The hell debate
Introduction
The debate about hell and its nature has been passed on through generations since the 5th Century. Concepts and ideas have advanced a great extent through the 2,000 year Christian history. Theologians and various denominations fail to agree on matters such as qualifications of the humans ending up in hell and its nature. While some base their argument on early Christian believes, others offer first-hand experience claiming they visited hell and were able to return to earth and tell their tales. Some disagreeing parties accuse others of modifying the doctrine of hell making it less horrifying and less of a threat. The traditional view of the inhabitants of hell is that God punishes them forever. They believe the torment in hell is forever, and the fire never ceases. However, advancement in various theological philosophies have a contradictory view that supports the destruction of hell.
Graphically, artists of the medieval period depicted hell in their paintings on canvas as lit up place with red fire and black demons who were not affected by the fire. Instead, the devil (painted as a horrifying ugly black creature) and his demons enjoyed the time torturing the humans who were sent to the place. Humans were shown to be suffering and wailing in pain as they stood in the flames and had nowhere to go. Helpless, the people suffered but were not consumed by the fire as is the case with natural fire on earth. The paintings were based on Christian teaching during the early church in Greece and Rome.
Controversies
Most scholars who support in complete consumption of hell in fire, base their argument on the old testament2. In the collection of books, the word Sheol (Hebrew) refers to a house of dust and darkness (horrific place where dwellers live and feed on dust and are tormented) where both the good and bad go after death.
3 Most church teaches its faithful that hell is already sparsely populated and that more people are destined for hell. Fearing the damnation and dreadful experience of either eternal suffering or consumption by God's fire, Christians strive to ensure they avoid hell at all costs. In efforts to avoid hell and the potential threat of ending up there, new notions arise to help people out. Such notions are inaccurate and mostly selfish. Some people pay the clergy to ensure they will safely avoid the torment. In bribing the clergy, some people live contented that they can buy their way out of hell, but still a wicked life that does not completely adhere to Scriptural teachings4. Some members of the clergy fleece favors and cash from the laity promising to pray for them not to end up in hell. With rising controversies and cults, the nature and expectations of hell have new descriptions and explanations barely basing the ideas on scripture. Regardless of the religion or denomination, all groups believe in a hell filled with fire meant to torment the wicked in society who rejected to live by the commandments and doctrines of their religions.
Current preachers shy away from preaching the threat of Hell. According to the then pope, John Paul, Christian preachers, catechists and teachers were, in seeking more converts, avoiding the truth about the conditions expected in hell for the wicked. This avoidance leads to uncommitted Christians believing they are safe from danger when in fact; they are at risk of ending up in hell.5 If people are not taught the truth about the consequences of sin, Pope John observed, they compromise and accommodate more sin in their lives. They should instead learn and get information convincing them that hell is not a place anyone can desire to visit, let alone live for eternity. With the fear of Hell, people will seek safety and salvation in Jesus Christ.
Purgatory
Apart from the two definite destinations for humans after death, some religious groups have a third place defined that is a transitional state6. Both Roman Catholics and orthodox Christians believe in a neutral place between earthly life and heaven called purgatory. According to their teaching, people who were not destined for heaven may have an opportunity to mend their decision and shift their destination. They may, therefore, access the possibility of escaping the torment of hell1. Purgatory, the Catholic doctrine indicates, is a joyless place where a person is cleansed from his wickedness in a period that depends on their sin committed. To send one from purgatory to heaven earlier than their time, they need prayers of loved ones who are still on earth. Their souls, they believe, can then be purified making them ready for heaven to join other saints and enjoy the peaceful and most desired experiences. However, purgatory is not mentioned anywhere in the bible. The doctrine began in the 15th century after the Nicean council where the emperor Constantin ordered the Christian religion to be recommended in his entire empire after his famous triumph in battle. Liberal theologians and Protestants criticize this doctrine insisting that once people are done with their earthly life their destiny is sealed and cannot be changed.
Most other Christians (who are only as many as the Catholics put together) believe that the decision to believe in Jesus ensures the faithful of the safety from hell and all its threats and dangers4. Although God offers free choices, the people who reject Him and His plan for redemption will have their decisions respected but their presence rejected in heaven hence they will be condemned to hell.
Annihilationists assert that after resurrection, the wicked will, without a doubt, be destroyed and consumed by God's fire until they cease to exist6. This logic is based on the Old Testament instances where punishment is by destruction and perishing (not permanent torment). The consuming fire, notes Edward, signifies complete destruction and not continuous torment without ending5. Edward Fudge, an annihilationist, believes that the view on eternal torment began later in Greece and was not biblically accurately. Citing Mark 25: 46 which promises everlasting punishment for the wicked, annihilationists believe that it means they will forever be blotted out of existence and not continuous conscious torment for all eternity.
God is portrayed as fair and considerate and not a merciless God full of wrath and intending to harm offenders of his commandment1. Annihilationists believe that God cannot be too cruel to punish the wicked for all eternity yet He said He loved the world so much that He sacrificed His only Son (John 3:16). By punishing offenders of His law forever for sins committed in a few years, the judgment would not be according to the sin and therefore, unfair. He (God) would be viewed as a cruel judge. It is also not fair to judge people harshly by condemning them to eternal suffering yet their level of disobedience and wickedness differs one to another7. Every wicked person differs from another. Generalizing the punishment will be injustice to some of the sinners. A logical way of viewing just and fair God is by buying the idea that they will all be consumed completely until they cease to exist.
God's consuming fire and lake of fire are statements the annihilationist use to prove that not one person can survive the wrath of God's powerful fire that consumes every last of the wicked and disobedient people4. In the Old Testament, rebels to God's command perish and are deleted from existence completely. For instance, when Dathan and Korah rebelled against God's prophet Moses (Genesis), they were condemned and they perished immediately in an earthquake that swallowed them. Instead of subjecting them to torment, God chose to eliminate them for good. Annihilationists are certain of the fact that God's habit of eliminating rebels is seen consistently throughout the Scripture. Eliminating major rebels who easily influence the rest of the congregation should not be left to do so. Destruction of such people is seen as advantageous to both parties (protecting the believers from bad influence and exempting the wicked ones from suffering).
Pope John Paul II in his book, crossing the Threshold of Hope points to the fact the current polluted world will be cleansed and regenerated to a new purified habitat. The regeneration takes into account destruction of hell to pave way for a new pure and peaceful place for the saints8. He is disappointed by the fact that ancient councils rejected the theory of reestablishment of nature and a new earth. In contradicting with the early fathers such as Polycarp, Pope John supported annihilation amid world-wide criticism and objections. This idea undermines his earlier sentiments where he noted that portraying hell as unbearable helps to influence the Christians to seek solace and refuge in Jesus Christ by committing themselves completely. In contrast, supporting the idea that there will be complete destruction and the wicked will be free from suffering at some point, the pope fails in his attempt to show hell as the worst undesirable place for people to be saved.
Traditionalism
Traditionalists believe that the wicked in hell suffer torment for all time3. Supporting this ideology, Peterson cites 10 scriptures among them; Revelation 19 and Matthew 25: 46 to indicate that all destinies (both heaven and earth) exist after judgment and that both residents will either enjoy eternal bliss or continue to suffer torment throughout their lives. This is the view that most Christians through history have believed4. Most churches commonly acknowledged the traditional view of eternal punishment for unbelievers in the gospel of Christ. Traditionalism is the most reasonable and acceptable way to explain the nature of hell since it bases on most scriptures that refer to hell. The problem with this view is that atheists such as scientists and liberal critics use the idea to prove a limited God (in knowledge and justice).
Among other martyrs of the early church, Polycarp wrote to the faithful encouraging them to fix their minds on Christ and avoid hell. In his letter, he stated that by they will escape eternal and unquenchable fire8. His belief in an eternal hell led is similar to most (almost all of the early Christians). At that time, there were no controversies about Church doctrine and specifically; about Hell. Since the Bible does not reveal much detail about the conditions and nature of hell, there existed no much debate about it. The few educated members of the Clergy shared the common belief of everlasting torment and suffering.
Later in A.D 189, Irenaeus wrote about demons and spiritual forces of wickedness asserting that God will condemn them all to the everlasting fire. The wide-spread belief was the popular choice for many Christians and remains the acceptable way of viewing hell on fire.
Although this view keeps Christians in check, it keeps non-Christians from viewing God as unfair and cruel.
Conclusion
Despite the disagreements about the exact nature of hell, all religious groups believing in God have succeeded in convincing their congregations to view hell as a place filled with consistent fire, demons, the wicked, and the devil himself. Moreover, once a person is sent to hell, there is no redemption for them. They completely lose hope of ever having a chance to correct their lives and change their destinies. One has the opportunity to choose their desired destination by their commitment in their beliefs (respective of their religions).
Traditionalism enhances the fact that human only has one opportunity to make their life-time decisions. The decision to either believe in Jesus and be saved or disregard His Word is not punishable on earth but one encounters the consequences of their decisions after they leave earth. The gravity of experiencing the torment in hell lies squarely on choices that one makes while still alive on earth. Traditionalism, therefore, frightens believers to live morally upright lives than annihilations.
The traditionalists’ view of hell, however, depicts God as an unmerciful and unforgiving being who enjoys the suffering of the wicked. The wicked are also His creation and punishing them for eternity for mistakes committed less than 100 years is an unfair judgment. By depicting God as cruel, traditionalism hinders the spread of the gospel among critics and atheists. On the other hand, annihilation is more reasonable as it portrays God as a considerate judge who hands judgment to sinners according to their level. But being a merciful and graceful God, He goes ahead to terminate the punishment with a final destruction. The destruction is seen as a relief for the wicked ones from their punishment just as is death to a patient with a terminal disease with no hope.
Bibliography
Bernstein, Alan E. 1996. The formation of hell: death and retribution in the ancient and early Christian worlds. Ithaca, NY [u.a.]: Cornell Univ. Press.
Crockett, William, ed. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.Ellens, J. Harold. 2013. Heaven, hell, and the afterlife: eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013.Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2013.
Fudge, William Edward and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views on Hell: A Biblical and TGrudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.Kvanvig, Jonathan L. 2011. Destiny and deliberation: essays in philosophical theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
John P II. crossing the Threshold of hope, 1994
heological Dialogue. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.Morgan, Christopher W. and Robert A. Peterson, eds. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 292.
