Hell and Hearts
If we could select which of the three views of hell was reality, what would we choose? Seemingly, Christians (enemy lovers at heart) would choose the eventual restoration position. Wouldn’t we be overjoyed to know that every single human being and all of creation would ultimately be restored to right relationship with God through Jesus Christ? If any professing Christian would admit to preferring that everlasting misery turn out to be true, one would have to wonder whether the love of God truly resides in their heart.
What, however, if the eventual restoration of every individual is too good to be true? Maybe some people will continually refuse to repent and be restored. In such a case, would we rather they faced everlasting misery or eventual extinction? It seems, given these two options, that extinction would be preferable to everlasting misery, though some question this conclusion. Indeed, Augustine objects, “Mere existence is desirable… those who are wretched are for this very reason unwilling to die… they would certainly be overjoyed to choose perpetual misery in preference to complete annihilation.” This seems far from certain to many today. Eventual restoration is preferable to eventual extinction. Eventual extinction is preferable to everlasting misery.
Should we make something of our objection to everlasting misery? Is it significant that in our hearts we tend to detest the idea of hell in general, but especially its most severe definition? Below is a series of quotes collected from the sources that have been part of our research:
Though these quotes come from people holding a variety of perspectives, all of the above quotes are directed at the everlasting misery view of hell. Supporters of this view routinely express such sentiment, but then dismiss it as irrelevant, insisting that we must never build doctrines from our instincts and/or emotions. Others give this type of evidence a small bit of weight. Walls states, “what people actually believe about hell is relevant initial evidence, but [it is] no more than that.” For our purposes, the sentiments expressed in these quotations are certainly not our primary source for determining the truth about hell (that would be Scripture), but neither should they be simply dismissed. In fact, they should be taken more seriously than they typically have been. After all, all of the above quotes come from professing Christians. Especially Wesleyans, who emphasize heart level transformation, should consider whether our sentiment against everlasting misery is actually evidence against the view. Does our judgment, as spiritual people, represent the mind of Christ?“It seems harder to believe that the bodies of the damned are to remain in endless torment.” (Augustine)
“No evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folks damned, there is something wrong with you.” (Packer)
“The thought of hell… can carry no inherent attraction to the balanced and coherent human mind.” (Ferguson)
“I do not want to believe in it” (Alcorn)
“Most Christians have natural problems with the concept of eternal punishment.” (Walvoord)
“Truly pious people naturally wish that all people would be saved” (Calvin)
"Of all the doctrines of Christianity, hell is probably the most difficult to defend, the most burdensome to believe and the first to be abandoned.” (Kreeft)
“If the choice is between hell as everlasting torture and universal salvation, who could resist the latter? Sensitive persons would be practically forced to accept it, since they cannot accept that God would subject anyone, even most corrupt sinners, to unending torture in both body and soul.” (Pinnock)
“Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed. How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any moral standards, and by the gospel itself.” (Pinnock)
“Emotionally, I find the concept intolerable.” (Stott)
“The dogma that God wants everlasting punishment for the vast majority of humanity had always bothered me.” (Bonda)
“The conventional doctrine of hell has too often engendered a view of a deity who suffers from borderline personality disorder or some worse sociopathic diagnosis.” (McLaren)
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power.” (Lewis)
“We are told that it is a detestable doctrine—and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart.” (Lewis)
“Why then have so many theologians abandoned the traditional doctrine of hell? The answer to this is straightforward: the doctrine is widely regarded to be morally indefensible.” (Walls)
Certainly such evidence should not be taken too far. After all, non-Christians seem to share this sentiment against everlasting misery. Then again, if the feeling is mutual between Christians and non-Christians alike, perhaps that only strengthens the evidence. It could be argued that we also have an instinctual desire to see sin punished, as if this is support for the everlasting misery view. Such is granted, but all three of the views we have been discussing include some form of punishment. Perhaps objections such as these would make sense if we were discussing instant extinction or instant restoration, but we are not.
I probably check this site too often