The issues that seem to be problematical here are really variations of
the basic issue of theodicy.  The thing that bothers people about the
"free gift" is that God seems to be playing a game with us.  He's
"saving" us from a situation that he himself has set up, and he's
demanding something that many people can't give -- assent to
propositions that they see no evidence for.  But I simply don't agree
with this perception of the situation.  (1) I don't think God is
responsible for the fix we're in.  (2) I'm certainly not convinced
that his criteria for acceptance are as narrow as many think.  (3) I'm
rather dubious about the conventional picture of judgement.

1) Who set things up this way?  I do not believe that God is simply
saving people from a problem that he himself has manufactured.  I have
a hard time presenting a really detailed response because I just don't
know what design constraints he operated under in creation.  But I'm
willing to make at least some speculations.  First, note that I don't
accept Gen 1 and 2 as history.  My picture of God is far more
consistent with what you might call broadly an evolutionary approach
-- God slowly bringing order out of chaos by processes more like
persuasion than fiat.  (Note that both Gen 1 and 2 can be read as
consistent with God bringing order to preexisting stuff.)

To me the Bible documents such a slow process.  Why is it that things
seem so different in the OT and the NT?  I think it's because it took
God so long to bring people to the point where they could understand
his real goal.  You can see the slow growth from a tribal God who led
wars against all outsiders, to Israel as the light to the nations, and
the concept that there are righteous among all nations.  (One place
where Christianity has regressed from Judaism is that we have lost the
concept of the "righteous Gentile".  This is unfortunate -- both Jesus
and Paul do have the concept.)

To me the issue in Christianity is not saving people from an arbitrary
judgement of God, but moving people to the point where they base their
lives on love for God and their fellow man.  I think that Christ is a
key to God's way of doing this, and that eventually he will accept
nothing short of everyone acknowledging Christ.  But I also think
there are people who embody God's love in their lives without knowing
it's from Christ.

2) What are God's criteria for salvation?  I don't deny that Jesus
spoke of a judgement (and in fact did so a number of times).  But I'm
not convinced he told us enough that we can really tell who is going
to be rejected.  

The first problem is that much of the discussion about salvation is
from a context that is a fairly modern one.  Many Christians seem to
have adopted a model where what matters is a one-time "decision for
Christ".  "Are you saved?" is the primary question.  Jesus' focus is
not just on a one-time decision, but on doing what God demands.  Jesus
and Paul both suggest a variation in rewards for people who are saved.
The clearest is 1 Cor 3, but Jesus speaks of people as being first or
last in the kingdom.  I've become convinced that some of Jesus'
parables and other comments do not necessarily reflect the distinction
between salvation and damnation as these terms are normally used, but
to the distinction between people who are fruitful Christians and
those who are not.  The Southern Baptist theology Charles Stanley
argues that John 15:6 is an example of this: he's talking about
Christians who are not fruitful, and who are as useless as branches
that are pruned and burned.  But he's talking about uselessness, not
hell.  1 Cor 3 is another example of this.

This does not deny that there is real damnation possible.  But the NT
says little about the exact criteria for it.  It is clear that if you
follow Christ, you are not in danger.  But the question is what it
means to follow Christ.  I believe this is not just a matter of
belief, but of commitment.  That doesn't mean that the follower of
Christ is perfect.  But anyone who thinks salvation is purely a matter
of believing the right things should look at Mat 7:21ff again.  (See
my separate essay "works" for more on this.)

Paul's statements about faith versus works have tended to lead to this
concept of salvation by belief.  But I'm convinced this is missing the
context.  Paul's primary concern was the imposition of the specific
Jewish Law (particularly circumcision) on Gentile Christians.  His
comments about works are mostly aimed at works of the Law.  His model
for someone who is saved apart from works is Abraham.  But Abraham's
faith was not mere belief -- it was the basis for a life of obedience
to God.  Paul emphasized faith when his opponents were in favor of
actions that seemed to him mere legalism.  But 1 Cor shows what
happens when faced with people who did not understand the moral
commitments of it.  (See the section starting at 1 Cor 5, particularly
1 Cor 6:9-11.)

But it is not clear where exactly are the limits of who can be saved.
After one particularly challenging statement, Jesus disciples say "Who
then can be saved?"  Jesus answers that with God all things are
possible.  (Mat 19:24 -- recall that what was shocking about the
parable is that a rich man was most *likely* to be able to carry out
the law.  If a rich man couldn't be saved, what hope was there for the
poor slobs.)  I take this as a sign of hope that although the gate may
be narrow and many rush to destruction (Mat 7:13), God's goal is to
make sure that no one really ends up there.  Even in 1 Cor 6:9-10,
Paul doesn't actually tell his correspondents that they are damned.
In context I think the thrust of his argument is "saved people don't
act like this", not "you aren't saved".

As I commented above, I think it's unfortunate that Christians have
lost the concept of the righteous Gentile, which was certainly present
in 1st Cent. Judaism.  You can see it quite clearly in Romans 2.
Gentiles have heard God in their hearts, even though they haven't
heard the Law.  The primary reason this passage hasn't had more effect
among Christians is that he's speaking in a Jewish context of Gentiles
being saved without the Law.  I think it's clear that the people he's
talking about haven't heard of Jesus either, and that his argument
applies to non-Christians being saved even though they don't
acknowledge Christ explicitly.  However many Christians would not
accept that application.  (On the other hand, some would.  The concept
of "anonymous Christians" -- those who follow Christ in their hearts
even though they don't know his name -- is a standard Catholic one,
and many Protestants accept it at least in the case of people who
haven't had a chance to hear the Gospel.)  I think Mat 25:31ff makes a
similar point.  Some people who thought they were Christians are
rejected because they didn't serve their fellow men.  Similarly some
men turn out to have served Christ even though they didn't realize it.

I am not teaching a judgement based purely on works.  The NT is clear
that if that were the case we'd all be doomed.  What I am saying is
that it's also not based simply on an intellectual belief in Christ.
(The term "believe in" is used, but it's used with wider
implications.)  Rather, it is based on a commitment to follow him that
in my opinion may be present in people who don't realize it is Christ
they are following.  Several Christians have quoted C.S. Lewis'
children's book "the Last Battle".  In it someone who had lived in a
country that worships the evil god Tash comes before Aslan (the Christ
analog) for judgement.  He believes that he is doomed.  But Aslan
assures him that all of his good acts were really done as a servant of
Aslan.  Just as all evil acts done in Aslan's name are really done for
Tash, all good acts done in Tash's name are really Aslan's.  I believe
this is a very close equivalent of Mat 25:31ff.

3) The nature of judgement.  I confess that I have been unsuccessful
in building a completely consistent picture of judgement.  I think
this indicates a certain tension in the Bible itself.  I do see where
the conventional picture of judgement comes from: The separation of
sheep and goats is there in Mat 25, with the evil-doers going to
eternal punishment.  But I also see other models.

If you ignored Thes, which is probably Paul's earliest writings, you
could make a reasonable case that Paul believed in universalism.  The
most detailed description he gives of judgement is in I Cor 3, and
that suggests that the judgement is more like a refining -- burning
away those portions that are not based on Christ.  One can of course
say that he was speaking only of Christians, but there are other hints
of universalism as well, such as Rom 11:32.  (The conventional
description there is that he's speaking at a group level, not of every
individual person.)

Luke 6:35 pretty clearly suggests that God forgives even the
ungrateful, which in context seems to mean those who do not respond to
his love.  Jesus asks us to love our enemies, and gives as the reason
that we'll be following God in doing so.  The implication seems to be
that God forgives even those who don't accept his forgiveness.

I have to say that I'm nervous about following these hints in the face
of Jesus' continual talk about throwing people into the outer
darkness.  However I follow the basic principle of criticism, which
looks at what kinds of errors are more plausible.  In my view the most
plausible conclusion is that Jesus had in mind a God who loves even
the ungrateful, for whom judgement destroys that part of us that is
not built on Christ but does not damn us, and that the sheep and goats
thing is a basis of incorporating standard 1st Cent.  eschatology
alongside Jesus' message.  I think this is more likely than that Jesus
had a conventional view of divine retribution and the other aspects
mysteriously appeared.  Unconditional love seems to be at the heart of
the things that make his message unique.

However Jesus certainly does teach a judgement -- even if it's a
judgement of purification -- and I believe that judgement will be
based on whether we follow Christ.  I hope Christians have an
advantage in this because of our appreciation for God's love.  However
I believe he will use the same standards for everyone.  As portrayed
in Mat. 25:27, some people will be surprised to find that it is really
Christ they have been serving.  But it is -- whenever you do a
kindness to anyone because it is the right thing to do, you are doing
it to Christ.

Will some people turn out not to survive the judgement at all?  I
can't say.  I hope not.  I've argued that there's some reason for
hope.  But it's hard to come away from the Bible with a clear position
that everyone will be saved.  For that reason I am never prepared to
teach universalism as a doctrine, however much I may point to reasons
for hope for everyone.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that if someone
is not saved, it's not because God is arbitrarily condemning them for
an intellectual mistake.  I believe he has ways of reaching people
that don't involve intellectual belief in Christ.  If this weren't the
case, no one in the OT would be saved, nor would any infants.

Conversely, let me be clear that I am not teaching justification by
works.  Those who are saved will be saved because of God's grace,
because as part of his love for all of his children, he came up with a
way to reach them.  Whatever part of them survives the test of 1 Cor 3
will be what was built on Christ, even if they didn't know it at the
time.


-------------
Path: christian
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: Annihilation vs. eternal punishment
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In soc.religion.christian, moloney-dan@cs.yale.edu (Dan Moloney) wrote: 

<I have heard more than one person declare that they would prefer to believe
<in annihilation after death for the wicked rather than damnation or eternal
<punishment. I am interested to hear why they believe this? Is it because of
<a perceived lack of scriptural support, or is it due to some rational/moral
<argument from the fact that God is good to the conclusion that he could not
<punish somebody for an infinite amount of time for a finite number of sins. 

I think the real stumbling block is that many people have known very nice
individuals, folk who would cheerfully walk your dog for you if you were ill,
people who were generally happy and kind and fun to be around, and didn't
happen to be Christian. That they rejected Jesus, on a perhaps
not-well-thought-out or even consciously affirmed basis, seems to have been a
very minor point in their lives - it isn't as if they were burning churches
down. 

When such a person dies, they die in an unregenerate state. They are liable
to Hell. Most folk would rather that ceased to exist than suffered. Because
they really didn't do anything wrong, in human terms. 

It doesn't help, either, that certain churches - and not just in any one
denomination - have painted the picture of the breath of God constantly
keeping the coals of Hell glowing. 

Because this comes up periodically, and because I am testing out some ideas
for inclusion in an FAQ, I'd like to propose an alternative view of the
situation. People who are better grounded than I in doctrine are invited to
tear this to shreds. I admit a debt to Lewis's "The Great Divorce" in this. 

I'd argue that Hell is a place of torment because the occupants (the damned)
make it so, and not because God is actively seeking their eternal
discomfort. My basis is this: I beieve people are created as eternal beings
(because I don't think God creates meaningless beings, and things that do not
last forever lose significance - are "left behind" - in the scheme of eternal
things.) Given that, people go somewhere when they die. Without invoking
anybody's cosmology, it seems to me the choices are two - they go to be with
God, or they go somewhere apart from God, or as apart from God as possible.
To be with God, you have to have *wanted* to be with God, and had to accept
God's invitaion on God's terms - what Christans call salvation. Otherwise,
you are "set apart." God does not force His company or thinking on those that
will not have it. (And perhaps such folk are kept apart from the communion of
the saints for another reason - so they will not disturb it. I note that the
city of God has a wall around it.) 

Apart from God - but still, perhaps for the first time, aware of His
existance and rejection, the damned form a community of their own. It does
not take much imagination to see that this would be an unpleasant community.
There is really nowhere to go, no new life to look to, no new children,
nothing, in fact, that provides for hope and meaning. I think they would be
miserable in a way that likely transcends human experience; and yet the worst
you can say about God is that he gave them an eternal existance that they
simply were not prepared to rightly handle: in a horrible sense, *failed*
people whose hands were too small to grasp the gift they were given; people
who were too busy, or too mocking, or too callous, or too full of self, or
just too small-minded to reach for God and so be grown into the sort of
beings that God intended them to be. 

Comments? 

  ------------

[I've been thinking about this a good deal recently.  Let me give you
some preliminary conclusions.  (I would point out that you omit one
other possible way of dealing with the example you give: it's fairly
common these days to allow for the possibility that non-Christians
might be saved.  Thus you might say that this hypothetical righteous
pagan might actually be saved, thus saving the rest of us the trouble
of coming to grips with what hell really is.)

  This is an area where I find it hard to produce a completely unified
view of the NT message.  Judgement is a major theme in Jesus'
teaching.  In the synoptics he talks about people being punished.  He
implies that there are differing degrees of severity in punishment,
for both individuals and cities.  He refers to hell (Gehenna -- the
translation hell may be misleading), rejection, and a place of weeping
and gnashing of teeth.

  I believe the most natural reading of Paul is that he supports
universalism, in roughly the form taught by Origen: an eventual
purification.  1 Cor 3:11 seems to describe a purification by fire, in
which everything we have that is not based on Christ is burned away,
but something of us all remains.  The logic of Rom 5:14 and similar
passages leads to univeral salvation: Christ is a second Adam.  As
Adam's sin spread through all of humanity, Christ's salvation spreads
through all humanity.  (This parallelism with Adam makes it
particularly difficult to take the usual cop-out of saying that Paul
means "all" in the sense of "some people from every nation.")  Rom 11,
culminating in 11:32, describes a plan by which God will save
everyone.  1 Cor 15:22 ff has a vision of the end in which everyone
eventually comes into obedience to Christ.  Christians will be first,
but eventually Christ will bring everything into subjection.

  Rev. contains the most sustained picture of the end.  It clearly has
a judgement, but I have at least some uncertainty about the ultimate
fate of the damned.  They are thrown into the lake of fire that was
prepared for Satan.  This is most commonly understood as representing
eternal torment.  The only problem I have with that is that despite
the talk of eternal torment, the lake seems to vanish when the new
heavens and earth come.  Furthermore, the term "second death" suggests
a final and permanent death.

  I have yet to see a treatment of hell that deals convincingly with
all of these views.  Typically, one picks a view (often for
non-Biblical reasons, e.g. because philosophical considerations lead
to the conclusion that souls can't be destroyed, despite Mat 10:28),
and then adopts non-literal interpretations of many of the Biblical
passages.  Paul often suffers particularly from this.  "all" is
interpreted as meaning "a few" throughout his letters.

  This is clearly a problem in the 20th Cent.  Apparently in the early
church people thought it was completely appropriate for God to torture
the wicked eternally.  This is now seen as inconsistent with his love.
A number of people think this is simply because we've developed an
unbalanced concept of God.  Traditionally God combined Law and grace.
The 20th Cent. generally wants to forget the Law, and believe in a God
that is only "love".  J. I. Packer criticizes this as being Santa
Claus, not God.  (Of course traditionally, even Santa left some
children coals instead of presents.)

  At any rate, there are now a number of different attempts to make
hell consistent with a loving God.  These range from non-traditional
alternatives such as annihilationism (the idea that the damned are
simply destroyed) to variants of the traditional model that tone down
the element of torture.  You seem to be advocating the latter, roughly
along the lines suggested by C.S. Lewis.  The concept is that people
choose hell voluntarily, by rejecting God.  God doesn't specifically
torture them, but because they are alienated from God, their situation
is still fairly unpleasant: (1) God is the source of all joy, and he
would be absent from hell, (2) without God's restraining power, the
inmates would likely end up doing unpleasant things to each other.

  The problem with that sort of model is that Jesus and Rev seem
clearly to see the unpleasantness in hell as a punishment imposed by
God, which has differing severity depending upon the offense.  This
intentional penal suffering does not seem consistent with the kinder,
gentler version of hell just described, where people suffer simply
because they're separated from God.  The whole supposed advantage of
this model is that it relieves God of intentionally causing suffering.
But that's precisely what Christ suggests he does, by the constant
references to punishment.

  From my point of view the primary misgiving I have about the
traditional Dante-style view of judgement is that I think it's
inconsistent with Paul.  One can read Jesus' teachings in this area as
referring to eternal punishment (though I don't think one has to).
Rev's pit of fire is certainly consistent with this as well.  But I
find it hard to accept the triumph of Christ as described in I Cor
15:22 ff as being complete if there are still people down in the
dungeon somewhere who remain alienated from God.  This is the primary
thing that makes me willing to look into non-traditional alternatives.
(I also think some of Jesus comments on punishment sound like a
limited sort of punishment, not eternal torture.  See particularly
Luke 12:48.)

  I do not have any fixed conclusions in this area.  If you're willing
to deemphasize Rev, the approach that I think is most consistent with
the spirit of both Jesus and Paul is Origen's idea that eventually
everyone will be saved.  This does justice to what I think is the most
natural reading of Paul.  In this interpretation, we would take the
punishment Jesus was talking about as the same as the purification
Paul describes in 1 Cor 3:11.  The disadvantage of this approach is
that I think it's hard to reconcile with Rev's lake of fire.  As I've
pointed out elsewhere, there's some indication that "the smoke of
their torment goes up for ever and ever" may not be meant quite
literal.  I think the picture at the end of Rev is of a new heaven and
earth, and does not include anyone still writhing in the fire.  So
perhaps even Rev's lake of fire is really the fire that Paul
describes.  But this does not seem the most natural reading of Rev.

  I think annihilationism also provides at least some fit with all the
major NT views.  Mat 10:28, and Luke 20:35 suggest it.  The term
"resurrection of the just" in Luke 14:14 may as well (the implication
being that the unjust stay dead). In order to be consistent with
Jesus' common teaching about punishment in the synoptics, we would
have to assume that the damned are punished before being annihilated,
or that some of the punishments described by Jesus apply to people who
are eventually going to be saved, a la 1 Cor 3:11 ff.  (Surprisingly,
the Southern Baptist preacher Charles Stanley makes this argument,
though in a different context.)  Note that Jesus' commonly refers to
"gehenna".  This was in fact a garbage pit (though the image has
apocalyptic implications as well).  Thus a number of scholars believe
it can reasonably be taken as referring to people who are permanently
discarded.  The "second death" in Rev would of course be read as
annihilation.  This would require a non-literal reading of Rev
14:10-11, but that's probably required anyway, since the new heaven
and earth shown later in Rev don't seem to include people being
tormented.  (It's not good enough to say that they're being tormented
somewhere out of sight, since 14:10-11 specifically say that the
torment is in sight of the angels and the Lamb.)

  My impression is that among people who are uncomfortable with a
traditional doctrine of hell, the C.S. Lewis-style model that you
suggest is most common, but there is a substantial minority -- even
among evangelicals -- who argue for annihilationism.  I'm somewhat
surprised that eventual purification of all does have more support
than it does.  Perhaps the Church isn't ready for Origen yet...

--clh]