does Hell exist?

[mattress]

this guy says no and has six arguments from scripture about why not: http://micahredding.com/blog/series/there-no-hell It's a pretty interesting read and I find myself agreeing with him.

[Aaron Jackson]

I hope he is right.

_______________________
Aaron Jackson
http://highcaliberguns.com
http://thesitterdowners.com

[Matt]

Why's that?

[Torrin Suedmeyer]

Sorry, not buying it. His argument was pretty weak if you ask me.

I am with Aaron though, I'd be nice if there wasn't a hell.

So is his idea that the saved go to be with God and the unsaved just stop existing? Possible I guess.

[Anthony Martin]

Revelation of John 20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

(Emphasis mine.)

I believe Hell is hot and forever is a long time.

[Torrin Suedmeyer]

Agreed

[Anthony Martin]

Regarding Revelation 20:10, Redding says:

In these unique statements about "torment forever", we do not find any of the generic evil people mentioned throughout the bible. Instead, we find the devil himself, with his chief henchmen and closest followers. So perhaps there is a hell, but only these individuals ever experience eternal conscious torment?

(emphasis mine)

He considers the possibility of Hell, so long as it's only for certain beings.  So if God is too loving to eternally torment anyone, why will God eternally torment these beings?  Is there a limit to God's infinite love?  If there is, why is this limit set so arbitrarily?  You have to be really really really really bad in order to qualify for hell?  But everywhere else in scripture, we see that the line is crossed just one sin.  This is because God is Holy (set part) and any transgression against an infinite God requires infinite punishment.

The article goes on by saying at Revelation 20:10 is not as literal as we think.  I guess that is Redding's only option.  He looks at the Old Testament use of "forever and ever" and extrapolates Revelation 20:10 (Redding's attempt at scripture interpreting scripture):

Isaiah 34:9-10
Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; Its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever. 

 

Sounds like this is going to keep smoking, huh? But why then does he say in the next verse: 

 

Isaiah 34:11 

But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it;

 

Do pelicans and hedgehogs like to live in fire? And why in the next verse (12) is he asking about who will be king?! Then, in verses 13-17, he's talking about all the different kinds of animals who will dwell in and possess the land.

So yeah.  We've proven that if pelicans and hedgehogs don't burn, hell must not be hot, and forever must not be a long time.  Obviously.

That's a pretty big leap.  Forgive me if I'm not really that convinced.

[Aaron Jackson]

There were several problems with his logic, but again, I hope he is right.

_______________________

Aaron Jackson

http://highcaliberguns.com

[mattress]

here's a question for those who disagree with Redding: Why is it important that there is a hell?

[Aaron Jackson]

It is not important to me any more than the existence of Angels is important. The Bible says it exists so...

_______________________

Aaron Jackson

http://highcaliberguns.com

[Anthony Martin]

I put the existence of Hell (as defined traditionally) on equal importance to The Gospel.

The reason I do this is because it reflects the "sinfulness of sin" (if you'll allow this redundancy).  To suggest that we aren't bad enough to warrant eternal conscious torment implies that the price paid to keep us away from such a fate isn't as important as it might be if there were an eternal conscious torment.

It also implies that human beings generally deserve to be treated better than trash, as if we're something special.  We gave the Eternal God the finger.  We deserve something worse than being puffed out.

In other words, there's a lot more riding on salvation if Hell is traditionally defined.  To me, The Cosmic Eraser (annihilation) is a much less serious result than The Cosmic Torture Chamber (Hell).

I use this criteria often to determine doctrine.  For example, is it more impressive that a) God knows everything (traditional omnipotence) or b) God knows everything except personal choices (open theism)?

I think a) is more impressive than b).  On that scale alone, I gravitate towards a), then I look to scripture to see if that determination is supported.  I think this is a rather safe thing to do.  "Is God more or less impressive with regards to this particular question?  I think God is more impressive, so let me confirm that with scripture."

Is it more impressive that God would save people from being erased or being eternally tormented?  I think it's more impressive that God would save people from eternal torment.

The Big Control Z (annihilism) doesn't strike me as having very much riding on the line.  The entire human race could be undone with absolutely no consequences.  But that God would save even one person from eternal conscious torment is a complete scandal, it just impresses the Hell out of me. ;)

[Aaron Jackson]

I retract my former reply and propose Anthony's reply as if it were my own.

[Torrin Suedmeyer]

That was well said Anthony.

[Anthony Martin]

Aaron and Torri, thanks.

[Matt]

I would agree that it is more impressive for God to save us from eternal torment than simply saving us from eternal non-existence.

But it is not impressive for God to be the eternal torturer.

[Anthony Martin]

I put "God is the eternal torturer" squarely into the "flawed human understanding" category of theology.  I wish there was a way to categorize it better.  But only God knows how exceedingly sinful we are and in comparison to God.  And this is what angers us the most.  We actually believe that God must reduce his Holiness in order to adequately cope with His wonderful creation.

I hope that's not taken as a lot of hifalutin language.  I just wanted to avoid the apparent cliché:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

By the way, I am not ok with any of this.  It makes me very angry that God would treat me this way.  I'm angry that I have to accept His gift of salvation and that I can't do it myself.  I want very much to do it myself.  I can't believe He would create a world like this, where the only way to avoid eternal torment is to put aside my pride and accept Jesus.

But it also fits the character of God.  Therefore I have to conclude: God is Holy.

You'd think an all knowing God could figure out a way to make His creation intuitively understand the entre thing.  The only other thing I can safely conclude from all of this is: I suck.

[mattress]

I saw this post about a documentary film on this very subject, I thought you guys might be interested in reading it: http://emerginganabaptist.com/hellbound/

[Anthony Martin]

[Annihilationalists] don’t think that God’s love will conquer the hardest heart, typically because of a strong sense of free will, but they also don’t see why God is bound by the laws of this extreme retributive justice that the traditional view requires. ... They aren’t tortured to fulfill some extreme retributive justice requirement that is neither logical nor in Scripture ...

Except for a (presumably) small group.

[mattress]

Clarify?