Thursday, 8 September 2011

Wanting Hell?

Recently I engaged in a discussion over hell, specifically concerning different beliefs on hell. This branched into a rather enjoyable conversation with an Arminian gentleman over what Calvinists ought to think about hell if they are to be consistent. His position (in the name of Calvinists) was as follows:

God chooses to condemn people to hell.
God's being is not separated from His actions.
Therefore hell exists because God has desired and ordained it to exist; His very being demands the existence of hell.
Therefore Calvinists should want hell to exist and even delight in its existence.

I was unable to respond at the time because comments were closed, but I thought the misconception ought to be answered to the best of my ability. I believe that, even while believing that God does indeed ordain hell, and that He passes over some (thereby essentially condemning them to hell), and that His very holy being necessitates hell's existence, we can mourn that unbelievers end up there, and regret that they do. Therefore, I have been accused (politely) of cognitive dissonance. 


However, I do not believe it is dissonant at all. 


Saying Calvinists should delight in the existence of hell is sort of like saying God should not say He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, since He condemns them to such a fate. Why, then, would He not take pleasure in it? 


Or perhaps Calvinists shouldn't grieve when a loved one dies, because God has ordained when every person will die, and Christ holds the keys to Life and Hades. Why, then, do we cry? 

Or perhaps the Holy Spirit shouldn't be grieved by sin, since He is omniscient, so He already knows people will sin, and besides, He has not moved them not to sin. Why, then, be grieved? 

The argument seems to confuse emotion with theology. That is, that because Calvinists both believe in hell, and believe that God has ordained it, and ordained that people should end up there, and yet are saddened by the fact, we are either ignorant of cognitive dissonance or bold-faced liars intent upon holding on to two contrasting ideas. It's not so. Emotional response does not contradict theology. 

This "therefore" argument seems to stem from this idea that Calvinists are robotic intellectuals with a seriously sparse supply of emotion. In my limited experience, this is a common misconception. It leads to the idea that Calvinists are not really Christian at all. I won't go into much on that. 

Romans 9:2 talks about Paul's sorrow and anguish of heart. Why is he sorrowful? Read it and you will see his sorrow stems from the fact that some Jews are not saved. This is the chapter well-known for its emphasis on God's sovereignty, where Paul expounds upon the idea of the elect, upon the idea that God does as God does, and who are you to answer back to Him? And here Paul is mourning the fact that some of Israel's descendants do not belong to Israel! Is this cognitive dissonance? Is Paul contradicting himself?

No, I do not believe so. Even while celebrating the sovereignty and very Godness of God, Paul mourns for his fellow Jews. In like manner, I believe that I, even while "Calvinist" in theology, can mourn that people die without being saved, without casting themselves upon the Lord's mercy. 


I do not delight in the existence of hell per se. I do, however, delight in the existence of the Sovereign God, for He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to Him. I delight in God, Who is and will be glorified in both salvation and judgment. I delight in the God Who cannot deny Himself, and Who does not go back on His word. I delight in God, Who saved me, a poor wretch with no merit and little understanding. I delight in God, because He does not give up. While we live, there is hope. 


For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.”
(Ezekiel 18:32 ESV) 

and rend your hearts and not your garments."
Return to the Lord your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
and he relents over disaster. 

(Joel 2:13 ESV)


1 comment:

  1. Just before Jesus was to be on the cross he was filled with much much sorrow. (Matthew 26:36-56, Mark 14:32-52, Luke 22:40-53 and John 18:1-11)

    Was it because of the pain he would endure? I don't think so. Pain passes, or can be endured.

    By His death the fate of mankind was sealed forever. (Luke 22:44)

    No going back, no second sacrifice. No second time bearing humanities sin on the cross.

    Jesus' death on the cross sealed the reprobate to their hearts desire, autonomy.

    Those whom God plucked out for His purpose and Glory to remain alive in Christ is not something we as a creature have a right to question.

    Jesus knew those who want autonomy would get it for eternity...Hell is the unleashed full wrath of GOD...not something to wink at. I think that alone is the reason you talk to people who don't have the same worldview, to speak the truth, "this is real folks, life and death." And it MATTERS.

    Jesus Christ wasn't skipping to the cross even though it was a great victory. The death of His creation doesn't bring pleasure. That would be like saying God derived pleasure from animal sacrifices which He clearly stated He does not. (Psalm 51:16, Hebrews 10:8)

    I pray for the people in my life who mock God by their ignorance.

    I too once did, and how humbling it is to be fed the truth. How easy it is for me to fall back into sin if I am not watchful and awake.

    I know you pray too Linda, keep it up.

    ReplyDelete

By swallowing evil words unsaid, no one has ever harmed his stomach. ~Winston Churchill

Smart guy.