On Hell

[adriftconscious]

A topic of debate that has been swirling around my campus for the last week or so has been Hell. One of the opinion editors of The Beacon, our school newspaper, wrote an Op-Ed about the existence of Hell. His basic argument was that the knowledge of other people suffering eternally in Hell would ruin the experience of heaven. And then he proceeded to make a case that by the grace of God no one would actually have to go to Hell, and we'd all be saved. I personally didn't think he did a very good job defending his arguments, but keep in mind that he only had 300 words in which to state his case.
My personal thoughts on the subject are pretty simple. I think that Heaven and Hell are choices, when it all boils down to it. As insane as it may sound, some people choose intentionally to go to Hell, because they love their sin so much. I tend to cite C.S. Lewis's book The Great Divorce when I talk about Hell, as I find that the imagery and message given articulates my beliefs fairly well.
On one of the points in the authors article, I do take minor exception to. I don't think that knowing that people are in Hell will ruin Heaven for me, or for anyone else, for that matter, because-- callous as this sounds-- I simply won't care. My existence will be wrapped up in my Creator and I won't have the time to think about anything else.
One argument for universal salvation is that the existence of Hell limits the grace of God. When you think about it, the logic is pretty compelling. If God's grace is universal and can overcome all, then he should be able to rescue anyone, no matter if they've chosen him or not. The fact that he doesn't/can't then is limiting God's grace, and since that simply isn't possible, then it is assumed that all will be saved. I don't think that this takes into account properly the fact that the choice is ultimately left up to us, and that we choose to be separate from God, but the logic still stands.
I wonder what you all think of this question.

EDIT: Just to clarify, when I say that Heaven and Hell are choices, I mean that I choose to allow Christ to save me, or I don't.  

[bethany]

I've always thought the story of Lazarus and the rich man was an interesting look at heaven and hell. I realize it's a story that Jesus is telling, so it mightn't be a literal representation of heaven and hell, but then again, if anyone could describe their relationship, it's Jesus.

 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

 29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

 30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Abraham doesn't seem all that distraught over the rich man's being in hell, but he does mention that those who want to go from heaven to hell cannot, which would imply that perhaps they're aware and wish to ease the suffering of those in hell? I don't know. That could be extrapolating too much from a story.  

[bloop]

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

In a way, this has always been something I wondered about, and seemed a little nonsensical, but it's off-topic (that a sign that one experiences themselves would be more convincing, it seems to me, than something written down as the law of Moses was).

[Vlad!]

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

In a way, this has always been something I wondered about, and seemed a little nonsensical, but it's off-topic (that a sign that one experiences themselves would be more convincing, it seems to me, than something written down as the law of Moses was).

I honestly think it's true, though. It might be more convincing in the short term, but people will really believe what they want to believe and nothing, not even the supernatural, can deter them from it. The story of Israel in Exodus should be ample proof of this, if nothing else.

Hell is one of those things that I don't want to believe in, but the Bible leaves little choice in the matter. I have no trouble believing that I don't deserve heaven, but I'm not sure I think that anybody really deserves hell, at least from a human standpoint.

[PaulDA]

I am beginning to believe what C. S. Lewis says, that all the descriptions of fire and darkness are metaphors, and that true hell is separation from God.
As to the speculation that people in heaven would be sad to see loved ones in hell, i believe they won't be sad because they will understand that God is a righteous and loving God and that the people chose to be where they are. Once we know how good God is, we will never be sad.

[Josh]

Indeed, one presumes that, upon our glorification, we will understand the perfection of God's justice as well as His grace, and thus understand that a) the people in Hell deserved every bit of what they got and that b) so did we, but God saved us in His boundless mercy-- reason enough for eternal rejoicing.

[dgp11776]

I am beginning to believe what C. S. Lewis says, that all the descriptions of fire and darkness are metaphors, and that true hell is separation from God.
As to the speculation that people in heaven would be sad to see loved ones in hell, i believe they won't be sad because they will understand that God is a righteous and loving God and that the people chose to be where they are. Once we know how good God is, we will never be sad.

I agree with your second paragraph, but not with your first.  Vs. 24 of what Bethany posted is all the proof I need for that.

[bloop]

Indeed, one presumes that, upon our glorification, we will understand the perfection of God's justice as well as His grace, and thus understand that a) the people in Hell deserved every bit of what they got and that b) so did we, but God saved us in His boundless mercy-- reason enough for eternal rejoicing.

It seems to me that you already understand enough not to be sad.

[Tom]

[PaulDA]

I am beginning to believe what C. S. Lewis says, that all the descriptions of fire and darkness are metaphors, and that true hell is separation from God.
As to the speculation that people in heaven would be sad to see loved ones in hell, i believe they won't be sad because they will understand that God is a righteous and loving God and that the people chose to be where they are. Once we know how good God is, we will never be sad.

I agree with your second paragraph, but not with your first.  Vs. 24 of what Bethany posted is all the proof I need for that.

There are many interpretaions of Hell.
The important thing for us is that we will not be there.
Also, whether they are on fire, in fire, or in outer darkness or both or something else is not the real punishment. The real punishment is being separated from God for eternity.
There are many interpretations of Lazarus and the Rich Man. One interpretation is these are actual people, and not a parable, because Jesus never gives a name to anyone in His parables. Now, the problem with this being a real eveant is this:
Therew ill be no weeping or sadness in Heaven according to the Bible, yet here we have Lazarus actually seeing torment in hell. This makes me wonder if this is actually a literal scene from heaven or hell or just a way of Jesus contrasting being in Heaven and Hell. Just because He never gave a name to anyone else in His parables doesn't mean this is not a parable.

[murlough23]

I'm actually interested in the idea brought up in the Muslim thread, about degrees of punishment or degrees of Hell being based on the degree of a person's sin on Earth. Paul, I think you supported that idea and I'm surious why. As I've always understood it, sin is sin, and me telling a little white lie or stealing a soda is the same in God's eyes as me raping and murdering a 3-year-old girl. Obviously those two things have very different earthly consequences - the second set of sins obviously makes me a lot more of a threat to society than the first, and society will want to punish me a lot more for the second set. And God will likely choose to take more drastic measures to convict me of that sin and set me straight. Still, God is infinitely good and humans are only finitely good, and as I understand it, one sin, no matter how small, puts an infinite gap between man and God that only grace can cross.

I do believe that punishments should fit crimes, but the point of punishment is to ensure that the sin is not repeated. So I don't see sins as "worse" than one another... just different things that need to be dealt with by different means (God may deal with the same sin in two entirely different ways with two different people). I read somewhere that God punishes those He loves... if He didn't care, He'd just let us go on our merry way and condemn ourselves to Hell.

OK, so getting back to the Hell issue. Hell seems to be an all-or-nothing deal, for similar reasons to what I've explained above - God sees me as either perfect, or imperfect. Not much of a grey area there. The smallest sin, if unforgiven, would send me to Hell, and Hell is defined as eternal torment. So why would there be different levels of it for different sinners? Eternal separation from God is the ultimate torture - you can't really make it more torturous than that, or make it slightly more liveable. If I'm on level 3 of Hell, am I really going to be relieved in any way that I'm not on level 47?

[PaulDA]

^Apologists such as Hank Hannagraff have said the same thing I said, about degrees of punishment in Hell.
It is based on a few things.
As I said, Jesus Christ Himself said that the people who turned his disciple away when they were going house to house will have it WORSE on the day of judgement than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In order to have it WORSE, that means they will be punished more. If everyone in hell is punished the exact same way, then Jesus' words there make absolutely no sense.
Also, Jesus says that when He returns, He will reward us according to our WORKS.
we already know that we are NOT saved by good works, or condemned by bad works. We are ALL sinners, but we get to Heaven by accepting Jesus and we go to hell for rejecting Jesus. Now, if we are not saved or condemned by our works, then when Jesus says, "He will reward us for our works, what does that mean?
The Bible clearly shows that Christians will recieve certain REWARDS when they get to Heaven, some greater than others, so, the opposite must also be true in hell. Some will receive more punishment than others, or jesus words, "we wiil (all) be rewards for our works" makes no sense. He didn't say "only Christians would be rewarded for our works", but He said "EVERYONE".

[Josh]

I'm inclined to say that Jesus was speaking figuratively there. I mean, Hell is simply separation from God... and how can one be more separated from God than someone else? Either the Divine presence is with you or it isn't. To say that there are degrees of hell seems illogical-- and it certainly goes against orthodoxy.

[murlough23]

As I said, Jesus Christ Himself said that the people who turned his disciple away when they were going house to house will have it WORSE on the day of judgement than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In order to have it WORSE, that means they will be punished more. If everyone in hell is punished the exact same way, then Jesus' words there make absolutely no sense.
Also, Jesus says that when He returns, He will reward us according to our WORKS.
we already know that we are NOT saved by good works, or condemned by bad works. We are ALL sinners, but we get to Heaven by accepting Jesus and we go to hell for rejecting Jesus. Now, if we are not saved or condemned by our works, then when Jesus says, "He will reward us for our works, what does that mean?
The Bible clearly shows that Christians will recieve certain REWARDS when they get to Heaven, some greater than others, so, the opposite must also be true in hell. Some will receive more punishment than others, or jesus words, "we wiil (all) be rewards for our works" makes no sense. He didn't say "only Christians would be rewarded for our works", but He said "EVERYONE".

OK. But tell me how that makes sense. I understand Heaven to be complete and perfect happiness - no sorrow or regret or any hint of negativity. Hell is, of course, the opposite. There's no room for middle ground there - no room for me to possibly be happier than I am in Heaven, and no room for me to possibly be more tortured than I am in Hell. If I'm at some lower level of Heaven, how can I be aware of a possible way that I could have been even more rewarded and happy? How could I care about whether I received that "extra reward" or whatever?

Honestly, if I could get to Heaven and then realize I had the potential to attain an even greater reward than what I got, how is that eternal and perfect happiness? It would seem like a bit of a rip-off - a nice approximation, but not exactly Heaven. You'er not supposed to be able to improve on what's already infinite. There's not supposed to be anything else that I could have attained once I get to Heaven. Either that, or I'll be aware of it, but because it's Heaven, I'll be eternally happy and won't give a rip that some other dude got a better reward than me. But if that's true, then it's not really a better reward, and thus, there's no reason why I should care about seeking out that greater reward now. If I'm in Heaven and there's even an inkling of a fraction of a thought that I could have more than what I currently have, then it's not really Heaven.

Similar thing with Hell. If it's eternal torture, it's eternal torture. It can't get any worse. I'm not gonna sit around there thinking, "Gee, I'm glad I didn't get a worse punishment and end up in a lower level of Hell." There can't be any such condolence. It's Hell, for crying out loud.

When something like that was said in the Bible, but it seems in my mind like there's no logical basis for it, I'm forced to conclude that either (a) my nderstanding of the underlying concepts is faulty, or (b) what the Bible is saying is on a different point, or means something different, than what it appears to say at face value.

In either case, this one warrants closer study. I'd be interested to find out if this Hank Hannegraff guy you keep touting has really thought this one through logically, or if he just takes his first impression of what the words mean at face value because he's one of those types who teaches that everything in the Bible is literally true as we understand it when reading it in English.