[soc.religion.christian] The nature of hell

sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu (Stan Reeves) (08/14/89)

Darren Provine writes:
>For starters, I don't think Hell (or Heaven) is a place in our usual
>terminology of 3-dimensional coordiate space.  You don't `go there'
>in the same way that you go to Hell, Michigan.

>I'm not sure about time, but I tend to doubt that there's any of that
>`in' either Heaven or Hell.

>Given all that, the idea of a `literal Hell' (meaning eternal torment
>in a place with Bad Stuff) makes no sense to me -- if there's no `there'
>there, and if there's no `eternal' there, then `it' must be something else.

This is not meant as a flame.  My intention is to express some concerns
that this approach raises in my mind.  Let me say right off, however, that
I'm not too concerned to maintain literal fire and brimstone in hell or
literal streets of gold in heaven.

>But it doesn't *contradict* the Bible in any way that I'm aware of

One concern of mine is right here.  The problem with such an ethereal view
of hell is that it could easily lead to contradictions with the tenor of
Scripture on that issue.  If the symbolic nature of hell is pressed too 
far, it could very well be pressed right out of existence.  I hope most
Christians have too much respect for our Lord's teaching on the subject
to allow that to happen.

>And the specifics don't seem terribly important in practice -- most people
>agree that there is some kind of judgement, and Jesus spoke of Gehenna as a
>Bad `Place'

As I said, I'm not too concerned to maintain a literalistic view of hell.
However, I think it's reasonable to interpret the language of hell as
describing something we can't understand in terms that we can understand.
Otherwise, what's the point?  It's similar to the description of God's 
temple in Isaiah 6.  I don't believe that's a literal description of God's
appearance, but it *is* intended to convey something about the nature of
God.  The descriptions of hell that we are given communicate a punishment
of unspeakable horror.  It may not be literal fire and brimstone, but it
seems to be describing something that would correspond in some measure to
what we know of fire and brimstone.  The "liberal" approach to this issue
seems to emphasize the symbolic nature of hell in order to downplay its
horror.  I don't see any warrant whatsoever for doing that.  Until we can
more accurately describe the nature of hell, isn't it safest just to stick
to the biblical language we have?

One more question:  Do you believe Christ continues to be both fully human
and fully divine in his high-priestly ministry?  If so, and I believe that's
the orthodox view, where is his body?  If heaven isn't a place, then Christ
cannot exist as God incarnate.  If heaven *is* a place, then I think by
logical extension from the biblical descriptions of heaven and hell, we'd
have to conclude that hell is a place too.  What are your thoughts on this?

>Herr Moderator commented:
>
>>The nearest the Southern Baptists have to an authoritative confession
>>(unless the recent attempt to purge "liberals" from the seminaries has
>>caused things to change) is a document from 1925.
>
>_The Baptist Faith and Message_ is still the closest thing we have to a
>creed, and it is still non-binding (last I heard).  I don't expect it to
>become binding (although You Never Can Tell).  [The astute reader will
>notice that The Baptist Faith and Message was promulgated in 1925. --clh]

Just to be picky here -- The BF&M was originally adopted in 1925, but it was
revised in 1963.  The 1963 version serves as an official statement of the
consensus view of the Southern Baptist Convention and as a guideline for
doctrinally related activities of the various agencies of the Convention --
including the seminaries.


Stan Reeves