Tags
Bible, Christianity, Death, Eschatology, Eternal Punishment, God, Hell, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Salvation, Theology
Beginning today and continuing for the next four days, we will be examining the biblical concept of hell. The following is adapted from a paper I wrote for my eschatology class last semester for Mid-America Reformed Seminary.
Introduction
Q. 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?
A. By no means; but is terribly displeased with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, as he has declared, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[1]
For centuries, Christians have believed in a doctrine of hell, or eternal punishment. While there have always been alternate views regarding the fate of the wicked – annihilationism (or conditional immortality) and universal reconciliation (or universalism) – the orthodox position has always been that of eternal damnation and judgment of the unrighteous. Consider what the earliest church creeds taught on this subject. The Apostles’ Creed, believed to have originated around the 2nd century A.D., says, “From thence He [referring to Jesus Christ] shall come to judge the living and the dead.” The Nicene Creed, dating from the early 4th century, has similar language in it: “And He [again, referring to Jesus Christ] shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead.” Finally, the Athanasian Creed, which although it is ascribed to Athanasius (293 – 373 A.D.) was not actually written by him and is dated to the 6th century, echoes the previous two creeds when it says, “From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” The Athanasian Creed goes on to say a little bit later the following: “And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.” The creed concludes by giving this dire warning: “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved” (emphasis added). Each of these early church creeds clearly states that Jesus Christ shall return to judge the “living and the dead.” Although, the Apostles’ and the Nicene creeds do not explicitly state the doctrine of eternal judgment, it can be inferred from what it means to “judge the living and the dead.” Furthermore, what is implied in the earlier two creeds is stated explicitly in the Athanasian Creed.
Yet in recent times, the doctrine of hell has come under attack. In his book, Hell on Trial,[2] Robert Peterson gives us some of the primary modern day critics of the orthodox view. From the agnostic or atheist camp is the late British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, who believed (though he would not assert it dogmatically) that any form of life after death is unlikely. Another Englishman, philosopher of religion John Hick, falls into the Universalist camp (the view that everyone goes to heaven). Clark Pinnock, whose views have changed over the years, is currently an advocate of the view commonly called post-mortem evangelism – i.e., unbelievers get a second chance to believe after death. Finally, there is John Stott, who tentatively holds to the view of Annihiliationism. These four views – death is the end of all existence, Universalism, Post-Mortem Evangelism and Annihilationism – stand over against the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal punishment for the wicked that have rebelled against their Creator.
In this paper, we will offer a biblical defense of the traditional view of hell as eternal punishment. We will first begin by examining how the word “hell” is used in the bible. Next we will explore some of the main biblical passages used in support of the traditional view. Then we will consider some of the arguments used against the traditional view. Finally we will conclude by assessing these alternate views and seeing how they fail to account for the biblical data.
Next: The Biblical Words for “Hell”
[1] Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A #10 (emphasis added).
[2] Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995).
Carl. There is NO early church creed which teaches eternal torment in hell. None. If there was, Universalism would be dead. For proof of this simply go to tentmaker dot org & read about what the early church actually taught & the creeds that verify what they taught.
There isn’t one quote anywhere from ANY church father condemning Universalism as heresy. Why? Simple. Because no one considered it heresy. Just the opposite, as universalism was the dominant view, which can also be demonstrated from historical records.
And lastly, the bible says NOTHING about hell. It NEVER mentions it.
Jesus NEVER warned of an eternal hell where sinners would be punished forever.
Hell is a pagan myth, nothing more. Our english bibles have been poorly translated due to pre-conceived beliefs that were passed down from tradition.
Simply google the article “Hell is leaving the bible forever” and SEE FOR YOURSELF just how many bibles there are that do NOT contain the world hell OR the concept of eternal punishment. The early church didn’t teach it & none of the creeds taught it.
But you care more for upholding tradition than you do for truth.
At least, in my opinion, you do.
But I’m guessing you won’t even let my comments here get posted.
Don’t want people to actually start having doubts now, do ya ; )
On the contrary, I am happy to post your comment even though you don’t agree with me because it was civil and on point. It’s validity is another manner, but civil comments that are on topic are always welcome.
This is clearly false seeing as I posted the Athanasian Creed from the 5th-6th century which explicitly teaches what is the orthodox doctrine of hell.
Secondly, your assertion that if there were a creed that taught it, Universalism would be dead is absurd. The Nicean Creed (325) and the Chalcedonian Creed (440) both clearly teach affirm the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, yet these doctrines have been disputed by heretics ever since. The creedal statements simply affirm what the consensus of the church regarding a certain doctrine is and they also define what orthodoxy is. That in no way prevents anyone from rejecting orthodoxy and going off on their own. Witness the history of the Church post-Nicea. Nicea condemned Arius as a heretic and condemned Arianism as heresy, yet Nicene orthodoxy was nearly erased post-Nicea due to the recalcitrant elements within the Arian movement. It took another 60 years until Council of Constantinople to root Arianism out of the church. Even then, it survived as a heretical movement. There are even strains of Arianism in Oneness Pentecostalism today since the Arian heresy involved the error of modalism.
I have already exposed the ‘red herring’ in this argument. You seem to be under the impression that orthodox doctrine within the early church had to be fully developed. Universalism existed in the early church because the major doctrinal battles in the early church had to do with the Trinity and the person of Christ. The early church councils from Nicea to Chalcedon dealt with issues surrounding the Trinity and the deity of Christ because that was where the heretics were attacking. Eschatology and the development of eternal punishment were just not on the menu, as it were, in the doctrinal disputes of the early church. You have yet to offer a decent rebuttal on this point other than to dismiss it altogether.
I have also demonstrated elsewhere that your assertion of none of the early church fathers teaching eternal punishment is false. I can provide primary source citations if you wish. All I need is to offer one quote and your argument fails (because you said “None” and “no one”).
Oh, and I found this comment quite humorous. Are you saying you have no “tradition” of your own? I find that those who use this quasi ad hominem attack fail to acknowledge two things:
1. That having a “tradition” is not the problem. The problem is not evaluating one’s tradition with Scripture. I believe my tradition, which is summarized in such confessions of faith as the Belgic Confession, can be supported from Scripture. All of these great reformation confessions of faith note Scripture proofs to support their conclusions. Agree or disagree, you cannot deny that there is at least the attempt to be biblical.
2. They also fail to acknowledge their own adherence to tradition. Yes, Scott, you have a tradition, and your failure to acknowledge it will always ensure your blind adherence to it. I’ve seen the way you handle Scripture, and it is sloppy and cavalier. I’ve yet to read a sustained and cogent exposition from the Scriptures to support your conclusions. All you’ve ever done is proof text. As if it’s self explanatory that the Scriptures mean what you claim they mean. You need to demonstrate that with argumentation. Why is your interpretation correct and mine wrong? Simply quoting verses doesn’t do the trick. And your blind adherence to Tentmakers doesnt help matters as that’s pretty much all they do as well.
Have you read the original sources from the early church, or do you just assume that those who quote them are quoting them fairly and accurately?
I know we for the most part are talking past each other, but you are regurgitating the same old worn out arguments that do not bear up under close scrutiny as I’ve demonstrated in other places. There’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to your position.
Scott,
Regarding the church fathers who apparently never taught the doctrine of eternal punishment. Here is a lengthy quote from Ireneas:
Would you like more quotes from the church fathers?
Now I know there are church fathers that don’t adhere to eternal punishment. What does that tell you? According to your argument, it means that Universalism was in wide acceptance in the early church. Perhaps. Maybe. I think a much better answer, one that better explains why there is divergence among the early church fathers on the topic of eternal punishment (some held to eternal punishment, others to annihilationism and others to universalism) is because this was not the main battle field for doctrine in the early church. The heresies of the early church centered on the nature of God and the person of Christ. That doesn’t mean they all thought universalism was no big deal; many of them didn’t. What it does mean is that there were bigger theological fish to fry. Universalism was dealt with and condemned in the 6th century. Why? Because the early doctrinal disputes were settled.
Pingback: Hell is More than Just Another Four-Letter Word — Part 2 « New Creation Person
Pingback: Hell is More than Just Another Four-Letter Word — Part 3 « New Creation Person
Pingback: Hell is More than Just Another Four-Letter Word — Part 4 « New Creation Person
Pingback: Hell is More than Just Another Four-Letter Word — Part 5 « New Creation Person
Oh wow. I had no idea you even posted my comment, let alone replied to it – lol.
I thought I clicked to get an email but I guess I didn’t.
Your arguments are poor & mostly incorrect, but I’ll leave you with your delusions that the early church had “bigger fish to fry”. That position is hilarious. Well they didn’t condemn as heresy but that doesn’t mean they didn’t THINK it was heresy & they DID condemn it as heresy in the 6th. century, so there! ROFL
Great argument Carl. Ignore the history of why it wasn’t condemned & why it was when it was. Ignore who condemned it & what the “church” that condemned it was like at that time. If you accept “that church” as “the church of Christ” then you must renounce your faith & join the Roman Catholic Church, for you are part of a church that LEFT “that church” & are thus “a heretic” yourself, just like me – ROFL
Great argument buddy. Just great.
For those who want the truth, I challenge ALL OF YOU to go to Tentmaker.org & STUDY BOTH SIDES. Carl is standing on a tradition that condemned the Roman Catholic Church, but uses it’s stance in the 6th century to condemn universalism as proof that the church “which he condemns & flat out disagrees with” condemns Universalism – ROFL. WOW! With logic like that it’s no wonder that we just go round in circles.
Now I BET you don’t post this. PROVE ME WRONG & I’ll be very happy & pleased to know that you really aren’t a coward. Prove me right (which would suck) & we’ll both know what you really are & what you really defend. I added this last part because I’m hoping you post this & am trying to get you to, in case you didn’t realize that. ; )
Still your friend despite my words,
Scott
(yeah yeah, with friends like me… got it) lol
Nice original post and defense, Carl.