Hell and the Nature of Human Beings - Part II

This is part of a series of posts flowing out of the conversation Rob Bell initiated in his new book Love Wins. But before you can have a conversation about Heaven, Hell and the fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, you have to talk about the nature of human beings themselves. You can read Part I HERE.

As Christians, we believe in the 'blessed hope', the personal, imminent, coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for His redeemed ones and look forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness will dwell and reign forever. We believe that the day is coming when Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly, in power and glory, to consummate his salvation and his judgment, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s original intent.

This renewal began with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ was an eschatological event that has initiated the time of the end, but the end itself, with the resurrection of those who belong to Christ, will be triggered by the second coming of Christ for his Church.

The resurrection is a future event. Believers are not yet raised; we do not yet share in the resurrection. In the interval between physical death and resurrection, our souls will survive in an intermediate state until they are rejoined with our physical bodies at the second coming of Christ.

However, affirming continuous personal existence during the intermediate state does not necessarily commit one to the soul’s inherent or essential immortality.  I would argue that this is a Greek philosophical concept that became a part of accepted Christian doctrine.

Plato argued that the soul is metaphysically indestructible because it is a simple spiritual substance and cannot therefore undergo decomposition. Socrates insisted that neither those who accused him nor the poison they forced him to take could destroy his soul. It is true that some Christians, including Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, have adopted this argument in defending biblical teaching. This was often the result of early Christian theology seeking to express faith in the biblical God with the help of Greco-Roman philosophical categories. In an effort to contextualize the gospel message, many elements of Greek philosophy became a part of accepted Christian doctrine. Therefore, although Christians still spoke of the resurrection of the body, which had been a part of their faith from the beginning, they also began to think of the future life in terms of the immortality of the soul.

But the Bible nowhere says that the soul is immortal. On the contrary, in Matthew 10:28  Jesus says, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” According to Scripture God possesses immortality in himself (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16); he reveals and gives it to us through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10).

The soul is not an absolute substance as Plato taught. It cannot be said that it is impossible to destroy human beings because they are immortal, for the immortality - and therefore indestructibility – of the soul is a Greek not a biblical concept.

In fact, I would suggest that the soul is no more inherently immortal than the body. Souls are radically contingent and dependent on God’s continuing providence for their very being. Total extinction at death is thus a very real possibility. In other words, Christian dualists are not committed to the Platonic view of immortality.

The Bible points to a resurrection of the whole person and eternal life as a gift of God, not a natural possession. The soul is not an immortal substance that has to exist eternally. As Jesus himself says, God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell (Mt 10:28). Humans were made mortal, with everlasting life being a gift, not a natural capacity. The conservative evangelical theologian Millard Erickson put it this way in Christian Theology p. 514:

“Finiteness pertains to our lives. Whether Adam as he was created would have died had he not sinned is a subject of debate. We do know, however, that he was susceptible to becoming subject to death. That is, if he was immortal, it was a conditional immortality. Thus, humanity is not inherently immortal, neither the physical body nor the soul. Even in humanity’s original state, any possibility of living forever depended on God. Only God is inherently eternal; all else dies”

I absolutely believe that God created us with the intention of living eternally with Him, but Scripture is clear that when sin entered the world, death came along with it. This is both a physical and spiritual death resulting in eternal destruction.

So what does all of this have to do with heaven and hell?

It is my contention that the Greek idea of natural immortality has skewed the Christian teaching about eternity, specifically the nature of hell. If one believes that souls are intrinsically immortal and hell exists, it follows that the wicked will have to suffer consciously forever in it. If the soul is naturally immortal, it has to spend eternity somewhere. If there is a lake of fire, then hell has to be a condition of eternal conscious torment.

But what if what is thrown into the pit of eternal destruction is actually destroyed? More on this tomorrow.

Comments

[Mae]

Are you aware that Bell believes in the universal reconciliation of every person?

[Paul]

No, which page was that on?

[Mae]

p. 91, p. 108, p. 197-198.

[Paul]

Mae,

I think it is clear from Love Wins that Rob believes that God wants all to be saved, BUT it’s also clear Rob believes that humans have free will and that God will never coerce someone to accept his love and be “saved.

Here is what he said in a recent interview on RelevantMagazine.com: "...sometimes when people say the word “universalism,” I think they mean that at some point God just swoops everybody up into heaven. Like, “Come on, everybody—everybody is in.” And the problem with that is, I believe love wins, and the very nature of love is freedom. So if at any point God co-opts your ability to choose, we no longer are dealing with a loving God."

So the controversy with Rob's position is not so much "universalism" as it is usually defined, but the concept of post-mortem repentance - an opportunity (or multiple opportunities) for people to repent and turn to Christ after this life.

[Mae]

I don't see the dichotomy you are trying the draw (about Bell) from your last sentence. Bell seems to insinuate that in the end "love wins", and that this love will melt even the hardest of hearts. Sure, he believes that one will not be coerced into this relationship, but that the choice will be made freely (whether before or after death). So, I would maintain that the controversy surrounding Bell is not just about the concept of post-mortem repentance, but about whether God will see to it (through his wooing) that every person born into the world will necessarily repent (a "universalistic" concept).