53 Sermon Illustrations on Universalism

Indian Christian evangelist Sadhu Sundar Singh was once told in England that his mother, a saintly Sikh, was in hell because she had not been a Christian. Sadhu's eyes flashed with indignation.

"If I cannot find my mother in heaven, I will ask God to send me

down to hell so that I may be with her there."

Modern efforts to evade implications of hell.

Scripture affirms three things:

1. Reality of hell.

2. Certainty of hell.

3. Justice of hell.

Dilemma: good pagans, far-off nations that haven't heard gospel?

Mixed answers from Christians:

1. All un-believers go to hell.

2. "Good pagans" will go to heaven. (Socrates, Plato)

3. Universal salvation of infants.

4. "Baptism of desire" (RCC): those who are ignorant of gospel, but eagerly

seek God, will be saved. [C.S. Lewis was partial to this.]

5. Arminians - saving grace is available in principle to all, even those who

have not heard gospel message.

6. Calvinists (some) - God saves a certain number of unevangelized adults,

through general revelation alone.

7. Karl Barth - in Christ crucified, all condemned, and in Christ risen, all

humanity elected and justified. (Though Barth resisted universalism.)

[This is now standard view among Protestants.]

Pressure points:

1. Pastoral pressure - we rub shoulders with non-believers every day.

Secular media conditions us (and especially children) against belief.

2. Theological pressure - upsurge of Islam.

Christ found in other faiths?

But why change religions if they are Christians in disguise?

3. Strategic pressure - Protestant split on missions.

Evangelical view: first evangelize, then relieve needs. [Lausanne]

Liberal view: first meet needs (seek justice, peace, prosperity), then

engage in dialogue with non-Christians, third, nurture Christians

and extend church - if there is time, which there often isn't.

[WCC conference at Bangkok - "Salvation Today"]

Ultimate optimism:

Universalism is a comforting belief.

Hell is real, but has no tenants.

All will eventually bow to Christ.

Second chance in hell?

Hell is not ultimate state. It ends up empty.

Counterarguments:

No biblical passage unambiguously asserts universal final salvation.

1. It ignores the biblical stress on the decisiveness and finality of this

life's decisions.

2. It condemns Christ, making him incompetent or immoral (bluffing people

into heaven through fear).

3. It raises new problems. Why give second chance in hell? Why not redeem

everyone in this life? If God can't do it here, how can we know he

will do it there? Its doctrine of God is incoherent.

4. Can we give ourselves the luxury of believing in a second chance?

"I dare not say to myself that if I forfeit the opportunity this life

affords I shall ever have another; and therefore I dare not say so to

another man." James Denney.

Universalism does not work. Proclaiming salvation as primary in mission is

necessary.

Paul: "I am under obligation..."

Sight for all

Can God use general revelation?

Peter - "In every nation anyone who fears him is acceptable." Acts 10:35.

Paul - "God did not leave himself without a witness." Acts 14:17.

It might be true that general revelation can reach some (especially for some OT characters). These would learn of Christ's death in heaven. But we have

no warrant to expect that God will act in this way in any single case. God will deal with them. Our job is to spread the gospel.

Punt, a Christian Reformed pastor, believes all are elect in Christ except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be lost. Most Christians believe all are outside Christ except those expressly declared to be saved. Punt gets support from Hodge. Original sin does not put us outside Christ; they must also reject God's revelation to them. They are lost by their own willful decision. The Bible does not teach that God destines people to hell. Infants are saved because they do not willfully reject Christ. The "good" in the good news is emphasized.

Motive for missions is joy, and the message is salvation. We should treat all people as the children of God.

The World Conference on Mission and Evangelization at San Antonio in May, 1989, focused on the uniqueness of Christ. The director, Eugene Stockwell, waffled by implying Jesus is one voice among many. Two recent books openly question the absolute finality and normativity of Christ. Wesley Ariarajah, director a a WCC subunit, wrote that he found the absolute claims that some Christians make for Christ to be "the greatest, single hindrance to witness."

However Leslie Newbingen argues that the uniqueness, decisiveness and centrality of Jesus Christ is historic "fact" rather than subjective value. If the WCC doubts this, "it would become an irrelevance in the spiritual struggle that lies ahead of us." Delegate after delegate challenged any notion of universalism or syncretism.

#1091

*

Christians in an increasingly pluralistic society must face the dilemma of other religions. Chapman feels salvation is through Christ only, but God does

reveal himself in other faiths. Universalism is discussed, and a side article deals with the status of those who have never heard the gospel, like the "heathen in darkest Africa."

The Old Testament prophets spent most of their time pointing out the consequences of behavior. Another name they gave to bad consequences was “wrath.” The gospel, however, emphasizes love and forgiveness. Jesus did not exclude sinners, but only self-righteous hypocrites. Eventually there will be a judgment day of eternal exclusion. Modern society must emphasize consequences and the church must emphasize God’s grace. These are two distinct functions.

As a pastor for many years I discovered there were certain things that were extremely difficult to do. It was difficult when I had to tell young women (or men) in the churches I served that I could not perform their wedding if they insisted on marrying an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:14).

I also found it particularly difficult to carry the news of a sudden or accidental death to the spouse or family of the deceased loved one. It was likewise painful to see promising church members wreck their lives through wrong choices. It was difficult to see bright high school students go off to college and have their faith shattered by the insidious teachings of liberal and humanistic professors.

However, one of the most difficult things I ever had to do as a pastor was conduct funeral services for those who had never professed faith in Christ or who never lived out their once-professed faith. And I had to do it on many occasions –- probably many more times than I even realized.

It happens like this: a grieving widow would call and say with a broken heart and with tears in her voice, “Pastor, my husband had a heart attack last night and we took him to the hospital, but he was dead on arrival. I can’t believe it has happened, but we need your help. I know he was not a church member, but we would like for you to preach his funeral.”

What does a pastor say to an understandably emotional woman who has not even yet come to grips with the dimensions of her loss? You do the only reasonable and respectable thing you can do and respond in the affirmative.

A visit is typically made to the home of the deceased to console the bereaved and get some information in order to write the funeral message. In the process of gathering information it is obvious that the woman’s departed husband never professed faith in Christ.

In certain cases a pastor may be called upon to conduct the funeral for an individual who may have joined a church years earlier, but never gave any indication of being born again or that Christ was vitally important to him.

In either case some pastors are torn between integrity and compassion and in an effort to add comfort to the family they become universalists -– giving the family some hope that their loved one may have been granted eternal life by a gracious and benevolent God. Universalism is the belief that there will be a universal reconciliation between humanity and the divine and that God is too good to send anyone to hell.

We have all heard eulogies ushering celebrities, politicians, athletes and entertainers into heaven who in some cases were as far from that celestial city as a downtown tomcat is from Home Life magazine.

Judy Garland attained international stardom, but died in 1969 in London, England, at 47 years of age. The coroner stated at the inquest that she died from “an incautious self-overdosage” of barbiturates.

She had been married five times, lived a life of promiscuity and was certainly not known for her Christian faith. However, at her funeral the Rev. Peter A. Delaney, of Marylebone Church in London, gave her a Christian eulogy in a 20-minute Episcopal service. Mourners sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and 1 Corinthians 13 was read.

Years later, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam, committed suicide by hanging herself. Her suicide earlier this year came as she was facing prison time for money laundering and racketeering charges in connection to what prosecutors described as a high-end prostitution ring whose clients included members of Washington’s political and social elite.

In a suicide note left to her sister, Palfrey stated, “Know I am at peace, with complete certainty, I believe Dad is standing watch -- prepared to guide me into the light.”

On her blog Gina de Vries wrote a eulogy for Palfrey, stating:

I always do what Nana (Franscesa, my great-grandmother) taught me

to do when grieving –- light candles, say prayers, cook a meal

for friends, buy some flowers if I can find them fresh, set up an

altar. Wish the person well on their way home.

Deborah, I hope you get there with ease and peace. I’m sorry

your way out of this world was so rocky, that you were not

treated with the grace and graciousness that every human being

deserves,” de Vries wrote. “I’m praying that Franscesa –- or

someone very like her –- is there to greet you with a meal, some

flowers, and some sweetness on the other side.

I am not judging Judy Garland or Deborah Jeane Palfrey and hope somehow they were redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, but Garland’s Christian funeral and Palfrey’s eulogy seem to be lacking reality.

In actual fact, a funeral service is not for the deceased. It is primarily for the family and friends; and while a Christian minister may be called upon to conduct the service, he must not be guilty of suggesting that the unredeemed will inherit eternal life. To do so is to be disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

If a pastor is true to the Word of God, he cannot change or minimize the Bible’s warning that the consequence of unbelief is condemnation (John 3:18).

To suggest or hint that someone who has never been saved is somehow headed for heaven does nothing but confuse the mourners and give the false impression that one can go to heaven without trusting in Christ who is the only way to God (John 14:6).

The carefully-crafted remarks of a Christian minister can convey the Gospel message of hope and certainty to those who need it most.

________

J. Gerald Harris is editor of the Christian Index, online at ChristianIndex.com

*

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #2900]

My Source:

THE MANSLICK ROAD SPEAKER

Vol 38, #10

October 1998

4724 E. Manslick Road

Louisville, KY 40219

..............................

Author: Frank Himmel

=======================================

HAS ANYONE DIED AND NOT GONE TO HEAVEN?

During Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa’s chase of baseball’s home run record, more than a few broadcasters depicted Roger Maris or Babe Ruth as watching from above. Sosa especially made reference to how much Harry Caray, the Cubs’ popular announcer who died last winter, must be enjoying this show from heaven.

I know nothing about Roger Maris or Babe Ruth’s religious convictions. If Harry Caray was a follower of Christ, he seldom mentioned it. The name he most often extolled was Bud!

Nevertheless, the perception abounds that these are comfortably resting in God’s presence. And not just baseball people. Across the board, nearly everyone who has died is now in heaven, to hear those who are left behind tell it. Only a handful of Adolf Hitler types are the exceptions.

There is little doubt why this view of near universal salvation is so popular. No one likes to think of friends, loved ones, heroes, or generally likable people as eternally lost. Besides, if most everyone else made it to heaven, my chances of eternal happiness are pretty good, too.

Preachers need to accept our share of the blame for the prevalence of this idea. We have failed to get across the fact that good morals by themselves do not save. Too many still think that if they do enough good things in life, that will somehow offset their sins. Not so (Romans 3:20; Titus 3:5). Overdoses of the grace of God with no counterbalancing reminders of His severity (Romans 11:22) leave folks thinking that divine mercy is limitless. Watered-down notions of what saving faith entails suggest that even the remotest attachment ot Christ is sufficient to save. Maybe we are just afraid to come right out and say that some conduct will certainly keep one out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21).

Then there is the matter of funerals. F.D. Syrgley said it well: “I have heard scores of funerals, but never a soul did the devil get, out of the whole lot of them… While men lived, the preachers told them they were going straight to the devil, but when they were dead, the funeral sermon never failed to land them in heaven” (SEVENTY YEARS IN DIXIE, pp. 202f).

I don’t mean to sound haughty or hopeless. Salvation in Christ is readily available. I simply remind you that He Himself said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). [NASV, drl].

One more thing. Do you really think those being comforted in Abraham’ s bosom are following baseball? What silly notions of our own glory compared to God’s we have! Conversely, those on the other side of the great chasm surely have far greater concerns, too.

_______________________(end)_______________________

DRL NOTE: I think our NI brother has a good point here. Really I fear that this idea of near universal salvation has and is invading the Lord’s church to a frightening degree. The result seems to be a general lack of interest and effort in personal evangelism.

In the recent dustup over New York Knick Charley Ward's comments on Jews, I was reminded of how diabolical the "hate speech" charge has become. And I mean that literally. It truly is the devil's plaything -- not the speech itself, but the charge of hatred.

Eric Konigsberg of The New York Times, a Jew, reported on Ward's and Allan Houston's perhaps clumsy efforts to lead him to Christ. "E" as they called him, was a guest in one of their Bible studies, and Ward was trying to take him beyond the common notion that, in spiritual matters, we're all basically OK with God, whatever our convictions.

Melissa Isaacson of the Chicago Tribune was beside herself, speaking of those who "babble words of hate and nonsense," identifying Ward as "racist" and of an "insidious brand of bigot." To its credit, the Tribune ran a subsequent column by Skip Bayless, who said Ward's words had been pulled out of context. But Isaacson's take represented the media norm, so much so that the Tribune's ombudsman, Don Wycliff, called Bayless's piece "one of the most courageous newspaper columns I've seen in years," and indeed it was.

Why is the charge of "hate speech" so infernal?

1) It's usually false. In early America, the Old Deluder Laws provided for public education. The legislators reasoned that kids needed to learn to read so that they could read the Bible, a critical skill in their struggle with the Father of Lies, the Old Deluder. Well, the Old Deluder is still at work big time. Charlie Ward doesn't hate Jews. In fact, he loves Eric Konigsberg so much that he would risk public humiliation in trying to win him to Jesus.

2) It's irrefutable, not because it's true, but because it concerns things outside the realm of clear observation. By attacking one's motivations and frames of mind, you deny him the ability to conclusively disprove the charge. Who can know such things?

3) It elevates emotion over truth. In our therapeutic society, fixated on feelings, self-esteem and such, the value of truth's stock has been falling for years. The devil couldn't be happier.

4) It encourages assault on the Bible. Talk about a "rude" book. The Bible uses such words as "abomination" and "stench" to describe sin. It's not at all hard to imagine a suit against a church which put the text of "hateful" Romans 1:26-27 on its sign.

5) You can always find a few examples to fill the bill. Yes, there are haters, people who don't want to see homosexuals saved or racists regenerated. Satan only needs to wave an occasional bloody shirt to stir the unthinking to false generalization.

6) It allows the devil to disguise himself as an angel of light. If you're against hate speech, you must be on the side of the angels. Indeed, you must be the champion of love speech. Never mind that the indulgent "love" you defend is inimical to the best God has for us, both in this world and beyond.

7) It permits [in-?]sincerity. Yes, some people tell big lies knowing them to be lies. But it's so much easier to pass along a falsehood when you can be stirred to believe it. The charge of hate speech is so vague and invincible for the zealous that they can utter it with full, confident voice.

8) It snaps the lifeline. The only hope of the deluded is God's revelation and transforming work. The devil not only hates the people of God; he hates those who hate the people of God, not because they hate the people of God, but because they are themselves part of God's creation. By prompting them to defame their true helpers, he attacks their hope of rescue.

9) It serves the phenomenon of projection. A pastor once told me of a lady in the church who charged him with lusting over her. He'd scarcely noticed her until then. In fact, if there was any lusting going on, it was hers, but she couldn't bear to face it, so she projected the problem onto him. We do well to ask where the hate truly resides. Of course, it's not nice to judge motives (see # 2 above), but those who stipulate dark motives need to know that two can play this game. We can at least raise the question. And if there is such a psychological phenomenon as projection, the devil plays it like an accordion.

10) It cheapens an important word. By "crying 'Wolf!'" when there is no wolf, the "hate speech" crusaders devalue a word of great importance to Christians. The Bible forbids our hating people, for hatred is poison both to the soul and to human society. But if the word is attached to relatively minor or bogus offenses, we lose our respect for it, our fear of it and our ability to distinguish it when the real thing comes along.

_________________

Coppenger is pastor of Evanston (Illinois) Baptist Church. Other commentaries by Coppenger are posted at www.listten.com and www.comeletusreason.com.

*

Hell hath less fury than it used to, or so we're told.

The long running crusade by liberal Christians and Universalists against the eternal punishment idea seems to be getting somewhere. Religious observers say preachers increasingly avoid mentioning hell. And polls indicate increasing numbers of people no longer believe in the place, and that those who do are confident they're not going there.

The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church still teaches the belief, maintaining that “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

For conservative Evangelical Protestants, hell remains a “burning” issue, and an important debate has developed over the concept known as “annihilationism.” The discussion was examined in the October 5 issue of Christianity Today magazine by Stanley Grenz, who teaches theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Illinois.

As with most matters in Christianity, interpretation of the Bible is crucial.

The traditional view holds that punishment in hell will be conscious and everlasting. But during the Reformation, one strand of Baptists proposed a new annihilation theory. Yes, they said, the unsaved will be lost eternally, but instead of suffering they will simply cease to exist.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, founded in 1863, is best known for worshipping on Saturday, but annihilationism is another of its distinctive tenets. In recent decades this theological innovation has been explored by some British and Canadian Evangelicals.

To proponents, annihilation sounds humane. To Fundamentalists, it sounds heretical. But Grenz says the annihilationists are not liberals or Universalists. They embrace the orthodox tenet that some people will be saved and some will be lost; they just have a different concept of what “lost” means.

The annihilationists assert that their view is perfectly in line with the Bible. They read Scripture as depicting the permanent destruction of the unfaithful and the unbelieving, not everlasting torment.

That’s the interpretation they put, for instance, on Psalm 37: “Yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more.” Or Malachi 4:1, which speaks of the future time “when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up.”

In the New Testament, too, annihilationists see their view supported when Jesus says that “the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), and in his warning to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28). They also cite St. Paul’s teaching that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) and “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (1 Corinthians 3:17).

The annihilationists grant that numerous Bible verses speak about eternal punishment, but in their view eternity describes only the permanency of the results, not the duration or the manner of the punishment, Annihilation is punishment enough, they reason, because it ends existence and cuts the person off from God.

Traditionalists reply that these verses do not rule out everlasting, conscious punishment. They cite other passages. For instance, Jesus’ account of the last judgment says the lost “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). Since the righteous live consciously and eternally in heaven, they reason, the same must be true in hell.

They also cite various passages where Jesus indicates there will be varying degrees of punishment in the hereafter. For instance, the condemnation of unrepentant cities in Matthew 11:24; “It shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

So take your pick: everlasting hell or permanent annihilation. But the Bible’s advice would be to do everything possible, spiritually and morally, to escape either fate.

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Mr. Jimmy Carter stated once again his belief that there is salvation outside of faith in Christ. But this time he seems to have gone even further, suggesting openly that all persons will be saved.

Here is the relevant exchange at Beliefnet.com:

[BeliefNet] Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to

people who don’t presently believe in Jesus?

[Carter] Yes, I do. I remember two things. One is that in John

3:16, which is probably the best known verse in the Bible - “For

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.” And Jesus, in

the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, said we should love our

neighbors, but also love those who despise us and hate us and our

enemies. So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through

the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone.

And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School

classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people

from many nations and many faiths - what about those that don’t

publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that

Christ said, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” And so, my own

personal belief is one of God’s forgiveness and God’s grace.

That’s the best answer I can give.

Well, that’s not good enough. The former president’s answer is a confused mash of out-of-context biblical citations set to the music of universalism. For some time Mr. Carter has been arguing that explicit faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation. Now, he takes this argument further, and the inescapable conclusion a reader of his latest comments must reach is that President Carter evidently believes that all persons will be saved. This, in fact, is how Beliefnet.com characterized his position.

But Mr. Carter’s argument, if one can call these sentences an argument, is also self-contradictory. In one sentence, he argues that “the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone.” Does the opportunity apply to all, or does salvation? If he means the former, how do all persons confront this opportunity? The tragic reality is that millions of persons have never heard the Gospel of Christ. As the Apostle Paul makes clear, this is the central thrust of the missionary mandate.

The apparent contradiction in Mr. Carter’s argument comes with the second paragraph of his answer, in which he argues that God’s grace and forgiveness is extended even to those who do not profess faith in Christ. He goes on to suggest that when Jesus taught love of neighbor and the limitations of human judgment, He was teaching universalism. This is nonsense, of course, since those texts mean nothing of the kind. Beyond this, Mr. Carter’s interpretation would mean that Jesus contradicted himself when He warned of Hell and condemnation for sin.

The Bible is clear that not all persons will be saved. Jesus contrasted the wide gate that leads to destruction with the narrow gate that leads to salvation. As the Lord said in Matthew 7:13:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

The fact is that many persons are embarrassed by the Gospel as revealed in the Bible and taught by Christ. The central issue of offense is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ, And yet, Christ left no doubt about the matter.

In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The first sentence is not the ground of offense. The second sentence is. The “but by Me” statement leaves no room for confusion.

In recent decades, some have attempted to argue that faith in Christ is indeed necessary for salvation, but this faith need not be explicit faith in Christ. This position, known as inclusivism, suggests that persons may know nothing of the Gospel, and yet be saved. This argument is often used to claim that adherents of other faiths and belief systems will be saved through the work of Christ, even though they may not hear of Him in this life. Many Roman Catholic theologians have adopted this argument. The late Karl Rahner put an interesting twist on the theme by suggesting that some persons are “anonymous Christians.” These would be persons who now think themselves devotees of other belief systems but who are actually Christians who have no explicit faith in Christ. This argument cannot be squared with the biblical witness.

Universalists take the argument even further, with most arguing that all persons will be saved, completely without regard to faith in Christ. With this latest interview, Mr. Carter appears to join these ranks.

The Apostle Paul refuted both inclusivism and universalism in Romans 10, where he insisted that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Paul explained that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ -- which means explicit knowledge of the Gospel. He explained that salvation comes to all those who confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead. Then, just in case we missed the obvious, Paul explains the missionary mandate -- a mandate completely undercut and contradicted by inclusivism and universalism (and by President Carter’s comments):

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are

they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How

beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But

they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who

has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from

hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [Romans 10:13-

17]

The logic of Paul is clear. If they hear they may believe, but if they never hear they will never believe. And, if they never hear and believe, they will not be saved.

In a series of books, interviews, and comments, Mr. Carter has dismissed biblical inerrancy and once suggested that his faith would not be shaken, even if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. He has adopted liberal positions on a host of issues and once identified liberal theologians such as Paul Tillich as major influences in his life and thought.

Nevertheless, it is tragic to see this man of influence, now releasing another published set of his recorded Sunday School lessons, set himself so clearly against the Bible and the historic faith of the Christian church. This, like all demonstrations of theological error, is both sad and deeply dangerous. What could be worse than getting the Gospel wrong?

Most American religious believers, including most Christians, say eternal life is not exclusively for those who accept Christ as their savior, a new survey finds.

Of the 65% of people who held this open view of heaven’s gates, 80% named at least one non-Christian group — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists or people with no religion at all — who may also be saved, according to a new survey released today by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

This means 52% of Christians do not agree with the doctrines many religions teach, particularly conservative denominations.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, calls the findings “a theological crisis for American evangelicals. They represent at best a misunderstanding of the Gospel and at worst a repudiation of the Gospel.”

This survey on salvation is a follow-up to a highly controversial finding in Pew’s Religious Landscape survey, released earlier this year. It detailed the religious demographics, beliefs and behavior of 35,000 U.S. adults surveyed in 2007.

Pastors, theologians and Christian commentators complained that the Landscape Survey question on access to eternal life — which 70% said was open to many faiths — was too vague. “Did people mean only other religions that are similar to their own, like Baptists grudgingly admitting Lutherans might go to heaven?” said Pew research fellow Greg Smith.

So Pew revisited the topic in a new survey of 2,905 adults with more specific questions. Smith says the new findings reinforce the original finding that “Americans really are thinking quite broadly.”

Christian believers who named at least one non-Christian faith that could lead to salvation included 34% of white evangelicals, even though evangelical doctrine stresses that salvation is possible only through Jesus.

Higher levels of church attendance made some difference, particularly among white evangelical Protestants. But an overall majority (54%) of people who identified with a religion and who said they attend church weekly also said many religions can lead to eternal life. This majority included 37% of white evangelicals, 75% of mainline Protestants and 85% of non-Hispanic white Catholics.

Pew’s new survey also found that many Christians (29%) say they are saved by their good actions; 30% say salvation is through belief in Jesus, God or a higher power alone, which is the core teaching of evangelical Protestantism; and 10% say salvation is found through a combination of behavior and belief, a view closer to Catholic teachings.

The number of those who said actions determine who attains heaven, was lowest (11%) for white evangelicals, highest for white Catholics (47%).

The number of people saying theirs is the only faith that can lead to eternal life increased slightly, from 24% to 29%, between 2007 and 2008. The biggest increase was among white evangelical Protestants — up from 37% to 49%.

Overall, the new findings are “an indictment of evangelicalism and evangelical preaching,” said Mohler. “The clear Biblical teaching is that Jesus Christ proclaimed himself to be the only way to salvation.”

Mohler sees behind the statistics the impact of pluralism and secularism in U.S. society and the challenge of facing family and friends with “an uncomfortable truth.”

“We are in an age when we want to tell everyone they are doing just fine. It’s extremely uncomfortable to turn to someone and say, ‘You will go to hell unless you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus,’” Mohler says.

Friends gathered for the funeral of a 21-year-old who died in a motorcycle accident. They didn’t seem to connect with Jesus’ words that I spoke that day. They did connect, however, with the release of helium balloons that a family member had arranged after the service was over. That spoke to them. They weren’t Christian believers, so far as I could sense. Nor, from all reports, was the deceased a follower of Christ. He died without knowing Christ. He was lost -- or was he?

AN EMBARRASSING, OUTMODED CONCEPT?

“Lost” is an embarrassing concept that should be thrown on the

scrap heap of bad doctrine along with “hell.” Instead,

Christianity should stress love.

At least that’s what our culture tells us. The prevailing world-view in many regions of America holds several truths to be self-evident:

• A loving God couldn’t assign people to hell. Hell is a contradiction of Christianity’s basic theme of love.

• Therefore, there can be no hell in God’s world.

• Consequently our deceased loved ones MUST be in a heaven of some kind.

• It follows that no one can be lost. Everyone will make it to heaven, except maybe really bad people like Hitler.

This point of view is called universalism. It’s popular, even with many who call themselves Christians. But how do we know whether universalism is or is not a CHRISTIAN view?

WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?

Christians go back to the teachings of Jesus himself as the absolute authority for what constitutes true Christianity. After all, he founded it. So let’s focus on this single topic and inquire:

Did Jesus teach that people can be lost?

If so, what does “lostness” consist of?

And how can people be “found” or “rescued,” whichever is the appropriate concept?

LOCATING THE WORD “LOST” IN THE GOSPELS

In examining the Gospels which record Jesus’ teaching, the English word “lost” appears in 16 passages that comprise eight separate teaching settings. (For the purpose of careful analysis I’m displaying the key Greek verbs. Greek, of course, is the language in which the New Testament was originally written.[1])

Salt that has lost (MORAINO) its savor (in Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34; Mark 9:50, “become unsalty”).

Lost (APOLLUMI) sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6; 15:24).

Son of man has come to save that which was lost (APOLLUMI, Luke 19:10 -- and Matthew 18:11 in some manuscripts).

Parable of the Lost (APOLLUMI) Sheep which the shepherd searched for (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7).

Parable of the Lost (APOLLUMI) Coin which a woman scoured her house to find (Luke 15:8-10).

Parable of the Lost (APOLLUMI) Son, often referred to as the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:24, 32).

Gathering up fragments of bread so that none be lost (APOLLUMI, John 6:12).

None of the disciples is lost (APOLLUMI), but only Judas, referred to as the son of “perdition” (a related word, APOLEIA, John 17:12; 18:9).

I think we can agree that in #1 and #7 above, Jesus isn’t talking about lost people, but the other six passages he most certainly does.

THE KEY WORD: APOLLUMI, “LOST”

To understand Jesus teaching about lostness, we must understand the Greek verb APOLLUMI, “destroy.” It bears three basic definitions in the New Testament -- and is used in additional passages besides the ones listed above:

TO CAUSE OR EXPERIENCE DESTRUCTION. In the Active Voice APOLLUMI means “to ruin, destroy, kill, put to death.” In the Middle Voice it means “to perish, be ruined.” This encompasses dying by storm at sea, by the sword, killed by snakes, and especially of eternal death (John 10:28; 17:12; Romans 2:12). It is used most famously in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish (APOLLUMI), but have eternal life.”

TO FAIL TO OBTAIN WHAT ONE EXPECTS OR ANTICIPATES, “lose out on, lose,” as in lose one’s reward.

TO LOSE SOMETHING THAT ONE ALREADY HAS OR BE SEPARATED FROM A NORMAL CONNECTION, “lose, be lost,” as in to lose one’s life.(2)

So how does Jesus use this word in the “lost” passages? In the context of these parables he makes it pretty clear.

LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL (Matthew 10:6; 15:24)

The phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel” is explained in the context of the conversion and repentance of Zacchaeus, the Jewish tax collector, who was despised for his excessive taxation. Jesus says about Zacchaeus:

“Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came TO SEEK AND TO SAVE WHAT WAS LOST.” (Luke 19:9-10)

By “lost sheep of the house of Israel” then, Jesus is referring to Jewish sinners, that is, Jews who haven’t yet repented of their sins. These people who believe in the Jewish faith, but who have strayed away, who are no longer following their faith, and who are in danger.

This understanding is reinforced by the Parable of the Lost Son or Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The younger son represents repentant Jewish sinners who return to the Father’s family, while the older son represent righteous Jews who don’t need to repent. The purpose of this parable is to explain why Jesus took time to welcome, minister to, and eat with “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 15:1-2). On an earlier occasion, Jesus had explained:

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)

PARABLE OF LOST SHEEP IN MATTHEW (MATTHEW 18:10-14)

In some manuscripts, at least, Jesus repeats this saying in the immediate context of the Parable of the Lost Sheep (18:10-14): “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11, KJV, Textus Receptus). This lost sheep “went astray” (PLANEO, “wander”). It goes off by itself in the steep ravines and gullies and becomes separated from the flock and the protecting shepherd. This “lost sheep” will be eaten by wild animals if left to itself. So the shepherd scours the hills until he finds it. In Matthew the “punch line” for the parable is this: “In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost” (NIV, NRSV) or “perish” (KJV, APOLLUMI, Matthew 18:14). This is the equivalent of saying, “God does not will” the perishing of any of them.(3) The phrase “these little ones” here seems to refer to either children or disciples who are being lured by sin and temptation (Matthew 18:6, 10, 14). Jesus’ teaching here sounds a great deal Peter’s teaching decades later: “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish (APOLLUMI), but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

The point of this parable is finding and thus protecting sheep that otherwise would die from the elements or be ravaged by enemies. “Finding sheep” is obviously the act of rescuing or saving them.

PARABLES OF THE LOST SHEEP AND LOST COIN IN LUKE

Doubtless Jesus told his parables time and time again, sometimes stressing one point, sometimes another. As we have observed, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus uses APOLLUMI in the sense of lost/found in three related parables: The Lost Sheep (15:3-7), the Lost Coin (15:8-10), and the Lost Son (15:11-32). In each case something is lost, searched for, found, and rejoiced over. In two of the three parables, Jesus explains what the rejoicing in the parable stands for:

“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7, also verse10)

In other words, the LOST sheep and LOST coin refer to a sinner who needs repentance, while the FOUND sheep and FOUND coin refer to a sinner who repents.

NOT ONE (DISCIPLE) HAS BEEN LOST

Jesus uses the term “lost” twice in John’s Gospel to state:

“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by

that name you gave me. None has been LOST except the one doomed

to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” (John

17:12; referring back to 18:9; 6:39)

Jesus, of course, is referring to Judas who betrayed him. It is pretty obvious that Jesus is talking about preserving a person for eternal life, which is the opposite of being lost in eternal death -- one “doomed to destruction” or in the KJV “the son of perdition.”

SUMMARY OF JESUS’ TEACHING ON THE “LOST”

To summarize:

JESUS’ USE OF “LOST.” On a number of occasions Jesus used the word “lost” to refer to unrepentant sinners who weren’t seeking to please God. He used the word “found” in parables to refer to sinners who had repented and turned back to God. When you look at the scripture texts, this is crystal clear.

APOLLUMI CAN MEAN “BE LOST” AND, EVEN MORE COMMONLY, “PERISH, BE KILLED.” This Greek word is often used of missing out on eternal life -- both in the Old Testament Greek Bible (the Septuagint; Psalms 9:5-6; 37:20; 68:2; 73:27; 83:17; Isaiah 41:11) as well as in the New Testament (John 3:16; 10:28; 17:12; Romans 2:12; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 8:11; 15:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10). New Testament scholar Albrecht Oepke concludes, “In view is not just physical destruction but a hopeless destiny of eternal death.”(4)

I conclude that “lost” refers to unrepentant persons who will miss out on eternal life unless they are “found,” that is, rescued or saved and brought to a place of repentance and forgiveness.

APPLICATION

Jesus’ teaching on lostness is unambiguous. Now it is a question of whether we WANT to believe it or not.

Do we follow our ungodly culture that has a strong motivation NOT to believe in hell and eternal lostness? Or do we believe Jesus, the Son of the God, who reveals to us true nature of spiritual realities?

If I have been accurate in explaining how the word “lost” is used by Jesus -- and I invite you to check me out to be sure that I have done this carefully -- then we followers of Jesus, we believers in Jesus’ teaching, MUST embrace Jesus’ concern for the lost -- those who are doomed to miss out on eternal life unless they are “found” or “rescued.”

For too long many of us Christians have been embarrassed by the word “lost.” For too long we have banished it not only from our vocabularies, but have dropped rescuing “lost” people from our church priorities. We have succumbed to group-think and in the process have gotten badly off target.

Let us recover Jesus’ true heart towards the lost. To do this, first we must be willing to accept Jesus’ own teaching that people are actually “lost” eternally without his salvation. Second, we must adopt Jesus’ own passion to “seek and to save the lost.” Only then can we be classed as “followers” in this crucial part of Jesus’ mission. Only then will be truly loving to those who are lost.

REFERENCES

1. Of course, Jesus probably taught in Aramaic. However, what we have are the early Gospels prepared in Greek by and from eyewitnesses of Jesus. By using comparisons from the second century BC Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, we find that the Hebrew root behind APOLLUMI is ‘ABAD, “perish, be destroyed” (R. Laird Harris, ‘ABAD, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (editors), THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (TWOT; 2 volumes, Moody Press, 1980).

2. APOLLUMI, Walter Bauer and Frederick W. Danker, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE (BDAG; Third Edition; based on a previous English edition by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker; University of Chicago Press, 1957, 1979, 2001), pp. 115-116.

3. Leon Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW (Pillar Commentary Series; Eerdmans, 1992), p. 466.

4. Albrecht Oepke, APOLLUMI, KTL., Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (editors), Geoffrey W. Bromiley (translator and editor), THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (TDNT; Eerdmans, 1964-1976; translated from THEOLOGISCHES WÖRTERBUCH ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT, ten volume edition), 1:394-397.

WHAT IS HELL—ETERNAL TORMENT OR ANNIHILATION? A LOOK AT THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE'S "THE NATURE OF HELL"

It was six pages near the end of the book that exploded like a bombshell within evangelicalism. The book was Evangelical Essentials (InterVarsity) and the year was 1988. As the book's subtitle announced, it was A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue between liberal Anglican David L. Edwards and evangelical Anglican John Stott. For 338 pages, Edwards and Stott ranged over many issues, including the gospel, biblical authority, miracles, ethics, and missions. But near the end, in those six pages, Stott tentatively defended annihilationism — the view that unbelievers are finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment that is eternal in duration (as traditionalists believe).

Traditionalists, who make up most of evangelicalism, were shocked. Some, like John H. Gerstner, went so far as to question Stott's salvation. Evangelicals have been debating the subject ever since, both sides producing books and articles defending their views and contesting the opposition.

Out of England came another book this past April, but of a different order: The Nature of Hell: A Report by the Evangelical Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals. It is an evenhanded introduction to the historical, biblical, and theological issues that pertain to the evangelical debate over the nature and duration of hell. I have been studying these matters for seven years, have written two books on hell, and I regard this work as an outstanding resource for quickly accessing the issues. It is also a model of how evangelicals can agree to disagree.

THE HELL DEBATE

With the publication of Stott's views, evangelicals were spurred to study the issue more deeply and to respond. Perhaps emboldened by Stott's example, others followed and declared their commitment to annihilationism: Philip E. Hughes resigned from Westminster Seminary and wrote The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Eerdmans, 1989), toward the end of which he took an annihilationist stance. A 1992 Baker collection of essays, Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, included a piece by John W. Wenham, "The Case for Conditional Immortality." Conditional immortality, or conditionalism for short, is the view that human beings are not naturally immortal. God, who alone is inherently immortal, grants the gift of immortality only to believers. Unbelievers, because they lack this gift, do not live forever. Although technically not identical with annihilationism, conditionalism has come to be used as a synonym for it.

Through Wenham's influence, a previous book by Edward Fudge was revised and issued in 1994 by Paternoster Press as The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality.

Plainly, the annihilationist side had taken up the debate, challenging the traditional view.

Proponents of the traditional view of hell did not take this lying down. Some came with pistols flaring, such as Gerstner's Repent or Perish (Soli Deo Gloria, 1990). Others were more reserved but no less opposed to annihilationism: Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus' Teaching on Hell (Victor, 1992) and my own Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). And in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell (the same book in which Wenham attacked traditionalism), Kendall Harmon defended the traditional view in "The Case Against Conditionalism: A Response to Edward William Fudge."

Heavyweight traditionalists did not stay out of the fray. D. A. Carson devoted 22 pages of The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan, 1996) to an exegetical defense of the traditional view. J. I. Packer, a figure as revered by evangelicals as Stott, expressed his displeasure in Evangelical Affirmations (Academie, 1990) that Stott had advocated annihilationism.

Plainly evangelical Anglicans were lining up on opposite sides of this issue: Stott, Hughes, Wenham and Michael Green on the side of conditionalism; Packer, Harmon, Gerald Bray, and Alec Motyer on the side of traditionalism.

Into the fray stepped the Evangelical Alliance (EA). Also called World's Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1846, EA is a Britain-based association of evangelical churches, parachurch organizations, and individuals. It is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in the United Kingdom. Seeing the controversy on hell and other issues dividing evangelicals, EA established the Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals (ACUTE) in 1995 "to work for consensus on theological issues that test evangelical unity, and to provide, on behalf of evangelicals, a coordinated theological response to matters of wider public debate." ACUTE comprises three evangelical bodies: the Evangelical Alliance, the British Evangelical Council, and the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

One project of ACUTE is The Nature of Hell. It was written that evangelicals might stand united against universalism while disagreeing among themselves concerning the nature of hell.

The study group, consisting of traditionalists and conditionalists, had the task of writing a report that would promote understanding and tolerance among member believers.

BUILDING A FOUNDATION

After describing points of agreement among evangelicals, the report gives background regarding universalism (the idea that ultimately all will be saved), a recurring issue in English church history.

The report concludes that universalism is not an option for evangelicals because it lacks biblical warrant. Nevertheless, the report adds, "In an increasingly multicultural, pluralist society, the universalism which now underlies most forms of liberal Christianity is likely to present an ever-greater challenge for evangelicals."

The report then identifies the key biblical texts in the debate on the nature of hell. In the Old Testament, the focus is on the present life, not on life after death. Sheol is a dark, dreary, silent underworld of half-existence. Only two Old Testament texts, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, refer to resurrection. The report then comments on the New Testament pictures of the afterlife, including Gehenna and Hades.

Two conclusions stand out. First, the report notes that the synoptic Gospels, Jude, and Revelation speak of "Gehenna," "Hades," and "fire." John, Paul, and the other epistles speak chiefly of "perishing," "destruction," and "death."

Second, the report recognizes that "this variation in biblical imagery stands behind much of the debate between traditionalists and conditionalists."

The Nature of Hell next traces the history of each point of view. Traditionalism sports an impressive pedigree: Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and Wesley all endorsed eternal punishment.

Embryonic forms of conditionalism are found in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. Arnobius (died c. 330) was the first to defend annihilationism explicitly. The Second Council of Constantinople (553) and later the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17), though, condemned annihilationism.

THE MEANING OF BURNING SULFUR

After outlining key definitions (see "Coming to Terms: Five key phrases in the hell debate," p. 34), the report examines five critical exegetical issues that each side debates.

1. Destruction and perishing. Conditionalists argue that biblical language about the lost perishing (e.g., John 3:16) or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 10:28) ought to be taken at face value to indicate extinction of being. Although the report almost always sets out the best arguments for both conditionalist and traditionalist sides of an issue, here it includes only a weak traditionalist response. A stronger one involves the "destruction" of the beast, foretold in Revelation 17:8, 11; he is later cast into the fiery lake of burning sulfur (19:10) and is "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (20:10).

2. The fire and the worm. Conditionalists maintain that the biblical imagery of hellfire indicates consumption and not the infliction of pain. Traditionalists respond that the fire and worm in Mark 9:48, a key text, are "undying" and "unquenchable," respectively. Conditionalists counter by insisting, "Although both the worm and the fire themselves appear to be everlasting, the effect they have on any individual sinner may yet be terminal."

3. Eternal punishment and "the age to come." Traditionalists historically have pointed to Jesus' parallel between the two destinies in Matthew 25:46: eternal punishment and eternal life (italics mine). Conditionalists respond by saying the text does not define eternal, and it could be rendered qualitatively rather than quantitatively; hence "the punishment of the age to come" and "the life of the age to come." Even if "eternal" punishment is the correct rendering, it could point to the everlasting effects of the punishment (conceived as destruction) rather than to everlasting suffering of the punishment.

Traditionalists raise their eyebrows when conditionalists insist on a different meaning for the word eternal when it is used in two parallel phrases in the same sentence to describe the two destinies.

4. Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. Fire imagery here plainly speaks of pain and not consumption (vv. 23, 24, 25, 28). Some traditionalists say this account teaches that the lost will endure eternal torment. But conditionalists correctly point out that Jesus' parable pertains to the intermediate rather than the final state.

5. Sulfur, smoke, and the "second death." The meaning of Revelation 14:10–11 is contested: the wicked will be "tormented with burning sulfur" and "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night" for them. Traditionalists assert that this text unambiguously teaches their view.

Conditionalists appeal to Old Testament texts that describe God's destruction of cities, "all of which are reduced to wastes of burning sulfur, but which themselves cease to exist as cities once they have been razed to the ground." The rising smoke in Revelation 14:10 is a trace of the destruction wrought by the consuming fire. And the torment relates to the moment of their destruction rather than eternal suffering.

But, traditionalists protest, the text speaks of "the smoke of their torment" going up "for ever and ever" and thereby connects the suffering of persons with eternal duration. Traditionalists also point to the sentence that follows—"There is no rest day or night" for the wicked—as evidence of eternal punishment. Conditionalists counter that this does not prove endless suffering but only suffering that lasts as long as the sufferers do.

Traditionalists point to Revelation 20:10 as unequivocally teaching eternal punishment. After the devil is cast into the lake of fire, John reports that the devil, beast, and false prophet "will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Because "day and night" is further modified by "for ever and ever," surely here the conditionalists must cry, "Uncle!"

They refuse, however, and instead argue that this text says nothing about human beings suffering eternal torment. Indeed, the devil, beast, and false prophet function symbolically here to denote opposition to God. In fact, the meaning of the imagery of Revelation 20:10 considered in its totality, they argue, is annihilation. This is confirmed, conditionalists claim, by the fact that a few verses later the lake of fire is defined as "the second death," a clear reference to cessation of being.

Traditionalists remain unconvinced. The devil, at least, and probably his henchmen, are personal beings. Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew 25:41 assigns the "goats" to "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Traditionalists also reject conditionalists' equating the lake of fire with annihilation, arguing instead that death signifies not extermination but separation. The second death, therefore, stands for eternal separation from God. Moreover, the lake of fire signifies eternal torment in Revelation 20:10; if conditionalists' interpretation were correct, shouldn't John have indicated a change in its meaning five verses later when he speaks of humans being thrown into it?

Two theological issues round out this discussion. The view that at least some of the unsaved receive a chance after death to believe in Christ is rejected by traditionalists and most conditionalists for the good reasons that "it is seriously lacking in exegetical foundation" and that it contradicts the solid biblical principle that "death represents a decisive and final step to final judgment." The Nature of Hell affirms a wider hope for persons dying in infancy and for the mentally disabled, and acknowledges a case can be made that some who have never heard the gospel may be saved by implicit faith.

FROM PHILOSOPHY TO BLESSEDNESS

The report notes that four main theological issues also figure in the debate.

1. The place of philosophy. Annihilationists claim that the church Fathers imbibed uncritically the Greek notion of the immortal soul and consequently were misled into the traditional doctrine of hell. If all human beings live forever, the argument runs, they must forever inhabit either heaven or hell. Traditionalists point out that, aside from the debated question of Platonic influence on the Fathers, the important thing is whether the Bible teaches immortality. Traditionalists take different paths here, some claiming Scripture affirms immortality, others saying Scripture implies it. Matthew 10:28 ("Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell") is hotly contested: conditionalists insist on the plain sense; traditionalists say destruction is a metaphor for terrible loss.

2. God's love and justice. How could God's love and justice possibly be made known in the everlasting conscious torment of human beings? Indeed, the report notes, "This question is regularly cited by conditionalists as a starting point for their abandonment of the traditional position." How is it just for God to punish for eternity sins committed in a finite lifetime? Some traditionalists have followed Aquinas in insisting that sins against an infinite God deserve infinite recompense. They have maintained that only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is qualified to determine the consequences of sin. They suspect that conditionalists "are succumbing to contemporary cultural representations of pain as the ultimate evil to be avoided, when sin against God is in fact a more heinous thing." And traditionalists have affirmed that eternal conscious punishment will bring glory to God, the righteous Judge.

3. God's triumph. According to conditionalists, the traditionalist picture of the end mars the biblical hope of God's ultimate victory, for traditionalism pictures an eternal eschatological dualism between good and evil. Traditionalists reply that Revelation 21 and 22 paint a picture that includes the lake of fire as well as the new heavens and new earth. They insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be glorified in both places.

4. The blessedness of the redeemed. Conditionalists argue that the joys of the saved in heaven would be diminished by their knowledge of the never-ending suffering of the lost in hell. The standard traditionalist response is that God will remove any pain that those in heaven might otherwise experience.

THE NEED FOR SENSITIVE REFLECTION

The report next seeks to remedy the fact that evangelicals on both sides of the debate have produced little in the way of pastoral reflection. It calls all to hold solemn and sensitive attitudes toward hell. Evangelicals historically have understood hell as a spur to evangelism. Recently, however, some have debated how prominent a place hell should have in Christian witness.

Traditionalists accuse conditionalists of underestimating the fate of the lost, and conditionalists criticize traditionalists for unnecessarily adding to the scandal of the gospel. The report calls for a truce and urges Christians to combine words of God's justice and love when presenting the gospel.

For example, on the issue of what believers are to say to terminally ill patients who do not know Christ: While demonstrating God's love in their actions and avoiding exploitation, Christians are to speak of God's judgment as background for sharing the good news of Christ. Concerning pastoral care of the bereaved, pastors should rejoice at the home-going of a believer, but it is inadvisable to pronounce that a specific person is in hell. Instead, pastors should preach the gospel to the living.

ROOM AT THE EVANGELICAL TABLE

Though the report acknowledges that traditionalism is the majority view among evangelicals, it strives to maintain fellowship with conditionalists. Although a few traditionalists have questioned the right of conditionalists to be called evangelical Christians, the working group that drafted The Nature of Hell affirms that right.

In terms of doctrine, the study confirmed that the main conditionalists show a high regard for the authority of Scripture and attempt to base their case chiefly on biblical exegesis. Historically speaking, though, conditionalism fares far worse than traditionalism.

Although evangelicals are wary of appeals to tradition as compared to Scripture, the testimony of history, in which few major theologians have wavered from traditionalism, places a considerable burden of proof on conditionalists.

Yet conditionalism seems to share an evangelical worldview or ethos with traditionalism. Furthermore, conditionalists bear a "family resemblance"; they are part of the same relational network. Indeed, "when it comes to those who have moved from traditionalism towards conditionalism, the familial ties remain strong," the report notes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Nature of Hell ends with 11 conclusions (each accompanied by biblical proofs) and 11 recommendations. First, a summary of the conclusions:

All human beings will die and will be resurrected to face God's judgment, issuing either in eternal glory or condemnation to hell. Furthermore, "God has revealed no other way to salvation and eternal life apart from through Jesus Christ." While rejecting universalism and postmortem repentance, the report affirms, "In his sovereignty, God might save some who have not explicitly professed faith in Jesus Christ," although we are not to assume this in any specific case. Christians should therefore evangelize, assuming that it is through proclamation of the gospel that God saves people.

The gospel is chiefly good news but also includes the message of hell: "Hell is more than mere annihilation at the point of death. Rather death will lead on to resurrection and final judgment to either heaven or hell." Hell involves separation from God, severe punishment, and is "a conscious experience of rejection and torment."

Furthermore, "There are degrees of punishment and suffering in hell." Scripture describes hell as a realm of destruction, although evangelicals differ on whether this speaks of "the actual existence of individual sinners (eventual annihilation) or to the quality of their relationship with God (eternal conscious punishment)."

"Evangelicals diverge on whether hell is eternal in duration or effect," that is, on whether it consists of ceaseless conscious experience or irreversible annihilation. "God's purpose extends beyond judgment to the redemption of the cosmos. Evangelicals diverge on whether a place is preserved for hell in this new order of things."

Then come the recommendations:

Church leaders should not neglect teaching on hell but should teach it with "sensitivity and discernment." At funerals it is proper to declare the heavenly inheritance of Christians but not the condemnation of those whose relationship to God is unclear. Theological colleges should give attention to hell in preparing church leaders for ministries, and Christian educators should not neglect final destinies in their teaching. Hell understood as eternal conscious punishment is the historic view of the church and is the mainstream evangelical position.

Still, "Conditional immortality is a significant minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate on hell should be regarded as a secondary rather than a primary issue for evangelical theology."

Furthermore, "We understand the current Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith to allow both traditionalist and conditionalist interpretations of hell"; nonetheless it would be helpful to add a clause on eschatology that includes conditionalism. The evangelical traditionalist-conditionalist debate should continue with the parties maintaining "constructive dialogue and respectful relationships."

AN AMERICAN ASSESSMENT

The report is a model of how evangelicals can study together constructively, even when they must agree to disagree. The working group did its homework well, as the extensive bibliography and footnotes attest. A spirit of Christian fairness pervades the report. Traditionalist and conditionalist views are given on every debated point.

Surely we can appreciate the way our brothers and sisters have gone about their business. Too often evangelicals have ended up with black eyes before the world by conducting their debates with acrimony and rancor.

From the perspective of evangelical Anglicanism, the report must be deemed a success. It has a clear purpose: not to allow the traditionalist-conditionalist debate to further divide evangelicals in the United Kingdom. This is evident in the candor with which it describes the history of the debate, in the makeup of the working group (including scholars on both sides), in its design (the first and last two chapters form a literary inclusion that calls for theological inclusion), and in its conclusions and recommendations.

Readers should not miss the point: the book is not a debate between traditionalists and conditionalists concerning the nature of hell. Instead, it is a summary of that debate written to bring traditionalists and conditionalists together. It is an attempt at damage control.

As an American evangelical and a Reformed theologian, I have learned from The Nature of Hell. I have added to my bibliography, learned new ways conditionalists handle exegetical and theological problems, been brought up short a few times (the report cites my Hell on Trial frequently, usually favorably, but twice offers criticism), and appreciated the pastoral applications. I agree that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate does not extend to matters of salvation.

Yet I do not agree that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate should be regarded as "secondary," if that means a debatable matter as church government and eschatology are debatable. In my view conditionalism is a more serious error for three reasons.

First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist exegesis of the key texts falls short. After studying the report's presentation of the key exegetical debates, my conviction that traditionalism is the teaching of Scripture has been strengthened. Consequently, although I plan to assign the report as required seminary reading, I fear that it might confuse those who have not been trained to evaluate exegetical arguments. The report's approach to debated texts is this: traditionalists say this but conditionalists say this; to which traditionalists respond thus, to which conditionalists respond thus; and so on. This works well in the classroom, but it could easily give lay readers the impression that the arguments must come to a standoff. That simply is not the case.

Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic error, adversely affecting other doctrines. So it is in the case of Edward Fudge, perhaps the conditionalist most cited in The Nature of Hell.

Fudge and I recently coauthored Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate (InterVarsity, 2000). Fudge argues that Jesus was "destroyed" when he died on the cross. I inquire whether he means that Jesus' whole person was destroyed or just his human nature. Either answer has disastrous implications for Christology: either God is "destroyed" or Jesus' two natures are separable in a way that Chalcedon would have condemned. Edward becomes agitated in response, signaling, I think, that he recognizes the theological problem.

Third, I fear that conditionalism might have a negative effect on evangelism and missions. If traditionalism is correct, then conditionalism seriously underestimates the pains of hell.

Indeed, the lost would rather be annihilated because their suffering would be over.

D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard lines" of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.

_____________________________

ROBERT A. PETERSON is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. He is the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (P&R) and, with Edward Fudge, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (IVP).

Related Elsewhere

Be sure to read the related stories to this article, "Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate | Key Advocates and Writings" and "Coming to Terms | Key Phrases in the Hell Debate."

The Evangelical Alliance's press release about its report is available on the organization's Web site.

Media coverage of The Nature of Hell includes:

Is there a Hell? Yes, experts say, and it's awful—The Age (Apr. 3, 2000)

So Hell is a real place after all. Thank heavens for that.—The Independent (Apr. 3, 2000)

Children 'should be told of hell' | Liberals twitch as evangelicals turn to fire and brimstone—The Guardian (Apr. 15, 2000)

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again.—Christianity Today (Apr. 18, 2000)

Hell Is There and "Occupied" | The UK's Evangelical Alliance reaffirms the reality of hell in a report to be published next week.—Religion News Service/Beliefnet

British evangelicals emphasize Hell—Evangelical Press/B.C. Christian News (May 2000)

Hell is back in business | Trends come and go, so don't be surprised when you hear the latest: Hades is hot, angels are not. — Salon.com (June 12, 2000)

The novelist Saul Bellow once remarked that being a prophet is nice work if you can get it. The only problem, he suggested, is that sooner or later a prophet has to speak of God, and at that point the prophet has to speak clearly. In other words, the prophet will have to speak with specificity about who God is, and at that point the options narrow.

For the last 20 years or so, a movement identified as emerging or emergent Christianity has done its determined best to avoid speaking with specificity. Leading figures in the movement have offered trenchant criticisms of mainstream evangelicalism. Most pointedly, they have accused evangelical Christianity, variously, as being excessively concerned with doctrine, culturally tone-deaf, overly propositional, unnecessarily offensive, aesthetically malnourished, and basically uncool.

Many of their criticisms hit home -- especially those rooted in cultural concerns -- but others betrayed what can only be described as an awkward relationship with orthodox Christian theology. From the very beginning of the movement, many of the emerging church’s leaders called for a major transformation in evangelical theology.

And yet, even as many of these leaders insisted that they remained within the evangelical circle, it was clear that many were moving into a post-evangelical posture. There were early hints that the direction of the movement was toward theological liberalism and radical revisionism, but the predominant mode of their argument was suggestion, rather than assertion.

Rather than make a clear theological or doctrinal assertion, emerging figures generally raise questions and offer suggestive comments. Influenced by postmodern narrative theories, most within the movement lean into story rather than formal argument. Nevertheless, the general direction seemed clear enough. The leading emerging church figures appeared to be pushing Protestant liberalism -- just about a century late.

Protestant liberalism emerged in the 19th century as influential theologians argued for a doctrinal revolution. Their challenge to the church was simple and straightforward: The intellectual challenges of the modern age made belief in traditional Christian doctrines impossible. Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote his impassioned speeches to the “cultured despisers” of religion, arguing that something of spiritual value remained in Christianity even when its doctrines were no longer credible. Church historians, such as Adolf von Harnack, argued that a kernel of spiritual truth and power remained even when the shell of Christianity’s doctrinal claims was removed. In the United States, preachers such as Harry Emerson Fosdick preached that Christianity must come to terms with the modern age and surrender its supernatural claims.

The liberals did not set out to destroy Christianity. To the contrary, they were certain that they were rescuing Christianity from itself. Their rescue effort required the surrender of the doctrines that the modern age found most difficult to accept, and the doctrine of hell was front and center on their list of doctrines that must go.

As historian Gary Dorrien of Union Theological Seminary -- the citadel of Protestant Liberalism -- has observed, it was the doctrine of hell that marked the first major departures from theological orthodoxy in the United States. The early liberals just could not and would not accept a doctrine of hell that included conscious eternal punishment and the pouring out of God’s wrath upon sin.

Thus, they rejected it. They argued that the doctrine of hell, though clearly revealed in the Bible, slandered God’s character. They offered proposed evasions of the Bible’s teachings, revisions of the doctrine, and the rejection of what the church had affirmed throughout its long history. By the time the 20th century came to a close, liberal theology had largely emptied the mainline Protestant churches and denominations. As it turns out, theological liberalism is not only a rejection of biblical Christianity -- it is a failed attempt to rescue the church from its doctrines. At the end of the day, a secular society feels no need to attend or support secularized churches with a secularized theology. The denial of hell did not win relevance for the liberal churches. It simply misled millions about their eternal destiny.

This brings us to the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins.” As its cover announces, the book is “about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Reading the book is a heart-breaking experience. We have read this book before. Not the exact words, and never so artfully presented, but the same book, the same argument, the same attempt to rescue Christianity from the Bible.

As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.

Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith. But that is not what Bell does in this new book.

Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.

He states his concern clearly: “A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”

That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough. Rob Bell believes that the doctrine of the eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners in hell is keeping people from coming to Jesus. That is an unsettling thought, but on closer look, it falls in upon itself. In the first place, Jesus spoke very clearly about hell, using language that can only be described as explicit. He warned of “him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27).

He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible -- even probable -- that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved. “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” he asks.

But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:25) mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.

Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.

Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation. He rejects the belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but he never clearly lands on a specific account of what he does believe.

Tellingly, Bell attempts to reduce all of the Bible and the entirety of the Gospel to story, and he believes it is his right and duty to determine which story is better than another -- which version of Christianity is going to be compelling and attractive to unbelievers. He has, after all, set that as his aim -- to replace the received story with something he sees as better.

The first problem with this is obvious. We have no right to determine which “story” of the Gospel we prefer or think is most compelling. We must deal with the Gospel that we received from Christ and the Apostles, the faith once for all delivered to the church. Suggesting that some other story is better or more attractive than that story is an audacity of breathtaking proportions. The church is bound to the story revealed in the Bible -- and in all of the Bible ... every word of it.

But there is a second problem, and it is one we might think would have been learned by now. Liberalism just does not work. Bell wants to argue that the love of God is so powerful that “God gets what God wants.” So, God desires the salvation of all, he argues, so all will eventually be saved -- some even after death, even long after death. But he cannot maintain that account for long because of his absolute affirmation of human autonomy. Even God cannot or will not prevent someone from going to hell who is determined to go there. So, if Bell is taken on his own terms, even he does not believe that “God gets what God wants.”

Similarly, Bell’s argument is centered in his affirmation of God’s loving character, but he alienates love from justice and holiness. This is the traditional liberal line. Love is divorced from holiness and becomes mere sentimentality. Bell wants to rescue God from any teaching that His wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners, certainly in any eternally conscious sense. But Bell also wants God to vindicate the victims of murder, rape, child abuse, and similar evil. He seems not to recognize that he has undercut his own story, leaving God unable or unwilling to bring true justice.

In truth, any human effort to offer the world a story superior to the comprehensive story of the Bible fails on all fronts. It is an abdication of biblical authority, a denial of biblical truth and a false Gospel. It misleads sinners and fails to save. It also fails in its central aim -- to convince sinners to think better of God. The real Gospel is the Gospel that saves -- the Gospel that must be heard and believed if sinners are to be saved.

But this is where Rob Bell’s book goes most off-course. He describes the Gospel in these words:

“It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion, and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.”

Missing from Bell’s Gospel is any clear reference to Christ, any adequate understanding of our sin, any affirmation of the holiness of God and His pledge to punish sin, any reference to the shed blood of Christ, His death on the cross, His substitutionary atonement, and His resurrection, and, so tellingly, any reference to faith as the sinners response to the Good News of the Gospel. There is no genuine Gospel here. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism.

H. Richard Niebuhr famously once distilled liberal theology into this sentence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Yes, we have read this book before. With Love Wins, Rob Bell moves solidly within the world of Protestant liberalism. His message is a liberalism arriving late on the scene. Tragically, his message will confuse many believers as well as countless unbelievers.

We dare not retreat from all that the Bible says about hell. We must never confuse the Gospel, nor offer suggestions that there may be any way of salvation outside of conscious faith in Jesus Christ. We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God. We must never be unclear and subversively suggestive about what the Bible teaches.

In the opening pages of Love Wins, Rob Bell assures his readers that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me.” That is true enough. But the tragedy is that those who did teach, suggest, or celebrate such things were those with whom no friend of the Gospel should want company. In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.

The problem begins even with the book’s title. The message of the Gospel is not merely that love wins -- it is that Jesus saves.

It’s amazing how many celebrities wreck themselves trying to ride a motorcycle. The long list includes Bob Dylan, Ben Roethlisberger, Gary Busey, Liam Neeson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, T.E. Lawrence, Keanu Reeves, Duane Allman, and French actor Gerard Depardieu, who’s been in over a dozen crashes, one of them breaking a leg in five places. But he keeps riding, saying he’ll never be able to give up the “feeling of freedom.”

When I see professing Christians, indeed professing preachers, go goofy over Gandhi, I think of the amateur motorcycle enthusiasts enjoying the frisson of their first rides. Despite generous biblical warning, they jump on the Gandhi machine and roar down the road toward pluralism. I have no doubt it makes them feel good and the waves and cheers from the sidewalks can be intoxicating. But the cost is dreadful.

Which brings us to Rob Bell, author of the hot-seller, “Love Wins.”

He begins his book with an anecdote and some “penetrating” questions. His church held a “peacemaking” art show, and one of the pieces featured a quote from Gandhi. When someone attached a piece of paper saying, “Reality check: He’s in hell,” Bell headed to the Harley dealership:

“Really? Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?” (page 7)

First, it’s important to note what he doesn’t say. He might have attempted a conciliatory defense, something like this: “Granted that Gandhi needed to accept Jesus as his Savior and that, without Christ, he did, indeed, face hell, we can still appreciate some of his words. And though this is a Church-sponsored show, it doesn’t hurt to draw from outside sources for wisdom. Indeed, all truth is God’s truth. Besides, the Mahatma might have privately turned to the Lord for salvation in the days or moments before his death. We’ll never know this side of the grave. We can only pray that he had a heart change which he didn’t have time to express.”

Of course, Bell has no taste for this. He’s saying something else -- that such a great, sensitive guy as Gandhi may well have gotten into heaven on some sort of great-sensitive-guy track.

Actually, he doesn’t quite have the oomph to say this, so he goes the haughty-question route, which protects the “inquirer” from heresy charges, even elevating him above the merely orthodox to the higher plane of disinterested, non-parochial reflection. This approach is akin to that taken by those who want to slam something but they prefer to test the waters before they commit, as in “What did you think of today’s chapel speaker?” A bit less than manly, I would say.

I suggest that Bell catch up on his reading. He might start with Richard Grenier’s 1983 book, “The Gandhi Nobody Knows,” a reaction to adulation generated by Richard Attenborough’s worshipful and Oscar-winning film, “Gandhi.” Or Andrew Roberts’ “Among the Hagiographers” in The Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ review of the new Gandhi bio, “Great Soul” by Joseph Lelyveld, picks up on the book’s evidences that Gandhi was in no more position to stand in the judgment on his own merits than anyone else.

Check out these sources and you’ll find that Gandhi was callous toward his wife and kids. He was contemptuous of God’s good gift of sexual intimacy within marriage while, at the same time, taking grotesque liberties in intimacy. Though he softened his stance toward “untouchables,” renaming them “children of God,” he never rejected the Hindu classification system. He urged the English to surrender to Hitler, while he, himself, refused to surrender to Christ. And you can read the rest.

Of course, Gandhi was fortunate that he took on the British. His efforts would not have gone down so well had the colonialists been Muslim, Shinto or Stalinist. And he’s been very fortunate to enjoy the adulation of those inclined to declare him spiritually acceptable if not transcendent. But it’s time for a reality check. As Jesus said, in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” That’s true for Gandhi as well as for you and me.

________

Mark Coppenger is professor of Christian Apologetics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and director of the seminary’s Nashville extension. This column first appeared at the blog of BibleMesh.com, a Christian website with the goal of helping “people learn the comprehensive story of Scripture” and applying “it to all aspects of life.”

There is such a place as hell. Let no one deceive you with vain words. What people do not like, they try hard not to believe. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes to judge the world, He will punish all who are not His disciples with a fearful punishment:

all who are found unrepentant and unbelieving, all who have clung to sin, all who are stuck to the world, and all who have set their affections on things below. All who are without Christ shall come to an awful end. Whosoever is not written in the book of life shall be “cast into the lake of fire.” [Rev 20:15]

I call on all who profess to believe the Bible, to be on their guard.

1) Some do not believe there is any hell at all. They think it impossible there can be such a place. They call it inconsistent with the mercy of God. They say it is too awful an idea to be really true. The devil of course, rejoices in the views of such people. They help his kingdom mightily. They are preaching up his old favorite doctrine, “You shall not surely die.”

2) Some do not believe that hell is eternal. They tell us it is incredible that a compassionate God will punish people forever. He will surely open the prison doors at last. This also is a mighty help to the devil’s cause.

3) Some believe there is a hell, but never allow that anybody is going there. All people with them are good. As soon as they die, all were sincere, all meant well, and all, they hope, got to heaven. Alas! what a common delusion this is!

Summary: If I never spoke of hell, I should think I had kept back something that was profitable, and should look on myself as an accomplice of the devil. Beware of new and strange doctrines about hell and the eternity of punishment. Beware of manufacturing a God of your own: a God who is all mercy, but not just; a God who is all love, but not holy; a God who has a heaven for everybody, but a hell for none; a God who can allow good and bad to be side by side in time, but will make no distinction between good and bad in eternity. Such a God is an idol of your own. ~ J.C. Ryle

Modern efforts to evade implications of hell.

Scripture affirms three things:

1. Reality of hell.

2. Certainty of hell.

3. Justice of hell.

Dilemma: good pagans, far-off nations that haven't heard gospel?

Mixed answers from Christians:

1. All un-believers go to hell.

2. "Good pagans" will go to heaven. (Socrates, Plato)

3. Universal salvation of infants.

4. "Baptism of desire" (RCC): those who are ignorant of gospel, but eagerly

seek God, will be saved. [C.S. Lewis was partial to this.]

5. Arminians - saving grace is available in principle to all, even those who

have not heard gospel message.

6. Calvinists (some) - God saves a certain number of unevangelized adults,

through general revelation alone.

7. Karl Barth - in Christ crucified, all condemned, and in Christ risen, all

humanity elected and justified. (Though Barth resisted universalism.)

[This is now standard view among Protestants.]

Pressure points:

1. Pastoral pressure - we rub shoulders with non-believers every day.

Secular media conditions us (and especially children) against belief.

2. Theological pressure - upsurge of Islam.

Christ found in other faiths?

But why change religions if they are Christians in disguise?

3. Strategic pressure - Protestant split on missions.

Evangelical view: first evangelize, then relieve needs. [Lausanne]

Liberal view: first meet needs (seek justice, peace, prosperity), then

engage in dialogue with non-Christians, third, nurture Christians

and extend church - if there is time, which there often isn't.

[WCC conference at Bangkok - "Salvation Today"]

Ultimate optimism:

Universalism is a comforting belief.

Hell is real, but has no tenants.

All will eventually bow to Christ.

Second chance in hell?

Hell is not ultimate state. It ends up empty.

Counterarguments:

No biblical passage unambiguously asserts universal final salvation.

1. It ignores the biblical stress on the decisiveness and finality of this

life's decisions.

2. It condemns Christ, making him incompetent or immoral (bluffing people

into heaven through fear).

3. It raises new problems. Why give second chance in hell? Why not redeem

everyone in this life? If God can't do it here, how can we know he

will do it there? Its doctrine of God is incoherent.

4. Can we give ourselves the luxury of believing in a second chance?

"I dare not say to myself that if I forfeit the opportunity this life

affords I shall ever have another; and therefore I dare not say so to

another man." James Denney.

Universalism does not work. Proclaiming salvation as primary in mission is

necessary.

Paul: "I am under obligation..."

Sight for all

Can God use general revelation?

Peter - "In every nation anyone who fears him is acceptable." Acts 10:35.

Paul - "God did not leave himself without a witness." Acts 14:17.

It might be true that general revelation can reach some (especially for some OT characters). These would learn of Christ's death in heaven. But we have

no warrant to expect that God will act in this way in any single case. God will deal with them. Our job is to spread the gospel.

Foundation of the Gospel:

1. The gospel must be preached.

2. The gospel must be received.

3. The gospel requires "standing."

Question: “Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?”

Answer: The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,’ that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an “age of innocence”?

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does is always right and good.

Question: “Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?”

Answer: The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,’ that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an “age of innocence”?

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does is always right and good.

A lady wrote to the editor of our local paper the other day, upset that someone suggested homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. “My God,” she wrote, “is a God of love and not a God of judgment.”

Now, the lady is free to worship whomever she pleases, and if she wants to make up her own god who will let her do as she will, well, it's been done for thousands of years. My only question to her is “Where did you find this God without standards?” Certainly not in the Bible. Open it at any page and you will see this God makes demands on His people. He sets limits on their behavior and holds them responsible.

I suspect the writer created her god from her own imagination. This puts her lord in the same class as a rag on a stick in Botswana, a volcano in the South Pacific, or a statuette in a Singapore flat. God-making has a certain appeal -- your creation can look like anything you choose and it approves whatever you want to do.

Not long ago, local citizen Ray Whiting wrote to our editor taking issue with a letter from Gary Hanberry who had claimed, “The Jesus of the Bible is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and is compatible with no other religion.” Mr. Whiting responded, “It is my belief that the Jesus of the Bible is merely the retelling of the ancient sacred myths of divinity, told and retold through the ages in every language and every culture. The Jesus depicted in the Gospels is an image compiled from the earlier myths, not a real person who walked the earth 2,000 years ago.” He concluded, “I would suggest to Mr. Hanberry that ... his version of Christ is both shallow and impotent. If his Christ cannot embrace us all ... his Christ is insufficient for the need. On behalf of all Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, (and) pagans ... I beg him to find a bigger Christ.”

I'd like to ask Mr. Whiting where exactly he located this Christ who embraces all religions without expecting anything from any of them. Certainly not in the Bible. And, since the Bible is the only book on earth giving information about Christ, how did he manage to find a Christ different from the one presented there?

Anyone doing even a cursory reading of the Gospels sees that the story of Jesus is presented as historical fact. He lived in this place, at this time, with these people. The men and women who knew Jesus and followed Him told others who passed the word on to others who told their friends. The process has continued right down to the present day. With the ancient myths and fables, a story was repeated around campfires and dinner tables for a few generations, and then died out because it was only a tale. It had no basis in fact and the people found no reason to prolong its existence.

Mr. Whiting insists Truth must accommodate all the religions of the world, otherwise it is not Truth. What fascinating reasoning. Only in religion -- and in no other field of inquiry known to man -- would we claim that all beliefs are equally valid and demand that they be given a place at the table, so to speak.

Try that on medical science. All schools of medicine must teach voodoo, quackery, superstition, and opinions as well as the proven principles of sound medical practice. The primitive who rubs dung on an open sore and drills holes in skulls to cure headaches is given the same hearing as the head of Johns Hopkins or Sloane-Kettering. Value judgments are out; everyone qualifies as an authority.

Try it on the physical sciences. Every opinion carries equal weight. There are no right answers and no definitive way to determine the orbit of a planet, the makeup of a chemical compound, or the formula for unraveling a math problem. Pity the astronaut who climbs into a rocket- ship and stakes his life on the collected ignorance of every person in the world with an opinion on physics.

Only in matters of faith do we insist there can be no Absolute Truth, that those who claim to possess Truth are narrow and selfish and bigoted, and that whatever “works” for a person is by definition “true.” In no other area of life would we fall for such foolishness. Not in the kitchen where we insist on standards of cleanliness and tastefulness, not in construction where workers must follow regulations to make buildings safe and dependable, nor in matters of health or safety or a thousand other fields. Yet, claim you have found Absolute Truth about God and you are automatically branded as shallow and narrow.

Narrow is actually the right word. Scientists have observed that all truth is narrow. Two plus two always equals four. The space shuttle's descent from orbit must coincide with an incredibly narrow slit in time and space; otherwise the mission fails spectacularly. The nuclear power plant a few miles up the river follows complex and strict guidelines. The manufacture of medicine is a precise business. An organ transplant follows exacting procedures. Truth is always narrow.

The Lord Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” What could be narrower? In so few words, He has presented Himself as the only Savior and ruled out every other religious alternative in the world. He said, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom I reveal Him.” Either Jesus is the only way to God or He is the world's greatest egomaniac and not to be believed on anything. (John 14:6; Matthew 11:27)

Make no mistake -- the issue is Jesus. Whether He is Who He claimed to be or just another religious charlatan is a question every person must answer. But, please note, the Scriptures are not neutral or ambiguous on this subject.

“In the past, God spoke to us in various times and ways through the prophets. But lately, He has spoken to us through His Son, Whom He has appointed heir of all things, through Whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:1-3)

We conclude with a word from the inimitable C.S. Lewis. In a letter to a friend who had questioned the deity of Jesus, Lewis wrote: “... what about Mark 2:18-19. (Jesus had said, 'No one need fast while I am here.') What man can announce that simply because he is present, acts of penitence, such as fasting, are 'off.’ Who can give the school a half-holiday except the Headmaster? The doctrine of Christ's divinity seems to me not something stuck on which you can unstick but something that peeps out at every point so that you'd have to unravel the whole web to get rid of it.” (“C.S. Lewis's Case for the Christian Faith,” by Richard L. Purtill, p. 48)

The early Christians put it succinctly: “Jesus is Lord.” He is indeed.

*

WHAT IS HELL—ETERNAL TORMENT OR ANNIHILATION? A LOOK AT THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE'S "THE NATURE OF HELL"

It was six pages near the end of the book that exploded like a bombshell within evangelicalism. The book was Evangelical Essentials (InterVarsity) and the year was 1988. As the book's subtitle announced, it was A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue between liberal Anglican David L. Edwards and evangelical Anglican John Stott. For 338 pages, Edwards and Stott ranged over many issues, including the gospel, biblical authority, miracles, ethics, and missions. But near the end, in those six pages, Stott tentatively defended annihilationism — the view that unbelievers are finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment that is eternal in duration (as traditionalists believe).

Traditionalists, who make up most of evangelicalism, were shocked. Some, like John H. Gerstner, went so far as to question Stott's salvation. Evangelicals have been debating the subject ever since, both sides producing books and articles defending their views and contesting the opposition.

Out of England came another book this past April, but of a different order: The Nature of Hell: A Report by the Evangelical Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals. It is an evenhanded introduction to the historical, biblical, and theological issues that pertain to the evangelical debate over the nature and duration of hell. I have been studying these matters for seven years, have written two books on hell, and I regard this work as an outstanding resource for quickly accessing the issues. It is also a model of how evangelicals can agree to disagree.

THE HELL DEBATE

With the publication of Stott's views, evangelicals were spurred to study the issue more deeply and to respond. Perhaps emboldened by Stott's example, others followed and declared their commitment to annihilationism: Philip E. Hughes resigned from Westminster Seminary and wrote The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Eerdmans, 1989), toward the end of which he took an annihilationist stance. A 1992 Baker collection of essays, Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, included a piece by John W. Wenham, "The Case for Conditional Immortality." Conditional immortality, or conditionalism for short, is the view that human beings are not naturally immortal. God, who alone is inherently immortal, grants the gift of immortality only to believers. Unbelievers, because they lack this gift, do not live forever. Although technically not identical with annihilationism, conditionalism has come to be used as a synonym for it.

Through Wenham's influence, a previous book by Edward Fudge was revised and issued in 1994 by Paternoster Press as The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality.

Plainly, the annihilationist side had taken up the debate, challenging the traditional view.

Proponents of the traditional view of hell did not take this lying down. Some came with pistols flaring, such as Gerstner's Repent or Perish (Soli Deo Gloria, 1990). Others were more reserved but no less opposed to annihilationism: Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to Jesus' Teaching on Hell (Victor, 1992) and my own Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). And in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell (the same book in which Wenham attacked traditionalism), Kendall Harmon defended the traditional view in "The Case Against Conditionalism: A Response to Edward William Fudge."

Heavyweight traditionalists did not stay out of the fray. D. A. Carson devoted 22 pages of The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan, 1996) to an exegetical defense of the traditional view. J. I. Packer, a figure as revered by evangelicals as Stott, expressed his displeasure in Evangelical Affirmations (Academie, 1990) that Stott had advocated annihilationism.

Plainly evangelical Anglicans were lining up on opposite sides of this issue: Stott, Hughes, Wenham and Michael Green on the side of conditionalism; Packer, Harmon, Gerald Bray, and Alec Motyer on the side of traditionalism.

Into the fray stepped the Evangelical Alliance (EA). Also called World's Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1846, EA is a Britain-based association of evangelical churches, parachurch organizations, and individuals. It is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in the United Kingdom. Seeing the controversy on hell and other issues dividing evangelicals, EA established the Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals (ACUTE) in 1995 "to work for consensus on theological issues that test evangelical unity, and to provide, on behalf of evangelicals, a coordinated theological response to matters of wider public debate." ACUTE comprises three evangelical bodies: the Evangelical Alliance, the British Evangelical Council, and the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

One project of ACUTE is The Nature of Hell. It was written that evangelicals might stand united against universalism while disagreeing among themselves concerning the nature of hell.

The study group, consisting of traditionalists and conditionalists, had the task of writing a report that would promote understanding and tolerance among member believers.

BUILDING A FOUNDATION

After describing points of agreement among evangelicals, the report gives background regarding universalism (the idea that ultimately all will be saved), a recurring issue in English church history.

The report concludes that universalism is not an option for evangelicals because it lacks biblical warrant. Nevertheless, the report adds, "In an increasingly multicultural, pluralist society, the universalism which now underlies most forms of liberal Christianity is likely to present an ever-greater challenge for evangelicals."

The report then identifies the key biblical texts in the debate on the nature of hell. In the Old Testament, the focus is on the present life, not on life after death. Sheol is a dark, dreary, silent underworld of half-existence. Only two Old Testament texts, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, refer to resurrection. The report then comments on the New Testament pictures of the afterlife, including Gehenna and Hades.

Two conclusions stand out. First, the report notes that the synoptic Gospels, Jude, and Revelation speak of "Gehenna," "Hades," and "fire." John, Paul, and the other epistles speak chiefly of "perishing," "destruction," and "death."

Second, the report recognizes that "this variation in biblical imagery stands behind much of the debate between traditionalists and conditionalists."

The Nature of Hell next traces the history of each point of view. Traditionalism sports an impressive pedigree: Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and Wesley all endorsed eternal punishment.

Embryonic forms of conditionalism are found in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. Arnobius (died c. 330) was the first to defend annihilationism explicitly. The Second Council of Constantinople (553) and later the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17), though, condemned annihilationism.

THE MEANING OF BURNING SULFUR

After outlining key definitions (see "Coming to Terms: Five key phrases in the hell debate," p. 34), the report examines five critical exegetical issues that each side debates.

1. Destruction and perishing. Conditionalists argue that biblical language about the lost perishing (e.g., John 3:16) or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 10:28) ought to be taken at face value to indicate extinction of being. Although the report almost always sets out the best arguments for both conditionalist and traditionalist sides of an issue, here it includes only a weak traditionalist response. A stronger one involves the "destruction" of the beast, foretold in Revelation 17:8, 11; he is later cast into the fiery lake of burning sulfur (19:10) and is "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (20:10).

2. The fire and the worm. Conditionalists maintain that the biblical imagery of hellfire indicates consumption and not the infliction of pain. Traditionalists respond that the fire and worm in Mark 9:48, a key text, are "undying" and "unquenchable," respectively. Conditionalists counter by insisting, "Although both the worm and the fire themselves appear to be everlasting, the effect they have on any individual sinner may yet be terminal."

3. Eternal punishment and "the age to come." Traditionalists historically have pointed to Jesus' parallel between the two destinies in Matthew 25:46: eternal punishment and eternal life (italics mine). Conditionalists respond by saying the text does not define eternal, and it could be rendered qualitatively rather than quantitatively; hence "the punishment of the age to come" and "the life of the age to come." Even if "eternal" punishment is the correct rendering, it could point to the everlasting effects of the punishment (conceived as destruction) rather than to everlasting suffering of the punishment.

Traditionalists raise their eyebrows when conditionalists insist on a different meaning for the word eternal when it is used in two parallel phrases in the same sentence to describe the two destinies.

4. Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. Fire imagery here plainly speaks of pain and not consumption (vv. 23, 24, 25, 28). Some traditionalists say this account teaches that the lost will endure eternal torment. But conditionalists correctly point out that Jesus' parable pertains to the intermediate rather than the final state.

5. Sulfur, smoke, and the "second death." The meaning of Revelation 14:10–11 is contested: the wicked will be "tormented with burning sulfur" and "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night" for them. Traditionalists assert that this text unambiguously teaches their view.

Conditionalists appeal to Old Testament texts that describe God's destruction of cities, "all of which are reduced to wastes of burning sulfur, but which themselves cease to exist as cities once they have been razed to the ground." The rising smoke in Revelation 14:10 is a trace of the destruction wrought by the consuming fire. And the torment relates to the moment of their destruction rather than eternal suffering.

But, traditionalists protest, the text speaks of "the smoke of their torment" going up "for ever and ever" and thereby connects the suffering of persons with eternal duration. Traditionalists also point to the sentence that follows—"There is no rest day or night" for the wicked—as evidence of eternal punishment. Conditionalists counter that this does not prove endless suffering but only suffering that lasts as long as the sufferers do.

Traditionalists point to Revelation 20:10 as unequivocally teaching eternal punishment. After the devil is cast into the lake of fire, John reports that the devil, beast, and false prophet "will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Because "day and night" is further modified by "for ever and ever," surely here the conditionalists must cry, "Uncle!"

They refuse, however, and instead argue that this text says nothing about human beings suffering eternal torment. Indeed, the devil, beast, and false prophet function symbolically here to denote opposition to God. In fact, the meaning of the imagery of Revelation 20:10 considered in its totality, they argue, is annihilation. This is confirmed, conditionalists claim, by the fact that a few verses later the lake of fire is defined as "the second death," a clear reference to cessation of being.

Traditionalists remain unconvinced. The devil, at least, and probably his henchmen, are personal beings. Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew 25:41 assigns the "goats" to "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Traditionalists also reject conditionalists' equating the lake of fire with annihilation, arguing instead that death signifies not extermination but separation. The second death, therefore, stands for eternal separation from God. Moreover, the lake of fire signifies eternal torment in Revelation 20:10; if conditionalists' interpretation were correct, shouldn't John have indicated a change in its meaning five verses later when he speaks of humans being thrown into it?

Two theological issues round out this discussion. The view that at least some of the unsaved receive a chance after death to believe in Christ is rejected by traditionalists and most conditionalists for the good reasons that "it is seriously lacking in exegetical foundation" and that it contradicts the solid biblical principle that "death represents a decisive and final step to final judgment." The Nature of Hell affirms a wider hope for persons dying in infancy and for the mentally disabled, and acknowledges a case can be made that some who have never heard the gospel may be saved by implicit faith.

FROM PHILOSOPHY TO BLESSEDNESS

The report notes that four main theological issues also figure in the debate.

1. The place of philosophy. Annihilationists claim that the church Fathers imbibed uncritically the Greek notion of the immortal soul and consequently were misled into the traditional doctrine of hell. If all human beings live forever, the argument runs, they must forever inhabit either heaven or hell. Traditionalists point out that, aside from the debated question of Platonic influence on the Fathers, the important thing is whether the Bible teaches immortality. Traditionalists take different paths here, some claiming Scripture affirms immortality, others saying Scripture implies it. Matthew 10:28 ("Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell") is hotly contested: conditionalists insist on the plain sense; traditionalists say destruction is a metaphor for terrible loss.

2. God's love and justice. How could God's love and justice possibly be made known in the everlasting conscious torment of human beings? Indeed, the report notes, "This question is regularly cited by conditionalists as a starting point for their abandonment of the traditional position." How is it just for God to punish for eternity sins committed in a finite lifetime? Some traditionalists have followed Aquinas in insisting that sins against an infinite God deserve infinite recompense. They have maintained that only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is qualified to determine the consequences of sin. They suspect that conditionalists "are succumbing to contemporary cultural representations of pain as the ultimate evil to be avoided, when sin against God is in fact a more heinous thing." And traditionalists have affirmed that eternal conscious punishment will bring glory to God, the righteous Judge.

3. God's triumph. According to conditionalists, the traditionalist picture of the end mars the biblical hope of God's ultimate victory, for traditionalism pictures an eternal eschatological dualism between good and evil. Traditionalists reply that Revelation 21 and 22 paint a picture that includes the lake of fire as well as the new heavens and new earth. They insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be glorified in both places.

4. The blessedness of the redeemed. Conditionalists argue that the joys of the saved in heaven would be diminished by their knowledge of the never-ending suffering of the lost in hell. The standard traditionalist response is that God will remove any pain that those in heaven might otherwise experience.

THE NEED FOR SENSITIVE REFLECTION

The report next seeks to remedy the fact that evangelicals on both sides of the debate have produced little in the way of pastoral reflection. It calls all to hold solemn and sensitive attitudes toward hell. Evangelicals historically have understood hell as a spur to evangelism. Recently, however, some have debated how prominent a place hell should have in Christian witness.

Traditionalists accuse conditionalists of underestimating the fate of the lost, and conditionalists criticize traditionalists for unnecessarily adding to the scandal of the gospel. The report calls for a truce and urges Christians to combine words of God's justice and love when presenting the gospel.

For example, on the issue of what believers are to say to terminally ill patients who do not know Christ: While demonstrating God's love in their actions and avoiding exploitation, Christians are to speak of God's judgment as background for sharing the good news of Christ. Concerning pastoral care of the bereaved, pastors should rejoice at the home-going of a believer, but it is inadvisable to pronounce that a specific person is in hell. Instead, pastors should preach the gospel to the living.

ROOM AT THE EVANGELICAL TABLE

Though the report acknowledges that traditionalism is the majority view among evangelicals, it strives to maintain fellowship with conditionalists. Although a few traditionalists have questioned the right of conditionalists to be called evangelical Christians, the working group that drafted The Nature of Hell affirms that right.

In terms of doctrine, the study confirmed that the main conditionalists show a high regard for the authority of Scripture and attempt to base their case chiefly on biblical exegesis. Historically speaking, though, conditionalism fares far worse than traditionalism.

Although evangelicals are wary of appeals to tradition as compared to Scripture, the testimony of history, in which few major theologians have wavered from traditionalism, places a considerable burden of proof on conditionalists.

Yet conditionalism seems to share an evangelical worldview or ethos with traditionalism. Furthermore, conditionalists bear a "family resemblance"; they are part of the same relational network. Indeed, "when it comes to those who have moved from traditionalism towards conditionalism, the familial ties remain strong," the report notes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Nature of Hell ends with 11 conclusions (each accompanied by biblical proofs) and 11 recommendations. First, a summary of the conclusions:

All human beings will die and will be resurrected to face God's judgment, issuing either in eternal glory or condemnation to hell. Furthermore, "God has revealed no other way to salvation and eternal life apart from through Jesus Christ." While rejecting universalism and postmortem repentance, the report affirms, "In his sovereignty, God might save some who have not explicitly professed faith in Jesus Christ," although we are not to assume this in any specific case. Christians should therefore evangelize, assuming that it is through proclamation of the gospel that God saves people.

The gospel is chiefly good news but also includes the message of hell: "Hell is more than mere annihilation at the point of death. Rather death will lead on to resurrection and final judgment to either heaven or hell." Hell involves separation from God, severe punishment, and is "a conscious experience of rejection and torment."

Furthermore, "There are degrees of punishment and suffering in hell." Scripture describes hell as a realm of destruction, although evangelicals differ on whether this speaks of "the actual existence of individual sinners (eventual annihilation) or to the quality of their relationship with God (eternal conscious punishment)."

"Evangelicals diverge on whether hell is eternal in duration or effect," that is, on whether it consists of ceaseless conscious experience or irreversible annihilation. "God's purpose extends beyond judgment to the redemption of the cosmos. Evangelicals diverge on whether a place is preserved for hell in this new order of things."

Then come the recommendations:

Church leaders should not neglect teaching on hell but should teach it with "sensitivity and discernment." At funerals it is proper to declare the heavenly inheritance of Christians but not the condemnation of those whose relationship to God is unclear. Theological colleges should give attention to hell in preparing church leaders for ministries, and Christian educators should not neglect final destinies in their teaching. Hell understood as eternal conscious punishment is the historic view of the church and is the mainstream evangelical position.

Still, "Conditional immortality is a significant minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate on hell should be regarded as a secondary rather than a primary issue for evangelical theology."

Furthermore, "We understand the current Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith to allow both traditionalist and conditionalist interpretations of hell"; nonetheless it would be helpful to add a clause on eschatology that includes conditionalism. The evangelical traditionalist-conditionalist debate should continue with the parties maintaining "constructive dialogue and respectful relationships."

AN AMERICAN ASSESSMENT

The report is a model of how evangelicals can study together constructively, even when they must agree to disagree. The working group did its homework well, as the extensive bibliography and footnotes attest. A spirit of Christian fairness pervades the report. Traditionalist and conditionalist views are given on every debated point.

Surely we can appreciate the way our brothers and sisters have gone about their business. Too often evangelicals have ended up with black eyes before the world by conducting their debates with acrimony and rancor.

From the perspective of evangelical Anglicanism, the report must be deemed a success. It has a clear purpose: not to allow the traditionalist-conditionalist debate to further divide evangelicals in the United Kingdom. This is evident in the candor with which it describes the history of the debate, in the makeup of the working group (including scholars on both sides), in its design (the first and last two chapters form a literary inclusion that calls for theological inclusion), and in its conclusions and recommendations.

Readers should not miss the point: the book is not a debate between traditionalists and conditionalists concerning the nature of hell. Instead, it is a summary of that debate written to bring traditionalists and conditionalists together. It is an attempt at damage control.

As an American evangelical and a Reformed theologian, I have learned from The Nature of Hell. I have added to my bibliography, learned new ways conditionalists handle exegetical and theological problems, been brought up short a few times (the report cites my Hell on Trial frequently, usually favorably, but twice offers criticism), and appreciated the pastoral applications. I agree that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate does not extend to matters of salvation.

Yet I do not agree that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate should be regarded as "secondary," if that means a debatable matter as church government and eschatology are debatable. In my view conditionalism is a more serious error for three reasons.

First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist exegesis of the key texts falls short. After studying the report's presentation of the key exegetical debates, my conviction that traditionalism is the teaching of Scripture has been strengthened. Consequently, although I plan to assign the report as required seminary reading, I fear that it might confuse those who have not been trained to evaluate exegetical arguments. The report's approach to debated texts is this: traditionalists say this but conditionalists say this; to which traditionalists respond thus, to which conditionalists respond thus; and so on. This works well in the classroom, but it could easily give lay readers the impression that the arguments must come to a standoff. That simply is not the case.

Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic error, adversely affecting other doctrines. So it is in the case of Edward Fudge, perhaps the conditionalist most cited in The Nature of Hell.

Fudge and I recently coauthored Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate (InterVarsity, 2000). Fudge argues that Jesus was "destroyed" when he died on the cross. I inquire whether he means that Jesus' whole person was destroyed or just his human nature. Either answer has disastrous implications for Christology: either God is "destroyed" or Jesus' two natures are separable in a way that Chalcedon would have condemned. Edward becomes agitated in response, signaling, I think, that he recognizes the theological problem.

Third, I fear that conditionalism might have a negative effect on evangelism and missions. If traditionalism is correct, then conditionalism seriously underestimates the pains of hell.

Indeed, the lost would rather be annihilated because their suffering would be over.

D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard lines" of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.

_____________________________

ROBERT A. PETERSON is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. He is the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (P&R) and, with Edward Fudge, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (IVP).

Related Elsewhere

Be sure to read the related stories to this article, "Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate | Key Advocates and Writings" and "Coming to Terms | Key Phrases in the Hell Debate."

The Evangelical Alliance's press release about its report is available on the organization's Web site.

Media coverage of The Nature of Hell includes:

Is there a Hell? Yes, experts say, and it's awful—The Age (Apr. 3, 2000)

So Hell is a real place after all. Thank heavens for that.—The Independent (Apr. 3, 2000)

Children 'should be told of hell' | Liberals twitch as evangelicals turn to fire and brimstone—The Guardian (Apr. 15, 2000)

Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again.—Christianity Today (Apr. 18, 2000)

Hell Is There and "Occupied" | The UK's Evangelical Alliance reaffirms the reality of hell in a report to be published next week.—Religion News Service/Beliefnet

British evangelicals emphasize Hell—Evangelical Press/B.C. Christian News (May 2000)

Hell is back in business | Trends come and go, so don't be surprised when you hear the latest: Hades is hot, angels are not. — Salon.com (June 12, 2000)

The novelist Saul Bellow once remarked that being a prophet is nice work if you can get it. The only problem, he suggested, is that sooner or later a prophet has to speak of God, and at that point the prophet has to speak clearly. In other words, the prophet will have to speak with specificity about who God is, and at that point the options narrow.

For the last 20 years or so, a movement identified as emerging or emergent Christianity has done its determined best to avoid speaking with specificity. Leading figures in the movement have offered trenchant criticisms of mainstream evangelicalism. Most pointedly, they have accused evangelical Christianity, variously, as being excessively concerned with doctrine, culturally tone-deaf, overly propositional, unnecessarily offensive, aesthetically malnourished, and basically uncool.

Many of their criticisms hit home -- especially those rooted in cultural concerns -- but others betrayed what can only be described as an awkward relationship with orthodox Christian theology. From the very beginning of the movement, many of the emerging church’s leaders called for a major transformation in evangelical theology.

And yet, even as many of these leaders insisted that they remained within the evangelical circle, it was clear that many were moving into a post-evangelical posture. There were early hints that the direction of the movement was toward theological liberalism and radical revisionism, but the predominant mode of their argument was suggestion, rather than assertion.

Rather than make a clear theological or doctrinal assertion, emerging figures generally raise questions and offer suggestive comments. Influenced by postmodern narrative theories, most within the movement lean into story rather than formal argument. Nevertheless, the general direction seemed clear enough. The leading emerging church figures appeared to be pushing Protestant liberalism -- just about a century late.

Protestant liberalism emerged in the 19th century as influential theologians argued for a doctrinal revolution. Their challenge to the church was simple and straightforward: The intellectual challenges of the modern age made belief in traditional Christian doctrines impossible. Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote his impassioned speeches to the “cultured despisers” of religion, arguing that something of spiritual value remained in Christianity even when its doctrines were no longer credible. Church historians, such as Adolf von Harnack, argued that a kernel of spiritual truth and power remained even when the shell of Christianity’s doctrinal claims was removed. In the United States, preachers such as Harry Emerson Fosdick preached that Christianity must come to terms with the modern age and surrender its supernatural claims.

The liberals did not set out to destroy Christianity. To the contrary, they were certain that they were rescuing Christianity from itself. Their rescue effort required the surrender of the doctrines that the modern age found most difficult to accept, and the doctrine of hell was front and center on their list of doctrines that must go.

As historian Gary Dorrien of Union Theological Seminary -- the citadel of Protestant Liberalism -- has observed, it was the doctrine of hell that marked the first major departures from theological orthodoxy in the United States. The early liberals just could not and would not accept a doctrine of hell that included conscious eternal punishment and the pouring out of God’s wrath upon sin.

Thus, they rejected it. They argued that the doctrine of hell, though clearly revealed in the Bible, slandered God’s character. They offered proposed evasions of the Bible’s teachings, revisions of the doctrine, and the rejection of what the church had affirmed throughout its long history. By the time the 20th century came to a close, liberal theology had largely emptied the mainline Protestant churches and denominations. As it turns out, theological liberalism is not only a rejection of biblical Christianity -- it is a failed attempt to rescue the church from its doctrines. At the end of the day, a secular society feels no need to attend or support secularized churches with a secularized theology. The denial of hell did not win relevance for the liberal churches. It simply misled millions about their eternal destiny.

This brings us to the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins.” As its cover announces, the book is “about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Reading the book is a heart-breaking experience. We have read this book before. Not the exact words, and never so artfully presented, but the same book, the same argument, the same attempt to rescue Christianity from the Bible.

As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.

Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith. But that is not what Bell does in this new book.

Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.

He states his concern clearly: “A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”

That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough. Rob Bell believes that the doctrine of the eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners in hell is keeping people from coming to Jesus. That is an unsettling thought, but on closer look, it falls in upon itself. In the first place, Jesus spoke very clearly about hell, using language that can only be described as explicit. He warned of “him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27).

He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible -- even probable -- that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved. “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” he asks.

But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:25) mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.

Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.

Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation. He rejects the belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but he never clearly lands on a specific account of what he does believe.

Tellingly, Bell attempts to reduce all of the Bible and the entirety of the Gospel to story, and he believes it is his right and duty to determine which story is better than another -- which version of Christianity is going to be compelling and attractive to unbelievers. He has, after all, set that as his aim -- to replace the received story with something he sees as better.

The first problem with this is obvious. We have no right to determine which “story” of the Gospel we prefer or think is most compelling. We must deal with the Gospel that we received from Christ and the Apostles, the faith once for all delivered to the church. Suggesting that some other story is better or more attractive than that story is an audacity of breathtaking proportions. The church is bound to the story revealed in the Bible -- and in all of the Bible ... every word of it.

But there is a second problem, and it is one we might think would have been learned by now. Liberalism just does not work. Bell wants to argue that the love of God is so powerful that “God gets what God wants.” So, God desires the salvation of all, he argues, so all will eventually be saved -- some even after death, even long after death. But he cannot maintain that account for long because of his absolute affirmation of human autonomy. Even God cannot or will not prevent someone from going to hell who is determined to go there. So, if Bell is taken on his own terms, even he does not believe that “God gets what God wants.”

Similarly, Bell’s argument is centered in his affirmation of God’s loving character, but he alienates love from justice and holiness. This is the traditional liberal line. Love is divorced from holiness and becomes mere sentimentality. Bell wants to rescue God from any teaching that His wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners, certainly in any eternally conscious sense. But Bell also wants God to vindicate the victims of murder, rape, child abuse, and similar evil. He seems not to recognize that he has undercut his own story, leaving God unable or unwilling to bring true justice.

In truth, any human effort to offer the world a story superior to the comprehensive story of the Bible fails on all fronts. It is an abdication of biblical authority, a denial of biblical truth and a false Gospel. It misleads sinners and fails to save. It also fails in its central aim -- to convince sinners to think better of God. The real Gospel is the Gospel that saves -- the Gospel that must be heard and believed if sinners are to be saved.

But this is where Rob Bell’s book goes most off-course. He describes the Gospel in these words:

“It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion, and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.”

Missing from Bell’s Gospel is any clear reference to Christ, any adequate understanding of our sin, any affirmation of the holiness of God and His pledge to punish sin, any reference to the shed blood of Christ, His death on the cross, His substitutionary atonement, and His resurrection, and, so tellingly, any reference to faith as the sinners response to the Good News of the Gospel. There is no genuine Gospel here. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism.

H. Richard Niebuhr famously once distilled liberal theology into this sentence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Yes, we have read this book before. With Love Wins, Rob Bell moves solidly within the world of Protestant liberalism. His message is a liberalism arriving late on the scene. Tragically, his message will confuse many believers as well as countless unbelievers.

We dare not retreat from all that the Bible says about hell. We must never confuse the Gospel, nor offer suggestions that there may be any way of salvation outside of conscious faith in Jesus Christ. We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God. We must never be unclear and subversively suggestive about what the Bible teaches.

In the opening pages of Love Wins, Rob Bell assures his readers that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me.” That is true enough. But the tragedy is that those who did teach, suggest, or celebrate such things were those with whom no friend of the Gospel should want company. In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.

The problem begins even with the book’s title. The message of the Gospel is not merely that love wins -- it is that Jesus saves.

Question: “Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?”

Answer: The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,’ that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an “age of innocence”?

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does is always right and good.