Is Hell punishment for sin?

[shackleton]

I was under the impression that Hell was for punishment for sin. A person either has their sin debt taken care of by Christ or they must pay for it themselves in Hell.

Tim Keller eludes to something different. It is still suffering, but a different kind. One that does not seem to have to do with sin.

Here is where I heard it, Redeemer Sermon Store: The Reason for God
It is under the one about Hell. He says his ideas come from C.S. Lewis.

 

[mvdm]

From the 2/3 I could tolerate listening to, Keller says he agrees with Kierkegaard and C.S. Lewis that sin is essentially making a "self identity" based on anything other than God. In my words, it all boils down to idolatry for Keller. Thus, hell is self-created, you are locked from the inside, not clamoring to get out,--- so if you were a luster, or a prideful person, etc, this will just intensify and continue to destroy you for eternity. Similar to the blindness and denial one sees in a person hooked on drugs.

It sounds as if he dismisses the idea of hell as place where God "sends" people and where His wrath burns against them in punishment for the infinite offense that sin is against the holiness of God.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

It sounds as if he dismisses the idea of hell as place where God "sends" people and where His wrath burns against them in punishment for the infinite offense that sin is against the holiness of God.

I think you should have listened to the last 1/3. Keller points out in his conclusion that for the true love of Christ to be revealed, he had to pay the ultimate price for us, that being descending into hell. He says understanding hell is the way to truly understand God's love for us, because it shows what He was willing to suffer in order to save us. I don't think Keller is rejecting the idea of a physical hell, but he believes that the "lake of fire" is not an outward fire, but our unchecked sin burning us from within. Keller says when we refuse to say to God "Thy will be done," His eternal punishment is saying "thy will be done" to us.

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with Keller about is the "door locked from within" concept, though I think his point is that souls in hell are so self-centered they can't see anything but themselves, which eternally separates them from God.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I think Scripture is pretty clear about the whole Fire thing...

 

[mvdm]

It sounds as if he dismisses the idea of hell as place where God "sends" people and where His wrath burns against them in punishment for the infinite offense that sin is against the holiness of God.

I think you should have listened to the last 1/3. Keller points out in his conclusion that for the true love of Christ to be revealed, he had to pay the ultimate price for us, that being descending into hell. He says understanding hell is the way to truly understand God's love for us, because it shows what He was willing to suffer in order to save us. I don't think Keller is rejecting the idea of a physical hell, but he believes that the "lake of fire" is not an outward fire, but our unchecked sin burning us from within. Keller says when we refuse to say to God "Thy will be done," His eternal punishment is saying "thy will be done" to us.

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with Keller about is the "door locked from within" concept, though I think his point is that souls in hell are so self-centered they can't see anything but themselves, which eternally separates them from God.

Assuming your highlight of the last 1/3 is an accurate summary, it still doesn't help much. No doubt we can agree with the proposition that "understanding hell" helps us understand God's love for us via Christ suffering it for us. But if that hell is only the psuedo -psychological version that Keller has swallowed from Kierkegaard and Lewis, then I haven't learned much of the depth of the love of God. We certainly don't get that picture from Scripture unless one does some serious isogesis, as Keller did with the text he used.

One's time would be much better spent studying Edwards to get an inkling of the astounding nature of hell, complete with God's eternal fierce burning wrath against sin. And consequently, we can then stand in amazement at the immensity of God's love toward us in bring the full weight of that wrath when crushing his Son in our place.

 

[SRoper]

Did God just let Sodom and Gomorrah destroy themselves?

 

[JBaldwin]

This is an interesting discussion as my pastor preached on this a few weeks ago and alluded to what Lewis and Keller teach. His take on it was that hell is a literal place with fire and brimstone as Christ described, but that the worst part of hell was going to be the fact that we are separated from God. Separation from God means we are stuck with ourselves and our sinful natures which can only get worse and worse, because we do not are not being restored by Christ.

That interpretation makes sense to me.

 

[a mere housewife]

I don't think Lewis would have said that hell is not the punishment for sin, meted out by God's justice (though I'm not sure what he believed about literal flames). I vaguely remember something he wrote about about God's punishment of sin and the wholesomeness of the tortures of hell in being such a straightforward punishment for evil -- as opposed to the twisted nature of the torture men inflict on one another?

[edit: I think this was in one of his poems, which I don't currently have access to.]

 

[jogri17]

I would say its not orthodoxy, but not a damnable heresy. Anything connecting to CS Lewis should be viewed very carefully through the Christian orthodox worldview. he was a english/classics genius but had absolutely no theological training. And because he was a Christian and was a genius he had the expectation of giving a defense for the faith, but made a mess out of it while using beautiful language.

 

[a mere housewife]

Joseph I would disagree that he always made a mess out of it. He was more than brilliant at some kinds of apologetics. The Abolition of Man, "Eulogy of a Great Myth" (I think) and other such works are stupendous. As with anyone, one must read with discernment; but he had the Christian humility that many others lack, not to make claims to being a theological expert and would have expected people to read him with discernment. Perhaps he gave people too much credit for being able to do so; but he was a truly charitable man if the tone of his essays is not a farce (and I don't believe it is). In any case if we are going to maintain that Lewis taught that hell is not a punishment for sin (and that this is damnable heresy), I would be interested to see a nonfiction reference for his denial of it. He never intended his fiction to represent his views on theology.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Assuming your highlight of the last 1/3 is an accurate summary, it still doesn't help much. No doubt we can agree with the proposition that "understanding hell" helps us understand God's love for us via Christ suffering it for us. But if that hell is only the psuedo -psychological version that Keller has swallowed from Kierkegaard and Lewis, then I haven't learned much of the depth of the love of God. We certainly don't get that picture from Scripture unless one does some serious isogesis, as Keller did with the text he used.

One's time would be much better spent studying Edwards to get an inkling of the astounding nature of hell, complete with God's eternal fierce burning wrath against sin. And consequently, we can then stand in amazement at the immensity of God's love toward us in bring the full weight of that wrath when crushing his Son in our place.

With all due respect, my friend, I think you completely missed the point of the sermon. Several points:

1. Keller does believe that hell is the punishment of God against sinners, which are the deserving objects of His wrath. His point is that rather than casting them into a literal "lake of fire," He allows their own sin to destroy them from within without hope of salvation. This isn't isogesis, but is confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. Keller didn't use this verse at all, but listening to the sermon I thought of Romans 1:28: "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." We see again and again in Scripture that God's greatest punishments are giving sinners what they truly desire. We saw it with Pharaoh before the Exodus (God "hardened his heart" repeatedly), and with the Israelites wanting a human king (which led to their eventual downfall and division), among other examples. So I don't think Keller is reading anything into the verse by saying that God punishes sinners by giving them over to their unbridled depravity for all eternity.

2. I don't know if Keller believes in a physical location for hell or not - he didn't say in the sermon. Regardless, he believes that the torments of being devoured by sin for all eternity is far worse than literal hell fire, as he makes very clear in the first 3 minutes of his message. And Keller's favorite theologian is Jonathan Edwards, so I'm sure he's quite familiar with his teachings on hell.

3. For those of you who consider this view unorthodox, keep in mind the Westminster Confession's only mentions of hell: "And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." XXXII.1, and "...but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power." XXXIII.1. Not only is there no mention of "fire and brimstone," but Keller's view is 100% in agreement with the Confession.

I'm biased of course, since Keller is my pastor. And obviously I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree with him about this or anything else. But to say he's using "pseudo-psychology" and "isogesis" is far from accurate. There is nothing in that sermon that is theologically inaccurate or unconfessional. Keller may be completely wrong and hell may be a literal lake of fire, but if he is incorrect it isn't for lack of thorough and diligent study of the Word...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Assuming your highlight of the last 1/3 is an accurate summary, it still doesn't help much. No doubt we can agree with the proposition that "understanding hell" helps us understand God's love for us via Christ suffering it for us. But if that hell is only the psuedo -psychological version that Keller has swallowed from Kierkegaard and Lewis, then I haven't learned much of the depth of the love of God. We certainly don't get that picture from Scripture unless one does some serious isogesis, as Keller did with the text he used.

One's time would be much better spent studying Edwards to get an inkling of the astounding nature of hell, complete with God's eternal fierce burning wrath against sin. And consequently, we can then stand in amazement at the immensity of God's love toward us in bring the full weight of that wrath when crushing his Son in our place.

With all due respect, my friend, I think you completely missed the point of the sermon. Several points:

1. Keller does believe that hell is the punishment of God against sinners, which are the deserving objects of His wrath. His point is that rather than casting them into a literal "lake of fire," He allows their own sin to destroy them from within without hope of salvation. This isn't isogesis, but is confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. Keller didn't use this verse at all, but listening to the sermon I thought of Romans 1:28: "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." We see again and again in Scripture that God's greatest punishments are giving sinners what they truly desire. We saw it with Pharaoh before the Exodus (God "hardened his heart" repeatedly), and with the Israelites wanting a human king (which led to their eventual downfall and division), among other examples. So I don't think Keller is reading anything into the verse by saying that God punishes sinners by giving them over to their unbridled depravity for all eternity.

2. I don't know if Keller believes in a physical location for hell or not - he didn't say in the sermon. Regardless, he believes that the torments of being devoured by sin for all eternity is far worse than literal hell fire, as he makes very clear in the first 3 minutes of his message. And Keller's favorite theologian is Jonathan Edwards, so I'm sure he's quite familiar with his teachings on hell.

3. For those of you who consider this view unorthodox, keep in mind the Westminster Confession's only mentions of hell: "And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." XXXII.1, and "...but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power." XXXIII.1. Not only is there no mention of "fire and brimstone," but Keller's view is 100% in agreement with the Confession.

I'm biased of course, since Keller is my pastor. And obviously I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree with him about this or anything else. But to say he's using "pseudo-psychology" and "isogesis" is far from accurate. There is nothing in that sermon that is theologically inaccurate or unconfessional. Keller may be completely wrong and hell may be a literal lake of fire, but if he is incorrect it isn't for lack of thorough and diligent study of the Word...

One can hardly quote WCF without mentioning the Scripture Proofs. Look at these and you will see that the Divines certainly believed in Hellfire and remember it is a Confession not a Systematic Theology.

Matthew 25:41,46

41: Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the (B)eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

46These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

1 Thess 1:9

who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Isaiah 66:24

And they shall go forth, and look upon the dead bodies of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Luke 16:23-24

23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.

Acts 1:25

to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.

Jude 6-7

6 And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Peter 3:19

in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison

 

[a mere housewife]

I did a little reading (Problem of Pain): just to be clear about what is being affirmed by Lewis (and perhaps by Keller?) Lewis does affirm a 'positive retributive punishment inflicted by God' -- he admits that it is a 'repellent' doctrine, but does not attempt to deny that Scripture and the church teach it. He does hold that men are judged because they prefer darkness to light, and so a lost man's perdition is 'a mere fact of being what he is'. He believes both conceptions to be the same thing. He does not attempt to speak-- either to affirm or deny -- to whether hell is a physical place, or whether it involves annihilation. I think he would have agreed with this statement:

Some may object that invoking the concept of figurative language is a thinly veiled attempt to evade the force of Jesus' words. But precisely the opposite is true. The fact is, the horrors of hell are so great that no earthly language can do complete justice to them. By using the figure of unquenchable fire, undying worms, etc., Jesus selected the most horrific descriptions that earthly language would allow. As Robert Reymond observes, "the reality they [the figures] seek to represent should surely be understood by us to be _more_ -- not less -- than the word pictures they depict."[39] Likewise, Ralph E. Powell urges, "If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed."[40]

I don't know that this is 'confessional' ? but certainly if we take the symbols of the streets of gold etc. to be figurative, and the house in which are many mansions, I can see that some would take this to apply to the figures used of hell.

I think Lewis' Arminianism involves him in confusion when he comes to speak on hell. He wants to affirm that God punishes sin (and does), but doesn't want to affirm a God who would sovereignly punish it; the human has to be ultimately in charge of his own fate. All Arminians are involved in the same error, even with believing in a literal hell.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

One can hardly quote WCF without mentioning the Scripture Proofs. Look at these and you will see that the Divines certainly believed in Hellfire and remember it is a Confession not a Systematic Theology.

Fair enough, but that doesn't change Keller's argument (and I suppose C.S. Lewis's) that fire is a metaphor for the torments of being given over to a depraved soul for all eternity. Hell is also described in 2 Peter 2:4 as "chains of darkness," and other references to hell do not describe it in the context of fire. The Westminster Divines likely realized this, which is why they refer to it as a place of torment rather than a fiery dungeon. I realize the Confession is not systematic theology, but I would still maintain that Keller's view is not unorthodox.

 

[vkochetta]

His take on it was that hell is a literal place with fire and brimstone as Christ described, but that the worst part of hell was going to be the fact that we are separated from God. Separation from God means we are stuck with ourselves and our sinful natures which can only get worse and worse, because we do not are not being restored by Christ.

This language reminds me of my college days when on-campus ministries would never use the word Hell, but simply state that the consequence of sin is separation from God. [Note: I know no one in this discussion is doing that]

I love the exact language of the Larger Catechism when is states that "The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell fire forever."

Separated from His comfortable presence.... Wow.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

One can hardly quote WCF without mentioning the Scripture Proofs. Look at these and you will see that the Divines certainly believed in Hellfire and remember it is a Confession not a Systematic Theology.

Fair enough, but that doesn't change Keller's argument (and I suppose C.S. Lewis's) that fire is a metaphor for the torments of being given over to a depraved soul for all eternity. Hell is also described in 2 Peter 2:4 as "chains of darkness," and other references to hell do not describe it in the context of fire. The Westminster Divines likely realized this, which is why they refer to it as a place of torment rather than a fiery dungeon. I realize the Confession is not systematic theology, but I would still maintain that Keller's view is not unorthodox.

The reason for noting it is not a Systematic Theology is for the purpose of saying that the WCF is not a complete unabridged document where all is mentioned in toto. Arguments made from silence are weak and yet are made weaker when one looks at a confession's purpose. Ch. XXXII, Sect. 1 speaks of eternal torment and the source text given is Luke 16: 23-24 which specifically say that fire will be a part of the torment.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Also as VKochetta noted the Larger Catechism in Questions 27, 29, 50, and 89 all speak towards eternal judgment and hellfire in equal terms. The Shorter Catechism also teaches this in Question 19.

 

[shackleton]

I am viewing the nature or reason for Hell based on the necessity of the atonement of Christ. I know somewhere it says something to the effect of, Hell was created for the angels who rebelled against God and was not created for man. Man is there secondarily, after the fallen angels. Did God place the fallen angels in Hell to "leave them alone to their own desires?" Or is it intended to be a place of punishment for rebellion? Since man has now rebelled against God as well the unregenerate will be joining the fallen angels there where they will both be punished.

If Hell is only letting people have their own way in their sin and that being the gist of their punishment, how is that any different than what we experience now? Aren't we miserable now? If all the unbeliever has to fear is an eternity of misery forgive me for saying it but I will gladly take that any day to an eternity of punishment for sin.

Passages in the bible that refer to Hell as being eternal torment and it is always referred to as being like fire. Fire cleanses and purifies.

John 15:6, "6If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother£ will be liable to judgment; whoever insults£ his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell£ of fire."

Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Matthew 13: 40-42"Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (that does not sound pleasant, or like a place I want to be)

Matthew 13:49,50 "So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 18: 8, 9 "And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell£ of fire." (eternal fire, WOW that does not sound good!)

Matthew 25:41-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (There is the verse I was thinking of. Is he leaving the angels to their own desires? it does not sound like it.) 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

That is just Matthew. Look up "Hell" in a concordance and see what it ways about it. I am not trying to sound like a smart alek I am trying to prove a point. Hell is more than just God leaving us to ourselves. He is doing that now. It is punishment for sin. Either Christ pays for your sin or you pay for your sin, in Hell, what it is eternal punishment, see above.

 

[shackleton]

I did a little reading (Problem of Pain) I think Lewis' Arminianism involves him in confusion when he comes to speak on hell. He wants to affirm that God punishes sin (and does), but doesn't want to affirm a God who would sovereignly punish it; the human has to be ultimately in charge of his own fate. All Arminians are involved in the same error, even with believing in a literal hell.

This is a good point. It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the true seriousness of sin and what it requires, plus a God who is so loving and merciful that he would not punish us but let us punish ourselves. Hell is just a place where one is miserable, BIG DEAL!!! It sounds very liberal. God is so loving he over looks our sin. We wind up punishing ourselves and the worst part of it is they are not with God. Once again, big deal, they don't want to be with God.

I think it stems more from philosophy than from what the bible has to say on the subject. They are trying to protect God's reputation and down play the "Hell fire and brimstone" notion of God but they are doing it to the detriment of what the bible actually says.

 

[mvdm]

Assuming your highlight of the last 1/3 is an accurate summary, it still doesn't help much. No doubt we can agree with the proposition that "understanding hell" helps us understand God's love for us via Christ suffering it for us. But if that hell is only the psuedo -psychological version that Keller has swallowed from Kierkegaard and Lewis, then I haven't learned much of the depth of the love of God. We certainly don't get that picture from Scripture unless one does some serious isogesis, as Keller did with the text he used.

One's time would be much better spent studying Edwards to get an inkling of the astounding nature of hell, complete with God's eternal fierce burning wrath against sin. And consequently, we can then stand in amazement at the immensity of God's love toward us in bring the full weight of that wrath when crushing his Son in our place.

With all due respect, my friend, I think you completely missed the point of the sermon. Several points:

1. Keller does believe that hell is the punishment of God against sinners, which are the deserving objects of His wrath. His point is that rather than casting them into a literal "lake of fire," He allows their own sin to destroy them from within without hope of salvation. This isn't isogesis, but is confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. Keller didn't use this verse at all, but listening to the sermon I thought of Romans 1:28: "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." We see again and again in Scripture that God's greatest punishments are giving sinners what they truly desire. We saw it with Pharaoh before the Exodus (God "hardened his heart" repeatedly), and with the Israelites wanting a human king (which led to their eventual downfall and division), among other examples. So I don't think Keller is reading anything into the verse by saying that God punishes sinners by giving them over to their unbridled depravity for all eternity.

2. I don't know if Keller believes in a physical location for hell or not - he didn't say in the sermon. Regardless, he believes that the torments of being devoured by sin for all eternity is far worse than literal hell fire, as he makes very clear in the first 3 minutes of his message. And Keller's favorite theologian is Jonathan Edwards, so I'm sure he's quite familiar with his teachings on hell.

3. For those of you who consider this view unorthodox, keep in mind the Westminster Confession's only mentions of hell: "And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." XXXII.1, and "...but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power." XXXIII.1. Not only is there no mention of "fire and brimstone," but Keller's view is 100% in agreement with the Confession.

I'm biased of course, since Keller is my pastor. And obviously I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree with him about this or anything else. But to say he's using "pseudo-psychology" and "isogesis" is far from accurate. There is nothing in that sermon that is theologically inaccurate or unconfessional. Keller may be completely wrong and hell may be a literal lake of fire, but if he is incorrect it isn't for lack of thorough and diligent study of the Word...

You haven't shown me how I missed the point of his sermon. I clearly understood his speculation that hell takes is some internal generated form of misery, ala Kierkegaardian/ Lewis' version of hell. Whether Keller believes this is a "place" or whether the "flames" are metaphors, is not the point of my concern.

The "isogesis" is blatant in Keller's interpretation of the Luke text. Fitting it to this theory, he states that the rich man's request shows he was even more consumed by the arrogance of his life in asking Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue--- thinking he could still order Lazarus around. This idea is NOWHERE in the text or context. The rich man "cried out for mercy", and as Matthew Henry points out, was simply hoping Lazarus would be kind to him.

I'm heartened that Keller's favorite theologian is Edwards. Let's listen to Edwards then, who said on hell: "He will cast upon you and not spare; you will see nothing in God and receive nothing from Him but perfect hatred and fierceness of His wrath; nothing but the mighty falls or outpouring of wrath upon you every moment; no cries will avail to move God to any pity; or in the least to move Him to lighten His hand or assauge the fierceness and abate the power of your torments."{The Ungodly Warned}.

Rather than evading Edwards' doctrine of hell, Keller may instead just be in need of refresher on the topic rather than getting sidetracked in the psychological speculation of Lewis and Kierkegaard.

 

[JBaldwin]

This makes me think of a sermon I heard not too long ago on the Herod in Scripture who was eaten up with worms. Apparently, he didn't die immediately, but died a painful death over several days being eaten from the inside (I know this is disgusting), but it gives another perspective on the phrase, "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."

 

[bookslover]

Getting back to the OP, here might be a clarifying question: Are people in Hell (a) being punished for their sins; (b) being punished for their rejection of Christ; or (c) both?

It seems to me that (b) is the correct answer because it is not possible for a merely finite human being to pay the penalty for his or her own sins, even over the course (so to speak) of eternity - that's the whole point of Christ dying for the sins of the elect. And it seems that rejection of Christ would trump any other of their own sins anyway; rejection of Christ is a sin several degrees of magnitude greater than any other sin one could commit.

So, as I said, (b) seems to be correct.

 

[mvdm]

Getting back to the OP, here might be a clarifying question: Are people in Hell (a) being punished for their sins; (b) being punished for their rejection of Christ; or (c) both?

It seems to me that (b) is the correct answer because it is not possible for a merely finite human being to pay the penalty for his or her own sins, even over the course (so to speak) of eternity - that's the whole point of Christ dying for the sins of the elect. And it seems that rejection of Christ would trump any other of their own sins anyway; rejection of Christ is a sin several degrees of magnitude greater than any other sin one could commit.

So, as I said, (b) seems to be correct.

Just a thought: wouldn't the fact they are being punished for eternity show that for them, the penalty is never satisfied. The wrath of God continues to pour on them for their accumulated sin {s} without ceasing. As Edwards points out, ANY sin is an offense against the infinite holiness of God and therefore is infinitely heinous, deserving of infinite wrath.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

You haven't shown me how I missed the point of his sermon. I clearly understood his speculation that hell takes is some internal generated form of misery, ala Kierkegaardian/ Lewis' version of hell. Whether Keller believes this is a "place" or whether the "flames" are metaphors, is not the point of my concern.

The "isogesis" is blatant in Keller's interpretation of the Luke text. Fitting it to this theory, he states that the rich man's request shows he was even more consumed by the arrogance of his life in asking Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue--- thinking he could still order Lazarus around. This idea is NOWHERE in the text or context. The rich man "cried out for mercy", and as Matthew Henry points out, was simply hoping Lazarus would be kind to him.

I'm heartened that Keller's favorite theologian is Edwards. Let's listen to Edwards then, who said on hell: "He will cast upon you and not spare; you will see nothing in God and receive nothing from Him but perfect hatred and fierceness of His wrath; nothing but the mighty falls or outpouring of wrath upon you every moment; no cries will avail to move God to any pity; or in the least to move Him to lighten His hand or assauge the fierceness and abate the power of your torments."{The Ungodly Warned}.

Rather than evading Edwards' doctrine of hell, Keller may instead just be in need of refresher on the topic rather than getting sidetracked in the psychological speculation of Lewis and Kierkegaard.

Actually, Keller's main point of the sermon is to show that a God of judgment and a God of love are not contradictory. So, his basic premise is that God is a God of justice, and hell is the sinner's just punishment. You seem to think Keller is lessening the torments of hell, but in reality the opposite is true, as he explicitly said in the sermon. The nature of hell was somewhat of a side issue, because the main discussion centered on understanding our own sin, and how destructive it is now and will be for eternity for the unsaved.

As for Edwards' statement you quoted, I think Keller would agree 100%. But Keller would see the "torments" as God allowing sin to completely unravel the sinner for all eternity, which Keller would argue is a far worse fate than external flames. Again, I think you're assuming that Keller believes hell is self-imposed rather than God-imposed, which isn't the case. He simply believes the unchecked effects of sin are more horrible than an eternal flame.

Also, I disagree with your reading of the text. The rich man certainly does treat Lazarus as a slave, by ordering him to bring him water in hell. This is directly in the text, and John MacArthur, in his commentary, agrees with Keller's interpretation of it. Furthermore, while the rish man does ask for water, he does not ask to be released from hell, which Keller interprets as the ultimate self-absorption. You may disagree with him, but I don't think it's by any means isogesis.

 

[shackleton]

Getting back to the OP, here might be a clarifying question: Are people in Hell (a) being punished for their sins; (b) being punished for their rejection of Christ; or (c) both?

It seems to me that (b) is the correct answer because it is not possible for a merely finite human being to pay the penalty for his or her own sins, even over the course (so to speak) of eternity - that's the whole point of Christ dying for the sins of the elect. And it seems that rejection of Christ would trump any other of their own sins anyway; rejection of Christ is a sin several degrees of magnitude greater than any other sin one could commit.

So, as I said, (b) seems to be correct.

If they are paying for rejection of Christ and not sin then does that mean Christ died for the sins of all people. If rejection or unbelief of Christ are sins then Christ did not die for all sin. ( see Spery Chafer)

I thought the point of the suffering and torture of Christ in the events leading up to and including the crucifixion was the extent it took to pay for sins. It could not have been anything less. Since man can not atone for his own sins it took God in human flesh to do it. If Christ did not pay for a particular persons sins then payment needs to be made, and that constitutes an eternity in hell. This proves the extent it takes to pay for sin and also proves that man can not ultimately pay for sins.

Whether it is a literal fire or not I don't know but when looking it up Hell is always referred to as "outer darkness", "fire," or trash dumps that burn continuously. So it would be hard, using just the bible and not philosophy to prove that Hell did not involve fire or at least extreme heat. The rich man was after all very thirsty.

Once again it comes back to a basic understanding of sin, how serious it is, hos much God is offended by it and us and the extent He must go to to free us.

 

[mvdm]

You haven't shown me how I missed the point of his sermon. I clearly understood his speculation that hell takes is some internal generated form of misery, ala Kierkegaardian/ Lewis' version of hell. Whether Keller believes this is a "place" or whether the "flames" are metaphors, is not the point of my concern.

The "isogesis" is blatant in Keller's interpretation of the Luke text. Fitting it to this theory, he states that the rich man's request shows he was even more consumed by the arrogance of his life in asking Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue--- thinking he could still order Lazarus around. This idea is NOWHERE in the text or context. The rich man "cried out for mercy", and as Matthew Henry points out, was simply hoping Lazarus would be kind to him.

I'm heartened that Keller's favorite theologian is Edwards. Let's listen to Edwards then, who said on hell: "He will cast upon you and not spare; you will see nothing in God and receive nothing from Him but perfect hatred and fierceness of His wrath; nothing but the mighty falls or outpouring of wrath upon you every moment; no cries will avail to move God to any pity; or in the least to move Him to lighten His hand or assauge the fierceness and abate the power of your torments."{The Ungodly Warned}.

Rather than evading Edwards' doctrine of hell, Keller may instead just be in need of refresher on the topic rather than getting sidetracked in the psychological speculation of Lewis and Kierkegaard.

Actually, Keller's main point of the sermon is to show that a God of judgment and a God of love are not contradictory. So, his basic premise is that God is a God of justice, and hell is the sinner's just punishment. You seem to think Keller is lessening the torments of hell, but in reality the opposite is true, as he explicitly said in the sermon. The nature of hell was somewhat of a side issue, because the main discussion centered on understanding our own sin, and how destructive it is now and will be for eternity for the unsaved.

As for Edwards' statement you quoted, I think Keller would agree 100%. But Keller would see the "torments" as God allowing sin to completely unravel the sinner for all eternity, which Keller would argue is a far worse fate than external flames. Again, I think you're assuming that Keller believes hell is self-imposed rather than God-imposed, which isn't the case. He simply believes the unchecked effects of sin are more horrible than an eternal flame.

Also, I disagree with your reading of the text. The rich man certainly does treat Lazarus as a slave, by ordering him to bring him water in hell. This is directly in the text, and John MacArthur, in his commentary, agrees with Keller's interpretation of it. Furthermore, while the rish man does ask for water, he does not ask to be released from hell, which Keller interprets as the ultimate self-absorption. You may disagree with him, but I don't think it's by any means isogesis.

If you could show me in the text where the rich man is "ordering Lazarus to bring him water", I'd like to see how I'm missing that. When I read the plain language, the rich man is NOT even speaking to Lazarus at all--rather he first "cries out" to father Abraham for mercy, and then is reduced to "begging" of father Abraham. Pretty humiliating for a rich man who in his earthly life never had to cry out or beg for anything.

 

[bookslover]

Getting back to the OP, here might be a clarifying question: Are people in Hell (a) being punished for their sins; (b) being punished for their rejection of Christ; or (c) both?

It seems to me that (b) is the correct answer because it is not possible for a merely finite human being to pay the penalty for his or her own sins, even over the course (so to speak) of eternity - that's the whole point of Christ dying for the sins of the elect. And it seems that rejection of Christ would trump any other of their own sins anyway; rejection of Christ is a sin several degrees of magnitude greater than any other sin one could commit.

So, as I said, (b) seems to be correct.

Just a thought: wouldn't the fact they are being punished for eternity show that for them, the penalty is never satisfied. The wrath of God continues to pour on them for their accumulated sin {s} without ceasing. As Edwards points out, ANY sin is an offense against the infinite holiness of God and therefore is infinitely heinous, deserving of infinite wrath.

Excellent point.