[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]But, there are enough scriptures to also come up with the teaching of eternal torment, and we must respect those who disagree on this issue.
Stan

Sadly, my experience in posting on other Christian forums shows me otherwise. There seems to be some sort of sadistic streak that runs through many Christians where it almost seems that they would be disappointed in God were eternal torment NOT real. They feel that sinners are ‘getting off easy’ and that annihilation ‘isn’t really a punishment’.

Would they feel that way if they knew for a fact that their dearest loved one would be in that number? I wonder if they realize that we are all sinners and the only difference that separates us from the worst sinner on earth is the blood of Christ?

From a Calvinist point of view this must really seem as elitist and selfish. By gloating like this, a person then feels that they ‘got lucky’ or ‘smart’ by ‘choosing Christ’ and the poor sap sinner who didn’t is going to get their just rewards.

In using only the Bible in preaching a God who demands justice and punishment but exercises His divine love and mercy to the children He loves dear, I have been called a ‘false teacher’ spreading ‘lies of Satan, an ‘imp of Satan’ a ‘follower of your father, the devil’ and preaching ‘false doctrine’.

So somehow, by making God look less than the worst Hitler, and putting Him in a benevolent light while still punishing evil, I am doing the devils’ work? I would think that all the atheists that the hell doctrine has created and the horrible light it puts God in would be the devil’s glee.

Sadly, there is no respect for those whose elitist thinking make them feel they have a monopoly on this doctrine and any attempt to think otherwise is tantamount to blasphemy.

Close minded thinking abounds on this issue.

Guibox wrote:

“Sadly, my experience in posting on other Christian forums shows me otherwise. There seems to be some sort of sadistic streak that runs through many Christians where it almost seems that they would be disappointed in God were eternal torment NOT real. They feel that sinners are ‘getting off easy’ and that annihilation ‘isn’t really a punishment’.”
----------------------------------------------------------

Guibox,

Posting on Christian forums is one thing. But consider this:

When John Stott published his views that annihilation was the likely end of the wicked, there was an outcry from some quarters as you described. But, Stott survived this. When you go to the top recommended reading lists on Reformed web sites such as John Piper, and Phil Ryken, you will find that John Stott’s books are still at the very top of these recommended reading lists even for 2007.

Phillip Hughes--who was quoted extensively at the very beginning of this thread--was/is well respected in Reformed circles. RC Sproul quotes from his works. These men are not considered heretics by good solid theologians. So, whatever Christian forums you are posting on may not represent the best of Christian thinking on this topic.

Stan

Stan,

This may be true but I have read some pretty strong words from Robert Morey and Peterson who have clashed with guys like Fudge and Pinnock. Their rants against annihilation are slightly more tamed down but better hidden inside more scholarly rhetoric than the caveman diatribe I have experienced on the forums.

However, the underlying spirit of ‘This is false theology from well meaning folk being misguided by Satan’ is still there.

Guibox,
Robert Morey has shattered his credibility in the apologetic community. So I wouldn’t use him as an example.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Guibox,
Robert Morey has shattered his credibility in the apologetic community.
Stan

How so and why?

Morey has totally misrepresented groups he opposes by misrepresnting their theology. He has misstated facts about Adventism. His scholarship was really dishonest at some points in his book on hell, where he recklessly misquoted others.

His book of Muslim hatred “The Islam Invasion” has so much exaggerated claims and outright lies about Islam.

In so many other areas he has misrepresented the groups he is attacking.

Morey is very crude, and resorts to “fart jokes” on his radio show, and I even visited his church, and in the sermon proper used the bathroom sophomoric humor described above.

However Morey can also be very good at times when he is seriously preaching the gospel.

Stan

Guibox,

You may be interested in this note. I heard a radio program by RC Sproul today on the wrath of God. It was a very effective presentation about how liberals are playing down the importance of the wrath of God. If there is no wrath of God towards unregenerate sinners, then God’s character is compromised, and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross really has no meaning.

However, what is interesting to me, is that there was no mention of an eternal conscious torment. I have noticed a subtle trend of a lot of great Reformed preachers such as Alistair Begg and some others emphasizing the wrath of God, but not clearly teaching eternal conscious torment. I think that there are many orthodox preachers who may give lip service to the orthodox doctrine, but for some reason they may be reconsidering their positions on eternal torment. They don’t want to be as up front as John Stott, but it seems clear that there is a de-emphasis on the eternal conscious torment part of this doctrine.

But even so, Sproul’s presentation was very effective. Un believers are storing up for themselves the wrath of God that will be meted out in perfect justice.

Sinners must come to Christ to be saved from the wrath of God. God poured out His wrath on His Son for the redeemed so that they may be saved. Those who reject God’s provison in Christ must suffer the full wrath of God which their sins deserve.

Any liberal gospel which leaves out the wrath of God is a false gospel. This liberal gospel is alive and well in Adventism, and in many other liberal protestant traditions.

Stan

Stan,

I truly believe that when Christians take a step back from the apologetic of eternal torment and take a hard look at the doctrine, they will see that there are serious moral and existential problems with eternal torment. If they are truly honest with themselves, they realize that preaching a God of love to the world doesn’t square up with the traditional teaching of this doctrine.

I believe that this search for alternatives is a reaction to our God-given sense of fairness and morality. People don’t WANT to believe such a doctrine but because they believe that the bible teaches it, they have no choice. I think that this is telling evidence that there is something wrong.

The opposite is equally false: that God is so loving that nobody meets their end in judgement and fire. However, I believe that the doctrine of eternal torment is so abhorrent to the conscience of mankind that such an alternative was a necessity to be created to counteract it.

The answer is in the middle. God’s mercy and love equals His judgement and wrath. One is not sacrificed for the other. Annihilation has the biblical, philosophical and moral truths to balance it.

It is sad that so many criticize this doctrine that has WAAAAAY more evidenc ein it’s favor than eternal torment simply because this was the way people are raised. Such blinding esegetical apologetic can do nothing but cauterize our consciences.

Dear Christian friends,

I heartily recommend an excellent study on death and the afterlife by Dr. Robert A. Morey entitled, “DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE” (a 315-page exposition). This highly-acclaimed reference volume can be obtained directly through Dr. Morey’s online bookstore at: http://www.faithdefenders.com . What makes this book especially appealing to Adventists and former Adventists is that Dr. Morey goes face to face with the late SDA apologist, L. E. Froom. It is truly a MUST-READ type of book.

Here is what the late Dr. Walter Martin said about this reference work: “The scholarship of this volume will impress those who have studied the subject with any degree of thoroughness...The first major work on this subject in this century, DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE will for many years be a standard reference work in this sorely neglected field.” Happy reading!

Dennis Fischer

As many already know, the proponents of soul sleep cite Ecclesiastes 9:5 unendingly: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten” (ESV). This worldly “under the sun” view paints a very dismal, fatalistic picture. With few exceptions, the writer of Ecclesiastes (traditionally considered to be Solomon) describes unsaintly ideas like money is everything, all is vanity, all is hopeless, eat, drink, and merry today because tomorrow we will die, everything is meaningless, life is empty, etc.

However, Adventists and others conveniently fail to cite Ecclesiastes 9:10 which says again that everything is dismal and gloomy, but ”Sheol” is the actual place for the afterlife. Unfortunately and unforgivably, even some modern translators have mistranslated this Hebrew word as the “grave” which causes an immense amount of additional confusion to one not savvy in biblical Hebrew. Of course, Adventist apologists are most delighted with this mistranslation as it appears in the NIV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, Moffatt’s, and NCV. However, the NEB, ESV, NASB, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, NJB, and NAB translators did an accurate work on this passage.

The KJV translates Sheol as “hell” 31 times, “grave” 31 times, and “pit” three times. Because of this inconsistency of translation, such groups as the Adventists, Armstrongites, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Sheol means grave.  All the conditional immortalitists have traditionally capitalized on the KJV’s translation of Sheol as the “grave.” An examination of the usages of kever and Sheol reveals that Sheol cannot mean the grave.  The following twenty contrasts between kever and Sheol demonstrates this point:

1. While the kabar (to bury) is used in connection with kever, it is never used in connection with Sheol.  We can bury someone in a grave but we cannot bury anyone in Sheol (Gen. 23:4,6,9,19,20;49:30,31,etc.).

2. While kever is found in its plural form “graves” (Ex. 14:11), the word Sheol is never pluralized.

3. While a grave is located at a specific site (Ex.14:11), Sheol is never localized, because it is everywhere accessible at death no matter where the death takes place.  No grave is necessary in order to go to Sheol.

4. While we can purchase or sell a grave (Gen. 23:4-20), Scripture never speaks of Sheol being purchased or sold.

5. While we can own a grave as personal property (Gen. 23:4-20), nowhere in Scripture is Sheol owned by a man.

6. While we can discriminate between graves and pick the “choicest site” (Gen. 23:6), nowhere in Scripture is a “choice” Sheol pitted against a “poor” Sheol.

7. While we can drop a dead body into a grave (Gen. 50:13), no one can drop anyone into Sheol.

8. While we can erect a monument over a grave (Gen. 35:20), Sheol is never spoken of as having monuments.

9. While we can, with ease, open or close a grave (2 Kings 23:16), Sheol is never opened or closed by man.

10.While we can touch a grave (Num. 19:18), no one is ever said in Scripture to touch Sheol.

11.While touching a grave brings ceremonial defilement (Num. 19:16), the Scriptures never speak of anyone being defiled by Sheol.

12.While we can enter and leave a tomb or grave (2 Kings 23:16), no one is ever said to enter and then leave Sheol.

13.While we can choose the site of our own grave (Gen.23:4-9), Sheol is never spoken of as something we can pick and choose.

14.While we can remove or uncover the bodies or bones in a grave (2 Kings 23:16),the Scriptures never speak of man removing or uncovering anything in Sheol.

15.While we can beautify a grave with ornate carvings or pictures (Gen. 35:20), Sheol is never beautified by man.

16.While graves can be robbed or defiled by man (Jer. 8:1,2), Sheol is never spoken of as being robbed or defiled by man.

17.While a grave can be destroyed by man (Jer. 8:1,2), nowhere in Scripture is man said to be able to destroy Sheol.

18.While a grave can be full, Sheol is never full (Prov. 27:20).

19.While we can see a grave, Sheol is always invisible.

20.While we can visit the graves of loved ones, nowhere in Scripture is man said to visit Sheol.

[Excerpts taken from Dr. Robert A. Morey, DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE; Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN, 1984]

Dennis Fischer

Dennis,

Perhaps this might be another thread as the topic here is eternal torment. Maybe Greg could make your last two comments and mine here to another thread?

Even if Solomon was the only person with such support for the concept of the afterlife, it would still stand alone. Or you’re basically saying that regardless of Solomon’s personal (and depressed) musings, that he didn’t know squat about the afterlife, or wasn’t taught or had revealed anything about the nature of man?

Somehow in all this inspired literature, this is the only one where such a theological discourse is nothing more than the made up ramblings of a manic-depressive monarch? This is quite a convenient explanation for those who desperately want to believe in soul immortality. However, it is a necessary move for they are left with no other choice in the light of such strong and clear words by the wisest man who ever lived.

The fact remains however, that Job and David completely agree with Solomon as do the Hebrew linguistics of the words for ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ and the context used throughout the OT. Couple that with the clear words of the resurrection to life at the end of time and we see that life after death was realized not as a disembodied ‘soul’ at death, but as a wholistic resurrection of mankind to consciousness and eternal life.

As far as Sheol goes, I wouldn’t take Morey as the sole definitive translator of what Sheol/Hades is.

What do other authoritative, non-SDA sources say on the matter?

Another term, and one more relevant to our topic, is the Greek term Hades (e.g., Matt 11:23). This term comes from Greek mythology in which it was the abode of the dead. It was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew concept of Sheol. While in the Old Testament this term was not mythological, it was a metaphorical way to talk about what happened to people when they died. Sheol was simply the place where dead people go. It was almost synonymous with death and especially “grave,” and indeed is used that way in several Old Testament passages, e.g., Psa 49:14:

Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; straight to the grave they descend, and their form shall waste away; Sheol shall be their home.

In other words, Sheol or Hades was a poetic way to say, “they died and were buried.” It is in this sense that the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed is used, using the ambiguous word “hell” in English, when the more precise idea of Hades actually lies behind the statement. “He descended into hell” then becomes nothing more than a statement that Jesus died and was placed in the tomb, the grave. In Hebrew concepts, they would say he descended into Sheol, i.e., was lowered into the grave, or that he slept with the fathers, i.e., was placed in a family tomb. It is in that context that the affirmation of the resurrection is so powerful.

“The Voice: Christian Resource Institute”

She’ol is the Hebrew abode of the dead; the underworld, grave or pit. In the Hebrew Bible it is portrayed as a comfortless place beneath the earth, beyond gates, where both the bad and the good, slave and king, pious and wicked must go after death to sleep in silence and oblivion in the dust. In some sources, for example in Deuteronomy 32:22, Sheol seems to be synonymous with the depths of the earth. Sheol is generally compared to the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Hades or Tartarus from Greek mythology. Sheol is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead; the righteous Job sees it as his destination (Job 3). In the Book of Job, while Satan is portrayed as tormenting and testing the living, he does not appear to have any particular presidency over Sheol, or to dwell in Sheol.

Indeed, Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely “the grave”. In Ecclesiastes, for example, it is stated that “...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.” and “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave [Sheol], where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.” (Ecc. 9:5-10, NIV) This concept of death was of a final oblivion, interestingly contrasting with the idea of a soul and a consciousness that survives the body, as later writers believed.

Wikipedia

“Since “Sheol” in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word hell as understood today, is not an appropriate translation.”

Colliers Encyclopedia (1986 Vol.12, p 28)

“Sheol” is a place where the state of the dead reside knowing neither pain or pleasure, neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and Gentiles all sleep together without awareness of one another.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971 vol 11 p. 276.)

Indeed, Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely “the grave”. In Ecclesiastes, for example, it is stated that “...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.” and “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave [Sheol], where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.” (Ecc. 9:5-10, NIV) This concept of death was of a final oblivion, interestingly contrasting with the idea of a soul and a consciousness that survives the body, as later writers believed.

Dictionary of World Geography

Here is an NIV/KJV exhaustive commentary/comparison on the uses of Sheol in the OT

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/149.htm

Guibox,

Thank you for your comments. In the quote from Dr. Morey above, what precisely don’t you agree with? This is merely a small excerpt from his book dealing with a particular mistranslated word in a particular passage in some translations.  Dr. Morey goes much further into detail about Sheol in his book.  Which one of his twenty points about Sheol don’t you agree with and why?  You owe it to yourself to get this standard reference book on this topic. It has stood the test of time already as a highly-acclaimed, resource volume.

It is important to see the BIG PICTURE on this topic. Sadly, soul sleep, annihilationism, and conditionalism affects the natures of God, man, and salvation. The theory of annihilation in which the wicked pass into nonexistence either at death or at the resurrection was first advanced by Arnobius, a fourth-century “Christian” apologist [see Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, page 184]. The great Reformer, John Calvin, devoted his first literary work to debunk this aberration of the Christian faith. Without any doubt, this is the most aberrant and deceptive doctrine that Adventists hold.  A view that clouds our understanding of salvation is certainly worthy of a thorough investigation. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, Dr. Morey goes point by point over all the claims of the late SDA apologist, L. E. Froom.

With very few exceptions, as you already know, Christian scholars are overwhelmingly on the side of traditionalism. And for solid biblical reasons I might add.  I also heartily recommend the able scholarship of Dr. Robert A. Peterson.  He has several excellent books on this topic--including TWO VIEWS OF HELL co-authored with Edward Fudge, a conditionalist. Most of what we know about hell was taught by Jesus Himself. I am very familiar with the JW-SDA view of death--a view I firmly held for nearly fifty years.

Furthermore, SDA apologists know exactly where the passages are that support the biblical view of death. For example, in the Clear Word Bible (CWB) the author changed over 50 passages so that the reader would not know what the Bible really says about death and the afterlife.  The SDA view of death clearly reflects a serious hermeneutical problem. SDA apologists repeatedly fail to utilize and/or ignore accepted principles of hermeneutics in defining words and places such as grave, death, destruction, Abraham’s bosom, torment, everlasting, eternal, hades, gehenna, and Sheol. Bibically, death is defined as separation from God (e.g., the fall of Adam). 

Without the biblical view of death, we cannot understand being born again. Obviously, our physical bodies cannot be reborn. Thus, SDA apologists are forced to compromise by saying that the new birth is merely a mental assent to a certain belief system. Overall, Adventist dogma tends to be highly physical in nature (i.e., human beings are merely one solid physical or material unit, vegetarianism, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, tithing, sabbathing, God the Father has a physical body, footwashing, anti-spice, anti-sugar, anti-masturbation, ad infinitum). It can be argued that the reason why Seventh-day Adventists are so concerned about their physical health is simply because their body is really all they have. Having no separate soul entity and no assurance of salvation, a healthy lifestyle presumably delays the dreaded, inevitable fate of nothingness.

They claim to have no immaterial side of their existence. What you see is what you have--seeing is believing. The most horrifying occasion in Adventist circles is definitely a funeral.  The cold grave looks bleak and scary. They claim the deceased are “GONE, GONE.” They insist that no part of them survives their physical death.  There is absolutely no continuity of personhood.  They further claim to die just like animals with the only exception that they are in the memory of God like a fallen sparrow. Atheists and evolutionists wholeheartedly agree with them that human beings are merely biological in nature. Someone who doesn’t exist in any form, certainly doesn’t await anything--much less a resurrection. Not even God can resurrect someone who doesn’t exist. Although Adventists repeatedly claim the body and soul are merely one physical unit, they never, ever talk about the resurrection of the soul. Obviously, that terminology sounds even too strange to a devout Adventist.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis,

I will comment on Morey’s quotes when I have more time.

I on the other hand find the conditional view of death much more comforting and full of hope than that of the typical Protestant funeral.

I also believe that out of all the SDA doctrines; out of the Sabbath, the IJ, the SOP, the law, eschaetology and sanctification...the doctrine of annihilation and conditional mortality is the most biblical and most exegetically sound of them all.

Throughout the entire Bible the hope of resurrection is trumpeted. From Job to John the Revelator, eternal life as the whole restoration of man on the proverbial Day of the Lord is the blessed hope that saturates salvation history.

Nowhere in the grand scope of salvation history does an immortal soul fit into the picture.

The SDA view of death clearly reflects a serious hermeneutical problem. SDA apologists repeatedly fail to utilize and/or ignore accepted principles of hermeneutics in defining words and places such as grave, death, destruction, Abraham’s bosom, torment, everlasting, eternal, hades, gehenna, and Sheol. Bibically, death is defined as separation from God

I’m really not sure how you could make this statement. Making ‘death’ and ‘destruction’ mean ‘endless conscious misery as a disembodied soul’ has to be the faultiest hermeneutic I’ve ever seen. I will be more than happy to share with you all the instances of these words and their Greek and Hebrew meanings and how they are used if you’d like. You will be hard pressed to find ‘eternal conscious torment’ in any of the instances of the words in the scriptures.

As R.F. Weymouth, who translated the English Bible into Greek in 1903 (and a non-SDA I might add! ) said this:

My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying ‘destroy’, or ’destruction’, are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this.

guibox said:

I also believe that out of all the SDA doctrines; out of the Sabbath, the IJ, the SOP, the law, eschaetology and sanctification...the doctrine of annihilation and conditional mortality is the most biblical and most exegetically sound of them all.

Well said.  You have done a good job defending soul sleep.

The only reason I can see for theologians to teach that those people who don’t accept their ideas will burn forever in unending torment is to scare people into their church.  Ultimately it is about power over other people.  If they can scare the ---- out of them, the people will obey out of fear.  Fear and greed are excellent motivators, but is that righteousness?  How does obedience out of fear or greed differ from a trained dog?  Isn’t true righteousness an expression of unconditional love given freely?

Are we serious when we claim to believe the Bible when it says “God is love?” In human society, many of us are acquainted with abusive “love,” especially between husbands and wives, where a man or woman is so full of “love” that the “lover” has to demonstrate his love by mental control and physical injure.  Is it possible that God’s agape love is the same type of abusive violent “love” practiced by a jealous husband?  Isn’t that what those who teach eternal torment expect us to accept?  Is Jesus’ death on the cross is an example of God’s violence where His thrist for revenge is so great that He will kill an innocent victim or a demonstration of God’s unconditional love?

As with the abused wife, who is always asking herself what she did to make her husband treat her so harshly, do we have to ask exactly what we could ever do to deserve this abuse?  As the omnipotent creator, isn’t God the one who made sin possible in the first place?  Couldn’t He have made the universe so sin could never arise? 

This problem becomes even worse in the case of the Calvanists who do not believe that people have a free will and that some people were born losers.  So far as I can follow his argument, it appears Calvin thought that the wicked were created for no other purpose than to be tortured for eternity.  Calvin apparently believed he himself was created to be loved and coddled for eternity.  What a God!  But if God really is that violent, how do those people who think they will be the exception know they haven’t been tricked?

Is it possible that those who feel comfortable teaching eternal torment do so because they think they themselves have found a way to escape it?  But have they really found the magic escape valve?  What if they are wrong?  The Muslims teach that it is the Christians who will burn forever in hell in eternal torment.  If God is really that violent, how do we know we are correct and the Muslims will be the ones burning forever.  It appears one or the other group is destined to suffer eternally for the mistake of accepting the wrong belief.  But what if both groups are wrong about what God requires, and God is just playing games with us?

Because God is all powerful and He holds all the cards, the only hope for humanity is if God actually loves us unconditionally. 

Hi New Mexico,

I’m still on the road and am unable to respond to all of your points, but I would like to probe you a little about what you’ve said here. I was surprised to learn that in the gospels, Jesus speaks more often about hell than he does of heaven, and in his warnings about hell, he pulls no punches.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” (Mark 9:42-48 ESV)

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30 ESV)

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28 ESV)

“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42 ESV)

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46 ESV)

New Mexico, I’m curious what you think about Jesus’ own words regarding the severity of the conditions awaiting those who will be in hell.

Also, you mentioned that Calvinists build a theology around avoiding hell, but I’d encourage you to instead see that Calvinists build their theology around the sovereignty of God. If God is sovereign, it is His choice to save (or not save) any of us, since we all deserve everlasting seperation from Him because of our sin. Those who believe that God is totally sovereign don’t take joy in the knowledge that many will be in hell, rather, we see a greater urgency to proclaim the gospel so that sinners will be convicted of sin, leading them to repentence and faith in Jesus. Along these lines, I’m interested to hear your perspective on Romans 9, where Paul likens God to a potter and sinners to the potter’s clay. Paul directly answers the challenge you are making to God’s fairness by drawing attention to His sovereignty.

“What shall we say then?  Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!  For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.’” (Romans 9:14-16 ESV)

“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?  Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:19-24 ESV)

Finally, the beginnings of an answer to your hypothetical question about Muslims vs. Christians lies in the historical truth claims of Jesus. After his crucifixion, Jesus either rose from the tomb, or he did not. Christians believe Jesus authenticated his message by appearing to the disciples and over 500 other people after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6). When Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was written, his claims about the resurrection of Christ could have been verified by asking any of the living witnesses. Even the Jews acknowledged that Christ’s tomb was empty, but they claimed the disciples overpowered the Roman guards to steal it. The point of all of this is that Jesus made truth claims for himself that he subsequently authenticated by doing something in his resurrection that no human has ever done. We do not simply take a blind leap of faith into the Christian worldview hoping that we are doing the right thing. Instead, we root ourselves firmly in history and in the claims Jesus made for himself–claims which were prophesied for thousands of years beforehand and have never been refuted. We don’t cling to a nebulous hope that we are right, we cling to a solid faith that has been delivered to us “once and for all” by the finished work of Christ (Jude 3).

[quote author="New Mexico"]
Because God is all powerful and He holds all the cards, the only hope for humanity is if God actually loves us unconditionally.

God indeed holds all the cards, but He has revealed them to us through the incarnate Word–Jesus Christ (John 1:14, Hebrews 1:1-3). Our only hope after encountering the Word is to believe in Him. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:29 ESV) “Have you believed because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29 ESV)

Greg