Hell is eternal separation from God?

[Steve Curtis]

The Westminster standards are, to be sure, not divine oracles, but they are very difficult to improve upon.

I pray that our beloved moderators will bear with me in expressing why I find this board so unedifying at times.

The frustration is equally shared. If discussion could move away from the somewhat modernist idea that the Standards need "improving" simply by virtue of the fact that we chronologically succeed those who produced them (when the humble reality is that we are far from the godly learning of the past masters), I believe the frustration will be removed and more edifying dialogue will characterise this board.

As Pastor King's comment was originally interjected in a conversation in which he expressed impatience with me, perhaps I should clarify once again that I am in no way advocating the "chronological snobbery" to which C. S. Lewis referred (and to which you alluded) and rather thought that I was arguing for the position of the masters and not against it. The only charge that could rightly be levelled against me in this regard is that I was insisting upon a full and accurate representation of the Confession's statements regarding this topic.

 

[MW]

As Pastor King's comment was originally interjected in a conversation in which he expressed impatience with me, perhaps I should clarify once again that I am in no way advocating the "chronological snobbery" to which C. S. Lewis referred (and to which you alluded) and rather thought that I was arguing for the position of the masters and not against it. The only charge that could rightly be levelled against me in this regard is that I was insisting upon a full and accurate representation of the Confession's statements regarding this topic.

Very good; this should mean that questions are framed as questions rather than contrary statements. To say -- "Then to conclude that God "grants" them His absence is confusing, to say the least" -- is not helpful to the discussion, when the distinction of the Standards had already been produced. Let's move forward with this united understanding that we are seeking to grasp what the Standards teach.

 

[Steve Curtis]

As Pastor King's comment was originally interjected in a conversation in which he expressed impatience with me, perhaps I should clarify once again that I am in no way advocating the "chronological snobbery" to which C. S. Lewis referred (and to which you alluded) and rather thought that I was arguing for the position of the masters and not against it. The only charge that could rightly be levelled against me in this regard is that I was insisting upon a full and accurate representation of the Confession's statements regarding this topic.

Very good; this should mean that questions are framed as questions rather than contrary statements. To say -- "Then to conclude that God "grants" them His absence is confusing, to say the least" -- is not helpful to the discussion, when the distinction of the Standards had already been produced. Let's move forward with this united understanding that we are seeking to grasp what the Standards teach.

With all due respect, I wasn't really asking a question. Certainly we are not restricted to that? I was, in fact, making a statement that refuted the conclusion that is implied by what I consider to be an incorrect rendering of the Confession. "Grants" was intentionally in quotes to demonstrate what I see as an inherent fallacy in divorcing the presence of God from the administration of His justice and wrath. Again, I believe that a straightforward reading of the Confession is far more amicable to my position than to the one introduced in the OP.

 

[MW]

With all due respect, I wasn't really asking a question. Certainly we are not restricted to that? I was, in fact, making a statement that refuted the conclusion that is implied by what I consider to be an incorrect rendering of the Confession. "Grants" was intentionally in quotes to demonstrate what I see as an inherent fallacy in divorcing the presence of God from the administration of His justice and wrath. Again, I believe that a straightforward reading of the Confession is far more amicable to my position than to the one introduced in the OP.

Obviously not "very good" afterall. So wherein lies your stated "confusion?" Why can't one grant the same charity to the simple statement of others as one is willing to grant to the Standards?

 

[Steve Curtis]

With all due respect, I wasn't really asking a question. Certainly we are not restricted to that? I was, in fact, making a statement that refuted the conclusion that is implied by what I consider to be an incorrect rendering of the Confession. "Grants" was intentionally in quotes to demonstrate what I see as an inherent fallacy in divorcing the presence of God from the administration of His justice and wrath. Again, I believe that a straightforward reading of the Confession is far more amicable to my position than to the one introduced in the OP.

Obviously not "very good" afterall. So wherein lies your stated "confusion?" Why can't one grant the same charity to the simple statement of others as one is willing to grant to the Standards?

Seriously? You are asking why one cannot grant the same charity to the statements of others as one is willing to grant to the Standards? I thought the whole jist of your earlier post was that we are to be wary of attempts to "improve" the Standards. At any rate, I hardly felt as though I was being extended charity by some who tired of my persistence. My "confusion" lies in the logical inconsistency of what I see to be an incorrect interpretation of the Standards (and of Scripture). I extend charity to those who hold to differing views, but I won't passively allow what I perceive to be error to go unchallenged. Or are you suggesting that some have a "better" grasp of what the Standards mean? And, if so, on what basis is their interpretation the proper one? I have offered contrary points of view from other Reformed thinkers, and so have others on this thread. The several points I have raised are still there to be discussed and, perhaps, refuted. However, continuing to harp on my opening line wherein I disagree with the phrase offered in the OP is to chase a red herring. I began by saying that I found the statements problematic; however, I have endeavored - in multiple posts - to say why I found the statements problematic. Appeals to the Confession are not satisfactory because they say what I say - virtually verbatim. It is, therefore, incumbent upon others to demonstrate how the words of the Confession do not mean what they say on their face. If that can be done, I will be the first in line to proffer a heartfelt apology.

 

[MW]

Appeals to the Confession are not satisfactory because they say what I say - virtually verbatim. It is, therefore, incumbent upon others to demonstrate how the words of the Confession do not mean what they say on their face. If that can be done, I will be the first in line to proffer a heartfelt apology.

I don't think anyone wants to be uncharitable to you; I certainly don't. You said, "I have often heard it said that hell is eternal separation from God, but I have problems with that idea." The Standards point out the specific sense in which that idea is legitimate. That should resolve the "problems with that idea." But apparently there is still "confusion." Why? What remains to be clarified after the statement made by the Standards has been accepted. If the Standards are accepted, then there should be no problem with saying that "hell is eternal separation from God" because we have a legitimate sense in which that idea may be expressed.

It seems to me that you may be focussing on something other than your original concern and the change of focus is not being made apparent to those who are reading your subsequent statements.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Appeals to the Confession are not satisfactory because they say what I say - virtually verbatim. It is, therefore, incumbent upon others to demonstrate how the words of the Confession do not mean what they say on their face. If that can be done, I will be the first in line to proffer a heartfelt apology.

I don't think anyone wants to be uncharitable to you; I certainly don't. You said, "I have often heard it said that hell is eternal separation from God, but I have problems with that idea." The Standards point out the specific sense in which that idea is legitimate. That should resolve the "problems with that idea." But apparently there is still "confusion." Why? What remains to be clarified after the statement made by the Standards has been accepted. If the Standards are accepted, then there should be no problem with saying that "hell is eternal separation from God" because we have a legitimate sense in which that idea may be expressed.

It seems to me that you may be focussing on something other than your original concern and the change of focus is not being made apparent to those who are reading your subsequent statements.

Thank you for assuring me of your charitable intentions. I offer nothing less in return. And I regret that my original statement has been the source of such confusion. My problem is not with the assertion as it is elucidated in the Confession. My problem is with the way in which that assertion is commonly stated (in a way that is considerably less specific) and in the way that assertion is received because of how it is commonly stated. As I said in #22:

In all, I am simply trying to promote the idea that we would better serve those aforementioned uninformed folks by speaking more clearly, sticking to the language of the Confession, and avoiding “short-cuts” that can lead weaker ones to incorrect conclusions.

I know that it is difficult to change an embedded convention. Yet I am convinced that somewhere along the line, when the commonplace reference shifted from "separation from the comfortable and favorable presence of God" to simply "eternal separation from God," an important distinction was lost. Not to the academic and the erudite layman perhaps, but to the innumerable body of genuine, though unaware, believers. Such individuals consequently perceive hell as the place where God locks the door and walks away. This robs Him of the glory due Him in His justice, not to mention the attendant confusion it creates in the doctrine of His omnipresence. I am only calling for a return to the language of the Confession, which clearly and precisely delineates the way in which the reprobate is "separated" from God, in our practical as well as in our scholarly discussions.

 

[MW]

I am only calling for a return to the language of the Confession, which clearly and precisely delineates the way in which the reprobate is "separated" from God, in our practical as well as in our scholarly discussions.

OK; so the focus has become pedagogical, how we teach the concept contained in the Standards. I think there is room for useful discussion on this point. At the very least, I'm sure we would agree that the popular idea has some basis to it as a general statement which requires qualification. Like any theological statement, further clarification helps to guard against misunderstanding.

 

[kevin.carroll]

As with all eschatological questions, there is a lot we don't know about Hell. What we DO know is that

1. It will be a very unpleasant experience.
2. It will never end.
3. You don't want to wind up there.

 

[Steve Curtis]

OK; so the focus has become pedagogical

Yes. In fact, it's pretty safe to say that all of my theological concerns are ultimately pedagogical; that is, I seek the truths of God that I might be nurtured by them myself and, then, that I might convey them to others for their edification. The truth in this instance that I am pursuing concerns the justice of God which, popularly, is often poorly understood in light of the doctrines of His love. I often encounter those who, because of their imbalanced view of God's nature, have a distorted and, frankly rather tame, version of Him in their minds. Minimizing God's role ("presence") in the eternal administration of His justice only serves to bolster this distortion. The "broadly evangelical" view sees hell as a "destination" only, rather than also seeing it as an eternal demonstration of an attribute of God. I would think it more helpful to teach the eschatological trajectories of eternity in the presence of God as, on the one hand, a thing most desireable (love) and, on the other hand, as a thing most dreadful (justice). This, to my mind, is better than eternity "in His presence" versus eternity "not in His presence." The Standards, of course, bear this out, as does Scripture. Thus, again, I believe it is better in this case (as in all cases!) to cling closely to the express teaching therein.

 

[okeefesvoice]

I believe that the unrepentant sinner who goes to hell will find him/herself in an unbearable position. 1) Everlasting torment. Rev 14:11 etc. and 2) even if God were to take them into heaven (biblically impossible) they would hate it there because the God they reject is ever present. So they would be between a rock and a hard place. Regards, Steve.

 

[tlharvey7]

as i read 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
i have always understood that it means the destruction comes "from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power"
is this an acceptable view of this passage?

 

[Steve Curtis]

as i read 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
i have always understood that it means the destruction comes "from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power"
is this an acceptable view of this passage?

The key in this verse is the preposition "from" (άπό in Greek). I take it to mean “from the source.” However, the NASB translates it as “away from.” While I do consider myself fairly fluent in ancient Greek (having majored in it and taken more than 6 years of it), I admit that I cannot hold a candle to the scholars who did that translation. I was likewise disappointed to see the ESV render it as “away from,” as well, though that's not as bad as the CEV:

“Their punishment will be eternal destruction, and they will be kept far from the presence of our Lord and his glorious strength.”

Not sure where they could get “far” away... The Vulgate, however, uses “a” rather than “de.” (The latter is more “away from” or “off” while the former can be “by” or “from” in the sense of origin or cause). So Jerome seems to have understood it differently from a lot of the modern translators.
As I mentioned in #22, Revelation 14:10 says that the damned will be tormented “in the presence of” (ἐνώπιον: “in the face of”) the holy angels and the Lamb. (NASB) You may want to refer to the quote I included from Gill in that post.
Also, I would offer an unpublished (and unfinished) sermon on this verse by Jonathan Edwards. It is very rough and unedited, but I have highlighted the parts relevant to this thread:

the Immediate dreadfull Pres. of G. will be sensible in their Punishmt . as there will be sensible Glo. Pres. of G. in the Happiness & Record of the Saints the Saints will be se Immediately sensible of G. as persons with them feeding & feasting of their souls & filling them with delight & Pleasure they will be Immediately sensible of the Love of G. in it which will be the Cream & flower of their of their happiness . so the wicked will be sensible of God Immediately Present Ex Clothed with wrath & & Indignation Exerting the fierceness of his anger upon their souls they will see [-] & Immediate see & be sensible of Gods being there as a Consumming fire . they be see him Present in terrible majesty & as it were in flaming fire taking vengeance . & This sense of the wrath of G. in the soul is that in which the Lament & honour & amazemt of the soul will chiefly Consist.

His emphasis seems to be that the wicked will sense the presence of God to the same degree that the saints will, though, of course, with diametrically different effects. Here is the source where you can read the entire sermon:
Search WJE Online | The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University

Hope this helps.