In his book “The Case for Faith”, Lee Strobel tackles several obstacles that one might have in believing the Christian message. One chapter is titled “Obstacle #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell”.
Strobel interviews Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, a professor at the Talbot School of Theology. According to Moreland, hell is not a torture chamber, rather that hell is “God’s Fall Back Position”. In other words, since we have a freewill, and if we “fail over and over to live for the purpose for which we were made…then God will have absolutely no choice but to give us what we’ve asked for all along in our lives, which is separation from Him.”
So, Moreland continues, “…hell is relational”…
he goes on to explain that God is a consuming fire and thus a long as we are in a rebellious state, He will remain a consuming fire (God’s judgment). Much of the talk about gnashing of teeth, flames, and worms is figurative, attributing these as descriptions of the depraved condition of one’s soul. There is also some discussion about the ‘light’ all men receive, through the evidence of creation and conscience, and no one is excused, even though they haven’t heard of Christ.
Except for the finality of a permanent existence of hell, I tend to agree will much of what Moreland is saying concerning the nature of hell and the relational aspects to God. However, he states the reason for the finality of hell that the worst thing a person can do is not to commit murder or adultery, but rather the worse thing is “to mock and dishonor and refuse to love the person we owe absolutely everything to, which is our Creator, God Himself”. The longer a person reject and that once this life is over, the longer one takes in the hereafter continues for that person, that is, one would not be *able *to repent, nor have that opportunity. C’est la vie!
I don’t know if everyone really does have that opportunity. It says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If one had no opportunity to hear, being only left with creation (which can be distorted by evolution teaching) and conscience (which can be influence by one’s surroundings and by others to the point of being seared, seeing that the Word was never effectively preached), then one is in dire straits to have much of a chance to love God properly, if at all (especially if evolution leads to athiesm).
But I have some other bizarre quotes from Moreland taken from Strobel’s book:
- In regards to those in heaven thinking about those in hell - “First of all, I think people in heaven will realize that hell is a way of honoring people as being intrinsicallyvaluable creatures in God’s image…You have to remember that the soul is big enough to have a unperturbed sense of joy, well-being, love, happiness, while at the same time having a sense of grief and sadness for others.”
I don’t know how one could get over their loved ones pictured in hell for eternity. Much less have an “unperturbed sense of joy”.
- In regard to making a choice postmortem - “The next thing you have to keep in mind is if people saw the judgment seat of God after death, it would be so coercive that they would no longer have the power of free choice. Any “decision” they made would not be a real genuine free choice; it would totally be coerced…they’d be making a prudent ‘choice’ to avoid judgment only.”
Really? Aren’t we trying to do the same when we warn people of hell and God’s judgment on this side of death?
- On God forcing everyone to go to heaven - “Because that would be immoral…if you forse people to do something against their free choice, you’d be dehumanizing them. You would be saying that the good of what you want them to do is more valuable than respecting their choices, and so you’re treating people as a means to and end by requiring them to do something they don’t want”
Now to a certain extent, I get what Moreland means, however once a person know what he’s in for, once he finds himself looking down in the pit of hell forever and ever, wouldn’t that tend to make him reconsider his position? I’m not saying that God should force them into heaven, but considering the alternative, don’t you think that a more informed decision is needed once the full light of reality kicks in?
- On children being sent to hell - “You must understand that in the afterlife, our personalities reflect an adult situation anyway, so we can say for sure that there will be no children in hell”
I’m not sure what he’s saying here. Does he mean that our children all the way up to adulthood are ‘safe’? Or does he mean that children who die (without Christ presumably) take on an adult nature when they face God and are therefore judged as adults, and unfortunately consigned to hell?
At least Moreland is trying to be rational about hell. But the logic falls way short. But I suppose that is the inevidable conclusion one can make if they hold to what Moreland calls ‘eternal conscious suffering’ at the end of his interview he says:
Great news. Instead He’ll just confine them to eternal torment.
Sigh.
