Saturday, October 31, 2009

How Willingly Do People Go to Hell?

My intention for the subject matter of today's post was originally going in a much different direction. However, Tim's sobering message this past Sunday, and several recent blog posts this week, has inclined me to add some further thoughts on the Biblical teaching concerning Hell. The subject of the horrific destiny that awaits all who die in their sin is one we dare not neglect nor misunderstand. It was Jesus Himself who spoke more about Hell than everyone else in the Bible put together, and He had more to say about Hell than He did about Heaven.

So, when I read a blog post the other day by John Piper on the Desiring God site on the subject of Hell, its significance moved me to share it with you here, at least in part. I do not offer this in any way as something to be approached casually or tritely. The magnitude of the issue of final judgment is almost beyond words to describe. I offer this simply that we might think more Biblically, be affected more deeply, be moved to pray for the lost more earnestly, be more zealous for evangelism, and be focused more completely upon the glory of God.

Here is a portion of what John Piper had to say:
C.S. Lewis is one of the top 5 dead people who have shaped the way I see and respond to the world. But he is not a reliable guide on a number of important theological matters. Hell is one of them. His stress is relentlessly that people are not “sent” to hell but become their own hell. His emphasis is that we should think of “a bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is.”

...I think it is misleading to say that hell is giving people what they most want... The misery of hell will be so great that no one will want to be there. They will be weeping and gnashing their teeth (Matthew 8:12). Between their sobs, they will not speak the words, “I want this.” They will not be able to say amid the flames of the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14), “I want this.” “The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night” (Revelation 14:11). No one wants this.

...The person who rejects God does not know the real horrors of hell. This may be because he does not believe hell exists, or it may be because he convinces himself that it would be tolerably preferable to heaven.

...So when a person chooses against God and, therefore, de facto chooses hell--or when he jokes about preferring hell with his friends over heaven with boring religious people--he does not know what he is doing. What he rejects is not the real heaven (nobody will be boring in heaven), and what he “wants” is not the real hell, but the tolerable hell of his imagination.

When he dies, he will be shocked beyond words. The miseries are so great he would do anything in his power to escape. That it is not in his power to repent does not mean he wants to be there. Esau wept bitterly that he could not repent (Hebrew 12:17). The hell he was entering into he found to be totally miserable, and he wanted out. The meaning of hell is the scream: “I hate this, and I want out.”

...Beneath this misleading emphasis on hell being what people “most want” is the notion that God does not “send” people to hell. But this is simply unbiblical. God certainly does send people to hell. He does pass sentence, and he executes it. Indeed, worse than that. God does not just “send,” he “throws.” “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown (Greek eblethe) into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15; cf. Mark 9:47; Matthew 13:42; 25:30).

The reason the Bible speaks of people being “thrown” into hell is that no one will willingly go there, once they see what it really is. No one standing on the shore of the lake of fire jumps in. They do not choose it, and they will not want it. They have chosen sin. They have wanted sin. They do not want the punishment. When they come to the shore of this fiery lake, they must be thrown in.

...We should ask: How did Jesus expect his audience to think and feel about the way he spoke of hell? The words he chose were not chosen to soften the horror by being accommodating to cultural sensibilities. He spoke of a “fiery furnace” (Matthew 13:42), and “weeping and gnashing teeth” (Luke 13:28), and “outer darkness” (Matthew 25:30), and “their worm [that] does not die” (Mark 9:48), and “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46), and “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43), and being “cut in pieces” (Matthew 24:51).

...Surely the pattern of Jesus--who used blazing words to blast the hell-bent blindness out of everyone--should be followed. Surely, we will grope for words that show no one, no one, no one will want to be in hell when they experience what it really is... but that it is horrible beyond description--weeping, gnashing teeth, darkness, worm-eaten, fiery, furnace-like, dismembering, eternal, punishment, “an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

I thank God, as a hell-deserving sinner, for Jesus Christ my Savior, who became a curse for me and suffered hellish pain that he might deliver me from the wrath to come. While there is time, he will do that for anyone who turns from sin and treasures him and his work above all.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Petros said...

To not choose God, is to choose hell. These do not understand what they are choosing... they do not believe, or understand, or care to understand all that separation from God must mean.

Of course, no one would choose damnation and torture for eternity. "He that believes not is condemned already." Is it not their unbelief (a choice) that damns them to an eternity of unbelievable suffering.

They did not choose to seek God in life. Is it not true then, that their will (which declared in life, "I will not have God") is now eternally fixed? And in this sense, do they not themselves choose damnation and hell by their unbelief?

Also, is hell a place of fire and and literal flames? Or it it a place of absolute aloneness-- a separation from God; an "outer darkness."

Darkness and aloneness, eternal mental anguish and emotional suffering...how terrible. Actual flames though? Is this something we must hold to? Is it clear? Is it figurative?

November 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM  
Blogger Bruce said...

Peter, appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions. Yes, it is so that to not choose God is to choose hell. However, it might be helpful to clarify what it seems to me we should mean by that. There were portions of Piper's article that I did not include for the sake of space and brevity. I would encourage everyone to read his article in its entirety at this link -

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4368_How_Willingly_Do_People_Go_to_Hell/

In Piper's article I think he speaks helpfully to your point in this way:

"When there are only two choices, and you choose against one, it does not mean that you want the other, if you are ignorant of the outcome of both. Unbelieving people know neither God nor hell. This ignorance is not innocent. Apart from regenerating grace, all people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

.............. But whatever he believes or does not believe, when he chooses against God, he is wrong about God and about hell. He is not, at that point, preferring the real hell over the real God. He is blind to both. He does not perceive the true glories of God, and he does not perceive the true horrors of hell.

.............. What sinners want is not hell but sin. That hell is the inevitable consequence of unforgiven sin does not make the consequence desirable. It is not what people want—certainly not what they “most want.” Wanting sin is no more equal to wanting hell than wanting chocolate is equal to wanting obesity. Or wanting cigarettes is equal to wanting cancer.

................ When someone says that no one is in hell who doesn’t want to be there, they give the false impression that hell is within the limits of what humans can tolerate. It inevitably gives the impression that hell is less horrible than Jesus says it is.
.................. These words are chosen to portray hell as an eternal, conscious experience that no one would or could ever “want” if they knew what they were choosing. Therefore, if someone is going to emphasize that people freely “choose” hell, or that no one is there who doesn’t “want” to be there, surely he should make every effort to clarify that, when they get there, they will not want this (bold italics are mine -BB).

I think that is helpful here--------do you find it so?

November 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM  
Blogger Bruce said...

Continued-----

As far as whether the fire and flames of hell are literal or symbolic, Piper is not addressing that in his article. The Bible uses a number of powerful terms to describe hell------ horrific terms---- for example, a place of outer darkness, a lake of fire, a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, a place of eternal separation from the blessings of God, a prison, a place of torment where the worm does not die, etc.. These may very well be literal descriptions, or they may be symbols.

However, if they are to be taken symbolically, that in no way should give us any relief whatsover. Symbols point beyond themselves to a higher or more intense reality than the symbol itself can contain. Most of the language in the Bible regarding hell comes from the lips of Jesus, and for Jesus to use the most horrific descriptions imaginable to refer to hell is no comfort to viewing them symbolically. It is likely that those who in the end find themselves in hell will prefer a literal lake of fire than the reality of hell that would be represented by any lake of fire image.

One final thought, and this perhaps may be the most difficult. Concerning hell as separation from God, I think it is important that here too we clarify. We may tend to think of separation from God in hell in an absolute sense, that Hell is the absence of God. When we speak of God's presence or absence we must as in all matters think carefully and follow the Bible very closely. God is infinite Spirit, and is omnipresent in His being. He is, in a word, inescapable. Wayne Grudem puts it well, I think, regarding how God may be present to bless, sustain, or to punish: "The idea of God’s omnipresence has sometimes troubled people who wonder how God can be present, for example, in hell. In fact, isn’t hell the opposite of God’s presence, or the absence of God? This difficulty can be resolved by realizing that God is present in different ways in different places or that God acts differently in different places in his creation. Sometimes God is present to punish"...... (Systematic Theology). It seems to me that the terrifying Biblical reality of hell is not the absence of God, but the presence of God in the fullness of His Divine wrath as an all-consuming fire.

Peter, let me end by saying thank you again. I really appreciate your tender heart and deep thinking brother. The subject of final judgment is difficult to think and to talk about. Personally, in my present condition this side of glorification, I suppose that if I were free to invent my own religion the Biblical doctrine of eternal punishment would not be a part of it. But I am not free , at least before God, to invent my own religion (we should all be very, very glad). What I (and we) do have the responsibility before God to do is to believe and to teach what the Bible says is true, not what I (and we) want the Bible to say is true. That can be hard in our present condition.

Soli Deo Gloria

November 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM  
Blogger Bruce said...

The link to Piper's article is:

http://www.desiringgod.org
/ResourceLibrary
/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4368_How_Willingly
_Do_People_Go_to_Hell/

Don't know why it was cut off in my comments.

November 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM  
Blogger Petros said...

Thank you Bruce. The further comments by Piper were extremely helpful. I did find myself wondering if Piper is reading Lewis correctly when he suggests that Lewis believes sinners are knowingly getting what they want, and consciously choosing hell. I'm no C.S. Lewis expert, but it's hard to imagine he meant quite that. Of course, Piper knows his literature, and perhaps he is correct?

I know that our Lord himself uses images of fire to describe hell. God would have many ways of executing his fierce wrath, I know, and he is sovereign in choosing them, and not to be questioned. It is not from any "cultural sensitivity" I raise the question of literal flames. It just seems, I don' know, forgive me, unnecessary? But then, WHO AM I to evaluate God's methods-- I certainly do not mean to be irreverant... If God chooses actual flames as a way of tormenting the flesh of the damned, His way is perfect, and I am the one with the problem-- Forgive me Lord... I do not mean to over-step my boundaries in my speculation and wondering.

I guess I do not understand the wrath of God as the scriptures lay it out, but whatever is clearly there, I must not only accept, but embrace. This is hard for me. Many have told me that I have the gift of mercy... a gift God gave me. Perhaps this is why the doctrine of eternal retribution is difficult for me.

I think for me, eternal darkness and absolute solitude would be more than I could bear, and worse than anything. I might actually prefer flames licking at my heels if I could at least see others with the same fate scurrying around. But this seems like foolish talk, bordering on irreverance. I don't mean it that way.

Is there room for speculation on the nature of eternal punishment? But then, why speculate, why do we bother? We know it's bad, and we agree that no one would knowingly choose it, and that is enough to spur us on to a bolder, more earnest proclamation of the GOOD NEWS!

A knowledge of Hell is the kind of thing that makes me understand the passage better that speaks of going into the highways and hedges and "COMPELLING them to come in."

Thank you Bruce.

November 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home