He That Believeth Not

He That Believeth Not…

Hell – who goes there, why, and for how long?

Paul McCauley

Copyright

Copyright © 2013 by John Ritchie Ltd.

40 Beansburn, Kilmarnock, Scotland

www.ritchiechristianmedia.co.uk

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievable system, or transmitted in any form or by any other means – electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise – without prior permission of the copyright owner.

EPUB ISBN: 9781909803961

Also Available in print - ISBN: 978 1 909803 63 3

Typeset by John Ritchie Ltd., Kilmarnock

eBook created by CreativeHoot.com

eBook managed by RedWordsData.co.uk

Foreword

On July 8th 1741 Jonathan Edwards preached, at Enfield, Connecticut, his most famous sermon entitled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It is said that whereas a month earlier, in Northampton, he had preached this same sermon without interruption in Enfield his preaching was almost drowned out by the loud wailing and crying of the congregation so that he was forced to pause to ask that they should restrain their groans and weeping so that he could continue to his conclusion. His sermon, warning of the impending doom of the impenitent, was ridiculed then, as now, but it was greatly used by God in the Great Awakening.

This is in stark contrast to many present day churches, which will not tolerate the preaching of the wrath of God and the eternal punishment of the lost. In such places the glory of God’s holiness and righteousness, the truly hideous nature of sin, and the true meaning of the work of Christ at Calvary are therefore never made known. One of the reasons for this is that there is a marked increase in adherence to both universalism and annihilationism by those who profess the Lord’s name. In this book Paul McCauley most helpfully puts these theories to the sword, that sword being the word of God. With thoughtful insight he dissects the arguments in the light of Scripture, examining words and their meanings in the contexts in which they are found, forcefully reminding us of the reality of what it means to be lost. All believers will benefit from absorbing the clear rebuttals to the arguments of those who say either that all will be saved or that those who are not saved will have no conscious existence; and from the careful and accurate exposition of germane passages from the Bible.

May the Lord be pleased to bless this book to the salvation of many and to the renewal of His people in love for Him and increasing evangelistic endeavour.

Ian Jackson

August, 2013

1. Introduction

On some issues we cannot afford to err. Mistaken notions can sometimes be harmless enough, mildly inconvenient or nothing more than annoying, but when we come to Biblical truth we recognise that having faulty beliefs is not theologically or morally neutral. Every doctrine of scripture is connected to the glory of God and in some way affects how we view God and live our lives. Admittedly in some cases it is difficult to draw a direct line between a particular belief and its practical effects, however, when we come to the teaching about the eternal destiny of human beings the line is straight, clear and bold: this is a doctrine that is immensely relevant, intensely personal and infinitely practical to every single individual who has ever lived.

The doctrine of the eternal conscious punishment of the lost has never been popular, and has often been attacked. It’s not difficult to see why this is. The prospect of being in conscious misery without release or relief is almost too much to contemplate, and if true, it ought to be deeply troubling to every believer. To have a cavalier, careless attitude to the eternal fate of the unbeliever is to show just how far from the heart of God we truly are. The assault has been intermittent down through the ages, but it has always come from the left, i.e. the liberals who deny many of the fundamentals of the faith. In our day the assault has not abated; indeed it has intensified, but the remarkable thing is that the onslaught is not now just coming from the liberal left-wing branch of Christendom, but from people who affirm most other (sometimes all other) foundational Christian beliefs, and go under the banner of conservative evangelicals.¹ The internet has made the world a smaller place, so what one compelling speaker says on his podcast, or what a trendy preacher says from his pulpit, can have worldwide influence. Perhaps then it is time to go over this doctrine which many have taken as read, and test again the scriptural foundations of our beliefs.

The pressure our politically correct society is exerting on Christian testimony is resulting in a loss of nerve in some quarters, and thus a relinquishing of some of the more unpalatable doctrines of Scripture. The danger of erring at this point could not be more serious. If people are given a false hope in regard to this subject it is not a minor mistake, but an unspeakable and eternal tragedy.

Alas! How many does Satan lead captive at his will, by flattering them, that they shall not surely die; that hell torments will not be eternal; that God is all mercy; that He therefore will not punish a few years sin with an eternity of misery? But Eve found God as good as His word; and so will all they who go on in sin, under a false hope that they shall not surely die.²

It is my prayer that this treatment of the subject will establish us in this vital doctrine, but I would be disappointed if the truth of eternal, conscious punishment was only clearly understood in the head; it needs to be keenly felt in the heart. The thought of people being consciously lost forever cannot leave us unmoved, but let us ensure it doesn’t merely move us emotionally, but rather move us physically to proclaim the gospel faithfully, fervently and lovingly to a world that needs to escape the damnation of hell.³

2. Setting The Scene

The purpose in writing this book is to set out what the Bible teaches on the destiny of the lost, to examine the alternative views, and see why they cannot be true.

The Attacked View

The view being defended in this book is that people who do not have their sins forgiven will be consciously punished for those sins without end. They are out of the sphere of grace, beyond the reach of mercy, and past the point of no return. There will be no parole, nothing to look forward to, nothing but endless misery and monotony, nothing to do but remember, tormented by an unfading memory of sins committed. Bobby Conway summarises it like this:

Hell is an eternal place of conscious torment whereby God’s justifiable wrath is poured out on Satan, his demons, and unrepentant sinners.⁴

It’s obvious why such a doctrine is attacked, and why people would look for an alternative. It is natural that we would see if there is any other way the texts can be understood, but it’s important that people who dare to take aim at the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment aim at the right target. Sadly many of those who write against the doctrine actually attack a straw man version of it. These attacks are often rhetorically powerful and very persuasive, but entirely unfair, and therefore unchristian; and while it may lead people to your view, it leaves the Scriptures untouched and the doctrine unscathed.

I saw a picture of a church notice-board that proclaimed God loves hurting people! The intention of the statement was to present God as a God of love and compassion, but there would be many who would read it with an unintended emphasis and see it as a statement that God is cruel. The same happens when people think about God in relation to the subject of hell. The intended reaction to the Bible’s teaching about hell is to make us see how loving God is to provide salvation for hell-deserving sinners, and to provide that salvation at infinite cost to Himself:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

But instead of that, people read of God’s wrath and see Him as a monster who loves hurting people, taking delight in tormenting them eternally. Usually the impression is also given that these are people who have never done anything to deserve such a fate, they are in hell just because they didn’t believe in Jesus. Now in all of this, key details are left out, other details are exaggerated, and the end result bears very little resemblance to that which believers throughout church history have held to be the scriptural doctrine of hell.

In defending the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment I do it with the background that sin is an infinite offence against a God Who is absolutely righteous and intrinsically holy, and such an offence therefore deserves an infinite penalty. Due to the finitude and sinfulness of human beings that is a penalty we can never pay, and thus the punishment never ends.⁵

Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority...But God is a being infinitely lovely, because He hath infinite excellency and beauty...

So that sin against God being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous; and so deserving of infinite punishment...The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite; and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.⁶

The Judge has, in grace, provided a means of salvation through Christ and His sacrifice, but if that offer is rejected then people will get what they deserve – nothing more, and nothing less.

The Alternative Views

There are two main alternatives to the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment.⁷ The first is that everyone ultimately will be saved (universalism); the second is that no one will be consciously lost (annihilationism). We will examine these alternatives and see if they provide any escape route to the fearful prospect of eternal torment, or are they merely dead-end detours off the track of truth.

Before delving into these views it has to be said that neither has a good spiritual pedigree. Richard Bauckham, the Professor of New Testament studies at the University of St Andrews has written:

Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form this is the doctrine of ‘conditional immortality’). Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment. Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians. Among the less conservative, universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument.⁸

The fact that these alternatives never had many adherents for so long, while those who did hold to an alternative view point were theologically aberrant, is not absolutely conclusive in the debate, but it is certainly enough to make us very wary.⁹=

According to Professor Bauckham, it is not simply the case that those who held to universalism and annihilationism were few and far between; he points out that historically those who held to these doctrines were outside the theological mainstream. This ought to give us pause for thought. It seems there were additional unorthodox beliefs that characterised those who denied eternal, conscious punishment. Why should this be? Is there anything in these two alternatives that would necessitate erroneous views about other doctrines? Can universalism and annihilationism not fit with the Scriptures as written, or correspond with God as revealed? As we proceed, we shall see that this is indeed the case: in order to do away with the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment other doctrines have to go too. It is important to remember that as Bible believers, our approach is not only sola scriptura (Scripture alone), but tota scriptura (all of Scripture). It is not enough to camp on your proof texts; of course one can find texts that can be read in a way that supports universalism, annihilation, or eternal, conscious punishment, but we need to find if there are passages that can be read in only one way, and is there one view of personal eschatology that is in harmony with all of the Bible. We have to make sure we can carry our doctrines to every part of the Bible and ensure they can sit comfortably there.

3. Part One – Universalism

And they all lived happily ever after

That’s how fairy tales usually end, and that’s how the universalist sees the story of this world ending, with everyone gathered up and gathered in to the bliss of heaven and the warmth of the Father’s embrace. Some universalists believe that after death or the Judgment Day all will be ushered into heaven immediately, while others hold that the unrepentant will go to perdition, but the door will be left open, and eventually every prodigal will come to his senses, the love of God (and the fires of hell) will melt his heart, and in repentance he will find his way home, where God will be waiting to welcome him. This is of course the most emotionally appealing option, but we can’t let that be the decisive factor; grownups don’t hide from reality and retreat to their happy place; they face reality, even if it isn’t like the fairy tales they grew up with.

Those who hold to universalism seem to want not only to script the future of every human being, but also to rewrite history, both in terms of what the Bible states and what Christians have always believed. But how do they justify their belief that everyone will be saved? That’s what we intend to look at now.

Irrelevant Relevance and Hopeless Hope

Universalists have said that the teaching of eternal punishment is so off-putting to people that it creates a huge stumbling block to people becoming Christians. It would be interesting to see how many people found that eternal punishment was not the stumbling block that kept them from Christ but the spur that encouraged them to Him, as it led them to see how serious their sins were, and resulted in their conversion, but that is perhaps by the way.¹⁰ Leading the way in popularising universalism amongst those who claim to be evangelical is the emerging church movement.¹¹ This is a post-modern phenomenon whose adherents practise and believe in an evolving, changing kind of Christianity – cultural relevance and all of that, for example:

Times change. God doesn’t, but times do. We learn and grow, and the world around us shifts, and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus and embracing whatever will help us be more and more the people God wants us to be.¹²

The theory is that people today don’t like / believe / tolerate / hate things that previous generations liked / believed / tolerated / hated, so the emerging church movement wants to make Christianity fit the culture. And of course Christianity is applicable to any and every culture, because the heart of mankind and the need of mankind are the same no matter where in the world and no matter when in history. It is also true that we shouldn’t have a colonial approach to missionary work by trying to establish our culture in foreign fields, nor should we use off-putting, hackneyed clichés and meaningless Victorian phraseology in our evangelism, but the problem is that the emerging church, generally speaking, isn’t merely seeking to present the gospel in culturally relevant ways;¹³ it is seeking to make the gospel culturally acceptable. So in the view of many in the movement, the narrow way is narrow-minded; broaden it out to include all sorts of ways, religions and views. Condemnation of people’s sexual preferences is so intolerant,¹⁴ so free yourself up, stop judging and start loving; and the Biblical passages about God’s wrath don’t fit in today’s society; they reflect a primitive understanding of the nature of God; we have moved on and God surely has too, so tone down the threats, and turn down the temperature. Thus in their drive to be relevant they have let go of so many fundamental aspects of Christianity – the absolute authority of Scripture, the intrinsic holiness of God, the infinite seriousness of sin, the total depravity of man, the substitutionary death of Christ, and the eternal reality of hell. But in jettisoning these doctrines, they may have become more relevant to a certain section of our culture in that people will think These Christians are easy-going, they aren’t dogmatic or down on anyone – my kind of guys!, but they have in a more serious way become irrelevant. Because of the message they preach people may listen to them, but they have nothing now to say. Their message lacks the conviction that sinners need to feel; it is bereft of the call to repentance that sinners need to hear; it offers no wrath-satisfying Substitute that sinners need to trust. They offer hope but it is an empty offer and a false hope, leaving people hopeless forever.

All You Need Is Love

In the drive to get God on their side, universalists repeatedly remind us about God’s love. The feeling is that God’s love is such that He cannot rest if one of His creatures is separated from Him and He will not rest until every one of His creatures is restored to Him. Only when there has been universal reconciliation will God’s love be satisfied. I want us to look briefly at a couple of high profile leaders in the emerging church who hold out an empty hell as a real possibility.

Who gets the last word?

Brian McLaren, one of the leading lights in the emerging church movement, has rejected the label of Universalist, but it is very difficult to see where he actually stands on the issue of what happens to people after death. He says he intentionally avoids the question.¹⁵ The emerging church folk prefer to ask questions and ‘explore’ rather than state clearly what they believe to be true.¹⁶ Due to the attitude many of them have to Scripture they see that any pronouncements on what happens after death are firmly in the realm of human speculation rather than Divine revelation, but their questions have a dogmatic feel to them and say about as much as their answers would.

McLaren has stated what many are thinking in a rhetorically powerful way in his book The Last Word, and the Word After That.¹⁷ In this book, which is a fictional story of a church leader in crisis over the doctrine of hell, McLaren has the following interchange between Pastor Dan Poole and his friend Neil Oliver, (Jess is Dan’s daughter, and Kincaid is her boyfriend):

I thought for a few seconds. "Of course, I need to talk this through – but I feel I especially need it to help her. Look, Neil, I’m a Christian. It really shakes me to think that I could have been so misguided or uninformed about so much, but even so, my roots go pretty deep. But for Jess and