On Hell pt. 2

I am busy with other things and had not planned on blogging for a few weeks. However, my divisive nature tempts me too greatly and, alas, I could not help but check up to see what Matthew Cart was saying about Universalism.

Since I'm still busy with other things, I don't have time to respond in full. Thus, I offer this short analysis now and will respond to the rest of the conversation if I think it necessary (and as time permits).

Matthew Cart: "Just because someone does not become born again and saved while
living on the earth does not mean he is going to be separated from God forever
burning for eternity."

It seems that Matthew thinks this works in his favor. If so, the method of reasoning we see being employed here is unfortunate. However, it is by no means rare. For example, you can see my discussion here with a Christian who did not believe that homosexuality was in any way genetic. Why did she not believe homosexuality was genetic? Because no one proved to her that it was genetic. Ergo, in her mind, it must be the case that it is not genetic. It goes like this: "No one has shown that X is not the case. Therefore, I am warranted in my belief that X is the case."

When such a method occurs, the person employing it can feel quite good about himself if all he does is show that the opponents conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. They seem to be under the illusion that if they can say "but not necessarily" that they have thereby secured their own position.

But maybe I'm jumping to conclusions with Matt. After all, he doesn't say that this thereby proves his position. So, what leads me to believe that he is in fact employing this irrational method? Namely, the fact that Matt doesn't even attempt to go on and support his own position. This could either mean that (a) he doesn't care to argue his own position, (b) he doesn't think it needs to be argued (for the aforementioned reason), or that (c) he doesn't have the space or time to argue it.

(a) seems highly unlikely to me as Matt is the one who started the entire discussion to begin with and, furthermore, from the fact that he keeps attempting to demonstrate that his opponents argument do not follow through.

(c) would be a silly or insufficient reason. He could easily have the space if he didn't quote so much from his opponents. If nothing else, he could give a thumb nail sketch of what an argument might look like. And, judging by his frequent responses, he certainly has the time.

Therefore, (b) seems likely to me. Of course, If I'm wrong Matt is free to comment and tell me otherwise.

Matthew Cart: "The work of Christ was absolutely neccessary but wasn't to keep
us from burning in torture forever. Jesus came to save us from our sins, not
from hell. There is no other way to be saved but by Jesus. He also came to bring
his kingdom into the world, which he did and it is expanding. He stripped Satan
of his power and triumphed over the powers of evil by his death on the cross."

Under Matt's view, sin does not lead to wrath or punishment from God and it definitely does not lead to "Hell" (despite the Bible's clear statements to the contrary. For example, Matthew 5:29; 13:41,42; Rom. 1:18; 2:5-8; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; Col. 3:5,6; and by implication: Lk 17:2; Jn 3:36). One starts to wonder whether Matthew has ever read the NT. Perhaps, though, Matt is just having a hard time drawing the logical connection between sin and sin's consequences. If so, reading the verses I quoted above would certainly help him. Given Matt's view, why would anyone want or need to be saved from sin?

Someone called "Moses" asked Matt: "if the end is ultimately the same for all men, even those outside of Christ, then the work of christ was not necessary. In fact, why not speak like the other universalist heathens of Paul's day and say "let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Matt responded, "The context and verse says "If Christ is not risen" then let us eat drink and be merry, etc. Christ is risen." But he has completely missed the force of Moses's question. If Matt is a universalist, then it really doesn't matter if I obey Christ now or do not obey Christ now. Of course, Matt may say "But following Christ has benefits now..." But this is to misunderstand the hedonist's objection. For example, even IF Christ is not risen, we could still have temporary benefits of following his pious example and, yet, Paul still thinks they have a valid objection. The objection "let us eat..." has force because whatever benefits or punishments may come are only temporary. Ultimately, we're all in the same boat so we might as well live it up. Thus, Matt's view is subject to the same criticism as those who say Christ is not raised: let us eat, drink, and be merry.

Matt: "The main point I want to emphasize here is that the entire doctrine you
are promoting is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the Old Testament. There is
never a warning of being judge eternally and forever given to Adam, Moses, Noah,
Abraham (dealing w/ Sodom), etc. We need to first understand the Old Testament;
we cannot simply pull verses from the NT and interpret them in light of
nothing."

Here we finally have something that looks like an argument. I will restate the argument in a better form and put next to the premises Matt's words that I take to support my reformulation:

P1: The OT is our starting point. ("We need to first understand the OT")
P2: The NT can only reaffirm or clarify by expansion what the OT teaches. ("we cannot simply puss verses from the NT and interpret them in light of nothing")
P3: The OT does not teach a doctrine of Hell. ("the entire docrine [of Hell]... is mentioned ... nowhere in the OT")
C: Therefore, the NT cannot teach the doctrine of Hell. (implied by entire conversation)

Of course, P1 presents several problems for any Christian. If we start with the OT, in the sense that would be relevant to Matt's argument, then serious problems arise with how the NT authors make use of the OT ("out of Egypt I have called my son."). How can Matt start with the OT and arrive at Matthew's (the gospel writer) conclusion?

P2 creates, taken with P1, creates even more problems for a Christian. Take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. Robert Reymond states, as anyone who has surveyed the evidence must, that "It is unlikely that anyone familiar with or reading only the Old Testament today, with no knowledge of the New Testament, would conclude that within the inner life of the divine being resides a real and distinct personal manifoldness" (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 207). Reymond goes on to quote B.B. Warfield who admits, "The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament..." (Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, 22).

It seems then that Matthew's "main point" that he "wants to emphasize" is a rather embarrassing one. I suggest he hide this point rather than emphasize it, or, better yet, ditch it all together. In Matthew's ad hoc attempt at finding an argument against the orthodox doctrine of Hell, he has put himself in a very dangerous position. But this really shouldn't come as a surprise since, '"Denial of [the] teaching [of hell] has, until recently, been limited almost exclusively to cultic or quasi-cultic groups... Furthermore, this movement away from the traditional doctrine of hell is part and parcel of a larger evangelical "megashift" away from other standard orthodox teachings — such as the substitutionary atonement, sin, and judgment — in favor of so-called "new-model" views. In other words, the rejection of eternal punishment is but one incident in the larger campaign to construct a kinder, gentler theology. " (Alan W. Gomes (Ph.D in historical theology from Fuller Theological Seminary) "Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One," Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, 14ff.)

Beyond this, if Matthew had perhaps read the OT a little better he would find that there are passages which, at least prima facie, support the doctrine of Hell (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2). Thus, even if we grant Matthew P1 and P2 we may still show P3 and the conclusion to be false.

Matthew: "Concerning the teaching of hell, this is foreign to the OT and NT
translations mistranslate and put "hell" instead of the grave, ghenna, etc. You
can read about this in depth here http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm"

I'm glad to see that Matthew at least took a little time to read up on the position he is defending. I can only wish that he took a little time to read the responses from the other side. If he has, he doesn't show any evidence of it. But it isn't even necessary to do research of the proponents of the orthodox view to see the ridiculousness of the word-concept or etymological fallacy, it should be obvious upon a little armchair reflection.

Still, I'm always amazed to see the Universalist or Annihilationist march out the "Gehenna/Tartarus/etc." argument as though everyone is unaware of it and no response has ever been put forth. If nothing else, it shows the shallow research skills that Universalists/Annihiliationists exert in examining the issue. I could quote from dozens of proponants of the orthodox position which have answered this issue. Take for example, C. Hodge, who uses for his example Annihilationists (who commit the same argument in principle as the Universalists) "The question is not, What certain words may mean? but, What were they intended to mean as used in certain connections? ... [The Annihilationist argues that] we are to go to our classical dictionaries to learn the meaning of the words they use... That the rule of interpretation here laid down is obviously incorrect, and its application would reduce the doctrines of the Bible to the level of heathenism. If Greek words as used in Scripture express no higher ideas than on the lips of Pagans, then we can have only the thoughts of Pagans in the Bible... the "usus loquendi" of every language varies more or less in different ages, and as spoken by different tribes and nations. Every one admits that Hellenistic Greek has a usage distinguishing it from the language of the classics. The language of the Bible must explain the language of the Bible. It has a "usus loquendi" of its own... The Scriptures written in the language of men use words as men are accustomed to use them, literally or figuratively, and in senses suited to the nature of the subjects to which they are applied" (Syst. Theo., 3:872,3).

Or, take for example what S.D.F. Salmond says in his entry on Hell in A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898):

"The Teutonic base [for "hell"], hal = hide, akin to kal, kar (in the older form), is supposed by Skeat to be a 'development from a root skar, of which the meaning was to cover.' Etymologically, therefore, the term denotes the covered, hidden, unseen place... In this employment of the word the AV translators were justified so far by the sense which it had in their day, and by the fact that it was applied to the world of the departed generally in the Creeds, in Spenser, in Chaucer, in mediæval miracle and mystery plays, and in Old English religious poetry... The word 'hell' is used (3), and more properly, as the equivalent of γεέννα, the designation of the place and state of the just retribution reserved for the finally impenitent after the judgment...

[Gehenna] under Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon was made the scene of the gross and cruel rites of heathen worship, idolatrous Jews passing their children through the fire there to Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31). Hence king Josiah, when he put down the idolatrous priests who had burned incense to Baal under the apostate kings of Judah, also 'defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech' (2 Kings 23:5, 10). It was also declared by Jeremiah that the place should be 'no more called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter' (Jeremiah 19:6). After its pollution by the pious son of Amon it became an object of horror to the Jews, and is said to have been made a receptacle for bones, the bodies of beasts and criminals, refuse and all unclean things (so Kimchi). The terrible associations of the place, the recollections of the horrors perpetrated in it and the defilement inflicted on it, the fires said to have been kept burning in it in order to consume the foul and corrupt objects that were thrown into it, made it a natural and unmistakable symbol of dire evil, torment, wasting penalty, absolute ruin. So it came to designate the place of future punishment, and the Talmudic theology spoke of the door of hell as being in the valley of Hinnom (Barclay, City of the Great King, p. 90)" (ibid, emphasis mine).

For Matthew to simply march out the old arguments shows that he's either not read much of anything from the other side or else he's hopping that his audience hasn't so that he can capitalize on their ignorance.

On Hell

Matthollycart over at the AV forums is throwing around some ideas on universalism. Unfortunately, the AV forums have some rules that make having in depth discussions rather difficult (2000 word limit, no consecutive posting, etc.). For that reason, I'm posting a more detailed response here.

matthollycart:...what I am referring to is not that everyone gets saved in this lifetime but that perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God. In this life no one can be saved (and being saved has to do with this life) without being born again and have faith in Jesus.

The claim that "being saved has to do with this life" is completely unsubstantiated. Of course, being saved can be and is now a present reality for many in this life, but it seems that for Matthew's remarks to have any value to his own position, he must demonstrate that it pertains only (or merely)to this present state. So, I take Matt to mean there are two categories of people in the following sense. Category 1 consists of those who receive salvation and are at some point reconciled to God. Rconciliation to God and salvation are two distinct concepts. One does not imply the other. Category 2 consists of those who do not receive slavation and go on to be reconciled to God at some point after death.

Of course, so far, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Romans 8:29-30 and John 3:18 (aside from a hundred other texts) present salvation as extending beyond our mere earthly, temporal life and as something that encompasses reconciliation to God (see Acts. 16:30 where belief is tied to salvation). 1 Cor. 1:18 contrasts "those who are perishing" with those who are being saved. Since even the saved a perishing in a physical sense, the contrast must be more than simply an observation of physical, temporal death. In othe words, salvation extends beyond the mere physical, earthly state (see also 2 Cor. 2:15). Matthew 10:22 doesn't make much sense if salvation is only a temporal, earthly state.

But maybe Matthew means something else. Maybe he means there are two categories of people in this sense: category 1 consists of those who are reconciled to God (saved) in this life and category 2 consists of those who are reconciled to God in the next life (this category would include everyone who doesn't fall into category 1). This is the normal universalist position. But in Matt. 25:46 the duration of the punishment of the wicked is directly parallelled to the duration of the life of the righteous. So when he speculates, "perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God" on what grounds does he do so? If eternal punishment for the wicked doesn't mean for ever and ever, then neither does eternal life for the righteous mean for ever and ever. If his argument is predicated on "αἰώνιος" being temporal, then he will be hardpressed to argue for eternal life.

matthollycart: Nowhere in my post did I say that being thrown into a lake of
fire is symbolic for universal salvation. But what I am saying is that it
perhaps does not mean what we have always imagined it means.

I didn't say he made that connection, I simply used it as an example. I fail to see how "perhaps [it] does not mean what we have always imagined" is an adequate alternative to how the text is usually understood. It's like someone says "I espouse X because of A, C, and D" and another person responds "But maybe that's not the case." Well... okay, but you haven't offered much of an alternative by simply saying "maybe it's not that's not right." Matthew doesn't provide any argument, just conjecture. And of course to phrase it "what we have always imagined" is simply a rhetorical spin. As though all the theologians who believe in a literal, eternal hell are doing so on the basis of their imagination.

matthollycart: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah was earthly. People were killed physically, not tortured forever and ever.

First of all, what makes Matthew think the fact that S & G was earthly is the parallel the author wants to draw in 2 Peter 2? In that case, maybe paradise is acidic since it's in Abraham's bosom. The entire chapter makes little sense under Matthew's reading (see esp. vs 9, the end of vs. 12, 17b, & 21).As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out, "God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire is a classic example of universal destruction of the ungodly." For proof of this see Jude 7.

Furthermore, if Matthew is correct and the passage teaches that the ungodly will receive punishment in this life, it is obviously false (since many do not: see Job 24).

matthollycart: Matthew 5:30 The word is Ghenna, which was an actual place in the
time of Jesus. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and those who
would be killed would be thrown in Ghenna. John 3:14-16, John 6:40, etc.

In typical universalist fashion, Matthew committs the etymological fallacy.

Mat. 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that jeveryone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (P.S. most of you will have probably died before then anyway).

Does this interpretation really warrant a response? Did only adulterers and lustful persons get thrown into the dump? I guess if you were one of the Christians who happened to be killed and thrown into the dump your piety didn't really work out so well, huh? Oops, Matthew 18:8 makes the contrast of "eternal fire" with "entering life"... Guess that blows the whole "Ghenna is just a spatio-temporal place" fallacy out of the water.

matthollycart: Eternal life is God's life. It is not referring to a period of
time. Those who do not love their brother do not have "eternal life" in them.
Eternal life is something that is in you, not living forever in heaven.

To bad no one told that to John when he contrasted perishing with eternal life (Jn 3:16). Not to mention the fact that this makes nonsense out of Jn 4:36; 6:27; 10:28; 12:25; 12:50; 17:2; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; or Jude 21, to give just a few examples.

Matthew hints that this is coming from 1 John where we read: the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (2:1). But has it not occured to Matthew that there are different senses in which the apostle speaks of eternal life? After all, at 5:11 John says, "is in his Son." So which is it? Is Christ eternal life (2:1; 5:20) or is eternal life simply something that is with/in Christ (5:11)? Or perhaps eternal life is something Christ gives (Jn 10:28)? After all, 1 Jn also says God is love. Does this mean that we go back and read that sense into every instance of the word love so that it becomes "Love is God"? It should be obvious that "love is God" is a different proposition than "God is love," as is the case with eternal life.

matthollycart: Its not as simple as you are implying otherwise there would not
be a debate and many of the early church fathers would not have believed it.

If it is simple, there is no debate over it and there is unanimity amongst the church fathers on it? So, basically, there is no personal variable that factors into these issues... No comment.

matthollycart: Jude verse 7 actually support my points and hurts your view Red
Monkey. It says that Sodom and Gormorrah suffered (past tense) the vengence of
eternal fire. Again, we have a misunderstanding of the word eternal. From all
the years and conditioning in our minds that "eternal" is referring to living
forever, we make wrong interpretations of scripture. Jude is basically saying
that Sodom and Gormorrah received divine judgment from God in heaven.

Of course, Matthew is here to reveal to us all the true meaning of "eternal," (via the etymological fallacy) which has escaped majority notice for the last 2000 years. And in Jude 7 Matthew simply imports his meaning into the text which says "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Notice that "ὑπέχουσαι" (undergoing/suffering) is present active, but Matthew wants it to read "underwent" or "suffered." Someone has certainly had their mind conditioned.

Of course, salvation or damnation doesn't make much difference in this view. We all get a taste of heaven for a time and then disappear, I guess. Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.