News-Record.com

Does Carlton Pearson make sense? No, he makes sentiment. Supporters seem to make three types of argument. First, the "God is love, therefore He would never punish people eternally" argument. Second, the "Hell is a misunderstanding of authentic Christianity" argument. Third, the "Hell is a ploy the Church invented for people to make them easy to control" argument. All these are false.
The first is false because the only reason Christians have for believing that God is love is the testimony of the same Bible that teaches about Hell. If "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son," what did He give Him for? To die for our sins. John says that "in this we know God's love, in that Christ Jesus died for our sins." Now if God cares nothing about sin, if we are so inimportant to Him that it doesn't matter what we do, why did Jesus have to pay such a terrible price to atone for them? And what kind of father loves his children but does not discipline them? Any earthly parent knows better than that. That's why Hebrews says "He chastises every child whom He receives." Not because He is cruel and likes to see us suffer, but because He is kind and knows that virtue is the only lasting happiness. After all, He designed us, so He ought to know.
The second is even more silly. Who is the major authority for Christian teaching? Jesus, obviously. Did you know that Jesus said far more about Hell than about Heaven? If you deny His teaching about Hell, why do you accept His teaching about Heaven? What makes Heaven heavenly anyway? Is it not thast God is there? Not just any God, but the only God who exists, the I AM of Scripture. Why do those who hate that God on earth and despise His teaching think they would be happy spending eternity with Him in Heaven? That's the only Heaven there is. God will not drag the unwilling, who still love their sins and insist on their own way, into a Heaven where they would only be miserable. Nor will He fellowship with the imperfect. Only those who wear the righteousness of Christ by faith will enter in.
As for argument three, sorry, but the New Testament, on which our belief in Hell is based, was written centuries before the Church had any power to protect. Instead, it was illegal and subject to persecution. All you had to do to avoid the arena was deny the authority of Christ, just as Carlton Pearson and his supporters are doing today. If Christ and His apostles didn't teach Hell, how did that teaching make it into the New Testament without anyone noticing? There were thousands of copies, all handwritten, floating around by the time the Church had any power; how were they supposed to round up all those copies and insert Hell into them without a word of protest from anybody? Not to mention the quotations in the writings of the Church Fathers, which amount to all but eleven verses of the entire New Testament (and yes, they quoted, and believed, the ones about Hell)? Not to mention the fact that every other religion had teachings about eternal judgment and punishment, including the pagan ones.
Which brings us to a fourth argument, the famous "all religions are basically the same" argument. No -- all religions are superficially the same. They all teach similar moral precepts (which in itself is a challenge to relativism: if we all choose the morals that appeal to us, whence the unanimity? But that's another post). The religions only differ in minor and peripheral doctrines like God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Sin and Salvation, and the afterlife. And whatever they might say, every religion contains non-negotiable foundations which it believes are the universal, absolute, and exclusive truth about the universe. Even relativism believes that about its basic doctrine that there are no absolutes, for this must apply even to those who believe that there are absolutes.
So every religion claims that it alone teaches the exclusive and universal Truth; I suppose that is a similarity, but it won't help those who want to say that ot doesn't matter to God what religion you profess. Since all religions at heart contradict each other, they can't all be true. If we are to have any truth whatsoever, one system must be true; therefore, all the others are false. Only Christ, by His like, miracles, claims to Deity, resurrection and ascension, fulfills all the requirements for a savior. And He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6. Like it or not, this has been the consistent teaching of Christianity throughout its history, and is its teaching today. You may deny it, but you will face the consequences. As one who once denied it, and faced the howling gulf of meaninglessness that resulted, I beg you to accept His gift of salvation before it'sd too late. Mohammed didn't die for your sins; Buddha didn't take your penalty on himself. They can't help you in the judgment day, for they face judgment themselves. Only if Jesus the judge has already aquitted you by taking your punishment Himself, and you have believed and accepted that substitution for yourself, will you be saved. Anything else, however nice it sounds, is not the Gospel; and "if anyone bring you any other gospel than the one I have preached, let him be accursed," Gal. 1:8,9.
Steve

I think the basic argument to be made against the Christian docrine of hell is simple: there is no conceivable way an infinite punishment can be seen as a "just" response to any crime. In order to keep this doctrine (which is really very dear to many hearts), you should be prepared to acknowledge that your God is unjust.

Not so, Eric. It is not just "any crime;" even a biggie like blowing up thousands of people on 9/11, or exterminating millions in death camps. It is the original fall from that Edenic state of righteousness and holiness, which not only separated man from God's presence and fellowship, but generated a sin nature (Gen. 6.5) that demanded judgment from a holy God; like a child who curses his parent will DRAW IMMEDIATE response and punishment (well, maybe not today).

Punishment for sin and the hellish misery of real guilt can be seen in everyday life. It is not a far-removed, inconceivable miasma. A serial killer of children is apprehended, tried, convicted and either executed (hopefully) or sent to prison for a life of mental suffering. Or a person kills their spouse and children and then kills themselves under the horrible burden of justifiable guilt. A person embezzles from his company, and after years of mental anguish returns the money to face the consequences. Or you get caught for speeding 50 miles over the limit and loose your license. Promiscuity leads to infertility, higher divorce rates, and STD’s. Sin and judgment is very REAL! Man is not just prone to a little error now and then, or to commit his annual sin; he is habitually selfish, lustful, resentful, mean, jealous, blasphemous, hateful, envious, prejudiced, hot-tempered, unfaithful, ad nauseam – each individual having his or her own degree and assortment.

No, Carlton Pearson is a heretic, one who has departed from the Faith “once delivered to the saints.” He has joined the ranks of those who have abandoned the authority of Scripture and devised new doctrines in line with the wishful thinking of Pollyanna liberalism. St Peter said it all: “ . . . there shall be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that BOUGHT them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (II Peter 2.1)

“Bought them” connects directly to the fact that Messiah, the sacrifice Lamb, paid the cosmic ransom for those who would trust in his atonement. It is not general and universal, but having been created in God’s image, we are personally responsible for our sins AND our response to the offer of redemption in the Gospel. Pearson is denying the very heart of the Gospel by marginalizing human responsibility. Our contemporary culture of toleration, abhors responsibility and wants a free ticket to self-indulgence. The preaching of the Gospel is not just the good news of atonement, but a dire warning for rejecting it. I’ll stop now, because Steve really laid it all out very well.

"Not so, Eric. It is not just "any crime;" even a biggie like blowing up thousands of people on 9/11, or exterminating millions in death camps. It is the original fall from that Edenic state of righteousness and holiness, which not only separated man from God's presence and fellowship, but generated a sin nature (Gen. 6.5) that demanded judgment from a holy God; like a child who curses his parent will DRAW IMMEDIATE response and punishment (well, maybe not today)."

Nikos, let's put this into individual terms. On one hand, according to what you say, there's God. On the other hand, there's (let's say) me. I live a finite life and I perform a limited number of actions. No matter what I do in my life, I can only commit a limited number of "bad" actions, by definition. According to the Christian religion that I've heard about all my life, that limited set of "crimes" will be responded to by God with a sentence of infinite suffering. By ANY measure, that is unjust.

It is also nonsensical. Any punishment that is used by humans is meant to correct problems with behavior. Putting a person into a prison for all time does nothing to solve a problem or teach anyone a lesson. Supposedly, those who get into heaven will be perfect at that point and in no need of improvement.

And don't forget the imagery provided in Revelation. Of Jesus sitting and personally viewing the torments of the inhabitants of hell. Doesn't sound much like a Prince of Peace to me.

Oh I know... I don't understand the beauty of the book of Revelation, because God hasn't made my brain function in the way it needs to in order to see it "correctly." That's understood at this end. Actually, if such an alteration were possible, I would prefer to skip it. If seeing a cosmic torturer as "loving and just" is the end result, I'd prefer to keep my brain intact as it is, thanks.

Pearson has brought up some basic fundamental problems with the the Christian theology regarding hell.

Is Pearson correct or incorrect? Who am I to say? Do I agree or disagree with Pearson? That answer is left to me and me alone.

I believe that Pearson has struck upon a very "touchy" area of Christian theology that deserves some serious evaluation and re-evaluation by ALL.

Shalom

Maybe he should start his own club.

I understand your point, Eric, and from a “logical” human point of view it makes sense. But there are a couple of factors that must be considered. One is that man is created in the imago dei. That’s his “I.D.” He is Designed Intelligently - for the purpose of knowing and fellowshipping with his heavenly Creator and glorifying him forever (WCF – 1st Q., Shorter Catechism). Without accepting this truth, and the ramifications of the fall, there can be no capacity to appreciate both the grievousness of the fall and its cosmic consequences.

Hell is a rather loaded term, with all sorts of pop and folk religion baggage. But if one return to its biblical sources, it relates to terms in the Hebrew and Geek that denote a condition of judgment and painful separation from God. Apparently, after death, the mental and spiritual conditions for viable repentance and restoration end. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” (Heb. 9.27) All religions that I know of have some kind of after death “sorting out” theory; whether it be the 27 virgins-or-hell scenario of Islam, or the reincarnation models of Hinduism or Buddhism, or other variants.

The biblical NT teaching is that no one can make him or herself perfectly holy (we ALL know that to be true) – an understandable requisite for abiding in the presence of God in heavenly perfection and bliss. For sin is everywhere depicted in Scripture as inimical to God’s presence. It always corrupts and distorts existence. Therefore, God Himself provided the means of being cleansed and clothed with the wedding garment of perfection in Christ, who is the only standard of righteousness acceptable to God.

Hell is that “burning” suffering of the soul that enters the afterlife to face the judgment of God without the Messianic covering of grace. “Fire” is used in the Scriptures, in speaking of the after death state, of the eternal (or absolute) sense of regret and pain of separation from God and the joys of heaven.

The universal experience of people, who have committed an especially horrendous act, of feeling an almost unbearable sense of guilt and remorse – even to the point of suicide – portends the absolute “fire” of judgment after death. Earthly fire, red devils jumping around etc. belong to pop religion and Halloween, not the biblical reality – although its horrors are real.

The fire of cleansing and renewal, as per the “tongues of fire” in Acts 2, are the inverse of the “fire,” or burning, of anguish and regret. Like the fire of Acts 2, the fire of hell is not of an earthly nature but a term of condescension to describe a reality beyond our current comprehension.

Also, those (like me) who lived for so long in the very real “hell” of self and sin, know the eternal and glorious nature of the new birth, the filling of the Spirit of life and the joy of fellowship with God, and with brothers and sisters in Christ. My feeling was, “if heaven is better than this, I don’t know whether I’ll be able to stand it.” Actually, I can’t wait! As the old hymn puts it, “O what a foretaste of glory divine.”

Responding to Eric's very sensible question, our sinful actions are the product of our warped and rebellious natures. It is not that our finite actions are punished with an infinite overkill, but that the constant orientation of our nature away from God and toward self is finally and unchangeably ratified by God.
My guess is, Eric, that you don't go to church very often, and if you were dragged there for some reason, would not look forward to going there. Why, then, if this is the case, do you think you would enjoy Heaven? What makes Heaven so delightful to us believers is that the God we love will be there with us; but judging from your comments, the Biblical God is someone you wouldn't want to spend five minutes with, let alone eternity. I think this is sad and short-sighted, and that you are throwing away joys beyond your wildest imaginings, but such is your right. If you insist on rejecting God, one day you will find that the door to His mercy is no longer open to you. But you can't blame God for that. He gave you every chance. If you decide to reject them all, and choose your own way instead, God will reluctantly give it to you. That's not cruel of Him; He is not under any obligation to offer us any salvation at all.
C.S.Lewis said that our problem is not that we are blind and need to be shown the way; our problem is that we are rebels and need to lay down our arms. No state can tolerate armed insurrection within its borders and survive; nor will God tolerate it. I urge you, then, to surrender. You have nothing to lose but your chains.