Just before I went to bed last night, I noticed a discussion on #prosapologian regarding hell. The basic gist was actually amazingly similar to the discussion of the Problem of Evil, which is partly why I’m now blogging about it too (the other part is that it is an interesting subject, IMO, and helps to show why Calvinism is superior to Arminianism theologically).
Put simply, one of the participants had trouble reconciling the existence of Hell with a good God. Specifically, the claim was made that God would torture people throughout eternity, and this was morally wrong.
Leaving aside the issue of whether justice is torture, the argument is based on several misconceptions of Hell. This primarily comes from various analogies that the Catholic Church came up with through the Middle Ages, views such as Dante’s Inferno, and other extra-Biblical “scare tactics” used by overzealous “evangelists.” The result is that the Biblical concept of Hell has become twisted, Hollywood-ized, and morphed into something out of a Stephen King horror novel rather than the simple concepts discussed in Scripture.
For one thing, the concept of the fire and brimstone is highly metaphorical in Scripture. Hell is described as a lake of fire, but also a place of outer darkness. If these are both literal, there would be a contradiction (i.e. how do you have a dark fire?). The physical aspects of Hell are most often seen in parables or in apocalyptic literature; both of which are highly metaphorical in context.
Of course, I should point out that I believe Hell is far worse than simple fire and brimstone would have been; but there is a reason for that, one that has nothing to do with God actively torturing anyone. Hell is primarily a separation between God and man. Man was created for fellowship with God; God’s judgment of man’s sin is to remove that fellowship completely.
As a result, man cannot be other than “pained.” But this pain is a pain of his own making. Man refuses to be near God, refuses to submit to Him, refuses to do as his nature was created. Man is the one who acts in this situation. It is man who actively tortures himself in hell.
The subject in hell is not radically different from the reprobate here on Earth today, except for the removal of God’s common grace. The Arminian concept of salvation is that as long as anyone is alive on Earth, there is a chance that he could be saved. I maintain that the Reprobate has just as much chance on Earth as he does in hell (which is to say “none”). But this is not to say that God forces the reprobate to turn against Him in hell anymore than He forces the reprobate to turn against Him on Earth.
Sinners hate God; God does not need to force any sinner to sin, for that is what sinners do. So, nothing changes for the reprobate when he reaches hell. He could just as much turn to Christ at that point as he could on Earth; yet he will refuse to do so. As such, once again God is not forcing anyone to remain in Hell; they stay their of their own free will.
This is part of the pain of hell too. No matter how much sinners rail against God, they always know in their hearts that they chose to be in Hell. Furthermore, they continue to choose to remain in Hell. Such is their hatred of God they would rather experience Hell than be near Him.
In point of fact, Hell need not be any actual place. A sinner in heaven would be just as much in Hell, for that is his level of hatred toward God. It would actually be worse for the sinner to be forced to remain there with God. Separation from God is actually, at some level, still an act of mercy, not torture.
Naturally, the Arminian will balk at this understanding of Hell; yet we must ask, how does the Arminian remain consistent? We have seen the above explanation remains consistent within Calvinism. God doesn’t change; the reprobate don’t change. Everything remains the same, and what is just on Earth is just in Hell.
But the Arminian is in a different boat. In his worldview, God changes from having an opportunity (a chance) for salvation while the person is alive to complete removal of that opportunity once a person is in Hell. At that point, the person is in eternal agony; yet it is “too late.” God, in the Arminian view, suddenly becomes the charicature that Arminians have the Calvinistic God: a vengeful being who doesn’t care about the will of the one in Hell. The Arminian God on Earth is at radical odds with the Arminian God of Hell.
Given that this has drastic implications to the doctrine of the immutability of God, I think it encumbant on the Arminian to justify this change in God’s behavior. Once again, I merely point out that the Calvinist doesn’t have this same problem.
