I don’t know if there’s any element of Christianity which is more unpopular and unpalatable than the doctrine of hell. And I think this could be said for both Christians and non-Christians alike. I would agree with C. S. Lewis who wrote that there is no other doctrine of Christianity which he’d be more desirous to do away with than the teaching of the eternal lostness of some people in hell. The notion that even one of the billions of immortal human beings will not become in eternity who he or she was intended to be is the one of the greatest of all possible tragedies. It would not be so grave a tragedy if we were like mere animals or some inanimate thing such as a tree. But since we are made in the image of God, and are destined to be fully restored to that image by being transformed into the image of Jesus, to fall short of that destiny is disaster and heartbreak of the highest degree. Nevertheless, the Bible (and more specifically, Jesus) taught the reality of hell and so we are forced to accept its existence.Â
The Bible has much to say about hell as it employs many pungent images in its description of it. Among its descriptions is the teaching that hell will be a punishment to those who have rejected God’s self-revelation. Now this idea of punishment may be what we object to most stringently. Does it really seem consistent with God’s infinitely loving character to eternally punish those who do not love Him? We might get the idea that God is like a short-tempered, abusive father who while He may be patient for a time, He eventually blows up and just goes too far. We might even come to the conclusion that He relishes His “right†to unload consequences upon those who don’t serve Him. After all, isn’t that what “punishment†is?Â
Two Meanings of “Punishmentâ€
The word “punishment†can be ambiguous. It actually has two different meanings. It can be used to refer to the punishment of “positive law†as well as to the punishment of “natural law.â€Â What’s the difference?
Positive Law & Natural Law
Positive law refers to rules and their consequences which are sort of tacked onto behaviors. Examples of positive law are the rule of speed limits and the punishments which accompany them. While it might be the law that you can’t drive over 45 mph on Timberline Road it could have been different. It just as easily could have been 35 or 55 mph, or there could have not been any speed limit at all. Therefore, the exact speed limit is contrived or artificial. In the same way, so are its consequences. We might decide that those who break this positive law of the speed limit should pay $50 or $5,000. Or we may decide that they should lose their licenses or do jail time. Similarly, when my child does something wrong, I may enforce the positive law of time out, the loss of use of something, a hand slap, or maybe even a tempered spanking. These laws and punishments are not necessary to the behavior.Â
Natural law is quite different. Suppose I tell my child that if he eats too much of the unbaked cookie dough on the counter while I am away from the kitchen there will be consequences. I may mean that I will enforce the positive law of not allowing him to have any more cookies once they are baked. Or, I could be referring to the adverse affects of that dough rising and expanding in his stomach and making him feel sick. The latter is natural law. Natural law tells us that if we drive too fast or recklessly down a busy freeway we are likely to get into an accident and be seriously injured even killed. If we engage in promiscuous sex with a number of different people we are likely to contract STDs. These consequences are not tacked onto the behavior but are simply their unavoidable results.Â
Hell as the Natural End of Turning From God
As stated in the first paragraph above, the Bible talks much about humanity being made in the image of God. It tells us that God is the ultimate and infinite Source of all that is good, true, and beautiful. And it tells us that the human machine was made to run on the fuel of God’s own self. Given this explanation, now imagine what it would mean to reject God. To say “No†to God is to get just that—no God. Yet, when we lose God, we also lose all those things of which He is the Source—truth, goodness, beauty, etc. So, it’s no good asking for meaning, happiness, or pleasure apart from God. Because we are made in the image of God we can find them nowhere else than in Him. Remember, Jesus doesn’t claim to merely know where to find life’s direction, life’s truth, and life’s means of flourishing. Instead, he claims to be these things—“I am the way and the truth and the life†(Jn 14:6).Â
Bertrand Russell, the famed atheist of the past century, remarked that as far as he could tell the most significant flaw in Jesus’ moral character was the fact that he believed in and taught “a doctrine of crueltyâ€â€”hell (Why I Am Not A Christian, “The Moral Problemâ€). Russell assumed that if there were a God, it would be the height of pettiness for Him to send someone to hell simply for getting one of life’s questions wrong (“Does God exist?â€). In so arguing, Russell betrays a misunderstanding of the punishment of hell as seen as a positive law—something which would be tacked onto a mere wrong belief. And if we’re not careful, like Russell, we can begin to think of Heaven and hell and the consequences as being like getting a question either right of wrong on a type of multiple choice test. And we dare not miscommunicate to seekers a God who is concerned with the trivial. For the God of the Bible is anything but petty.Â
Russell’s conception of the consequences of our response to God is a far cry from what Christians mean when we talk about Heaven or hell. C. S. Lewis wrote that God will, in the end, say to each one of us, either, “Thy will be done,†or “My will be done†(for that is what each of us will have been saying to God throughout our lives). God will honor the lifelong pursuit of either self-rule or God-rule which we will have integrated into the whole of our beings. Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft has noted that the skeptic objects to hell because the punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime. However, as Kreeft so cogently states, from a biblical perspective, the crime is the punishment. What else could we call an existence of turning away from the Source of all that is good, true, and beautiful, and turning in upon and shut up within one’s self if not “hell�
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What are other misconceptions about the biblical doctrine of hell which are popular?
2. Some think that hell will be the complete absence of God’s presence. Others think that God will be fully present in hell but will be detestable to those who have become haters of God. What do you think?
3. If those in communion with God in Heaven will experience the perfecting and completing of their humanity, how will existence in hell be its reverse?
RECOMMENDED READING:
Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (see Ch. 12: “Hellâ€).
12 Comments on “Must there be punishment in hell?”
Is the above blog saying that the natural law of the universe would lead a person who rebels against God to hell, naturally? In other words, rejecting God throughout life leads to the absence of God in death and eternity. So, once again, we see the natural law of “sewing and reaping.”
I think the problems people have with hell have to do with the fact that a loving God and a punishing hell seem incompatible. However, could we say that God is actually giving those in rebellion against Him WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT if they are in hell? That is, they don’t want to be in God’s presence, so this is where they spend eternity.
This is my understanding. What do others think?
I do not want to go to hell. However, it doesn’t make any sense for me to pursue a relationship with God because I don’t believe God exists. What I believe is different from what I want. The fact that I don’t leap off of tall buildings should not be taken as evidence that I don’t want to fly.
I am also not “turning in upon and shut up within [my]self.” I pursue relationships with others through service and a find a connection with the universe through scientific study. Every atheist I know is likewise committed to serving others. Serving God and serving one’s self aren’t the only choices.
Gavin,
Im a little confused by your comment. Are you saying you believe in hell, but not God? Also, I would ask that although you and your friends are committed to serving others, ( which I think is GREAT) are you not ultimately doing it for yourself?
Dan,
No, I don’t believe in hell or any afterlife. I just want to make it clear that God would not be giving me “what I actually want” by sending me to hell, as Paul claims.
I serve others for them, not for myself. I have quite a few things that I’d like to do for myself that I have put on hold so I can do things for other people.
Gavin,
By not believing in God, which is your choice, you are getting “what you actually want.” As Paul points out, this is precisely what hell is- separation from God for eternity. I spent over ten years away from God, and I can tell you (especially now that I’ve found my way back to Him) that it is an empty place. It’s definitely not somewhere I would like to be for eternity.
The beauty of your statement, “I serve others for them, not for myself” is that Jesus lived his life in the same manner- as evidenced in Matthew 20:28 (NIV)
“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
I’m curious… what is your opinion of Jesus? Do you see him as simply a prolific leader of his time or something greater?
Sam (or Paul),
Do you see the difference between wanting something to be true and believing something to be true? That is the only distinction I am trying to make. I want to have a million dollars, but I do not believe that I have a million dollars. I want to have a loving God who can explain quantum gravity to me, but I do not believe that I have a loving God who can explain quantum gravity to me. I choose not to believe in God, but it is a choice based on study, not on desire.
I think it is insulting to say that atheists don’t believe because they don’t want to believe, as if we were in some sort of emotionally driven denial. It is equally insulting to say that Christians believe just because they want to, as if faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. The debate is trivialized when we accuse the other side of being driven by wants rather than evidence.
Jesus is a great teacher and example of how to live a life of service and purpose in a hostile world. I continue to read the Bible for both guidance and inspiration.
Gavin,
I understand the difference between wanting something to be true and believing something to be true, however, I choose to believe in God because of what I’ve studied. Take the Bible and its depiction of Jesus for example. The chances of Jesus fulfilling just 48 of the prophecies in the Old Testament are astronomical- approximately 1 in 10157 (a one followed by 157 zeros). While some would claim that this was either coincidental or possibly even staged, there is a great book (written by a former atheist) titled The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. I find it pretty hard to refute that men not only predicted several milestones in Jesus’ life, but that every single one was fulfilled (there are over 300).
Believing in a concept such as God cannot be compared to something as concrete as you believing you are a millionaire. God is something that is not tangible like money, is not measurable in weight, and is more infinite than our minds can comprehend.
We know that infinity exists, but can it truly be defined? By that, I mean, can we actually attach an actual number to it? Forgive my ignorance in this subject as it is not my forte. Would you agree that it is a value that human minds cannot actually comprehend? It is boundless, yet we know that it exists. Enough has been written about God in the Bible alone and evidenced by miracles which cannot be explained that I choose to believe in a God which my human brain cannot comprehend.
I’m sorry if you find my rationale insulting. That is not my intent. I don’t find it insulting at all that I have faith- because first I believed (again after not believing for quite some time), then I sought more information. I agree with you as I look to the Bible for guidance and inspiration- in fact, one of my favorite scriptures is below:
Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
and even better…
Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.
I hope to continue the discussion.
Shane
Gavin and Shane,
Your comments on wanting/desiring God to exist might merit a little more discussion. Since it’s a little more involved that what I can write now, give me a little time to write up a new blog. I’d like to post an argument for God’s existence from desire, and hear back from you.
Shane,
Thank you for offering evidence for the existence of God. Your points are reasonable and worthy of consideration, I look forward to Brent’s as well. However, I am addressing a different, very specific issue.
I am only disputing this statement:
In fact, I am getting what I actually believe, not what I actually want. I think this is an important distinction.
Gavin,
I would like to invite you to a class discusion of the book ” The Question of God” in which the views and lives of Christian C.S. Lewis and atheist Sigmund Freud are compared. Topis include: God, pain and suffering, happiness, death, and the meaning of life, etc. See weekend classes at 11:30 Sundays on this site for more info. You can email me at michaelanderson1@comcast.net with any questions. I hope to see you there.
Michael
Hi Gavin,
As I read this thread it makes me think of a book that Brent recommended called “Between Heaven and Hell” by Peter Kreeft. I read it last night in a couple of hours. It is the conversation that Kreeft imagines taking place between C.S. Lewis, JFK, and Aldous Huxley who all died with in hours of each other. It is extremely readable and stimulating. In particular, it explores how these three men might respond to the notion of Jesus as great moral teacher and example of how to live life. There is so much more to the book, but this is what caught my eye reading the blog. I would be happy to loan it to you in the same way that we did your book. I can leave it on your front step in a plastic bag if you like.
I see Gavin’s distinction, in 9 above, between one’s wants and one’s believes as being reasonable, i.e. logical, as well as being helpful and accurately reflecting how we function and operate as humans. Our wants, needs, and desires may or may not result or be associated with any one belief or set of beliefs, which infers that they may or may not be associated, as well. Vice versa, a belief or set of beliefs may or may not be associated with any want, need, or desire. Freud held that our religious beliefs were a result of some of our subconscious needs, albeit resulting in adopting the illusion of God. It seems that beliefs may interact with our wants, needs, or desires, any one being able to cause, reinforce, or alter the other. If we believe in God, that belief may result in additional wants, needs, or desires; alternatively, one’s wants, needs, or desires may, as Freud posits, cause or have some effect on a belief. Since having a belief is not necessarily associated with a want, need, or desire, then having a belief that God doesn’t exist is only necessarily related to any consequence or result of having that belief, as opposed to a want, need, or desire. By not believing in God, Gavin can only be getting what he believes, unless one wants to use the circular and unproductive reasoning that we believe whatever it is that we want to believe. This actually is a fairly meaningless statement. All this is to say that one, by not believing in God, gets what he believes necessarily and only possibly gets what he wants. Gavin might want heaven, if it existed. But since he believes it doesn’t exist, he can’t want it.
The Freud – Lewis class should be interesting!