There are two stock objections to hell: (i) hell is a torture chamber, and (ii) hell is unending. I’ve often dealt with (i). Now let’s touch on (ii).
There is no escape from hell. Is that a bad thing, or a good thing?
There are men and women in this life who always escape justice. They get away with things. Cheat. Pull strings. Game the system. Pass some money under the table. Stay one step ahead of the authorities. No matter what they do they manage to slip off the hook.
One could cite many examples. Consider the Nazi officials who, after the war, eluded capture and fled to South America–where they spent the remainder of their lives sunning themselves on a tropical beach.
Or consider the serial child-rapist who gets lucky when he appears before a liberal, bleeding-heart judge. Despite his rap sheet, despite the incontestable evidence of guilt for the current crime–not to mention the long list of priors–he gets a slap on the wrist. Or maybe he’s sprung on a legal technicality.
Even if there are some murmurs of outrage directed at the judge, it comes to naught. The Governor refuses to speak out. The Attorney General refuses to speak out. The liberal editorial page of the newspaper rallies to the judge’s defense in the name of judicial independence. The judge’s friends rush to microphones to tell everyone what a wonderful person he is. A callous, passive, indifferent electorate refuses to recall the judge.
Or consider Bill and Hillary Clinton. Despite a string of crimes and outrages, they have become wealthy and powerful. In the case of Bill Clinton, he even has a mass following-like a rock star.
Or take the Catholic sex scandal. For decades, predatory priests were abusing underage boys with impunity. Most of them are never prosecuted–in some cases because the statute of limitations ran out. The law is changed, but after the fact. After the damage is done. After it’s too late to prosecute some offenders.
A few offenders may be prosecuted, but by the time the law finally catches up with them they’re already in their 70s or 80s.
Cardinal Law is transferred to Rome, which coincidentally places himself outside the jurisdiction of the American authorities. Keep in mind that the Vatican likes to lecture governments around the world on social justice.
Of course, Law himself is something of a scapegoat. Not that he isn’t guilty. But all the attention directed at this one culprit deflects attention away from other prelates who are equally culpable. He gives them cover.
Some survivors or victims resort to vigilantism. When that happens, the world, which was silent in the face of injustices done to the victim, suddenly finds its voice. But its outrage is reserved for the vigilante, and not the provocateurs.
One of the paradoxes of life in a fallen world is that, while the righteous man must often suffer alone–abandoned by his “friends”–the wicked can often count on a circle of friends, admirers, and sympathizers who hasten to their defense, enable their crimes, and facilitate their escape. The world loves its own.
Then they die and go to hell. That’s where their lucky streak runs out.
In hell there is no statute of limitations. No one evades the authorities. No one is acquitted on legal technicalities. No one cops a plea.
In hell there is no parole. No weekend furloughs. No conjugal visits.
The judge can’t be bribed. The jury can’t nullify the law. The prison guards can’t be bought.
In hell, there is no out. Is that unjust? Of is that justice overdue?
Best summarisation on necessity and justification for the existence of Hell that I have read so far.
ReplyDelete> "Or consider Bill and Hillary Clinton. Despite a string of crimes and outrages ..."
ReplyDeleteWhat of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove et al?
What of the OCA and its NY seminary when their priest Blumentritt sexually abused a seminarian and they covered up the scandal?
You've omitted some necessary examples.
Easy to pick'n-choose and be haughty eh?
UCDF SAID:
ReplyDelete“What of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove et al?”
Answer your own question.
“What of the OCA and its NY seminary when their priest Blumentritt sexually abused a seminarian and they covered up the scandal?”
Which does nothing to undermine the point of my post.
“You've omitted some necessary examples.”
You’ve begged some necessary questions.
“Easy to pick'n-choose and be haughty eh?”
Since I’m not Eastern Orthodox, it’s not as if I have vested interest in citing Roman Catholic examples while omitting Eastern Orthodoxy examples.
However, there is also a question of scale. Is this an isolated incident, or part of a pattern?
As for the Bush administration, you're imputing your left-wing political views to me, then alleging that I pick-n-choose. But since I don't share your evaluation of the Bush administration, your inference is fallacious.
In any cases, adding more examples does nothing to undermine the point of my post.
Isn't the issue people have with hell being unending that it seems to lack proportionality?
ReplyDeleteIf sin is analagous to a crime and hell is analagous to the punishment, then why (people would ask) is the punishment infinite? One of the interesting things about the Law was that there was a proportionality to the punishments.
I've addressed the question of proportionality on many occasions. Try again.
ReplyDeleteTry again?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you being so combative?
Personally I don't struggle with the issue of Hell because I trust that although I personally don't understand all the issues around it I trust that God is just and fair.
I don't read all your blog posts (I picked your blog up on Google reader) so I don't know which posts you are referring to - could you provide some URLs please?
RobHu said:
ReplyDelete---
Isn't the issue people have with hell being unending that it seems to lack proportionality?
---
Not in my experience. That may be what they *SAY*, but when you talk with them you quickly realize it's the fact that there is any kind of "judgment" at all from God that is the problem they have.
RobHu said:
---
If sin is analagous to a crime and hell is analagous to the punishment, then why (people would ask) is the punishment infinite? One of the interesting things about the Law was that there was a proportionality to the punishments.
---
And one of the punishments is death; you can't get much more infinite (from a human perspective) than that.
The question, however, is based on several flawed assumptions. One of which is that the sinner in hell actually feels sorry for his sins. He may feel sorry for his surroundings and for the agony he experiences, but that doesn't make him love God and wish he could be forgiven. And that means that while in hell the sinner is continuing to sin against God, so that even if we pretend that sin isn't a big deal and shouldn't require that much punishment, you're still left with the fact that each instant more sin is committed by the sinner.
Secondly, that the Law provides varying punishments doesn't imply that God views certain sins as "no big deal" at all. For instance, the Law provided for divorce--something Jesus Himself said that God hates. So the differing levels of punishment in the Law are simply God extending acts of mercy to the sinners on Earth; but this mercy isn't owed to them.
Finally, God deserves all glory and honor. He is the greatest being, supreme in attributes. If it is immoral for us to deny what is rightfully due our human superiors, how much more so is it immoral for us to deny God what is rightfully due Him? If you can be held in contempt of court for mouthing off to a human judge, then how much more contempt do you show when you spurn God Himself?
you suggest that people give an objection falsely, but i have heard it given genuinely. why are all sins treated on par? Are the gossip and the genocidal tyrant both sinners who deserve to be lost? sure. but why are their punishments the same? why did the OT legal system mete out differing punishments? why did Jesus use the phrase "greater condemnation" in matthew?
ReplyDeletei suppose though that hell could be infinite yet still not treat all sins the same. the temporal endurance might not be the differentiating factor between depths of crimes. so i guess i'm not really questioning the duration of hell directly.
i assure you i believe in an infinite hell, but there are some formidable questions which reach deep into our intuitions about justice that shouldn't be merely brushed aside.
RobHu,
ReplyDeletePeter already made some good points. I’ll add a few more:
i) The damned don’t suffer “infinite” punishment. Rather, they suffer one day at a time–day after day after day. They don’t experience their punishment all at once. They experience their punishment finitely in finite increments. Even though the series is unending, they don’t experience the series as a given totality.
ii) There is not direct correlation between time and guilt. Duration is a quantity. Quantifiable temporal units or intervals.
Guilt is not a quantity. Once you do something wrong, it’s always the case that you did something wrong. Guilt has no shelf-life or half-life. Guilt has no decay rate. Mere passage of time does nothing to diminish culpability–much less erase it altogether.
iii) The penalties of the Mosaic law don’t tell what you the crimes ultimately deserve. The Mosaic code had a practical side to it. It doesn’t mete out eschatological punishments. Rather, it makes life livable in a fallen world (specifically: the ancient Near East).
reborn1995 said...
ReplyDelete“you suggest that people give an objection falsely, but i have heard it given genuinely. why are all sins treated on par? Are the gossip and the genocidal tyrant both sinners who deserve to be lost? sure. but why are their punishments the same? why did the OT legal system mete out differing punishments? why did Jesus use the phrase "greater condemnation" in matthew?”
You’re equivocating. The fact that two individuals may be equally “lost” or damned or hellbound doesn’t mean they’re punished equally. Something can be equal in one respect, but unequal in another.
Both heaven and hell are of the same duration, yet the experience is hardly indistinguishable.
“i suppose though that hell could be infinite yet still not treat all sins the same.”
In which case you’re answering your own question.
“i assure you i believe in an infinite hell, but there are some formidable questions which reach deep into our intuitions about justice that shouldn't be merely brushed aside.”
Since I’ve addressed these “deep intuitions” in detail on several occasions, I’m hardly brushing them aside.
?? i appreciate you responding, but i haven't read all your blog posts on justice, and yes i offered an answer to my own question because i was thinking out loud. do you frequently approach people like opponents rather than teammates?
ReplyDeletereborn1995 said...
ReplyDelete"you frequently approach people like opponents rather than teammates?"
When people approach Biblical doctrines as if they're opponents of Biblical doctrines, then I treat them like opponents of Biblical doctrines. When people raise stock, infidel objections to Biblical doctrines, then there's no reason to distinguish one objector from another. Why would that come as a surprise to you?
Reborn said:
ReplyDelete---
you suggest that people give an objection falsely, but i have heard it given genuinely.
---
You're one up on me then. Every time I've ever had someone use these objections, within three or four exchanges (since it's usually on blog comments or message boards) it turns into "a loving God wouldn't ever punish anyone in Hell for any length of time at all."
Anyway, you said:
---
why are all sins treated on par?
---
They aren't. There is a base-line equality, but not an over-all equality. In an extremely rough analogy, it would be like saying some prisoners are in general population, some are in solitary; but all are still in jail.
You said:
---
why did the OT legal system mete out differing punishments?
---
Because the punishments in the OT Law were designed for people who were living in the Ancient Near East, not for God's eternal punishment. In other words, if you stole a man's donkey, you had to return the donkey plus you lost one of your own; but going through that punishment had absolutely no bearing on whether or not you needed to make a sacrifice for atonement, did it? Nope. Your punishment only made you right with man, not with God.
Hope that helps clarify some.
"When people approach Biblical doctrines as if they're opponents of Biblical doctrines, then I treat them like opponents of Biblical doctrines. When people raise stock, infidel objections to Biblical doctrines, then there's no reason to distinguish one objector from another. Why would that come as a surprise to you?"
ReplyDeleteThis is entirely unreasonable and aggressive. We (or at least I'm) not opposing biblical doctrines - we're asking questions. My position is that I don't know how some of these things make sense (and your answers are not terribly convincing so far), but I trust that there is a way that they do - I can do this because of my trust of God's wisdom, not yours.
You ought not be so aggressive with your brothers and sisters - Christ commanded us to love one another, and your blog does not show such love.
I do not want to engage with people being aggressive so I am removing you from my RSS reader.
To say my answers aren't "terribly convincing" thus far is not any sort of argument.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, you didn't announce your intentions when you offered your initial comment. Furthermore, there are many people in the church today who identify themselves as Christians, yet proceed to attack Biblical doctrines like hell. Professing a Christian identity doesn't prevent individuals from raising anti-Christian objections to the faith, viz. universalists, annihilationists, &c.