Pages

Wednesday, February 05, 2020

Two-faced annihilationism

Sic

Evangelical conditionalists hold to a view of hell that results from a firm commitment to the truthfulness and perennial relevance of the Bible, and not from a desire to have its message be more palatable to our own culture.  We are not seeking to construct a more tolerable version of hell, as though primarily motivated by an emotional aversion to the idea of eternal torment.


Et Non

One of the primary philosophic and intuitive or gut level objections to ECT is that it seems unjust to punish people forever for temporal sins. It can be viewed as cruel or tortuous and out of proportion. In the context of punishment the common expression for this is that the punishment should fit the crime. Philosophical and subjective intuitions about the justice of God are certainly not to override what the scriptures teach, but such reasoned counter-indications at least ought to warn us and make us reconsider our current understanding of scripture.

Bertrand Russell, articulating the sentiments of many who reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, said, “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that he believed in hell.” (Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 17.) Charles Darwin said, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so . . . men who do not believe . . . will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882, ed. Nora Barlow (W. W. Norton & Company, 1993), 87.)

Few reasons for rejecting Christianity are given more often than the prospect that the lost face an eternity of torment as punishment for their sins. Many people cannot conceive of worshiping a God so malicious (in their mind) as to cause endless suffering forever. Others simply scoff at the message of Christ, finding the traditional view of hell to be an absurdly ludicrous, laughable notion.

4 comments:

  1. I think there is a point that is being missed when people complain of the doctrine of hell. Why do they think the people in hell would want to be anywhere else? Think about it for a moment...Once the kingdom of God is established on earth, there are only 2 places you can be....With God...or Without God. To be without God is hell. It is suffering and anguish and torment. But none of that means that anyone in hell is repentent. And, without that repentence, they cannot be with God. It could very well be, as CS Lewis said, that the gates of hell are locked on the inside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's it. Hell may well be people getting exactly what they want for all eternity.

      Delete
  2. There is no contradiction. Annihilationists think the Bible teaches their view, and this is their reason for affirming it. They also note that ECT is widely seen as cruel/unjust. So they reason that it's vital to get the truth out, because people are rejecting Christ because of something that the Bible doesn't even teach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a contradiction. The objection I quoted isn't just a position held by some unbelievers. The annihilationists at Rethinking Hell who posted that objection are casting this as a legitimate objection to eternal punishment. That's how it's written. So they're trying to have it both ways. Camouflage their objection to everlasting punishment as solely exegetical but also raise an emotional and philosophical objection.

      Delete