viewpoints. This is very dangerous and inconclusive. If we want to search for the truth, let’s dive in, but “agreeing to disagree” isn’t doing anyone any favors.

    I do have a general point though:
    The Bible was derived from the Church (not the other way around). It wasn’t intended to be used as ammunition for arguments like we are doing. The Bible’s intention is to support truths revealed to man, not to base an entire faith or Church off of. Otherwise, who do you explain Christianity for the first 300 years after Christ’s death? The apostles didn’t read the Bible (at least not the New Testament), they lived it. This is further proven by Christ handing the keys of the Kingdom over to St. Peter, and when he breathed the Holy Spirit into them. Thus, the Church began, and 300 years later, that same Church collected the books of the Bible, not because this is ALL that God wants us to know, but this is what he delivered to us in the form of writing. Almost like “love letters” from God. I presume that you’ve written love letters, or even cards to you wife over the years, but do they contain EVERYTHING that you are to your wife? No, of course not. There are some things experienced, some things spoken about, and some things just lived (you don’t have to write on a piece of paper that you won’t cheat on her, you just live that love).
    Some truths are already revealed (including the existence and creation of hell), they were studied and declared by people with much more experience and authority then you and I. These are the same people who collected the books for the Bible.
    So, I ask you (this can be rhetorical), how do you rely so much on the Bible, but not trust the people who wrote and assembled it? In a certain aspect, that’s like me reading a book that YOU might of written, and having me tell you what you meant by the things that you wrote.
    I’m unsure if I will continue to comment on future blogs. On one hand, I feel I have an obligation to educate people on the truth that Christ HAS revealed to us. On the other hand, this forum may be more confusing than helpful.

    Either way, this has been enjoyable, and I hope you continue your studies. However, I’m sure you your see that both theologically, explicitly and historically, the Bible is a book to support our faith, but is not to be the foundation of it (Christ himself is the founder).

  • http://bryonharvey.com BryonHarvey

    Brian,
    You’re correct this is not the venue for academic debate. The internet is not the appropriate venue for academic debate because of the limits of space and the interaction is impersonal. This forum is is best for open conversation and a broad sharing of views.

    I appreciate your point of view regarding Scripture, but I disagree. Yes, the church was God’s vehicle through which he used to assemble His word but there is a fatal flaw in your argument. Throughout the course of your posts you have used Scripture to support your points.

    I will concede that Scripture is not the source of our faith. The source of our faith is Christ. Yet, it is the only source of spiritual truth God has provided us that is objectively observable is Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the primary source of truth from God but his work is not objectively observable. (This does not make it inferior just different.) However, as a child of the reformation I do hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Thanks for sharing with us. God bless you and your ministry.

  • Brian Walker

    I’m not sure if you get e-mails every time I (or others) leave comments, but I do not receive an e-mail when you re-post (hence the delay of this comment).

    I will get off the hell subject. But you brought up “Sola Scriptura”, which while it’s intentions are “good” and “Christian”, the whole principle is… well… Unbiblical. I wrote about the Creed in an earlier post, and you attempted to discredit it. You wrote, “The only source of doctrine, however for me, is Holy Scripture.”. Yet, you just stated today that “However, as a child of the reformation I do hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”. While “Sola Scriptura” does indeed reference Holy Scripture. There is NO evidence of the reverse. So, you are picking and choosing doctrines to believe in??? You can do a quick Google search for “Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical” and find numerous references of varying degrees of this.

    At this point, I get redundant of past writings. Maybe you could post a “Sola Scriptura” blog, and I could follow up, as we are certainly diverting from the “Hell” discussion. All I’m saying is that there is a rich history that is missing from your Theology, in addition to the Authority given to the Church by Christ himself, that is now ignored.

    You wrote, “there is a fatal flaw in your argument. Throughout the course of your posts you have used Scripture to support your points.” A quick response to this is that you reject all of the “other” things. I’m meeting you where you are. If you want to dive into Doctrines, Dogmas, Church Authority, Magisterium, etc., I’m all in. But since you reject those things currently, you leave me with no other option that to use the Bible to prove these other aspects, which like I already mentioned, needs to be “outside” of a blog world.

  • http://bryonharvey.com BryonHarvey

    Herein lies the ultimate futility in our conversation. (Though incredibly enjoyable and thought-provoking.) We are starting from different presuppositions. Both presuppositions can be supported logically. I can provide a myriad of resources defending Sola Scriptura from Scripture. Since Martin Luther in the second half of 17th century brilliant minds have been defending the doctrine. By the same token for the same amount of time brilliant minds have been discrediting the doctrine. For the time being, this is a stalemate. Not because of our faith, or the teachings of great scholars, but because our foundational presuppositions are different.

    The discussion, therefore, becomes academic at this point because neither of us will change our opinion. Yet, academic discussion has great value because it forces us to examine our presuppositions and decide whether we will continue to hold them or not based on well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. I doubt we will be able to bridge the divide on this issue this side of eternity but I take great joy in knowing that God has allowed us to wrestle with the topic. I believe this is how we “love God with all our minds.”

    Thanks again for the correspondence. I hope another topic draws this much attention later on.

    BTW, if you register with wordpress you should be able to receive emails when people respond to your comments here.

  • Brian Walker

    Ok, I will concede to the stalemate, at least on this blog. However, I am even more interested to meet up with you to have a discussion about faith, and it’s similarities/differences, including our respective “presuppositions”, and anywhere else God leads us. I find this fascinating, and hopefully it will prove fruitful and peaceful.

    I think we should both challenge each other, while continuing the same current respect we both have. “Should be good”…

    ~BW

  • Brian Walker

    Ok, I’m not trying to dig up this conversation again, not open another can of worms, but I would like to “retract” a statement that I had previously made. God did create the “place” of hell as to it’s “location” (where ever that may be), which supports your omnipresent arguement. However, the original argument was of God’s involvement is our sinning. I still hold on to the fact that (1) God is incapable of sinning directly or indirectly (by allowing us to), and (2) while God may send us to hell for not choosing him, it is due to OUR FREE WILL that that happens. It is us walking away from him, not him pushing us away.