Mainline Christian thinking holds that Universalism results in a critically flawed moral framework and an inherently weakened mission. Without accountability, why bother how we behave? Without the consequences, why care about the eternal well-being of others?
Mainline Christian thinking- from the beginning, there have been 3 different views of mankind’s eternity. Eternal punishment has become the bully pulpit of the mob mentality. Who would say they believe different if they treat you like Rob Bell when you speak of another view? Truth is not determined by the majority. There have always been 3 views that have stood side by side from the beginning of the church. Each have their basis in scripture. Early church fathers held differing views. Noted Christian scholars to this day hold differing views.
Critically flawed moral framework/why bother how we behave?- Andre Crouch said it best,
“If heaven never was promised to me, neither a land where we could live eternally, it’s been worth having the lord in my life- living in a world of darkness, he came along and brought me the light.”
We behave right simply because it is right. Moral living is an end in itself. Although living the way God wants us to, is not bad either.
Inherently weakened mission/why care about the eternal well-being of others?- We care because it is right to care; because we love God and therefore love those he loves. Both of the other views still include hell; both views believe it is used as a temporary place of suffering. One view believes it is designed to bring about repentance and, finally, acknowledging Jesus is Lord of all. If others will spend even a moment in hell, we should deeply desire to keep them from it. Five minutes or an eternity in hell- both should produce the same reaction from a Christian.
Serve God for fear of hell or because you love him?
I can honestly say I was saved because I was afraid to go to hell. It had nothing to do with my loving Jesus or his love for me. It was fear. Plain and simple fear. As I walked in faith, I learned more of His love for me and experienced it first hand. I came to know the God of Love for myself. But up until recent years, I stayed “good” because I was afraid I’d slip up and get thrown into hell for all eternity.
Yet there has always been a feeling of disappointment in myself because it is fear that keeps me in line and not love. I am not faithful to my wife because I fear her response if she found out I was not. I am faithful to her because I love her above all other women. How much more should I love the God who loves me unconditionally; who sought me out because he desired I be reconciled with him; who saved me from the sin that kept me from his presence?
The evidence
The Biblical or historical evidence does not point to any of the 3 views strongly enough to honestly make a final decision. Scholars who are much more learned than I say this very thing. Many well known authors and scholars of this day have chosen their own position- many differing with the “mainline Christian thinking.” Francis Chan essentially says we should believe in eternal hell “just in case” that is the truth. Sounds like he is kept in line by fear as well.
Which view is correct?
I certainly don’t know. But what I do know is the God of love that I serve would not assign people to hell for eternal punishment, thereby never resolving the issue of sin. He would eternally be heart-broken at losing them and justice would never be brought to a conclusion. Besides, is eternal punishment justified for temporal sin?
Annihilation seems to deal with the justice issue, but never really resolves every knee bowing and Jesus reconciling all things to himself. Sounds like reconciling some things? Perhaps most things?
I have come to lean toward a temporary hell, which would bring the lost to a realization of their great error while on earth and eventually, repentance. Scripture tells us “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” and he will finally “reconcile all things to himself.”
It seems to me that an eternal hell has a weak argument behind it. If we say “well, God is God. Who are we to argue with what he has decided?” Then that argument can also be applied to a universalistic view as well. As the scripture passage said very clearly, “If the master decides to pay all his workers the same wages, who are we to argue?” And shouldn’t the faithful son be glad that the prodigal was finally brought back home?
No comments:
Post a Comment