The reality of hell
“The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts” – C. S. Lewis
To deny hell is to deny the teachings of Jesus. Hell must be discussed. It has to be. It is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked. God’s goodness is challenged and Christianity is portrayed as being barbarous. The first thing we must get absolutely clear is this: God wants all men to be saved. Carefully read Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Keep those verses in mind as you read, or else this discussion will be pointless. This doctrine is attacked on many fronts but let us examine at the strongest one: the idea of hell as positive retributive punishment inflicted by God. Aquinas said of suffering what Aristotle said of shame. The thing is not good in and of itself, but it might have goodness in certain situations. If the eternal happiness of man lies in his self-surrender, then no one can make him surrender but himself. He can be helped towards surrender, but he may refuse. Christianity would love to declare: “Everyone will be saved!” But our reason retorts, “with or without their will?” If “without their will”, then free-will amounts to an illusion and we line up with the false philosophy of determinism. If “with their will”, then what about those who unashamedly refuse to repent of their sins? The proud, the scorners, “lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God.”
If God is truly good, we are told, He must forgive an unrepentant sinner who has no intention whatsoever of surrendering to Jesus. What arises here is a confusion between condoning and forgiving. People are really asking God to condone (not forgive) this behaviour. To condone in this situation would amount to calling evil good. A contradiction of terms. That is not of God. If forgiveness is to be complete, it must be offered and accepted. Therefore, the unrepentant who admits no guilt cannot be forgiven.
God is love, but Hebrews 10:31 is also equally true. There is a fine line between justice and mercy. Therefore, it would be wise if we heeded Jesus’ words, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) You can recover from many poor decisions in this life; this is isn’t one of them (Hebrews 9:27). Call them scare tactics if you wish. He meant what He said. Only two options. Heaven or hell.
When all is said and done, all of the objections raised concerning this unpleasant doctrine boils down to a question itself: “What more do you want Jesus to do?” To blot out all of our past sins and reconcile man to God, no strings attached? He has already done that on Calvary. “To forgive them?” Some refuse to be forgiven. “Leave them alone then?” That is exactly what He does. He leaves them alone, because as Traherne writes in Centuries of Meditation II, 30: “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive … but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object … He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” As unpleasant as hell and the images it portrays in Scripture might be, remember this: the same Jesus who taught, “Do unto others…” also warned us of the sufferings of hell. “If it were not so, I would have told you.” (John 14:2)
To deny hell is to deny the teachings of Jesus. Hell must be discussed. It has to be. It is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked. God’s goodness is challenged and Christianity is portrayed as being barbarous. The first thing we must get absolutely clear is this: God wants all men to be saved. Carefully read Ezekiel 33:11 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Keep those verses in mind as you read, or else this discussion will be pointless. This doctrine is attacked on many fronts but let us examine at the strongest one: the idea of hell as positive retributive punishment inflicted by God. Aquinas said of suffering what Aristotle said of shame. The thing is not good in and of itself, but it might have goodness in certain situations. If the eternal happiness of man lies in his self-surrender, then no one can make him surrender but himself. He can be helped towards surrender, but he may refuse. Christianity would love to declare: “Everyone will be saved!” But our reason retorts, “with or without their will?” If “without their will”, then free-will amounts to an illusion and we line up with the false philosophy of determinism. If “with their will”, then what about those who unashamedly refuse to repent of their sins? The proud, the scorners, “lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God.”
If God is truly good, we are told, He must forgive an unrepentant sinner who has no intention whatsoever of surrendering to Jesus. What arises here is a confusion between condoning and forgiving. People are really asking God to condone (not forgive) this behaviour. To condone in this situation would amount to calling evil good. A contradiction of terms. That is not of God. If forgiveness is to be complete, it must be offered and accepted. Therefore, the unrepentant who admits no guilt cannot be forgiven.
God is love, but Hebrews 10:31 is also equally true. There is a fine line between justice and mercy. Therefore, it would be wise if we heeded Jesus’ words, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) You can recover from many poor decisions in this life; this is isn’t one of them (Hebrews 9:27). Call them scare tactics if you wish. He meant what He said. Only two options. Heaven or hell.
When all is said and done, all of the objections raised concerning this unpleasant doctrine boils down to a question itself: “What more do you want Jesus to do?” To blot out all of our past sins and reconcile man to God, no strings attached? He has already done that on Calvary. “To forgive them?” Some refuse to be forgiven. “Leave them alone then?” That is exactly what He does. He leaves them alone, because as Traherne writes in Centuries of Meditation II, 30: “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive … but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object … He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” As unpleasant as hell and the images it portrays in Scripture might be, remember this: the same Jesus who taught, “Do unto others…” also warned us of the sufferings of hell. “If it were not so, I would have told you.” (John 14:2)
