Ignoring the elephant is definitely strange . . . it seems as though he's trying really hard not to patronize those who are "studying and saying alot of things" and all that whoever "they" may be *wink*wink* . . . just not sure it doesn't come across as patronizing. Any time you begin a statement with, "Have you ever considered" - it comes over a little condescending; probably not his intention, but highlights the difficulty of dialogue.

While he no doubt highlights some of the more challenging "holiness" texts, his dismissal of reason (at least reason that contradicts him) makes it awfully challenging to have dialogue. Should be interesting to how this books gets that camp fired up.

I have deep respect for these men but I strongly disagree with both of them on this issue. In fact, I find Chan's ad as troubling as anything I read or heard from Bell.

It seems to me that the main thrust of Chan's argument for the traditional understanding of hell (eternal conscious torment) is that God's ways are not like our ways. His justice is higher than our justice. His love is not like our love. Chan's says, “I’m a piece of clay trying to explain to other pieces of clay what the potter is like. It’s silly to think we are experts on him. Our only hope is that he would reveal to us what he is like, and then we repeat those things.”

All of this is of course true, but Chan is using this as a starting point to show what can and cannot be known about God. This is what I find troubling.

All Christian doctrines undergo a certain amount of development over time. A variety of factors in society, history and philosophical thought impact the way issues are viewed and interpreted. Scripture is of course primary - but it is illumined by two millennia of Church history, vivified in personal experience and confirmed by reason.

In other words, the traditional doctrine of hell forms a "lens" through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, tradition is not infallible and it must be balanced and tested by reason and experience. Reason (rational thinking and sensible interpretation) and experience (how a particular view of scripture is actually lived out) is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of tradition and adjust our interpretations of Scripture.

This is what I find so troubling about Chan's video. Arguments such as these, whether offered in love and humility or with contempt and fear, have been used by religion for thousands of years to prop up the existing tradition and stifle reason and sensible interpretation.

Over at Jesus Creed, pastor-philosopher Jeff Cook offered up three more important critiques to Chan's video. He said:

(1) In contrast to Chan’s claim, we need to rationally wrestle with our views about who God is and what he does, and to fail to do so is sloth;

(2) There’s a real problem with criticizing all claims that begin with, “I wouldn’t believe in a God who would….” We should choose not to believe in a God who would … repeatedly torture three year olds for fun. We should choose not to believe in a God who would …. command cowardice, betrayal, abuse, and ignorance. “Belief in God” implies trust and devotion, and it seems to me *some* pictures of God are not worthy of either trust or devotion.

(3) The idea of “justice” must be the same for God and for us, otherwise the term lacks linguistic value. If God’s concept of justice is radically different than ours then it makes no sense for us to call God “just” any more.

Cook concludes by saying that what Chan and others must do is show how the traditional view of hell is in any way “just,” The response that, “God knows things we don’t” or “God does things we wouldn’t do” is insufficient here (In philosophical jargon, this is a “phantom argument”). Some kind of story needs to be told that makes initiating eternal conscious torment morally praise-worthy and in accord with what we mean (or should mean) by “justice.”

Those who affirm the traditional view of hell need to do more than say “this is what the Bible says and we’re just repeating it.” Everyone involved in the debate about hell right now is saying “this is what the Bible says”. What those who affirm the traditional view must show is why that view is worthy of devotion.

I think we can be rather sure that the Rob Bells of the world will come and go, but God's word will still be relevant.. Chan is wise to leave it generic. Bell isn't the only one who falls into the worship of questioning everything unsavory.

Chan gets to the heart of the matter however. Do we sit in judgement of God? Or do we trust that his plan is better than our plan? When apologetics becomes apologizing and blotting out the unsavory, we remove God from his throne, and when we worship a dethroned God, we don't worship the true God.

Paul, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I especially give my hearty "Amen" to Jeff Cook's point #3.

Here's a compilation of what Christian thinkers throughout history have had to say on this topic that I found helpful:

http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/06/20/on-the-eternality-of-gehenna/

"the elephant in a very stark room"...you sir/madam are VERY funny!

I don't think this is an issue about sitting in judgement of God. Ultimately the issue is about judging the Text and what we've made of it lo these many centuries. You could just as easily change the topic to "women in ministry" and use Chan's same approach and make the case that either God is God and women shouldn't be pastors (hey Mark Driscoll!) or you can accept that the Text itself may require some thinking through and and study that doesn't challenge God but honours the mind He gave us.

The responses to Francis Chan here reminds me of many visits with Jehovah's Witnesses (who don't believe in a literal hell) I've had in my living room over the years. They are more concerned with a doctrine they are comfortable with than with what the Bible actually says. If our level of reason; and that of those who reason as we do; is the final authority for truth - or there is no final authority for truth; then what purpose does the Bible actually serve for us? A sort of recipe book for people who want to be religious? I'm very confused.

I have held to the notion, and it does have it's flaw that it presents the starkness of the two concepts of what would heaven be like and what would hell be like rather naively, but still, for me, it's a pretty good illustration.

For those who are followers of G-d, this earth, with all it's pains, aches, heartbreaks, ills, sadness, wars, misery, and hatred...this life is as close to hell as any follower of G-d will ever get.

For those who are not followers of G-d, and thus reject Y'shua, this life, with all it's wonderous beauty, grandeur, moments of delight, and happiness...this life is as close to heaven as anyone who rejects Y'shua will ever get.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

I have found that knowledge can bring as much terror and misery, and it can joy and freedom. I think when we die, we will either be joyful, or miserable.

"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

Well, considering the arrogance of certain tweets, it's wise for Chan to focus on the substance of the argument rather than a particular person.

The controversy really isn't about Voldemort...I mean Bell...

Especially since Bell is not the first, nor the last, to espouse the views in his book.

When your pithy tweet is about the person and aimed at them, then the controversy ironically becomes about you and your poor choices.

Kudos to Chan for staying focused on the issue. Would to God others in his orbit would do the same.

I'm glad that Chan is wrestling with this and look forward to "Erasing Hell." The topic yields so much food for thought. Very much enjoy Cook's perspective! If you haven't read his book, Seven: The Deadly Sins and the Beatitudes, I highly suggest it.

A couple of weeks ago I posted a response to Chan's video as well as the responses to the responses here:

http://prophetsandpopstars.com/?p=1121

Peace to you all. Always enjoy the discussion 'Out of Ur.'

I really appreciated Paul Stewart's comments here.

I would go further and say that I think Chan is setting up a straw-man argument to prop up a doctrine that he gives very little positive evidence for outside of his reading of Rev20 and interpretation of it.

more on this: http://kurtkjohnson.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/francis-chan-on-hell/

I feel weird about both of these commercials, Bell's and Chan's. It is strange that the theological discussion is occurring in a consumeristic context.

Watching them, I can't help but think about the publishing houses, and their desire to publish books that will sell, Bell's through popularity and controversy and Chan's through popularity and timely evangelical responsism.

I don't know that the full effects of hashing out our theology in a framework of consumerism and commercials is what we hope for. The unintended consequences are probably strange.

Is there anything left to believe when it comes to "Traditional" Christianity? "There is no Hell", "Jesus did not rise from the dead", etc... By the way does God really exist? Is God not a mere logical and intelligent system of belief and well thought out imaginations by Humans?

The guy that threw a shoe at president Bush got prison time and we recognize the justice in that. Why is it illogical to some that the person who disrespects the author of creation would also be punished even more severely.

If I disobey a policeman, i get locked up, what should the consequences be if I disobey the creator of the universe? Doesn't justice demand more severe punishment for that crime?

I don't understand how you can have justice without consequences for wrongdoing.

Fair enough, Diogenes. But the question is not whether or not there should be consequences...but how severe. If you were given a life sentence for disobeying a policeman, we'd all say that isn't justice. Is hell forever? That is Bell's question.

I believe the starting point is that we have an unchanging holy God who cannot dwell in the presence of sin any more than sin can dwell in His presence. Because of this dilemma, God sent Jesus to satisfy and rectify the issue. We must be in Christ in order to dwell fully with God or in God's presence. Those who are not in Christ must be out of neccesity to His holy nature (not a choice on God's part but a necessary part of His Being)be separated from Him. For what fellowship has light with darkness? Our choice is eternal fellowship with God or eternal separation. The fact that we exist now in time with all the benefits of the Creator is grace and it is the choosing ground for our eternal future. A future separated from God and all His goodness all His righteousness all His Light and glory is Hell. It is banishment. It is a wasteland. It is God saying not my will but yours.

Ethan, who gets to decide degrees of punishment for sin, you? Your analogy can't work because the sin that warrants eternal death is the condition of the heart at birth, not a condition of 'good works' done in this life; Mother Teresa not withstanding. If Bell's question is actually about the finality of eternal torment for unbelievers, I can understand why folks would want to know. But neither Bell's opinion nor Chan's have any bearing on the question. Is it possible to know? Most posters here seem more interested in defending Bell than in any actual discussion of the issue. At least Chan wants to give it a hearing. Why are so many Christians terrified of the word "Hell" anyway? Can't we even talk about it?

The right guy was chosen to take on this topic, as Francis Chan's humility and authentic struggle with this difficult doctrine come through.

The reality is, we'd all like to jettison the doctrine of eternal punishment. The sadder reality that many others have pointed out is that most of us function as complete universalists when it comes to getting the news of the gospel out to our dearest and closest loved ones.

I continue to be astonished at the theological decline of Evangelicalism. The receptivity to doubt combined with sloppy scholarship, revisionist Church history and man-centered wishful thinking continue to heap distain on traditional, historic Christian doctrine. Thankfully, God doesn't change - no matter how much CT's audience does.

"The receptivity to doubt combined with sloppy scholarship, revisionist Church history and man-centered wishful thinking continue to heap distain on..."

Compared to

"...traditional, historic Christian doctrine."

Because traditional, historic Christian doctrine is always, always biblically centered, and carries none of the aforementioned taint of revisionist history, and man-centered wishful thinking.

"Thankfully, God doesn't change - no matter how much CT's audience does."

Indeed.

Ethan,
Consequences for a person, who texted behind the wheel may be as severe as for the one, who DUIed, don't you think? (Luke 13: 1-5)

I like the humility expressed by Chan in this video. That's a really good thing. On the other hand, how much of this video was made after the majority of the book's content was set? Meaning, Chan admirably asks for prayers about what he writes in the book, but I would feel much better if he were asking for those prayers first and then doing his exegetical, historical and theological study. But it sounds like he's already made a decision as to what certain passages say, such as Rev 20. Hopefully the video is older, made prior to the interpretive framework for the new book.

And while I realize that this book is in response to what he-who-must-not-be-named wrote, I'd really like those authors who are responding to look deeper and deal with other, more rigorous works, such as Edward Fudge's _The Fire That Consumes_.

It's ironic how a concern for "consequences" is actually "man-centered" in its concern for how this stuff affects us.

the real question is this: How do we grapple with what ETC says and reveals about God and how do we get a coherent picture of God in light of all the things Scripture affirms.

What's at stake is NOT some human satisfaction with consequences/justice, etc. What's at stake is how we construct theology proper (i.e. Theology of God) since THAT should be the ground of all other theological discourse.

It's a larger theoretical conversation.

Furthermore, we could ask a larger question about ourselves. Namely, what does it say about us if we have some deep-seated need to see "consequences" meted out on others? What does it say about us if we try to ameliorate "consequences" that actually may be deserved?

It seems that some on the more traditional end of things implicitly get this when they try to neutralize Bell and those that agree with claims about the "rebellious" "man-centered" motives of their opponents.

This argument may be true, but it would be nice to see people grapple with the dark impulses in their own heart that make their own pulse quicken for the idea of bad folks "getting theirs" and what appears to b rejoicing in the eternal casting away of those made in image of God.

Both sides of this discussion need to listen to the deeper critiques that come their way.

And just for fun: "A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip." - Anonymous

Two things Christians should NEVER do:

1. "... elevating divine revelation above human reason?"
2."... talking about more unsavory parts of the Bible?"

God's word gives us all complete freedom to examine what we are told to see if it's true. Acts 17:11 The plum line we compare it to is scripture and only scripture. What others have said the scripture says or how it should be interpreted is not part of the plumb line. Many folks talk as if some author in the past speaks as part of the plumb line. It doesn't matter if you know the original languages and can parse every verb or not. God's people can all arrive at the truth if they will hold only to the scripture and pursue it "daily" as Acts 17:11 instructs. This is where "more noble" faith is found.

"Is hell forever? That is Bell's question." That is not just a child-like innocent "question" at all! That is doubt in the Savior's words, camouflaged in reasoning and well-put in words, then printed and multiplied in order to bring it to the attention of every poor soul, struggling with unresolved inner conflicts of any kind. Then he offers some kind of sweet-promising fantasy, derived from the creative theology he so irresponsibly designed. To some precious people; who, otherwise, could enjoy Lord's grace and power of His cross, this exercise can be devastating.

In all the comments given, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned. Instead, I see in most of them arrogance of human conclusions ammounting to words with little influence. It appears to me that you are putting forth what you percieve is correct knowledge while ignoring the power of the Holy Spirit to speak through Francis Chan. You will never understand Chan's approach as well as any truth without the Holy Spirit imbedded into your soul which includes your heart of hearts. I tire of those who will not stick to the simple gospel but instead have to twist until they make it sound as though they are more informed than us little no nothings. God fills with His Spirit and you are treading on dangerous ground when you attempt to nulify Him.

"God fills with His Spirit and you are treading on dangerous ground when you attempt to nulify Him."

G-d also gave us a brain too.
A brain to discern, a brain to question, a brain to think with...what I read in your proposal is this...

"Don't think, just listen."
"Don't question, just obey."
"Don't object, just do."

I'm not one to cashier my brain just so one person can feel better about how righteous they percieve themselves to be, so as long as I have a brain I will think, I will question, and I will object when I detect error when talking about the bible.

FYI, Francis recently spoke at his old church on this subject, and said he had spent several hours in discussion directly with Rob Bell to understand his positions. You can find it here:
http://www.cornerstonesimi.com/special/media_player.html

Ardnas, thank you for warning! I repent..

Chan is very earnest. He quotes (in his video) that God is not like us from Isaiah 55:8, and that God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. The context of this is the preceding verse (vs 7) about how God forgives abundantly - "for He will abundantly pardon" - this is why God is not like humans, and Chan misses this, and the context of specifically why God's thoughts are higher than ours and His ways higher than man's, in this wonderful text quoted by Chan.
This text is not to do with punishment or justice from God, but with abundant forgiveness, a forgiveness that man is unable to reach or comprehend, all of us - like Chan, or me, or you, or Bell cannot reach or comprehend. Chan reverse the text completely from allowing God to abundantly forgive (unlike man) to God abundantly torturing for eternity unlike man.

Chan uses the thought that God's forgiveness is HIGHER than man comprehends, to make God's ways much "LOWER" than man's - in torture - and lower even than Adolph Hitler's torture and injustices. Chan inadvertently makes God's ways far lower and more cruel than man's, and calls it God's superior justice. He misuses a text to reverse its meaning from abundant forgiveness to abundant torture. He dishonours his Creator while thinking he is honouring Him.

God's love is far higher than man's love and his justice is higher also (not lower) than man's; but God chooses to overrule His own justice in every single act of His divine forgiveness. When a person's sins are forgiven by God, God is putting His justice aside. God came to a cross and on it prayed "forgive them' - while He was being tortured by man. Man tortures, the Devi tortures, Adolph HItler tortures, Stalin, Himmler andPl pot torture, and God forgives. God's ways are higher, not lower. "In HIm is no darkness at all" no retaliation or evil or hatred or torture.

"He that loves is born of God and knows God" Said Jesus' disciple John; and he that loves in his theology, is born of God's theology and knows God's theology, not man's lower theologies and lower understandings of the BIble.

Michael, do you just ignore all the verses about God's wrath, and do you toss out the book of Revelation? You must, because God's wrath, and the results of it are spoken of in many, many verses. One example is Ezra 5:12:
"But because our fathers had provoked the God of heaven to wrath, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this temple and deported the people to Babylon."

If you neglect this aspect of God to make your own god, it is simply an idol and will not bring salvation. God's wrath is clear if you read the Bible and don't just pick the verses you like.

Michael, can you explain this scripture verse to me?

I Kings 12:26 "...It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the LORD: therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake unto him." (I encourage you to read the entire chapter)

Barbara, I believe in God's wrath but not eternal torture. I believe that God's wrath comes from his love. He loves the ones Hitler put in gas chambers. Those who did not love the Jews and gypsies, and others Hitler exterminated did not care and had no wrath or anger against Hitler. Love brings wrath, and God is love. Think of a human father whose son or daughter stole from a shop and then that father got out a whip and whipped their back for one month solid day and night so there was not a shred of skin left on their back, is that wrath or sadism? To have a person screaming out in pain for all eternity is sadism not wrath.

A million BIbles, a million Popes, a million bishops, a billion Christians will never convince me that God is a sadist, worse than Hitler or any other human being who has ever lived, and then to call it a "higher" justice. The Anglican (Episcopalian) church had (has?) a significant movement for hundreds of years that believed in conditional immortality, and that after God's anger and punishment for sinners who loved sin rather than their own forgiveness and God's love is expressed at Judgment Day, cease to exist, and they are not tortured for eternity. The Adventists who believe in the BIble fairly conservatively and literally, also believe this and some other people in the Christian faith who fully believe the Bible and in a God of anger against sin and unrepentant sinners like Hitler and Pol Pot and Himmler, and Stalin and people who delighted in evil and preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. God indeed has wrath for such, but not torture.

Human beings themselves would not choose to torture another human being for eternity. To do such is not justice but pure sadism and evil. The fact that there are earnest BIble-believing Christians (who do not compromise on Scripture) who do not believe n eternal torture should make one pause and think that there is an alternative belief to this heinously evil Christian-teaching about God being sadistically evil.

Sorry about the strong language, but many need to wake up to what they are teaching about God.

Michael, just a minor correction. The Adventists do not really believe the Bible fairly conservatively as many believe. They hold Ellen White's teachings above the Bible, as do other groups with their various founders, such as the Mormons. Ellen White claimed to have divine revelation. This is what Ellen White wrote about the Bible: "There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." As an example of a teaching that is not close to traditional Christianity is the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel of Jude 9 and Rev 12:7. They do believe that Jesus is God, but that Michael the Archangel is another name for Him. Her teachings, even towards the end of her lifetime, were not of the historic Trinity, she did not hold to the doctrine of original sin, and if you research it, you'll find that they vary quite a bit on a number of things, and like the Mormons, their theology changes somewhat through the years. Thank you for explaining your views on hell. I totally believe, like you said, that God's holiness and righteousness demand justice for those that do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Dear Barbara,

What Adventists believe was not the point, it was that some/many bible-believing Christians, including such as some Anglicans and Adventists (and many others of all denominations), do not believe in eternal-torture. Even this odd teaching of Adventists that you mention (on Christ being the archangel Michael), does not reflect on the character of God, as does the heinous doctrine of eternal torture in hell fire; which is claimed to be God's "higher" justice.
(By the way, It occurred to me that Adventists may hold that unusual teaching because they believe that when Lucifer the highest angel rebelled with a third of the angels in heaven, that Christ personally helped the remaining angels by taking on the headship of angels to encourage them, just like Christ became the Second Adam, and incarnate for humans, to help the human race when the first Adam fell, I do not know. It is a rather unusual teaching.) But you missed the main point on God being an eternal-torturer and that this would make God worse than the most evil human beings such as Adolph Hitler.

By the way my family background is Methodist on my Dad's side, Presbyterian on my mother's, my Dad had a step uncle, an Anglican priest in England who was part of the Anglican movement against eternal torture. No one on either side of my family ever believed this eternal torture doctrine even though their churches officially taught it. This is true of many believers in many churches today, who believe in the kindness and love of God; because the eternal torturing doctrine teaches a cruel sadistic God both now and for all eternity; it also makes sin eternal.

"Four VIews on Hell", by four theologians giving their views on this eternal hell fire, and answering each other's positions civilly and in Christian spirit is enlightening.

One point made by an opponent of the doctrine in this above book is that those who do believe in eternal torture are strangely silent on it, and do not preach it far and wide nor loudly, and are strangely muted, because it is such a heinous doctrine, and they realise it gives a heinous portrayal of God's character.

Those who oppose it as an evil doctrine, making God into an evil God, (if it were true) you seem to fail to see this glaring fact.
Jesus said "If you being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children how much more will your father in heaven give good gifts" (even HIs own Son).

Hell-fire-torture believers unwittingly extend this text to: "If you being evil, know how to be evil like Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot, and Stalin, how much more will your Father in heaven torture for all eternity" - and people who believe in this eternal torture call it God's "higher"nobler justice. It is incredible!

Four Views on Hell [Paperback]
William Crockett (Editor), Stanley N. Gundry (Series Editor), John F. Walvoord (Contributor), Zachary J. Hayes (Contributor), Clark H. Pinnock (Contributor)

So Michael, if I understand you correctly, you believe that God will not torture evil people for eternity but will just torture them for an undetermined amount of time and then say, "okay, good enough"?

Francis Chan has put a lot of families in "HELL ON EARTH" through his CONTROLLING TACTICS at his local church in Simi Valley, California...He is a Big Promoter of SOCIAL GOSPEL....
I attended his church from 2004 to 2009.

Joe Barcenes