Does God love people in hell?

[steve]

Homer,

I freely acknowledge that there are historical events in the Old Testament which serve as types of spiritual things. I recognize every case of such that is identified in the New Testament (since those are the only ones we can be sure about). When we begin making these identifications beyond the cases identified in scripture, we move into pure conjecture. Such conjecture is very common among preachers, of course, but one should not expect to convince someone who holds a contrary view of a certain doctrine entirely by appeal to such conjectures.

As for God's hatred of sinners, we have to assume that "hatred" is not a permanent attitude in Him, since one who is described as the recipient of such hatred can be converted and loved by God (this fact testifies that God actually loved the person all along). If one whom God "hated" can be converted and loved, in this life, how do we know this is not also the case in the next? The Bible says "God is love," exactly as it says, "God is Spirit," and "God is Light." These are unchangeable truths about God's nature. The Bible never says, "God is hatred" or "God is wrath." These are transient emotions in God, and are not directed so much at the essence as at the actions of the sinful man. Consider the verses you cited:

You hate all who do iniquity.

the one who loves violence His soul hates.

Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds.

If we take these verses to express a settled attitude of permanent hatred that God nurtures against those who do these things, what are we to make of the fact that people exactly fitting these descriptions (including some reading this) were once the very parties described there, and "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" (Eph.2:3)? If God permanently hates such sinners, since we were all sinners once, we would have to deny that God loves anybody at any time. God's hatred toward sinners (like all emotions) is shallow and transient, while His love for all that He has made is inherent in His nature. It is not a mere emotion.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners [that is, while we were still in the class that God "hates"], Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

On what basis, then, can it be argued that God eternally hates any sinners, if He did not eternally hate us?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your well reasoned reply, but it falls short of any positive affirmation from the scriptures that God loves the wicked past the point of judgment.

I freely acknowledge that there are historical events in the Old Testament which serve as types of spiritual things. I recognize every case of such that is identified in the New Testament (since those are the only ones we can be sure about). When we begin making these identifications beyond the cases identified in scripture, we move into pure conjecture. Such conjecture is very common among preachers, of course, but one should not expect to convince someone who holds a contrary view of a certain doctrine entirely by appeal to such conjectures.

But how must the type be identified in the NT? Are you saying that the Greek word typos must be used as an identifier? Esau is certainly used as an example of the person who lived after the flesh, is he not, and widely considered to be so? Jesus appears to use manna (Jn 6:32-33) as a type of the true bread, without referring to it by typos or even "as - so". And the writer of Hebrews makes much use of types.

If we can only identify a type when the New Testament specifically does so that would seem to be an extreme position. If one followed a similar line of reasoning, he might assert that there are no prophecies in the Old Testament save those which are specifically quoted in the New Testament.

The Bible says "God is love," exactly as it says, "God is Spirit," and "God is Light." These are unchangeable truths about God's nature. The Bible never says, "God is hatred" or "God is wrath."

But it also says "God is a consuming fire" (katanalisko, consume utterly and wholly) which is as true as the other unchangeable truths about God's nature.

If we take these verses to express a settled attitude of permanent hatred that God nurtures against those who do these things, what are we to make of the fact that people exactly fitting these descriptions (including some reading this) were once the very parties described there, and "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" (Eph.2:3)? If God permanently hates such sinners, since we were all sinners once, we would have to deny that God loves anybody at any time. God's hatred toward sinners (like all emotions) is shallow and transient, while His love for all that He has made is inherent in His nature. It is not a mere emotion.

But this assumes that time never runs out, that God has never fixed a day for a settlemnt of accounts, which is strongly implied. Death comes and then the judgment with never a mention of opportunity beyond that. We ought to heed the lesson of Esau: without holiness no one will see the Lord. It does not say, anywhere, that all shall become holy.

You may think I am mean-spirited, but I assure you I would be pleased if evangelical universalism turned out to be true. JR has acknowledged that he has at least one relative in peril, and so do we. This does not give license, however, to teach or promote that which we have no commission to teach. Our Lord said "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not shall be damned". And He mentions no further opportunity. Regarding the fate of the lost, we go beyond our Lord at our peril.

As from the beginning I believe the teaching of UR to be dangerous to souls. On this I agree with Origen.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

But how must the type be identified in the NT? Are you saying that the Greek word typos must be used as an identifier? Esau is certainly used as an example of the person who lived after the flesh, is he not, and widely considered to be so? Jesus appears to use manna (Jn 6:32-33) as a type of the true bread, without referring to it by typos or even "as - so". And the writer of Hebrews makes much use of types.

All the examples you give are taken from the New Testament, and are therefore among those of which I approve. It remains a question how the type corresponds to the antitype.

But it also says "God is a consuming fire" (katanalisko, consume utterly and wholly) which is as true as the other unchangeable truths about God's nature.

I have no doubt about this. The question is: What does God's fire consume? People (2 Thess.1:8; 2:8)? or dross (Isaiah 1:25)?

But this assumes that time never runs out, that God has never fixed a day for a settlemnt of accounts, which is strongly implied.

I believe that there is a settling of accounts at the great white throne. Being thrown into the lake of fire is intended to bring all things right. How this is accomplished in the lake of fire is a matter of opinion. There are three views.

Death comes and then the judgment with never a mention of opportunity beyond that. We ought to heed the lesson of Esau: without holiness no one will see the Lord. It does not say, anywhere, that all shall become holy.

Well, that depends on how certain universalistic scriptures are interpreted (e.g., Phil.2:10-11; Eph.1:10; Col.1:20-22). Taking them at face value would contradict you. Qualifying them by appeal to a handful of ambiguous scriptures might bring them into harmony with your statement.

Our Lord said "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not shall be damned". And He mentions no further opportunity. Regarding the fate of the lost, we go beyond our Lord at our peril.

Agreed. And anyone who says there is no post-judgment opportunity for the lost is doing just that: going beyond what the Lord said. I believe this is perilous. I will not go beyond what the scriptures say on this, which is why I will not rule out universal reconciliation. Nor do I affirm it.

As from the beginning I believe the teaching of UR to be dangerous to souls. On this I agree with Origen.

I don't know of anyone who is preaching this to unbelievers, which is the only policy that I could see being labeled "perilous to souls." However, theologians discuss among themselves very many matters that have no place in the presentation of the Gospel to the lost. In this, I agree with Origen.

[Paidion]

As from the beginning I believe the teaching of UR to be dangerous to souls. On this I agree with Origen.

Homer, can you give me the reference for this? This seems strange to me since, as far as I know, Origen taught universal reconcilation more frequently than any other church father.

[Paidion]

I don't know of anyone who is preaching this to unbelievers, which is the only policy that I could see being labeled "perilous to souls."

I have proclaimed it to an unbeliever who first said to me, "If you serve a God who sends most people to eternal torture in hell, I want nothing to do with Him!" Clearly it was eternal torment teaching which was a major factor in this man's rejection of God. After I suggested reconciliation of all to God after they eventually repent, he replied, "Oh, if only that were true!"

[steve]

True. If it is ever dangerous to preach universal reconciliation to the unbeliever, how much more dangerous to preach eternal torment, which has so much less scriptural support and which impugns the character of God?

[Homer]

Steve,

I have no doubt about this. The question is: What does God's fire consume? People (2 Thess.1:8; 2:8)? or dross (Isaiah 1:25)?

Poor choice, that one. Is not the dross the wicked of the city that is being addressed?

More later, I need to get some things done.

[steve]

Is not the dross the wicked of the city that is being addressed?

I don't think so.

There are other passages (that I chose not to cite) where dross is, as you say, a metaphor for the wicked in Israel (e.g., Ps.119:119). This does not seem to be the case in Isaiah and Ezekiel.

In Isaiah 1, my impression is that "dross" refers to spiritual compromise in the nation as a whole, which has replaced the "silver" of pure religion (v.22). A parallel metaphor, in the same context (v.22), is of wine having been mixed with water. Wine and water do not represent good people and bad people. The metaphor seems to speak of a dilution, or weakening, of pure devotion—somewhat like the metaphor of "lukewarmness" in Revelation 3:16. This dilution takes the form of the Jews' continued outward observance of the Mosaic rituals mixed with a life of moral disobedience (vv.11-18).

In scripture, more often than not, the idea of gold or silver being refined by fire, to remove dross, refers to the refinement of a man's (or a nation's) moral character (e.g., Job 23:10; Prov.17:3; Psalm 66:10; Isaiah 48:10; Zech.13:9; Mal.3:3; 1 Peter 1:7; Rev.3:18).

At least this is my take on the passage.

[Homer]

Steve,

I think we have to go with utter destruction in regard to Hebrews 12:29, "Our God is a consuming fire", considering the same idea in the OT:

Deuteronomy 4:23-26 (NASB)

23. So watch yourselves, that you do not forget the covenant of the Lord your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the Lord your God has commanded you. 24. For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. 25. “When you become the father of children and children’s children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God so as to provoke Him to anger, 26. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed.
(Note: "utterly destroy" is the meaning of katanalisko in Hebrews 12:29)

Deuteronomy 9:3 (NASB)

3. Know therefore today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you.

Seems to be no room in the idea for the consuming fire resulting in improvement of the recipient's condition.

Something that continues to puzzle me is your continuing "on the fence" position, so to speak, that is, being undecided. You wrote:

to preach eternal torment, which has so much less scriptural support and which impugns the character of God?

To impugn the character of God is a terrible thing, so I am sure you in no way accept the traditional view (except possibly the outer darkness, separation from God concept?). But if this impugns the character of God it would seem that those who teach or believe the traditional view commit a serious sin.

This apparently leaves annihilation and UR as the only viable options for you. And you have maintained that:

1. All people are God's children in some sense.

2. God loves all people and continues to love them after they are judged and sent to the lake of fire.

This being so would seem to rule out annihilation. How could God love His children and annihilate them? It might be argued that he does this as we would put down a pet we love, but then that would be an admission that He can not save them.

I do not see how, given your arguments for UR, you can hold both UR and annihilation as both being viable options.

[steve]

Homer,

You may be right about the "consuming fire" imagery. As you know, I posed this as one possibility:

The question is: What does God's fire consume? People (2 Thess.1:8; 2:8)? or dross (Isaiah 1:25)?

Perhaps it is not only possible, but the most probable. In any case, it would then point to AD70 as the fulfillment of the threat in Deuteronomy, since that threat had nothing to do with the final judgment (as the passage you cited clearly declares), but predicted the banishment of Israel from their land. It still fails to address the disputed issues of this thread.

God can wipe out the entire population of a land (e.g., Sodom, to which Israel's destruction is often likened in scripture), without giving us a clue as to the fates of the individuals in the afterlife. Fort example, I doubt if anyone here believes that every person killed in Sodom or in the Jewish War (e.g., babies) will be condemned to annihilation at the final judgment. After all, the Christian Jews were banished from the land, in AD70, along with the rest! This demonstrates that any prediction of physical destruction would be 100% irrelevant to the question of eternal destinies.

As for my fence-sitting, I think I have made it pretty clear that the traditional view can marshal no convincing proof for itself from scripture. The toss-up is between annihilation and restoration. Neither is inconsistent with God's unfailing love for mankind. As you said (and as I have said) the putting down of a rabid dog does not bespeak any lack of love for the beast on our part. You are right in saying that annihilation would be God's admission of defeat, and of His inability to save all those whom He loves. This would be the triumph of human free will over the love of God.

Is this possible? Some think so. Some think it is the will of God to let men decide death rather than to be forced to love. Others feel that man can choose his own destiny, but that complete escape from the love of God is not on the list of choices available to man—so that God really does win all the chips (as certain scriptures seem to indicate).