On Luke’s recommendation I obtained Timothy Keller’s “The Reason for God” as a kindle download and read Chapter 5 “How can a loving God send people to hell?” Here are my brief notes and reactions to Keller’s argument. The location numbers in brackets relate to the kindle edition.
- (1210) Right from these opening quotes, TK shows this chapter is written against people who reject the bible’s teaching about God because it seems distasteful to them. He is not addressing the current wave of anti ECT teaching, which says the bible has been incorrectly interpreted by TK’s tradition.
- (1225) TK addresses people who reject the idea of a God who judges and punishes. EU of course has room for judgement, punishment and even hell, but not for ECT.
- “A God of Judgment Simply Can’t Exist” (1232) No EU would make any such statement. This would be a very liberal view.
- “In ancient times it was understood that that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self…if you violated that metaphysical order there were consequences just as severe as if you violated physical reality by placing your hand in a fire. The path of wisdom was to learn to live in conformity with this unyielding reality” (1253) EUs would go alomg with the idea of a transcendent moral order and consequences, but this need not mean ECT of course.
- “It seems to our minds unfair, therefore, that we should determine that it is all right to have sex outside of marriage and later discover that there is a God who is going to punish us for that”(1263) A good analysis of the weakness of the perspective of modernity, which, as an EU, I can heartily agree with.
- (1273) This criticism may fairly be applied to some western christians, but not us. For me, TK is confusing two things. He’s saying anyone who objects to the doctrine of hell as ECT is also rejecting any idea of divine payback for malpractice. This assumption is wrong.
- “Christianity…would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect” (1278) A good point which I agree with. But he can’t see that it would equally apply to his brand of christian subculture.
- “A God of Judgment Can’t Be a God of Love” (1280) Again, this is not a statement which any EU would make. Our critique would be that God’s judgment is always loving and that ECT is not loving.
- “If he is loving and perfect, he should forgive and accept everyone. He shouldn’t get angry” (1283) TK sets up an easy strawman to knock down. No mature christian of any hue would make such a naive remark.
- “He is angry at evil and injustice because it is destroying (creation’s) peace and integrity” (1291) Good point which I fully agree with. But surely this indicates a healing and correcting punishment, rather than ECT, which is ultimately pointless and actually perpetuates evil.
- “Only if I am sure that there’s a God who will right all wrongs and settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain (from retaliation)” (1314) He is paraphrasing Miroslav Volf. I strongly agree with Volf that God is putting all things right. This is something far more constructive than ECT.
- “Volf and Milosz argue that the doctrine of God’s final judgment is a necessary undergirding for human practices of love and peacemaking” (1323) I agree belief in judgment is necessary, but not ECT. A healing, correcting judgment encourages more healthy attitudes to others than ECT does. Why should I love my enemies unless God loves his? I actually believe God loves his enemies enough to punish them in a restorative way, rather than merely despising them and doling out retribution.
- “A Loving God Would Not Allow Hell” (1324) Depends how you define hell. EU accepts hell but not ECT.
- “The Bible speaks of eternal punishment” (1325) Not when translated correctly.
- “A common image of hell in the Bible is that of fire. Fire disintegrates.” (1333) In the Bible, as in industry, fire is also used to cleanse, refine and purify. The endless fire of ECT, which continues to punish without ever consuming, is alien both to the Bible and to science.
- “Jesus’s parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 supports the view of hell we are presenting here.” (1352) In context it was clearly a dig at the pharisees, their love of money, their view of the afterlife.
- “In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (1354) The trajectory may be for infinity, but God does not desire or ultimately allow any of his creatures to remain lost forever.
- “No one ever asks to leave hell” (1360) Why should this be true? Especially if we consider people who find themselves in hell by honest mistake, eg sincere believers in other religions, who may not even have heard the gospel? It is not just wilfull, persistent offenders who are in TK’s hell.
- TK agrees with CS Lewis’s (arminian) idea that God gives way to human freedom and lets people choose hell over him. Quotes Romans 1.24 “God gave them up to their desires.” (1377) If you read the rest of Romans, you see that God certainly did not intend to leave things that way. Like a loving parent, God lets us experience the consequences of our foolishness to a point, but ultimately corrects, heals and saves us.
- Again following Lewis “God says to people ‘thy will be done’. All that are in hell choose it” (1380) Lewis was wrong here. There is no scriptural warrant for such a claim.
- “Because Christians believe souls don’t die, they also believe that moral and spiritual errors affect the soul forever” (1394) As Julie Ferwerda explains, this idea comes from platonism, not from biblical judaism or christianity.
- “Liberal, secular persons… since they don’t believe in an afterlife, don’t think the consequences of wrongdoing go on into eternity” (1396) But you can hold that the consequences do go on after death without holding that they go on forever.
- “I Believe in a God of Love” (1402) A limited love.
- “What makes people think God is Love?” (1421) The Bible does. Many examples, the most obvious being 1 John 4.7-21.
- “The Bible tells us that the God of love is also a God of judgment who will put all things in the world to rights in the end” (1425) He misunderstands both love and judgment here. He believes that God’s judgment triumphs over God’s love and mercy whereas God’s characteristics are actually all consistent. So God’s justice and judgments are always loving and merciful. Equally God’s love and mercy are always just.
- “The belief in a God of pure love – who accepts everyone and judges no one – is a powerful act of faith” (1426) A strawman. Only the most naive christian would define the love of God in this way, an EU certainly wouldn’t. Ironically, only a universalist version of christianity has an ending in which all things are put right.
- “The more one looks at it, the less justified it appears” (1428) Of course there is no support for a view of God as accepting all and judging no one. But this is not what we are proposing.
On the whole, the chapter is interesting in giving a reformed perspective of why it is important to hold onto the doctrine of hell as ECT. But IMO it does not address or even acknowledge the existance of the kind of evangelical universalist perspective which is discussed on this forum. He’s either not aware of our existance or he’s just hoping we will go away.
Btw, I’ve let Luke know on FB that you took up his suggestion 
)