By the way I have really enjoyed The Cross and The Jukebox. My son and I sing “Me and Jesus” all the time now. Never heard it before but appreciate it after listening to your discerning word about it.

A word about Rob Bell….I happened to catch Mars Hill Church (Michigan) podcast this week from his last Sunday March 26th message. Rob started off his “teaching” by saying and I quote to the cheers of the crowd after each pause:

“My name is Rob….I live in Grand Rapids, MI…I’m a Christian…I believe in Jesus…I believe Jesus is the way…I believe in Heaven…I believe in Hell…I believe the Bible is God’s Word…and I’m not a Universalist because I believe God’s Love is so great God let’s You decide…I believe in the communion of the Saints…I believe the Church is the fullnesss…I believe in the new Heaven and the new Earth…I believe in healing…I believe in Miracles…I believe in Salvation…I believe in the power of Prayer…I believe God is alive and working…I believe there’s been a Resurrection…and a new creation is bursting forth right here in the midst of this one…AND……………….I also believe it’s best to only discuss books you’ve actually read.”

Interesting. He goes on to thank the congregation for their kindness towards the people who are not loving and are about fear instead of faith. He says the Gospel is known by it’s Fruit. All the best doctrine and dogmas can be a “clanging symbol”. Love is the greatest commandment. He says the book is about, “Hey Jesus didn’t come into the world to say hey it’s going to get better later…The Divine took on flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood.” You can trust that Grace paid the bill and then let’s partner together to help make this world what God dreams it could be. It’s an urgent invitation to trust and ask what is Jesus wanting us to do? Jesus is brilliant…not the “Christian package”. He calls the book a good old fashion Bible study working through all the ways people have made Christianity their own. If we actually listened to what Jesus actually said…it’s revolutionary. He says he always comes back to God’s Love…it’s for everybody. Jesus came to offer us this love to see it, experience it, trust it, and then send it to others. It is for right now.

I think though he asks some great questions it’s a missed opportunity with his far-reaching popularity to tell the whole truth and to bring clarity to the Gospel bottom-line. He says in his book that “the conversation is divine”–that’s where the “feet planted in mid-air” comes in….very emergent-like. The very highjacking of the Christian faith he complains about and is correct about in a lot of ways he ends up doing himself. I don’t see God as Ultimate in the way he questions things. And Rob says himself in the book that the very answer lies in the questions so are we to assume he is really asking those questions or is it on behalf of others? He plays to our natural inclination of avoiding conflict and looking for what would make sense to “man”—what the human heart defines as good, fair, and just. The problem is I make a terrible god and I have to deny my own untrustworthy heart and defer to Him completely.

Jeff

I won’t deny that the wages of sin are eternal (namely, to have one’s very soul cast down for all eternity into a pit of [in some sense, literal, material but moreover spiritual] fire and sulfur), but to say that the works of sin (namely, evil effects before God and potentially consequences to other souls) are also eternal is to deny that the time comes when God (Acts 3:21), His Word descending to us through Elijah (Mt. 17:11), will restore all things, such that He, in all His Perfection, may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). The Evil One, in fact, has no creative powers (Jn. 1:3) but only incoherency, which is no real power at all in the end. The Lord God is the Almighty.

@Dr. Mike Spaulding

If God is the Life, the God of the Living, the Living God, then the dead who are not in Him have what sort of consciousness? Their brains no longer function to give them animal consciousness, so they have the first death—and their afterlife state is of condemnation to the fires of Gehenna, unto the second death. Is there then some *third* sort of life? And how might they have it, being apart from God? Yet if they have not life, how might they have consciousness: only that which yet persists as an independent being (which we do only by the grace of God, even at this very moment) might have its own consciousness (for which reason Descartes famously—if only for its being a wise insight into plain common sense—concluded, “Cogito ergo sum”). Even some things that *are* alive are not conscious, such as vines, or trees, or those who are fallen asleep without dreams.

But how would just punishment for a conscious act be served in unconsciousness? What sort of torment could hell be in that case?

Rather, perhaps it is enough for the one who has given in to the illusion of the ego, the self-grandeur of having a grand self, as if having any individual, personal subsistence at all, simply to have that ego utterly destroyed! That doesn’t mean, however, that hell itself is annihilated: there are ever more souls that think that their own existence an ultimately real one with which to stoke the inferno that ultimately really is not: For there is nowhere that God is not! The fire of His Holy Spirit is love—only it would seem to us in some cases as it were hell.

It might do well to be appropriately apologetic for our sins, but for the doctrine of hell? Why seek justification? Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. How to reconcile the truth that God is, who is that he is, subject to no one and absolute, with the epistemology of starting from the conclusions? It would seem that such is not of God. And is this not the same as taking a created thing and setting it before all else as an idol? Perhaps it’s better to worry about one’s own soul before whatever it is Christian apologists feel they have to fear from objective truths. What if hell doesn’t exist? Is that something to be afraid of? Moreover, should it really matter?

Scripture indicates that it shouldn’t: Nowhere are you commanded to believe in hell, but rather to love the LORD almighty—the Truth—the Way, and the Life—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. From this it follows to love your neighbor as also you love yourself, and thus not to propose eternal punishment for him if you’re not volunteering to serve one yourself—unless you just assume yourself to be so much more right with the Lord for whatever reason—for in the same way we judge others, we will be judged, and with the measure we use, it will be measured to us. And before you think you shall pass by the measure of self-professed faith in “Jesus”, think: He made clear that not everyone professing to serve Him truly does. And salvation in no other name? Wait—His name is not “Christ Jesus” anyway; it’s Yehoshua (or Yeshua, or Yeshu—we can’t really be sure) Mashiyach.

We’re not certain how Peter actually worded it in the original language, speaking as he was to the elders of Jerusalem but recorded in the Book of Acts, but I suspect that this was a bit of sloganeering, speaking a literal truth, either as a pun or an anagram: for the Hebrew word for salvation is Yeshuah. Other than that, as Shakespeare has Juliet say, “What’s in a name?” If we’re to accept a notion of biblical literalism, let us apply it with rigor. How else in that case to interpret this? If we were to accept the superstitious idea of, in essence, some sort of magic charm ascribed to these specific syllables, we cannot render the name in any other way than the original phonemes. Yet Luke already took that liberty here in rendering it into Greek, indicating that the specific manner in which one refers to Way, the Truth, and the Life, is not of the essence, according well with what Jesus said regarding those who call upon His name but do not receive His salvation—do not, that is, truly receive his name, which is God’s Salvation. So, in fact, it is not about our giving that name for our Lord, but rather it’s about our Lord giving that name for us. Who comes to judge the living and the dead? Not you or I—unless your name is Christ Jesus. But let us hope that this be the name found written on our hearts, regardless whether it seems to our fellow man to be the name coming off of our tongues.

(We could of course also note that Peter spoke, actually, of the “name whereby *we* must be saved,” which isn’t exactly the same as asserting that no one *else* might be saved in any other name as might determined according to God’s election for them. Yet I don’t really think that’s relevant, as we know from Jesus himself that no one goes to the father but through Him; our problem is simply that, as the Word also informs us, the Lord confused their languages—not so that fewer people would come to the knowledge of Him, of course, but rather so that we would be all confused about who has or has not come to the knowledge of Him, thus learning to be humble (or else be condemning ourselves) and not building up vanities in the thought that they’d help us reach heaven.)

In Romans, we have the standard way of evangelism - showing the human condition, then what God has done about it in Jesus. In 1 John we start by talking about Jesus, and /then/ explain why Jesus had to die, as a ‘propitiation for our sins’.

I have been arguing this through recently in my small group. The people there who have come to Christ as adults, have been challenging me on this; telling me that starting by talking about hell just puts people off so much that they don’t listen to the whole story. Rather, they felt it was better to:

(a) develop a relationship with someone /first/
(b) talk about Christ, and /then/,
(c) let this lead on to talking about sin and judgement.

The Alpha course does it like this (Christianity Explored is much closer to the traditional model). I would welcome both comment and criticism on this approach. And for the record, I think Rob Bell’s approach is dangerously and eternally wrong.

Well, Jesus talked about hell more than did all other biblical characters combined. Yet he also talked about a great many other things — including very ordinary, everyday things.

This seems like a rather churlish response.

On the liberal side of the discussion, I’m very disappointed about the trend to de-emphasize the biblical teaching of eternal suffering… both by those who teach universalism, Christian universalism/reconciliation, and annihilationism. Those who hold to these views battle with the tension between the numerous passages in Scripture which clearly teach an everlasting state of painful judgment (Ps 81:15; Isa 33:14; Dan 12:2; Mt 25:46; 2 Thess 1:8-9; Rev 14:10-11 to name a few) and the emotional conflict of knowing that a loving God requires people to suffer eternally as the judgment for sin. From John Stott to Rob Bell, evangelicals are embracing a more palatable picture of eternity for the unbeliever and minimizing the painful reality of sin’s devestating influence on mankind.

I’m grateful for those who still faithfully stand with the central truth of scripture: In loving grace and mercy, Jesus Christ came to seek and save those who lives are controlled by sin and stand before God eternally helpless and hopeless. That through my faith in the saving work of Jesus we have the same assurance of eternal life and I once was sentenced to eternal judgment (Mt 25:46). An interesting observation is to be made from Matthew 25:26… if the eternal judgment is to be considered as a limited time or “age” as Rob Bell now teaches, how are we to assume that eternal life is anything more than a temporary period either?

That being said, the technical error that the orthodox conservatives are making is using the term “hell” rather than “suffering.” Scripturally speaking “Hell” is not eternal. (Please keep reading.) The conscious SUFFERING of the condemned IS eternal, but HELL is not. The Bible is clear that Hell (as we understand it today) is only a temporary place of judgment… a “holding tank” for those under God’s wrath. This may sound like theological hair-splitting, but Revelation 20:14 teaches us that at the Great White Throne judgment, hell as a emptied out before God and then HELL is thrown into the Lake of Fire. I’m concerned that if we, as biblical conservatives are going to prove our arguments, they must be done so with complete biblical accuracy. The state of everlasting judgment for the unbeliever WILL continue long after HELL itself has completed its purpose and has been disposed of.

Does this clarification really matter? I think it does… maybe not in the eternal destination of the lost or the process of being freed from condemnation… but, if we are to command the respect of those who misuse scripture for their desired ends, I believe that Christians must answer their critics with the complete and accurate use of Scripture so that we do not repeat their own errors with teachings that are less than accurate no matter how insignificant the error might seem to us.

I think universalism also has problems with justice. If there are no consequences for our choices in this life, if it doesn’t matter what we do, then our actions don’t matter and our freedom is meaningless. On the other hand, God is utterly unjust to inflict eternal and infinite punishment on a temporal and finite being who can only do so much wrong. You and Dr. Moore may be content to say that God is not just as we understand justice, but I’m not sure God would be worthy of worship if God were not just.

I’m not sure what Rob Bell’s eschatology is, but my hunch is that he has an “open” or “dynamic” eschatology, where human beings can survive death and continue to interact with God. That way people can repent or continue to sin, but their actions can make a difference (and the hope would be that God would ultimately “win”). I am agnostic about such an “open” or “dynamic” eschatology, but I’m confident that infinite conscious punishment is utterly unjust when applied to finite human sin. Hell may or may not be eternal, but punishment can’t be eternal without being unjust.

Hell - yes, punishment - yes, but eternal torment I find very difficult to accept. Of course Revelation 20:10 seems quite clear, but when taken alongside the wider biblical revelation of God’s character, can we really take it to literally mean “forever and ever” any more than we take 1 John 2:2 to literally mean the whole world will be saved?

I’m genuinely undecided on this issue at the moment, and I really appreciate and am challenged by the call for fervent evangelisation of the nations in the article above - whatever hell is, it’s hell!

Moreover, denial of an eternal hell is not denial of post-mortem punishment, nor a denial of hell itself. Logically, even if hell and punishment in the afterlife are real, it does not follow that either or both are eternal. That is why some people would argue that Rev. 20:13-14 indicates that “death and Hades” are not eternal, that they will be “thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.”

On a different note, I talk to a lot of atheists through my YouTube channel and the topic of hell frequently comes up. They (atheists) can’t fathom the idea of how a loving God can send (innocent) people to hell for eternity. No matter how often I show that we have earned hell through the wages of sin, they remain complacent. The atheist condemns God for his punishment of eternal hell because he does not recognize or can imagine an infinitely holy God. If hell was awarded for sin alone then it stands to reason that one would go to hell for 80 years, for example, for sinning on earth for 80 years. Hell, however, has a sentence for eternity, as you have rightly pointed out, because the offenses have been committed against an eternal God. The law condemns us but Christ frees us! In his sin, man will always earn hell but in Christ man will always be forgiven by grace through faith.

The conception that we have of hell will certainly play into our theology. We shouldn’t, however, alter our theology because we don’t like the idea of hell - that is not an appropriate apologetic. Instead, we should adjust our conception of hell per having an appropriate apologetic and it seems that this is what Rob Bell fails to do in his theological practices.

Thank you for arming the Saints in the good fight Dr. Moore!

God bless,
W.

Another spot-on response. I recently answered the same question about the legitimacy of an everlasting hell considering God’s declaration of love. Here is my brief response:

“You have asked several very good questions that many Christians are discussing today. Let me begin by saying that the reason these types of questions are being asked is due more to the religious pluralism that defines Western cultural landscape today than to the absence of biblical teaching on the subjects you raise. One effect of religious pluralism is that lines of distinction between faith systems are blurred and because Christianity is an exclusive message, i.e., there is salvation in Jesus Christ alone, questions aimed at denying or marginalizing Christianity’s exclusive claims are raised.

Let’s begin with your first question – “how do I convince people to love God despite their abhorrence at the idea of the existence of an everlasting hell?” The short answer is that you can’t convince people to love God absent a presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the unbeliever’s subsequent realization that their sin separates them from a holy and righteous God. God is not looking to save those who can reconcile Him and the existence of hell intellectually. God will forgive and reconcile to Himself people who confess and repent of their sins. Understanding God’s ways is only achieved by being in a relationship of redemption and subsequent transformation of mind and thinking (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 12:2).

When unbelievers are informed of the Bible’s teaching of their sinfulness and God’s provision for their forgiveness (Romans 5:8), the necessity for them to settle the issue of their own personal state and eternity before God becomes apparent. When the unbeliever realizes the heinousness of sin then this provides the necessary ground work for a discussion of hell from a biblical context.

At the heart of most objections to the biblical teaching on hell is the issue of what Bible scholars and many philosophers call the “disproportionality problem.” Evident in your question is the seeming contradiction between a God who is defined even by unbelievers as “love” and the existence of hell that according to the Bible is everlasting punishment. Modern man cannot reconcile the two and so rejects hell as a logical possibility in the least or at worst God as One who would do such a thing to people. This has drawn new attention to such unbiblical teachings as purgatory (an attempt to limit God’s punishment to a more reasonable punishment from a human perspective) and the more recent belief in some form of annihilationism (that suggests sin’s penalty is the end of a person’s existence).

What’s missing from these perspectives is a consideration of God’s holiness and justice. When we consider God from this perspective we must conclude that He is of infinite honor, dignity, value, and worth. Additionally He is morally perfect, entirely righteous, and infinitely good. Affronts to this kind of Being, crimes that we call sin, would therefore be of infinite seriousness. The Christian position insists that mankind cannot fully appreciate nor articulate the seriousness of our sin against God. This provides in the least a reasonable explanation for the love of God that demands infinitely serious sins be punished. Hell is thus not understood as brutal or senseless but is instead the due and necessary answer to the infinitely heinous character of sin.

Your concern for the salvation of people who have never heard of Jesus Christ is closely related to your queries about hell and its appropriateness. Will hell only be occupied by (1) people who have rejected God consciously; or also by (2) people who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore had no real opportunity to believe in Him as Savior and Lord?

Discussions within Christian Theism related to the salvation of the unevangelized generally fall within three categories. The first, exclusivism or restrictivism as it is sometimes called states that the salvation of mankind is found in Jesus Christ alone. In this view people must be exposed to the gospel and choose faith in God. Death eliminates the opportunity to be saved. A second view is inclusivism. Proponents of this view suggest that salvation is found in Jesus Christ but God also saves those who although not exposed to the gospel of Christ nonetheless place their faith in God on the basis of what He has revealed to them. This would include the belief that God saves according to His foreknowledge, thus everyone who would have believed had they been exposed to the gospel is saved. This position also maintains that this choice is no longer afforded after death. A third position in regard to the plight of the unevangelized is the divine perseverance view. People who hold this position believe that God will give even those who die without faith in Him a final opportunity to believe in Christ for salvation before He consigns anyone to hell.

Each of the three aforementioned views regarding the fate of the unevangelized has its advocates as well as detractors. Notice that all three views support some type of salvation through Christ. Timing of that belief is the most substantial issue in question.

Christians uphold the authority of Scripture to speak to faith and practice. It is important to note that the Bible is clear that there is salvation in no other name but Jesus Christ. God often works in ways we do not fully understand. As a Christian we can trust the Father to do the perfectly just thing regarding the fate of the unevangelized. The fact that someone is raised in a different belief system has no bearing on God’s ability to reach them with His truth. Indeed the hundreds and thousands of salvations of those in other belief systems such as Islam are a testimony to God’s ability to save in spite of what appears to us to be insurmountable odds.

Resources:
Gabriel Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, “What About Those Who Have Never Heard?” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Shawn Bawluski, “Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and the Problem of Hell,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010, 60-79.