Three Models of Hell
God would not be party to anything as sordid as torture; Christians can agree on that. However, theologians are divided about how eternal judgment is not tantamount to such.
Two competing answers are proposed: (1) Yes, hell involves eternal pain inflicted on the unsaved, but this should not be regarded as gratuitous, unjust, or cruel; and (2) the final judgment will not involve eternal, conscious torment as has been traditionally assumed, and this misreading of biblical teaching needs modification. Both sides raise legitimate concerns worth careful consideration.
The first position is the view of most Christians. It argues that people commonly underestimate the appropriate punishment for defying an infinitely holy God. When human rebellion wrecked God's original good design, God undertook, at great cost, to restore humans to a loving relationship with himself. Those who spurn God's love deserve their eternal destiny, justly suffering the pain of God's wrath.
Of course, God alone has the right to execute this type of sentence. And God gets no sadistic enjoyment from pain he inflicts (Ezek. 18:23, 32). In righteousness and justice, God exacts deadly retribution for wickedness on those not under the blood atonement of Christ.
Other Christians argue that God would never be so seemingly punitive or vicious. They say the Bible's imagery occasionally reflects vindictive presuppositions of ancient cultures, but no one should take this imagery literally. Since rejection of God's love is reprehensible, they say, God will ultimately (and here the answers vary): overcome all evil and all resistance (universalism), destroy all evil (annihilationism), or inflict only as much pain as is necessary to extract repentance, leaving only the incorrigibly ...
This article is currently available to CT subscribers only.
To continue reading:
or
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 56 comments
See all comments
Gary
The idea of an immortal soul comes from Greek philosophy not from Scritpure. In Gen. God breathes into Adam the breath of life and he became a "living soul (being)." The NT declares that 8 souls were saved in the ark. These were Noah and his family - living, breathing human beings, not bodiless souls. Also, God has promised to put an end to sin, to its very existence. If unsaved people were to be consigned to the flames of hell for eternity, then sin would also exist throughout eternity in them and would always be a blight on His otherwise perfect universe. Finally, at the final judgment the unrighteous are resurrected to receive their sentence which means that they are in bodily form. The human body burns. Fire burns fuel. If the flames of hell are hot enough to melt the elements, surely they would consume mere human flesh. For this not to be the case, God would have to use Divine creative power to continually re-create human bodies for eternity to keep the flames alive. God forbid!
William Stuart
Since universalism, annihilationism, and purgatory do not appear tenable in light of the biblical text (to me at least), the article implicilty argues for the eternal torment viewpoint. Being absent from the benevolent presence of God would surely involve such torment, and that seems consistent with the parables told by Jesus himself, and with the Book of Revelation's description of the second death.
Beth Muir
Isn't the idea of simply being separated from God for all eternity enough of the definition of hell for any of us? We are ever searching for this ultimate connection with Him and to have that possibility taken away forever, to me would be hell. There is nothing worse.