Thoughts on Hell

The theme of this week, apparently, has been hell. One of my patients called me into her room the other day to share with me that she had just watched a program on television, where an evangelist attempted to convince the audience that the actual location of hell had finally been discovered. He showed some kind of graphic and explained what a horrible place it was and how tormented the people were. My elderly patient was almost in tears..."It was so awful! Now maybe everyone will see for themselves. If this doesn't scare them into believing, I don't know what will!"

Indeed! I get so frustrated when I hear my brothers and sisters talk about scaring people into believing. While God is very forthright in His Word concerning right and wrong, sin and righteousness, I don't believe He had ever intended to scare us into believing. If He did, I don't think He would have been nearly as patient with us as He consistently has been. I could insert so many scriptures here about His patience and longsuffering, but I need to move on.

I also happened to finish "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel, this week. In this book, Strobel attempts to counter eight of the biggest objections to Christianity. Overall, I think he does a fine job, but a few of his examples are weak and lack support. One such topic is the doctrine of hell.

For a man as educated as Strobel, with a strong background as a newspaper reporter, I was shocked by his lack of reasoning and by his choice of "experts" on this topic. First of all, the "expert" J.P. Moreland, PhD, starts out by saying that hell is not a literal place and that there is no fire in hell. He explains that all of the biblical language describing hell is just figurative, meaning separation from God. He gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his opinion, and Strobel doesn't press the issue.

Strobel does point out, however, that "some theologians claim that annihilation is what's taught by the scriptures. They say the Bible teaches that while the punishment of hell is eternal, the punishing isn't eternal." He then goes on to give several examples that support this viewpoint. Then the "expert" starts with a circular argument, based on semantics, to try to discredit this line of reasoning. I often use semantics in my own arguments, but this guy's argument doesn't even make sense:

"Now, how about these passages concerning hell? The Old Testament has clear passages on hell being everlasting. Daniel 12:2 says at the end of the age, the just are raised to everlasting life, the unjust to everlasting punishment. the identical Hebrew word for everlasting is used in both instances. If we're going to say that people are annihilated in hell, we should say they're annihilated in heaven. You can't have your cake and eat it, too...In the New Testament, in Matthew 25, Jesus offers a clear teaching where he's intending to address the question of the eternal state of heaven and hell, and he uses the same word everlasting to refer to both."

So what? Everlasting is not the word in question! Everlasting what??? That is the question that begs to be asked. Everlasting torture? Burning? Punishment or Punishing? Effects or events? I don't mind a discussion about doctrine, but please, use some sense of reasoning in your argument!

My favorite response to the question of what the state of the lost actually is comes from a very familiar verse, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." I see two groups here: those that perish and those with eternal life. The effects of both choices are eternal.

What are your thoughts?

An Easter Revelation, Revisited

I have not been a very good blogger of late; my schedule has been jam packed. That doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about writing, I just don't have time most days to write these thoughts down. As Easter is fast approaching, I have been thinking deep thoughts about all that transpired this week, almost two thousand years ago. I have been in deep thought, but I thought that rather than sharing some rather scattered thoughts, I ought to reprint my Easter thoughts from last year, as they were worth another look:

"I am still reading "3:16 the Numbers of Hope" by Max Lucado. What I read this week just blew my mind, so I have to share.

"Mary, the mother of James, and Mary Magdalene have come to the tomb to place warm oils on a cold body and bid farewell to the one man who gave reason to their hopes." The women think they are alone. They aren't. They think their journey is unnoticed. They are wrong. God knows. And he has a surprise waiting for them." 'An angel of the Lord came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone away from the entrance' (Matt 28:2 NCV).

"Why did the angel move the stone? For whom did he roll away the rock?" For Jesus? That's what I always thought. But think about it. Did the stone have to be removed in order for Jesus to exit? Did God have to have help? Was the death conqueror so weak that he couldn't push away a rock?" I don't think so.

The text gives the impression that Jesus was already out when the stone was moved! For whom, then, was the stone moved?" Listen to what the angel says: 'Come and see the place where his body was' (v. 6 NCV). "The stone was moved--not for Jesus--but for the women; not so Jesus could come out, but so the women could see in!"

This was just such an amazing thought. The Lord was already risen. The tomb was empty. God had conquered sin and death. But no one knew. The angel had to move the stone so that humans could be in on the action! It made me wonder what other stones he has needed to move, in my life, so that I could see what was really going on!