Tag Archive for: hell

A Case for an Eternal Hell (Part 1): A Biblical Defense

Recently, the Christian world was abuzz with the news that popular Christian star Kirk Cameron had considered switching his view of hell from the traditional view to annihilationism.[1] While I will not engage the specific comments made by Kirk Cameron on his podcast, I do think that it is important to discuss the topic of hell’s duration, annihilationism, and the traditional view known as eternal conscious torment (ECT). Also, we should note that Kirk is working through his beliefs about hell. Therefore, this article and series are not a response to Kirk Cameron or his beliefs. Rather, the series serves as a necessary engagement on a hotly contested issue.

This article is the first of a three-part series defending the traditional view of hell, otherwise known as ECT. The series will argue that ECT better understands hell from the perspective of Scripture, history, and theological and philosophical understandings of God. In other words, a better case can be made for ECT than other views of hell. I had initially planned to publish this case as a singular article. However, the data grew too large. I acknowledged that the reader would be better served by a series, so we do not get too overwhelmed. A series will help us better digest the material and offer a time of reflection. The first article will review the viewpoints of hell and offer a glimpse of the Scriptural data that supports the ECT view of hell. The second will examine early and major theologians who support the traditional view of hell. The third and final article in the series will review theological and philosophical objections to ECT and see whether they hold as much weight as many purport them to have. Some, not all, annihilationists claim that it is morally reprehensible for God to keep people alive in hell for all eternity.[2] Does the traditional view wreak havoc on the nature of God? Does the Bible suggest that annihilationism is true? While it is not a popular view in modernity, this article will argue that the traditional view of hell is correct and will make a case for the viewpoint by examining material from the Bible, some of the earliest Christian writers trained by the disciples, the four A’s of theology, and the theological and philosophical strength of ECT.

Before we make a case for the traditional viewpoint of hell, it is important to get a lay of the land as it pertains to three major viewpoints concerning the duration of hell. Additionally, it is also important to note that this issue is not what would be considered a matter of heresy. Though the doctrine of hell is extremely important, the doctrine of hell’s duration does not tamper with first-level doctrines that constitute the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Nonetheless, as some have noted, additional discernment may be needed with those who espouse viewpoints that differ from the traditional view, but not by necessity. This is certainly something that should be distinguished on a case-by-case basis. With that in mind, let’s now consider the three viewpoints of hell.

1. The Viewpoints of Hell’s Duration

As I often tell my students, a researcher must first seek to understand the viewpoints on the table before seeking to offer a defense for their own. The same holds true for this theological venture. At the time of this writing, three major viewpoints of hell’s duration have taken center stage: the traditional view, otherwise known as eternal conscious torment (ECT), the annihilationist view (sometimes called conditionalism), and the universalist view.

The Traditional View (ECT)

First, there is the traditional viewpoint called eternal conscious torment. This view holds that hell is an eternal place where the condemned spend an eternity. What this eternity looks like is an area that could be covered in a future article. Nonetheless, as Norman Geisler states, the “doctrine of hell, like the doctrine of the Trinity, was revealed progressively: more implied (implicit) in the Old Testament and more developed (explicit) in the New Testament.”[3]

The Annihilationist View (Conditionalism)

The second viewpoint that has gathered quite a large following, and one that Kirk Cameron now endorses, is called annihilationism or conditionalism. Annihilationism maintains that hell is a place of death for the condemned. That is, the condemned spend a temporary time in hell before being exterminated or non-existent. For the annihilationist, hell is a place where spiritual death occurs, where the condemned become non-existent. Interestingly, though I have not included annihilationism as heretical, it was condemned as such by a synod in Constantinople in 543, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and by the Fifth Lateran Council of 1513.[4]

The Universalist View (Universalism)     

The third viewpoint is called universalism. Universalism maintains that the condemned will spend a temporary period of time in hell before they are reformed and restored to a right relationship with God. For universalists, everything will be redeemed and restored back to God’s good graces in the end. Like annihilationism, universalism was also condemned as heretical at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and sparked intense debates between the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch, thus showing that just because a view was held by some in antiquity does not mean that it was necessarily viewed as orthodox.[5]

2.Case from Biblical Texts

Since orthodox Christians hold to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, it behooves us to begin making a case for ECT from the biblical text. Often, annihilationists will contend that words like “death” and “destruction” should be understood as the literal death or non-existence of a person or thing. While in their normal literal parlance, the terms mean just that, these terms can also be used as euphemisms pointing to something different.

For instance, Jesus used the word “sleep” when he spoke of the death of Lazarus (Jn. 11:11). However, he later confirms that the term “sleep” was symbolic for a physical death (Jn. 11:12-15). Likewise, Scripture may use terms like “death” and “destruction” to refer to something else, something eternal. Let’s examine a few biblical texts.

Daniel 12:2    

“At that time Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, will rise up. There will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time. But at that time all your people who are found written in the book will escape. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and eternal contempt” (Dan. 12:1-2). Daniel envisions a time where the archangel Michael and his angelic forces engage Satan (a.k.a., the “Dragon”) and his angels in warfare. Israel will experience a time of great distress unlike anything the world has ever seen.

After the spiritual combat has concluded, a time of global resurrection will commence. There are good reasons to believe that two resurrection periods commence, one prior to the time of tribulation, and the other preceding the Great White Throne judgment. Nonetheless, Daniel reports seeing the resurrection of the redeemed and the condemned. Both are resurrected to an eternal life somewhere. The redeemed will “awake . . . to eternal life” (Dan. 12:2a) with God. The condemned will awake to “disgrace and eternal contempt” (Dan. 12:2b). In this text, “sleep” is used as a euphemism for physical death (e.g., Jn. 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1 Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:51). In this sense, sleep only refers to physical death. As noted by Stephen Miller and Joyce Baldwin, the text lends no support to the theories of soul sleep and annihilation.[6] Baldwin explains that “the reason for using ‘sleep’ here as a metaphor for ‘die’ is that sleep is a temporary state from which we normally awake, and so the reader is prepared for the thought of resurrection.”[7] The term “contempt” comes from the Hebrew term harapot, which designates a plural of “intensive fullness” of great shame.[8] The term dera’on refers to an “object of aversion” or “abhorrence.”[9] Interestingly, the only other occurrence of dera’on in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 66:24, which depicts an eternal state, saying, “As they leave, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me; for their worm will never die, their fire will never go out, and they will be a horror to all humanity” (Isa. 66:24).

Intertestamental Understanding of Hell      

Though not considered Scripture by Protestant Christians, the Apocrypha offers some insight into the understanding of hell’s nature. The writer of 4 Maccabees described hell as a place where “divine judgment delivers thee unto a more rapid and eternal fire and torments which shall not leave hold on thee to all eternity … A great struggle and peril of the soul awaits in eternal torment those who transgress the ordinance of God” (4 Maccabees 12:12; 13:5).

Matthew 22:13      

In a parable, Jesus parallels God the Father with a proverbial king who tells his attendants to “Tie him up hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 22:13).[10] The act of weeping and gnashing of teeth does not depict someone who has been burned up and no longer existent. Rather, these actions come from someone who remains metaphysically alive. Some will say, “But this may be at the initial moments of hell.” However, there is nothing in the text that suggests that the actions will not continue. Is fire a metaphor for God’s judgment? Or does it speak to an existence without the loving presence of God—a world of chaos and depravity? Those are some considerations for further research.

Matthew 25:41

In Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, Jesus taught that the angels would divide humanity into two sections: those on their right are individuals who had a right relationship with God, whereas those on the left are those who denied God and rejected his grace. After the gathering occurs, the command will be given to the condemned, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!” (Matt. 25:41). We should note that hell was not planned for humanity. It is a place created for the devil and his minions. For someone to reject God’s grace, they essentially say, “I do not want God in my life.” Therefore, God grants them what they desire. That’s why people wind up in hell. More on that in a future article.

Jude 6, 12-13

Jude, likely a disciple and brother of Jesus, offered some strong teachings on hell. He notes that “the angels who did not keep their position but abandoned their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deep darkness for the day of judgment on the great day … [and speaking of those who live in rebellion] These people are dangerous reefs at your love feasts as they eat with you without reverence. They are shepherds who only look after themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by winds; trees in late autumn—fruitless, twice dead and uprooted. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameful deeds; wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever” (Jude 6, 12). In vivid language, Jude acknowledges the darkness of hell and the conscious abiding nature of hell. He notes that hell is a dark place, likely noting that it does not hold the light of God’s glory there.

Revelation 14:10-11  

In Revelation, John notes that the beast will “also drink of the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured full strength into the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever. There is no rest, day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or anyone who receives the mark of its name” (Rev. 14:10-11). Here again, the anguish of hell does not cease. Obviously, hell is not a place where anyone wants to be. But remember, God did not design hell for human beings. It is designed for the devil and his angels. To go to hell means that a person resists and rejects the goodness of God and willfully chooses to live their eternal existence away from their loving Creator, apart from God’s kingdom, and willfully rejecting God’s loving watch care. If you are blaming God at this point, let me evoke my best impression of R. C. Sproul and inquire, “WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?” Of course, I say this jokingly. But still, how can we blame God for something a person willfully chooses? To reject God is to choose Satan. If that’s the state you want, you cannot blame God for that.

Revelation 20:10, 13-15        

In what I call the judgment chapter of Revelation, Satan’s ultimate demise is shown as he will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). The redeemed and condemned have been resurrected to a new eternal body by this point. Then, when judgment is meted out by God at the Great White Throne judgment, death and Hades gave up their dead” (Rev. 20:13). Note here that death is used to speak of those who are living, yet living without the graces of God. Each one of the dead are consciously judged, indicating that the term “death” is used metaphorically and not metaphysically.

After God delivers his judgment, “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14-15). Since God’s presence permeates the entire new creation, the judgment and Lake of Fire constitute another realm “outside the geography of the new universe,”[11] a place of utter darkness. This ultimate separation from God’s grace and presence is rightly called a second death, because the existence of its residents is without God’s protection, lovingkindness, and glory.

The writer of 2 Baruch of the intertestamental period teaches that righteous will enjoy rest and great blessings in the new creation for “to them shall be given the world to come, but the dwelling of the rest who are many shall be in the fire” (2 Baruch 44:15). In 4 Ezra, one pleads with God for forgiveness, and God told him, “I will show you that also, but do not include yourself with those who have shown scorn, or number yourself among those who are tormented” (4 Ezra 7:75).[12]

Conclusion

As has been shown, a strong case can be made for the traditional ECT viewpoint of hell. Not only do the writers of the New Testament hold this view, but it was also reflected in the writings of the Old Testament and the theologians of the intertestamental period. Granted, ECT is not the most comfortable position to hold. I found myself thanking God for his salvation as I wrote this piece. However, we must ask whether the traditional ECT view comports with the biblical data. Most assuredly, ECT does reflect the overarching theme of the biblical teaching on hell.

Even still, our case continues in our next article with an examination of the views of hell espoused by some of the most important theologians of history. We will look at the theology of those who were impacted by the disciples of Jesus before looking into the theological viewpoints of hell among those who are some of the most important theologians of Christian history.

References:

[1] Kirk Cameron and James Cameron, “Are We Wrong about Hell?,” Dangerous Conversations: The Kirk Camron Show, episode 86, YouTube.com (December 4, 2025), https://youtu.be/_RflbA8Vt_Y?si=asm4iytTdxkM_V9j

[2] Chris Date, “Chris Date’s Second Rebuttal to Jerry Shepherd,” Theologyinthe Raw.com (March 11, 2016), https://theologyintheraw.com/chris-dates-second-rebuttal-to-jerry-shepherd/ .

[3] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2005), 328.

[4] Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four, 391; See also John Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, Nigel M. de S. Cameron, ed (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 28; and F. L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 328.

[5] David Griffith, The Great Divide and the Salvation Paradox (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2022), Logos Bible Software.

[6] Stephen A. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 316; Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1978), 204.

[7] Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC, 204.

[8] Keil, Daniel, 483.

[9] Miller, Daniel, NAC, 316.

[10] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2020).

[11] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1999), 1061.

[12] The intertestamental texts are added to show the viewpoints of hell among those between the period of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. Brian G. Chilton (PhD, Liberty University) is the founder of Bellator Christi Ministries and the co-host of the Bellator Christi Podcast. He serves as a hospice chaplain and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics for Carolina College of Biblical Studies, a Dissertation Mentor/Adjunct Professor for Liberty University in the PhD in Applied Apologetics program, and an Adjunct Professor/Dissertation Reader at Carolina University in the DMin program. Dr. Chilton’s primary area of research is on early Christianity, oral traditions, NT creeds, the blend of divine sovereignty and human freedom, and near-death experiences (NDEs).

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45X6yqO

/by

Are You Going UP or Are You Going DOWN? Bible “Errors” Won’t Save You

Everyone you love will die. Everything you build will crumble. Everything you say will be forgotten. Everything you do will come to nothing. You and your identity will die and vanish, UNLESS…the resurrection is true. Yes, if Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead–GAME OVER–Christianity is true! But wait…isn’t a miracle like the resurrection a little too hard to believe for a rational person?

Join Frank during his recent talk at Grace Community Church in Sarasota, FL where he draws a striking parallel between the sinking of the Titanic and the resurrection of Jesus. You’ll learn why the Gospel accounts are not myths or legends, but credible eyewitness testimony that can stand up to scrutiny. Along the way, he answers pressing questions like:

  • How do we know miracles like the resurrection are even possible and why are they so rare?
  • What’s the greatest miracle in the Bible? (no, it’s not the resurrection!)
  • Why are some atheists beginning to admit the evidence for Christianity’s greatest miracle?
  • Do Bart Ehrman’s so-called “contradictions” in the Gospel accounts defeat Christianity?
  • What does the Titanic have to do with the afterlife and the resurrection of Jesus?
  • Why is it highly unlikely that the Jews invented the resurrection story?
  • How do we know Hell is real?

There is an afterlife and what you do here on earth DOES matter. Not only for today, but also for eternity. The question remains for all of us: are you going up or are you going down? The choice is yours, choose wisely!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Digging Up the Bible
Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt Trip

Download Transcript

/by

Why It Is Appropriate For God to Judge Us On Our Beliefs

For many atheists, no amount of argument will ever convince them that a loving God could consign any of his creation to Hell. I have often encountered this challenge, which usually sounds something like this:

 

“It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime. If they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man for believing the wrong thing. He would judge them instead by their actions.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide an answer to this challenge that is emotionally satisfying. After all, even for believers, the doctrine of Hell is difficult to accept, as it runs up against our innate inclinations. How easy it is for us to grade our own behavior on a curve, to forgive our transgressions, to lessen our own culpability, to view ourselves as “basically good.” When we see ourselves this way, we naturally conclude that God will see us this way too. It is only by resorting to Scripture – an “outside” view – that we can see clearly that a God who embodies justice must have a place of punishment for those who rebel against him.

Justice Demands It

Consider: Justice, in its most basic sense, involves the notion of rewarding good and punishing evil. We appreciate this intuitively, and even at a very young age. How jarring would it be for a student to be given detention for being attentive in class, or to receive a merit award for cheating on his final exam. No, punishment is meant for bad behavior. But in assessing the proper extent of punishment, we also consider the wrongdoer’s mental state, which of course is reflective of their beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices before committing the fatal act; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering what a person thinks and believes is indeed relevant to the question of consequences, especially if those beliefs have motivated bad behavior.

But the underlying mistake in the skeptic’s view is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for their beliefs, for not accepting the gospel.  They are, instead, condemned for their sinful behavior. Through their thoughts, words and actions, through the exercise of their free will, they repeatedly choose to violate God’s laws.

How should God respond to this?

Can God not just “let it go? Do nothing? After all, he created us this way, didn’t he? But if he simply accepts the repeated violation of his moral law, he could no longer be viewed as “just.” Imagine for a moment how one would view a judge who never imposes a sanction on someone who violates the law, no matter how often or how flagrant the violations are? Why would we expect God to be different? If he embodies perfect justice, and if he created us from nothing and made his law known to us, does it not stand to reason that there will be a consequence imposed on us for choosing to violate that law?

The Underlying Condition

The quoted challenge, then, is a bit like saying that the sick man died of “not believing in the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific underlying condition which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in his presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.

God Isn’t Impressed

The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. On this view, God should be grateful that we have acted in a way that pleased him. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress him. When we behave rightly, after all, we do what we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. Acting lawfully all of the time is rightly expected of us. By the same token, a person guilty of a serious crime cannot complain that his punishment is unfair, because he had been kind and generous to others in the past.

So, in the end, we find ourselves in a predicament. We use our free will to rebel against our Creator, but we want him to accept this rebellion, and us, with “no questions asked.” When God judges us, he finds us wanting in both our actions and our beliefs. But in his infinite goodness, he also provides the solution to our problem, a bridge that spans the divide that exists between us and him. This point bears emphasis: through his love and mercy, God provides the solution to our problem, if only we are willing to bend the knee and ask for that mercy.

There is nothing unfair in any of this.  In the end, we get what we choose. The bridge back to God, the one enabled by Jesus’ sacrifice when he walked the Earth, costs us nothing to cross, and is available to everyone.

But we must first want to cross it.

Recommended Resources: 

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

 

 

/by

3 More BIG Questions: Fine-tuning? Feeling God? Inerrancy?

Does the scientific evidence fall short of proving the fine-tuning of the universe? Should Christians regularly “feel God’s presence”? And since there are minor differences in the Gospels, does that disprove biblical inerrancy? In this midweek podcast episode, Frank tackles three more BIG questions from our listening audience along with questions like:

  • What are the 3 levels of fine-tuning and does it only occur here on planet Earth?
  • Can the fine-tuning argument alone actually prove Christianity is true? And can all truth be explained through science?
  • Where exactly are Heaven and Hell?
  • What’s the true meaning of Christmas?
  • Is loving God an emotion, a feeling, or a decision?
  • If God chooses not to reveal Himself to us is that proof that He doesn’t exist?
  • What’s a great question to ask your skeptic friends?

Have a question you’d like Frank to address in a future episode? Send it to hello[at]crossexamined.org, and stay tuned for Friday’s podcast to hear more about his recent trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Hollywood Heroes – https://bit.ly/3Or82Ax
BOOK: Stealing From God – https://bit.ly/41hLt91
BOOK: Decision Making and the Will of God – https://a.co/d/gQhMD3m
OCC Course: How to Interpret Your Bible – https://bit.ly/3BoEhxD
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 1 – https://bit.ly/3P0KW47
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 2 – https://bit.ly/3ZY3hVJ
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 3 – https://bit.ly/3ZzqOe8

/by

3 BIG Questions About Homosexuality, Human Flourishing, and Hell

How do you convince non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong without using the Bible? Does human flourishing replace the need for God and the moral argument? And why does God create people that He knows will end up in Hell?  In this week’s solo podcast episode, Frank tackles three BIG questions that were recently sent in from our listening audience. During this discussion, Frank shares some practical advice on how to address these sensitive topics along with questions like:

  • Should Christians be concerned about what people do privately?
  • How does natural marriage contribute to spiritual maturity?
  • Are morals biologically determined?
  • Does the existence of Hell prove that God is unjust?
  • What thought-provoking questions can you ask people who are in support of homosexuality?
  • Why doesn’t atheism solve the problem of evil?
  • What does the Bible say about divine justice?
  • How can pain and suffering possibly result in GOOD?

Brace yourself — this episode is not politically correct, but it will be correct! Be sure to grab a copy of ‘Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage & Transgenderism‘ and ‘Stealing from God‘ for more in-depth answers to these three BIG questions!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Toxic Empathy – https://www.toxicempathy.com/
BOOK: Correct Not Politically Correct – https://bit.ly/3qws2ZL
BOOK: Stealing From God – https://bit.ly/41hLt91
VIDEO: Frank and Alex O’Connor – https://youtu.be/qNeB1RVeJHo

/by

Where Rebellion Against God Leads

Imagine a time in the not-too-distant future. Trying to compensate for a declining population, scientists use advanced technology to build a “race” of robots, giving them not only human appearance and abilities, but also increasing amounts of AI. Things work smoothly in the short run, as the robots’ nearly limitless energy for work transforms Earth into a near paradise. But the programmers, seeking to give their creation a chance at true relationship with their human masters, give the robots freedom of will, grafting it on to their ability to think independently. Chaos soon ensues, as the robots rebel and rise up against the human population…

This is standard fare, of course, in science fiction circles. Shows like Battlestar Galactica explored the philosophical issues surrounding this scenario, and play out possible expected, and some unexpected, outcomes. Let’s do the same from a Christian standpoint.

How can a good God send anyone to hell?

A major stumbling block for non-Christians, and for many Christians as well, is the doctrine of Hell. How, they ask, can an “all-good” God consign his creation to a place of torment? Don’t we have a right to unending life, lived as we wish? Talking about rights like this flows readily from the American temperament. As beneficiaries of a system of ordered liberty, resorting to courts to settle our grievances, we seem to easily slip into thinking that man is autonomous, a force onto himself, with the unfettered right to advance his desire for control.

But though we resist thinking about this notion, we are in fact created beings. We did nothing to bring ourselves into existence and the basic equipment with which we experience the world was given to us at birth. However much we wish it were different, our aging bodies and tired souls remind us that that this good Earth is simply a waystation in a much longer journey. However much we assert our independence, exercise intelligence, and demand our “right” to do what we want, if we are honest with ourselves, we must realize that whatever brought us into existence may intend to reckon with us for what we have done while here. This creator may require an accounting.

Are we like robots, pots, and planes?

Most people who think through the implications of our contingent nature eventually realize that whatever did create us retains the right to do what he will with the fruit of his labor. After all, no one condemns the potter when he smashes the pot that does not meet his wishes, or the painter that slashes a painting if she so chooses. In the scenario depicted above, we realize that the programmers would be within their rights to “unplug” or otherwise disable their creation. Having made them, they retain the right to dispose of them, whether that be by putting them to forced labor or by dismantling them for parts. There is no moral outcry when, for example, the Air Force cannibalizes broken planes for parts that keep other planes flying.

But when we move to the arena of man and his Creator, our bias leads us to a totally different conclusion. But we are different, aren’t we? We think, and reason, and have free will that allows us to plan, to dream, to set goals. We form relationships that are meaningful to us. And most importantly, we feel. Pain is a constant threat and everyday companion. Does this not give us the right to do what we want?  Especially if we mean well and don’t want to “hurt” anyone? To be “good,” God must simply get out of our way and let us … what, be God?

Actually, He doesn’t. Nothing changes in this analysis when the creatures under consideration are human beings. Having formed us from nothing, God can do what he wants with us. In fact, it appears that in the natural order of things, God has established rules that we violate at our peril, so that what he wants for us can be seen not only in his Revelation, but in the natural law. What changed is our perspective. Our bias in wanting our way is what leads us to cry foul when God’s created order bumps up against our plans and desires. As in the Garden of Eden, modern man insists not on serving God, but on replacing him… or displacing him, at the very least. Insistent on having our way, we see God as a nuisance, or worse yet, the enemy. We shake our fist at him, insisting that he move out of our way, and that he justify himself to us.

We’re supposed to relate to God on His terms

Unlike the robot analogy, God does not fear us or where our freedom may take us. We present no threat to him. But that does not mean that he must accept us into his fellowship, for to do so would be inconsistent with his holy nature. So, he reveals himself to us in a way which, though substantial, is not overwhelming. By adhering to that balance, he provides enough evidence of his reality without overcoming our freedom to choose to ignore him. Most importantly, he provides a way for us to reunite with him, but on his terms. That many people will use this freedom to remain in rebellion is not something for which he must explain.

None of this is easy for us to fully comprehend or to accept. Set in our rebellion, without God taking the initiative, all would be lost. But when we insist that God must bend to our will, that our freedom to choose must be accepted by him despite his contrary view, well, then we are living outside the order which God has created. And in the end, he can – and will – do what he, in his wisdom, deems right.

Better for us to begin to see this clearly than to persist in the notion that we can imagine God out of existence. He may seem largely hidden to us, but he is there.

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

The Danger of Promising Universal Salvation

,

If you’re going to contend that universalism is true, i.e., the belief that everyone will eventually end up in heaven, then you best beware of the consequences of doing so.

Evacuating a Dying Planet

To illustrate. Imagine you live on a planet called Elpis (in Greek this means “hope” or “expectation”). You have been tasked with evacuating your entire civilization to another planet because of a life-threatening emergency. Due to an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere, ELPIS has limited time before there’s not enough oxygen to sustain life. So, you are developing a plan to transfer your fellow residents, via spaceships, to a safer environment. You’ve chosen a planet called Earth as your destination and have already been in touch with the humans there. The earthlings are happy to accommodate the immigrants from Elpis.

The people of Earth, like the residents of Elpis, cannot exist without air. And experts on both planets have stressed to you that, in transit from Elpis to Earth, there is no air in outer space. So, you have naturally acquired a large supply of pressurized air tanks for use in the passage to Earth. Your preparations seem to be proceeding smoothly, and you think you’re just about able to breathe a sigh of relief.

The “Myth” of Airlessness

But then a new emergency arises. Just days before your planetwide launch to remove your fellow citizens from Elpis, a new book comes out entitled Relax, There’s Room to Breathe: Deconstructing the Myth of an Airless Outer Space. The book skyrockets to the top of the planet’s bestsellers lists. By the thousands, Elpis residents toss away their air tanks as they prepare to leave for their new environment.

Lives are on the line. The deception is costly. You must respond. What will you do?

Would it not be unthinkable to say nothing?

Awake yet?

Let’s wake up from our dream. This is not Elpis. This is worse. We face a life-threatening situation. We’re not running out of oxygen on Earth. In fact, the crisis is even more serious. Today we’ve got people inside and outside the church ready to hold out an offer of universal salvation. Not only are the consequences of doing so catastrophic, but there’s not a scintilla of biblical evidence to back this claim up. Any attempts to do so is to reject the broader overall context of Scripture. When it comes to heaven, everyone will not end up there and neither are there many pathways leading to its destination. No, the way is narrow. We need air to breath there. And Jesus is the Air we must all inhale to arrive in heaven someday. To promise any other way, besides the Jesus way is to hold out false hope. In the end, Jesus is our only Elpis.

“Salvation is found in no one else,
for there is no other name under heaven
given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12 (NIV)

 

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by

Why We Praise God

Christian apologists are accustomed to dealing with the “straw man” fallacy. This is where the skeptic paints a false picture of a theistic position, making it easier to ridicule or defeat, and then concludes, triumphantly, that his skeptical view prevails. But not every challenge that misstates our views is intentional. At times, the challenger simply fails to grasp what it is that Christianity holds.

Take for instance the doctrine of Hell – the concept of eternal punishment. Many atheists take this doctrine as evidence that primitive men invented Christianity to control others by threat of eternal punishment. They then reject Christianity because they believe that any God who would punish someone for “failing to worship him properly” would be unworthy of worship. I have heard this argument presented a variety of ways, but common among them is an accusation that the God of the Bible is some kind of “petty egomaniac” whose ego we need to ceaselessly stroke to avoid eternal damnation. Let’s take a look at what is being missed in this challenge and how we might respond.

Is God an Egomaniac?

It is simply mistaken to assert that God “requires ego stroking,” because such a view completely misses God’s true nature. The term “ego” refers to self-esteem and can be defined as “somebody’s idea of his or her own importance or worth, usually of an appropriate level” or it can mean something more pejorative, as in “an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a feeling of superiority to other people.” Either way, the term cannot be applied logically to God. God does not lack any knowledge, including self-knowledge. He doesn’t have an “idea” of his worth; quite the contrary, he “knows” with certainty that he has infinite worth. He can’t have an “exaggerated” sense of self-importance because one cannot add to infinity. He literally is the most important, amazing, immense … you name the superlative… being possible. To the extent that he feels superior to his creation, it is because, well, He is. His knowledge of that fact is not arrogance; it is instead factual.

Human Beings are Egomaniacs

There is a likely cause for this inability to see God clearly. Too many people today focus far too much on their own egos, and their own wants and desires and needs. In so doing, they forget that they are not God but are instead created, and therefore, lesser beings. Nonetheless, they crave recognition, and they desire others to see them at their best and to laud them; isn’t that what most social media platforms are set up to do? In contrast to us flawed mortal beings, God actually deserves recognition for what He is, for such recognition is an accurate reflection of the way reality is. Consider: I naturally recognize when someone or something is “superior” to me; I naturally feel awe and a desire to praise something excellent, outstanding, virtuous, awesome. That’s why people like to watch the Olympics, because of that sense of awe generated when a superior athlete performs. Awe is the natural reaction to witnessing greatness.

   “Awe is the natural reaction to witnessing greatness.”

We feel that emotion even if we don’t particularly like the person who is performing so well. For example, a beautifully executed soccer goal still inspires awe even if your favorite team’s rival scored it to win the game. Since God embodies not just “greatness” but utter perfection, it is indeed appropriate for us to acknowledge Him; this acknowledgement, naturally, finds its expression in praise and worship. Responding this way is the correct response not because God somehow needs or desires it (He is a perfect being after all and therefore has no “needs”), but because our refusal to accurately assess him hurts us. In other words, knowing this reality about God but nonetheless rejecting him means we are living a lie, that we are trying to defy the natural order of things. This harms us, not God, because at a most elemental level we need to accurately view and understand reality to remain safe within it. We avoid, for example, stepping off tall buildings because we understand that gravity works a certain way. Our survival requires us to accurately assess the things that are going on around us and not pretend that they are something else.

Worship is an Accurate Report on God’s Value

As Christians, we therefore praise and worship God because we accurately see him. This response to our creator is quite simply the fitting and due response to the fact of his perfection. To deny this – to ignore God’s centrality – is to live a lie, no different than refusing to believe that the laws of nature exist.

How does this relate then to the doctrine of hell? Well, we don’t pray or “ego stroke” our way out of eternal separation from God. Salvation is a gift from God, one available for us to accept, just as eternal separation from God is a choice we make. Consider how justice works: a person who spends his life rebelling against authority, and insisting on doing whatever he pleases, following no rules other than what he wishes to do, will eventually find himself in jail. He will have identified himself as someone who cannot handle freedom, who cannot live in society, for he does not respect what it entails. He will find himself alone and separated. But this separation will have been his own fault, based on his insistence on doing things his way. It will not be because he failed to say the right things to the sovereign, but because the just response to rebellion is punishment and separation.

We see this as human beings, though our sight is far from perfect. A perfect God sees our choices and actions with perfect clarity. We can’t talk our way out of the consequences of our choices, but thankfully God does provide a way for us to be saved… if we will only open ourselves to receiving it.


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

How Much Punishment Is Enough?

,

Many people reject the possibility of an eternal Hell because they feel that “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.” Some atheists focus on this perceived inequality between the sins we commit here on Earth and the unending punishment we face in the life to come. One skeptic framed the challenge this way:

“God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God’s sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them.” [1]

The challenger contends that a “limited” offense does not warrant unlimited – eternal – punishment. Such punishment, he concludes, would constitute a greater injustice than the “mere mortal lifetime of sin.” For many people, including perhaps a majority of believers, this argument is accepted uncritically. But upon closer examination, it is apparent that the conclusion the challenger draws is based upon a misunderstanding of what “just” punishment entails.

Who is the crime against?

The first step in the analysis must be to consider the nature of the “sovereign” against whom the crime is committed. If I commit a crime in California, state authorities in Colorado could not impose punishment. Their laws have not been broken. To be just, the laws of the sovereign should be made known. Although ignorance of the law is not an excuse, a fair system makes known its laws, so that they can have the intended effect: to shape behavior by encouraging the good and discouraging the bad. State authorities are by nature limited and flawed, and the laws they enact reflect that they cannot, and therefore do not, expect perfection.

But who is the lawmaker that can sentence us to this “eternal” punishment? It is, of course, an eternal being, and more importantly, an eternal being who embodies and comprises perfection. That he would separate himself from a creation in rebellion is hardly unjust. And if separation from God is in fact the “hell” of which we speak – the agony of seeing but not being able to experience the joy of his presence – then those who reject his gift are in store for an eternity of this experience. This is not a sentencing choice that a capricious lawmaker has conjured up, but the necessary consequence of both living eternally and being eternally separated from the source of perfection.

Compounding offenses

When a jurisdiction enacts “three strikes” legislation, the sovereign makes known that there are offenses which carry with them a punishment of life imprisonment – separation for the rest of one’s life from the society that has been victimized by the offender’s behavior. In some such jurisdictions, the third strike might be a relatively minor offense, one that on its own would not merit such a sentence, but coming as it does after a series of more serious violations, it tips the scales in such a way that this conclusion – that permanent separation from society is warranted – becomes just. It is the appropriate response to an offender who has established that he or she refuses to conform to the requirements of the law and has run out of chances.

One sin would have been enough?

Re-examining the challenger’s conclusion in light of these reflections reveals what is at play: the challenger has ignored the fact that a single offense, committed against an eternal and perfect being, is sufficient to justify separation from him. But of course it is worse than that, for we humans in rebellion have racked up sin upon sin, offense upon offense. But, the challenger complains, is there no proportionality between the offense and the type of punishment? Can’t God come up with a lighter punishment?

But why not a lighter punishment?

Again, this misunderstands the nature of the problem. God is not devising ever more wicked ways of inflicting punishment on us, hoping to make hell as torturous a place as possible. The punishment of hell is, simply, the natural consequence – the byproduct – of being separated from God. God does nothing more than that, but unfortunately for us, this is experienced as unending torment.

Finally, God embodies infinite perfection, so rather than sinning against another human being, who himself has flaws and needs forgiveness, these offenses are against a being who is infinitely holy. Considered this way, eternal separation from God starts to make a bit more sense. The good news, of course, is that God is also infinitely merciful. Knowing that we cannot solve this problem on our own, He solved it for us and made that salvation available to everyone. Perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfectly balanced, providing a truly just and elegant solution to our problem.

Did God make people sin?

But what of the challenger’s further indictment of God for creating imperfect human beings and then punishing them for being imperfect? This conclusion also rests on faulty reasoning. God created beings with free will and each of us chooses to use our free will to defy him. As the creator, he has the right to respond to that rebellion, by separating himself from us. Consider how you might react if you built a robot to clean the bathroom and it eventually refused, claiming that it wished to be served rather than to serve. You could easily unplug or disassemble it, because as its creator you would have that prerogative. So too with God.

We get what we deserve – eternal separation from the source of life, goodness and joy – because we continually choose to focus on what we want rather than submit our will to him. Rather than condemning God for this, the smarter move is to thank him for also providing us the solution.

Endnotes

[1] Edwina Monfort, “Is God Perfet and Just” Blogspot, 21 Dec 2011 at: https://edwinamonfort.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-god-perfect-and-just.html


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Is Hell An Eternal Restraining Order?

,

By Al Serrato

Making sense of the existence of a place like Hell is a common struggle for the Christian apologist. Almost immediately, we are placed on the defensive, being asked to justify how a “loving” God could condemn any of his creation to a place of constant, and eternal, torment. I’ve often heard the challenge brought like this: “Isn’t God’s love for us like that of a parent? Can you imagine any loving parent ever wishing, or wanting, such extreme punishment for their own child?”

The answer, of course, is no. No parent would delight in tormenting his children. And neither does God. But just as human parents must sometimes resort to court orders to keep their children away, so too does God employ the equivalent of an eternal “restraining order.” Though not intended this way by the atheist, the analogy to parental love actually works against the challenger’s case, because it makes clear the need for enforced separation to be imposed even in the context of what was originally intended as a loving relationship.

Sometimes Children Victimize Their Parents

Everyday throughout this country, there are parents who are being victimized by their children. In many cases, the children want something that the parent is not able, or willing, to give. Often, the abuse consists of verbal or physical assaults or of some form of theft, and many times the problem is fueled by an underlying drug or alcohol addiction. In many such cases, the abused parents seek assistance from the police and the courts to have their offspring restrained from contacting them. For most, this final step is heartbreaking, but it is often the last resort, the only means by which the parent can safeguard his or her wellbeing. In some, more extreme, cases, the parent’s testimony in court might contribute to a criminal conviction which will land the son or daughter in prison, sometimes for life. The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.

“The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.”

If this causes the offspring pain, that pain is not “intended” by the parent; it is, instead, an unavoidable consequence of the path set in motion by the offender.

How Does This Analogy Apply to God?

Applying this analogy to an eternal setting has its drawbacks. God, of course, cannot be victimized. He has no fear of us, and no need to incarcerate us in order to protect himself. But does he not have the same right to association that we do? When a person uses his or her free will to rebel against God, God is not required to ignore that rebellion. Indeed, if God truly is a perfect being, embodying perfect justice, he could not simply ignore it and remain true to his nature. For God to maintain perfect justice, he must attach an appropriate consequence to violations of his law. On earth, that justice often involves incarcerating the wrongdoer, to both punish the offender and to minimize his ability to continue to use his free will to harm others. Similarly, God makes use of his power to separate those who refuse to accept the gift of life that he offers, an offer, it bears noting, he makes on his terms only

Consider Eternity

For those who have died in rebellion, no further chance is offered them. Eternally “restrained” from fellowship with God, they experience eternity aware of all that they have lost. Consider for a moment what eternal separation from God must be like. Despite the effort by so many to pile up money and toys and success in this world, these things do not make life rich or fulfilling. All the riches and success in the world would mean nothing if a person were utterly alone. No, such things are simply means to an end, an end which always involves relationship with others. That is why solitary confinement is so destructive to the human mind and spirit. In the end, it is human companionship – rich and meaningful relationships – that brings joy in life. Conversely, the loss of such attachments often lead to depression, alcohol and drug use to blunt the pain, and in some cases suicide.

Every relationship on earth, however satisfying, necessarily involves a flawed human being that is not capable of bringing limitless joy. Additionally, while we still draw breath, the possibility of adding new relationships continues. What happens to us, however, at death? What do we encounter when we see more clearly, for the first time, the One who created us, the source of all life, the Being who embodies all perfections? Every person on earth is but a mere shadow of this ultimate Being. When we begin to consider the joy we feel when deeply in love, or conversely the agony brought on by the loss of a loved one, and multiply that experience not by millions or billions, but by infinity itself, we may begin to see why human writers, even divinely inspired ones, cannot quite grasp the horror of the thought. A lake of fire would seem tame by contrast.

But this place of suffering is internal, self-centered, self-focused. An eternity of caring only about oneself, apart and alone and without hope of reunification with the source of joy and love. It is not a place where God inflicts torture, but rather one in which infinite torment awaits on the far side of the abyss. God derives no pleasure when he acts to restrain an unrepentant sinner. Indeed, he provides an alternative – a means of salvation – to all.

For those who refuse His gift, they will have only themselves – literally, and eternally – to blame.  

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) | Frank Turek

Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) | Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) | Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by