Tag Archives: Evidence

Polemics

Should you reject the Biblical view of Hell based on emotions?

16 Comments

I noticed this post up at Dr. Glenn Peoples’ blog.

In the post, he quotes a number of prominent Christian theologians who affirm a belief in Hell, such as Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and Isaac Watts. He chooses these people to quote because they seem to argue that the bliss of those who enter Heaven will be enhanced by seeing the suffering of those who are in Hell. I’m not going to cite the lurid passages he does, but I did want to cite his conclusion for you to comment on.

He writes:

But modern believers in eternal torment wouldn’t endorse this, would they? Would they actually endorse a theology of hell in which we sit and watch millions of people, including our lost children and friends, actually being tortured in fire – and would they agree that we will gain happiness and pleasure from the sight?

Glenn holds to the view of annihilationism, such that the damned are annihiliated after being punished.

Now let me just state right off that I have no knowledge of whether I am going to be happy seeing the damned in Hell, that’s not in the Bible, and I have no idea what Heaven will be like.

Now let me briefly provide one or two reasons why I believe in Hell, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES with non-Christians.

  1. Jesus talks about Hell in the Bible as a real place
  2. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God
  3. No one desires God and no one wants to be bound by a love relationship with God
  4. Each person is responsible for accepting or rejecting God
  5. People who rebel against God hold to a worldview that is irrational and unsupported by evidence
  6. I have more sympathy for God than I do for people who reject him

My view of Hell is based on my preference for the plain meaning of the Bible over my emotional desires, and my experiences dealing directly with non-Christians during evangelism. I think that annihilationists are just not willing to sit down with non-Christians and ask them why they are not ready to become a Christian. When I do that, I find that non-Christians 1) reject the moral demands of Christianity, 2) justify that selfishness by believing in speculations that make Christianity seem false, and 3) refuse to test those speculations logically or empirically.

Let me give you just one example from my undergraduate tour in university. I met a Mormon friend whom I had known in high school who just returned from his missionary service. By that time, I had discovered apologetics in earnest, so I asked him a question: how do Mormons reconcile their belief in an eternal universe with the evidence for a creation out of nothing?

He replied “we don’t determine our beliefs based on science”.

And I said, “that’s fine. Let me know if you ever get curious about what science says about God, and we can certainly talk about it”.

I keep non-Christians as friends as long as I am able to be myself, and talk about what I believe occasionally. (Although I oppose pursuing amusement and pleasure for its own sake).

Once you have enough encounters like this with atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. you begin to realize that no one wants to talk about whether God exists and what he is really like. No one is looking for an answer to their speculations against Christianity, e.g. – “who made God?”. They just want to get their degrees, get good-paying jobs, and be left alone to pursue pleasure. Some do turn to non-Christian religions and fads of their own choosing, but those are embraced as a means to increased happiness.

My non-Christian male friends are happy to spend their entire lives climbing corporate ladders, chasing women, following sports, drinking, buying geeky junk, and playing video games, etc., rather than setting aside a measly 90 minutes to watch a debate on whether God exists. I actually did a survey of non-Christians a while back, and you can read about their worldviews. Notice how there is no search for truth there. Just a desire for autonomy from any authority that might block their hedonism. It’s really quite in-your-face!

Implicit in any rejection of God is the rejection of Christ’s sacrifice of his own life in place of the life of each sinner. You don’t just walk away from a sacrifice like that. I understand that people have questions about the fairness of the requirement to explicitly confess faith in Christ in order to be reconciled with God, or the problems of evil and suffering, or religious pluralism. But we have answers to those questions. The problem is that non-Christians are not sincere in their desire to find those answers.

What do you expect God to do with such people? This is GOD we are talking about here, people. Not Santa Claus! When I hear people talking about annihilationism, it really makes me wonder whether they read the Bible at all (e.g. – Romans 1), and then bothered themselves to actually test and see if the Bible is correct about its diagnosis of human nature as inherently sinful. In my opinion, what is happening here is that Christians who reject Hell prefer their own emotional desires for the plain meaning of the Bible.

Everyone has to choose whether they sympathize with God or with people who rebel against God. And don’t dismiss me as a meany. My non-Christians friends are the only ones who know whether I treat them well. They are the ones who will have to judge for themselves whether I show love for them by what I do, regardless of my view of Hell. I trust that anyone who knows me personally will accept my apologies to them for expressing my views so harshly, but I think the Bible is clear on this.

UPDATE: Glenn has written to me to assure me that he is not taking his position for any other reason than because he thinks the Bible teaches annihilationism. So, I thought I had better add that here so no one would think ill of him. He has other material on his blog where he makes the Biblical case that I had not looked at.

Related posts

News

Apologetics 315 presents the apologetics year in review

1 Comment

See this post up at Apologetics 315 in case you missed anything!

Especially:

  • William Lane Craig debates Christopher Hitchens here.
  • William Lane Craig debates Richard Carrier on the Resurrection here.
  • Michael Licona debates Bart Ehrman on the Resurrection here.
  • Richard Dawkins talked to John Lennox about science and God here.

And:

The most notable book releases this year were probably Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer (audio interview here), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by Craig and Moreland, and Tactics by Greg Koukl.

Stop by and make sure you didn’t miss anything! (I left him a comment about the 2009 Greer-Heard Forum that he missed!)

News

Russia attacks the religious liberty of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Leave a comment

Story here from CBS News. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Russia’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a ruling halting the activities of a regional branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses and banning dozens of its publications in what the group deplored as an unfair move.

Russian Supreme Court spokesman Pavel Odintsov said it rejected the group’s appeal of September’s ruling by a regional court in Rostov-on-Don. That ruling outlawed the group’s activities in the region, seized its assets there and labeled 34 of its publications as extremist.

I found a few more details here at a site called Forum 18.

Excerpt:

The texts considered extremist by the Rostov court are all published in the United States and Germany. They include the books “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” and “My Book of Bible Stories” as well as issues of the tracts “Watchtower” and “Awake!”. The court’s 56-page ruling, seen by Forum 18, gives three categories of alleged extremism located by expert analysts in the texts: 1) “incitement of religious hatred (undermining respect and hostility towards other religions)”; 2) “refusing blood” and 3) “refusing civil responsibilities”. Thus, from the book “Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life”, “true Christians do not celebrate Christmas or other festivals based on false religious ideas” appears in the first category; “out of respect for the sacred nature of life God-fearing people refuse blood transfusions” in the second; and “true Christians avoid false forms of idolatry, such as revering flags and performing anthems” in the third.

So what do I, an arch-evangelical Protestant Christian, think of this?

Well, I am against the Russian government, because I am for religious liberty, and even the religious liberty of groups that I don’t agree with. And I’m going to tell you why. I believe that everyone has a right to believe in anything they want to believe in, and it does not bother me at all that people disagree with my religion,and that they speak out against Christianity, or try to convert people away from Christianity. The state should not interfere with anyone’s free speech or religious liberty, including the right of individuals to say publicly they are right about religion and that others are wrong.

I think that people who reject orthodox Christian beliefs about God and Jesus will go to Hell for eternity. I don’t believe that people go to Heaven because of sincerity and good works. People go to Heaven because they have true beliefs about God’s existence, character and his actions in the world, – e.g. – Jesus death on the cross as atonement for sin. But my thinking that people are wrong doesn’t give me any justification for limiting their human rights, including the right to religious liberty, by using the power of the secular state.

I think we need to take a lesson in tolerance from God. God gives everyone space to try to respond to his revealing of himself to people in nature and in the Bible. He arranges the world in such a way that people who he foreknows will respond to him are placed in a time and place where they can respond to him. He does not force people to convert to Christianity by revealing himself so much that they lose their free will to reject him. And since God is not coercive, Christians should also not use state power to coerce others, either.

The Bible shows Jesus talking to people and being kind to them when they were suffering, as well as giving them evidence for his claims in the form of miracles. And that’s the way Christians should persuade others as well – except that we have to use miracles in nature and history, like the fine-tuning argument and the bodily resurrection instead. At no point does Jesus bring in the power of the state to squash the religious liberty of his opponents.

I am not worried about JWs tricking some Christian into becoming a JW either. If someone is able to trick a person into being a JW, then that person is obviously not concerned about the truth. No one becomes a JW because they think JW doctrine is true. It is extremely easy to disprove the beliefs of JWs factually – just take a look at their failed predictions about the end of the world. And Mormons believe in an eternal universe. That’s how you argue against a rival religion – with arguments and facts.

If the Russian government wants to rein in religions like Islam and Jehovah’s Witnesses, then they should be sponsoring debates between opposing scholars and showing them television. Have the different religion groups vote for the best scholar to represent their religion, and then have the scholars debate different topics. That’s just being fair! The state should not curtail religious liberty by using government power.

I wrote a post about this issue of people being afraid to talk about religion.