Hell Under Fire – Chapter 1 Review

Modern Theology:  The Disappearance of Hell by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Mohler’s chapter is broken into sections as listed: Background: Hell in Christian History, Hell as Question: The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Hell As Scandal: The Victorian Crisis of Faith, Hell as Myth: Twentieth-Century Theology and the Problem of Evil, Hell As Reality…,Hell in the Balance: What is at Stake?

I want to make some comments on most of these sections and then a summary comment on the chapter as a whole. I am not sure whether I will look at each chapter this way, but for right now I think I should. These authors are all heavyweights in the Christian world and there is, at least for now, much to point out concerning their views. Let me start with the first section, Background: Hell in Christian History.

Mohler begins his chapter by lamenting that the traditional view of hell (as I use the term hell, unless otherwise noted, I will mean a place of conscious eternal torment) is disappearing and suddenly. He states, “Take out the doctrine of hell, and the entire shape of Christian theology is inevitably altered.” He states that the doctrine of hell is based in the New Testament texts and the earliest preachers and theologians believed hell as God’s judgment on sinners. Jesus explained hell and the early Christians followed what He taught about it. A quote is given by Thomas Oden from Oden’s Systematic Theology stating that the patristic fathers were agreed that hell was eternal and God created it to destroy sin completely and forever.

Oden notes in that same volume that eternal fire and eternal punishment are very common and though being tested through the years, still have not been redefined. Augustine is then quoted from Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, as saying that Matt 25:46 supports the concept of eternal punishment and eternal life.

Mohler then shares a few paragraphs about Origen, how he leveled the first major challenge to the doctrine of hell. He states that Origen was a universalist who believed that ultimately all people would be saved and that God’s punishment was restorative not retributive. And then, we are taken directly to the Council of Constantinople in 553AD where the council deemed universalism to be anathema. Since Origen held to universalism, he was anathematized by the council as well.

Mohler goes on to state that this view was held all the way through the Reformation by the majority of the church. Jonathan Edwards was lauded for his fiery sermon on hell (The Torments of Hell Are Exceedingly Great in Sermons and Discourses) and Robert Schuller is now becoming the norm in Christianity today with his steadfastness against hell and eternal torment.

The reason I wanted to spend a little more time on this opening section is because of the foundation that Mohler is trying to lay. In a few short pages, in summary, he proclaims that hell (remember conscious eternal torment) was preached by Jesus, the Apostles, the disciples, patristic fathers and codified in 553 AD by the Council and subsequently believed by most of the church up to and beyond the Reformation. He seems to imply that there was a lone voice of dissent (Origen) though not specifically stated (though no other examples of ante-Nicene nor post-Nicene fathers who believed in universalism). In Mohler’s defense, he does state on page 17 that Origen “was the pioneer of a form of universalism” and maybe by this statement one could assume that others followed.

I understand his space was limited, but that, I believe, is a major problem with books such as this. The disappearance of hell is looked at in a shallow way, with really no scriptural support given for the view of eternal torment in a place called hell. There is no tracking of universalism through those centuries (mostly the Dark Ages) to contrast with the “majority” belief in hell, nor are other views such as annihilationism contrasted either. My hope is that as the book proceeds, the reader will be given insight into the definitions of such key terms as eternal, hell, everlasting, punishment, etc.

My challenge is several. Should a believer, especially a new one or a nominal one, take these statements by Mohler, Oden, Augustine or others as truth? How were these conclusions arrived at by Mohler? Where can the reader go to find out what the actual early believers thought about hell, the patristic fathers, those who served on the councils? My suggestion is for the reader to go online and download many early texts from sites such as www.earlychristianwritings.com. Reading the materials offered at these types of sites is not without caution. We must realize the texts are not scripture. However, they can give valuable insight into the thoughts of some during the early days to help form a broader picture of Christianity and beliefs held in those early years.

Another challenge is this: Why jump from Jesus and a few passing comments about the early fathers (with no substantiation) to nearly 500 years after Jesus’ time? History records seven ecumenical councils that were held from AD 325 – 787.  The one Mohler references the one in 553 AD being the fifth, Constantinople I.  He states that universalism was deemed a heresy at that council.  So, if universalism was such a heresy, blasphemous enough to warrant anathemas on the belief and all those who held it, why was it not addressed earlier? Origen lived from around 184-253 AD and wrote between 203-250 AD. Why would the church take 300 years to deem universalism anathema?

As I will write about in forthcoming articles, I believe the reason for the lack of support and lack of a verdict for so many years is that many, if not most, of the early church (Apostles, disciples, early fathers, etc) believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all mankind to the Father. As you read some early works for yourself, and read the New Testament without traditional denominational  glasses on, I believe you will find a different story or outlook on “hell” than what you have been taught.

I encourage you to look into the beliefs of such men as Eusebius, member of the Council of Nicea AD 325, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory Nyssa, members of the Council of Constantinople I AD 381 and Council of Ephesus AD 431 respectively.. This should give you plenty to study and then, if adventurous, comment to this post and I will send you some links to other works that I will be writing about in the future, but ones that you could read now.

Mohler continues the chapter citing events and beliefs by various groups from the 1600’s forward to the 20th century.  He shows how English society changed and began finding the belief in hell uncouth for a civilized society.  He shows the rise of the Socinians and Arians and how the Enlightenment produced philosophical thought that denied hell.

One notable point he made referred to Victorian society.  He states, ” The Victorian cult of the family featured a particular ideal of the father as a loving, respected, upright, reserved pater familias.  Such a father would discipline his children, but never too severely.  Eventually the sentimental indulgence of the father would bring punishment to an end, leading to reconciliation.  When this vision of fatherhood was extended to God, hell as eternal torment became unthinkable.”  Now, my point is, isn’t this pretty much the way the Father is spoken of by Jesus and Paul and the writer to the Hebrews? (Matt 7:11/Luke 11:13; 2 Cor 1:3; Rom 8:15-17; Eph 4:6; Heb 12:9, et al.)

Charged language, such as the description of a quote by John Wenham decrying unending torment as sadism, not justice, is met by Mohler as impassioned, almost hysterical language.  Those like Mohler believe that what is at stake is nothing less than a challenge to the authority and supremacy of God and His justice.   Mohler asks the question, “What’s at stake?”  He says, “The answer MUST be found in understanding the impact of cultural trends and the prevailing worldview on Christian theology.”  My answer would be to understand the text of scripture and see how the ealry Christians lived out their beliefs.  Did the early believers live in fear of eternal torment and with joy about the afterlife and their own final redemption and reconciliation with God?  So far no case has been made from scripture (by this I of course mean the Bible, most specifically the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures, Septuagint, and Greek New Testament, particularly and any modern versions that literally translate those texts instead of church tradition) nor from any believers from the first 500 years of Christianity, except a quote or two from Augustine.  If you read Augustine’s life and history you may not be so prone to quote him and depend on his theology so heavily.

“What happened to evangelical convictions about hell?”  Mohler gives three issues in answer to that question.  First, he says the evangelical view of God changed   He laments that God’s love is no longer holy.  In other words, it is more important today to have a God of love, ooey-gooey love, the kind that would never pass out a retributive justice or send someone to eternal torment in hell.  Second, is the very issue of justice.  He says retributive justice has been under attack for a long time.  Criminals no longer need justice, they need correction, he states.  He says evangelicals have bought into the idea that criminals need a cure, not prison sentence.  Third, the problem is modern psychology.  Modern psychology has made everyone a victim and no one responsible for their own behavior (sins).    Fourth, he says that the current understanding of salvation has no place for a fear of hell like it used to have,  He says people used to be afraid of going to hell and so would do what they could to avoid it by living more chaste lives.  Salvation is now a release from bad habits, not inherent sin.  He finally states that this redefinition of hell has changed our concept of God and the gospel.  And these authors apparently must rescue God and his hell from those who would diminish it.

What offends me about his broad brush is that my views, and the views of many like me, are swept aside, lumped together with all manner of unbiblical philosophies and discounted because they offend the majority of believers today.  I have heard the statement so often that if you come up with an understanding of biblical text that no one (meaning more often than not, few)  has ever held, you are most likely misunderstanding the text and are in dangerous (hear, heretical) territory.  At that point you MUST fall in-line with the traditional rendering (meaning the denominations’ take on the text by their preeminent scholars) or face discipline and/or expulsion.  Well, if Jesus had succumbed to this same illogical thinking we would never have had a Savior who went to the cross to pay mankind’s penalty for sin.  We would have had a weak-spined, defeated man who just sat down and shut up when it came to the Pharisee’s teachings.

 

Well, so much to say, so little space. I will continue the review soon. If you have questions or comments, please feel free to ask away. I cannot guarantee that I will respond immediately, but I will get to each one as soon as possible. Until next time, adieu, auf wiedersehen, God bless you.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Book Reviews, Hell

2 responses to “Hell Under Fire – Chapter 1 Review

  1. Some contributing thoughts:

    “What happened to evangelical convictions about hell?” Mohler gives three issues in answer to that question. First, he says the evangelical view of God changed He laments that God’s love is no longer holy.”

    The question we should ask ourselves is, “Which theological school of thought separated God’s love from His holiness to prove their doctrine?” Clearly, the early ecclesia had no problem proclaiming that at a certain time in God’s redemptive timetable eventually “every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil.2:10-11). God’s love is, and always will be holy, and that’s why universalism must be true and the modern Arminian/Calvinistic gospel (view of God) is false! To embrace brother Mohler’s modern Augustinian view of endless punishment (hell) while separating God’s love from His holiness would mean to take away from God’s glory (although according to Isa.42:8, etc. that’s not possible). Now please hear God’s clear warning given by the Apostle Paul for those who try to pervert the one and only true Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal.1:8-12). If one is deserving of being called a biblical or evangelical Universalist it’s the Apostle to the nations, since nowhere do we see God’s reconciling love (the good news that God eventually saves all) more clearly then in Paul’s writings.

    “In other words, it is more important today to have a God of love, ooey-gooey love, the kind that would never pass out a retributive justice or send someone to eternal torment in hell.”

    But that’s not what most Universalists believe either. We don’t separate the Father’s love from His holiness. Sin, and the results of sin are real, and people still suffer from and for it. Even after death some will face a time (not eternal) of separation from God (some call it hell), but everything must happen according to God’s sovereign and perfect redemptive plan (see 1.Cor.15:23-28) “so that God maybe all in all.” God’s judgments always served the purpose of restoring broken relationships and not punishing forever. Christ proclaimed the good news even “to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah” (1.Pet.3:19b-20a). That’s what perfect fatherly and holy-love does. Love wins (Rom.5; 1.Cor.13:13; 1.Cor.15; Phil.2:9-11; Rev.21-22)! For brother Mohler to say, that the evangelical view has changed and that God’s love is no longer holy, would be correct from a Universalist point of view, since we believe that God wills the reconciliation of all (1.Tim.2:4; 2.Pet.3:9 etc.) and that God has all power necessary to accomplish His will. Is it than too much to believe (contrary to Arminian or Calvinistic beliefs) that an all-powerful personal and holy-loving father (Luke 15) will accomplish His reconciling goals in Christ? In fact, it’s the Universalist position that laments over the modern day (since Augustine) and mainly institutional church which separated the love of the Father from His holiness to justify the heretical doctrine of eternal punishment (hell).

    “Second, is the very issue of justice. He says retributive justice has been under attack for a long time. Criminals no longer need justice, they need correction, he states. He says evangelicals have bought into the idea that criminals need a cure, not prison sentence.”

    As a father, I wonder how brother Mohler councils other parents to raise and discipline their kids. Isn’t the highest goal, while using the means of punishing people (ALL made in God’s image and therefore His children), to restore broken relationships caused by sin? Prison (see 1.Pet.3:19b again), or any other means of discipline should serve its purpose (namely “for our good”), but we shouldn’t punish for the sake of punishing! God is good, but we are evil (Matt.7:11)! I guess that’s why we are also called to love our enemies and never take revenge, etc. (see Rom.12). “Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness” (Heb.12:9-10). Also the issue of justice can look very different depending on which country we live in (see Rom.13). We should, however, all agree that the form of punishment must fit the crime committed. And that is another important reason why Christians should reject the so-called orthodox idea (heresy) of eternal punishment. We who believe in the restoration of the universe (salvation of all mankind) are not against putting criminals into prison. Sorry, but that’s nonsense. We also call sin by its name, and believe that “the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God” (1.Pet.4:17), and that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2.Cor.5:10).

    “Third, the problem is modern psychology. Modern psychology has made everyone a victim and no one responsible for their own behavior (sins).”

    That may be true, but modern day psychology does not have much in common with biblical universalism. “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col.2:8). We are very aware of this! We too believe (like Arminian or Calvinistic theology) in what the Bible calls the effect of sin and its cause. We don’t turn sin, God’s holiness, etc. into something else (worldly psychology).

    “Fourth, he says that the current understanding of salvation has no place for a fear of hell like it used to have, He says people used to be afraid of going to hell and so would do what they could to avoid it by living more chaste lives. Salvation is now a release from bad habits, not inherent sin. He finally states that this redefinition of hell has changed our concept of God and the gospel. And these authors apparently must rescue God and his hell from those who would diminish it.”

    “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us” (1.John4:18-19). The Apostle Paul knew the “fear of the Lord” (2.Cor.5:11), but he nowhere threatened his audience with the Augustinian doctrine (heresy) of endless punishment (hell)! Instead we find statements like, “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all … This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1Tim.1:15; 2:3-4). The heretical concept of mixing the good news with fear of eternal punishment (hell) was absolutely foreign to the early proclamation (evangel) of God’s ecclesia. But if you want to hear something scary, think about your own salvation. We better all examine ourselves once in a while before some of us (professing Christians) end up in a place called “hell” for one aion (era) or two. “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil.2:12-13). It would be better for all of us, if we would use our precious time in this aion (era) NOT fighting over doctrinal issues. Instead we should rather be concerned if we truly serve and love our fellow disciples – in Christ like fashion (see Mark 10:45). Since “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1.Joh.3:10-11). Tell other Christians you believe in God’s victorious (universal) gospel, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2.Cor.5:19), and find out if people are willing (in word and deed) to love and serve you. But, “do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you” (1.Joh.3:13), since many confessing Christians go to church and forget that they are the church. Our calling and service is not limited to a Sunday church service (building) in our favorite denomination, but extended to all people around the world. “For where two or three have gathered in my name, I am there in their midst” (Matt.18:20). Most so-called Christians (especially in the western world, which includes the USA) don’t know that they have been called to serve the ecclesia of God (the called out ones) in a variety of special ways (Matt.25:40). Sadly, many confessing Christians are so quick to judge and separate that I am afraid that many will find themselves in the future group of people who will spend some age-during time (aionios) in a place of correction (kolasis) (Matt.25:46), which some call “hell”. Isn’t that scary enough brother Mohler?

    Recommendation:

    A helpful book on the subject:

    Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five-Hundred Years

    By J.W. Hanson – 1899

    http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/updcontents.html

    • Thank you Dirk, for your response. I, too, have become tired of seeking to lead people to believe that we must uphold one of God’s attributes (holy and just) over and above another (love). As a Calvinist, I sought every explanation I could find to try to justify that sinners who died without believing in Jesus DESERVED to go to hell, eternal conscious torment, and literally had to harden my heart against those to swallow the belief. Because I knew I could not preach to all, and even those I did preach to who were unbelieving didn’t seem to hear, I reasoned that at least I was doing my job. Well, thankfully, after hearing far too many witnessing stories and evangelistic methods and seeing also an unloving spirit in most of “God’s people” in the church (ignoring sin, treating others like crap (hugging from the front while stabbing in the back), and seeking worldliness and lies over the clear biblical truth before us in His Word, etc.), God opened my heart to His love and abundant grace and I was able to be reconciled more fully to Him than ever before. I have found the answers to my most nagging questions, such as “Why do I have to keep telling myself that God is winning the battle for souls, when the real winner seems to be Satan by virtue of sheer numbers?” or “Is God so uncaring and unfeeling that He creates billions of people, in His image, only to discard them to hell forever?” No, I now see that His grace, as Paul states, abounds over sin and wins over sin and Satan and He will restore all of His creation to Himself one day, after, as you point out, everyone is judged and suffers the judgment of their sins.

      Thank you again for your life-giving words and evaluation of a serious situation that we need to get right! I look forward to hearing more from you as this review continues, to the benefit of us all! God’s blessings of grace and mercy to you in great abundance! May your cup continue to overflow with God’s love for others. By the way, Hanson’s book is a tremendous read!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s