TEACHERS NEED TO CONSIDER LOGICAL ENTAILMENTS

My brain is not functioning well tonight and I need to get up early in the morning - a Saturday! - to help serve at a Men's Breakfast at a church here in town, so it doesn't seem like an ideal time to force myself to think about Literature Reviews and all that sort of stuff.

I will say that I have continued to watch videos produced in the aftermath of Kirk Cameron's switch from the "hell is eternal conscious torment" camp to the "conditional immortality" camp and it's driving me crazy. (Those videos might well be the reason my brain isn't working tonight.) 

There are a lot of self-styled, self-proclaimed Bible "teachers" on YouTube. Most come across way more confident in their interpretations and reasoning skills than they have a right to be. 

One of the things that bugs me the most is that in the midst of all the abstract argumentation, nobody ever seems to consider how, in reality, the presumed eternal torment would absolutely destroy the human psyche. 

Assuming the there is truly fire burning the skin and maggots eating the flesh 24 hours a day, would there be a single occupant of hell whose mind wouldn't turn to jelly by the end of the first month? 

Seriously. 

Most people in the here and now would not be able to endure a month of solitary confinement in a prison cell - even without the flames and worms.

And yet, some of these teachers have the audacity to suggest that the torment will be eternal because those in hell will continue to sin and so will always warrant further wrath.

You might ask, "What sin will they be committing exactly?" And, recognizing it's not likely these folks are lusting or coveting or stealing anything, these teachers say, "They will be angry with God".

You think?

Seems pretty likely. 

But only for a short time. 

I'm guessing by the end of the first year of eternity at the latest, the vast majority of those in hell will experience a complete psychic break and go catatonic. The rest of eternity hell should be pretty quiet.

Am I wrong?

What a crazy discussion!

These teachers of ECT insist that hell will entail real torment but they have no realistic concept of what genuine torture does to people. 

You've got to think through the logical entailments of your beliefs - especially if you take it upon yourself to teach others. 

REAL LEARNING THRIVES ON QUESTIONS

YouTubers continue to produce videos lamenting Kirk Cameron's rejection of hell as eternal conscious torment. I don't think it's hyperbole to call it a "freak out". 

And, honestly, I find both the videos and the hundreds of comments under them to be discouraging and embarrassing. The "arguments" for ECT and against annihilationism are constructed so badly.

To be clear, I would welcome any attempt to argue for ECT intelligently from Scriptures, but this would involve wrestling with all the passages that imply the human soul is not naturally eternally and that the wicked are ultimately destroyed.

Instead, over and over well-intentioned believers assert that "the Bible says nothing to support the idea of annihilationism". And that is ignorance or deception. And I don't know which is worse at this point.

And commenters are throwing out all sorts of wild rationales for why we need to preserve the traditional view of hell. 

Take, for example, this jewel: "Teaching that hell is not eternal is an especially dangerous message to be sending to those who are suicidal."

(Yes, by all means, let's keep suicidal individuals alive with some good old-fashioned fire and brimstone preaching.)

The consensus, however, is that Cameron is on a slippery slope. We must preserve the traditional view of hell because if it goes, what's next? 

(Heaven forbid if Penal Substitutionary Atonement should fall!)

But if certain things cannot be questioned, how does learning take place? (And how does error get corrected?)

I have been convinced for quite a while that the average American Christian is quite ignorant on many important fronts: What is the gospel? What is faith? How do we read the Bible for meaning? 

I had assumed this ignorance was largely the result of lazy, unskilled leadership. A lack of effective teachers.

But this Cameron controversy is raising the possibility in my mind that the ignorance is protected by a fear of questioning.   

If questioning is prohibited, how does anyone achieve genuine learning - the kind that requires wrestling with opposing viewpoints? 

There's only one kind of "learning" that benefits from a prohibition against questioning.

That's the kind where theological experts write out systematic theologies and catechisms and statements of faith and then expect everyone in the pews to give mental assent to them. 

And how's that working out for us?

******

Here are a few timely quotes I came across in a newsletter just today:

“Only when we forget what we were taught do we start to have real knowledge.” –Henry David Thoreau

“We should be ready to change our views at any time...and live with an open and receptive mind. A sailor who sets the same sails all the time, without making changes when the wind changes, will never reach his harbor.” –Henry George

“Every thought a person dwells upon, whether he expresses it or not, either damages or improves his life.” –Lucy Malory

“He who is looking for wisdom is already wise; and he who thinks that he has found wisdom is a stupid man.” –Eastern Wisdom

“Seek to learn constantly while you live; do not wait in the faith that old age by itself will bring wisdom.” –Solon

QUESTIONING IS OK. DISAGREEMENT IS OK.

John 7:45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” 46 The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? 48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” 52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”

The Pharisees were the Bible experts - and don't you forget it!

And being the experts meant they weren't big on the idea of lay people thinking for themselves or questioning their authority.

2,000 years after the Pharisees put Jesus to death, they are still making the rounds. 

In a recent YouTube video, Kirk Cameron rejected the idea that hell is eternal conscious torment. He now openly calls himself an annihilationist. 

The response has been sadly predictable. Many Christians are wringing their hands and praying for him to repent. 

An embarrassing lack of critical thinking is on display for all the world to see. (Or would be, if the world cared what Kirk Cameron and a bunch of pharisaical Christians think.)  

He's sliding into heresy! He is in the same camp as the Jehovah's Witnesses! This is a slippery slope - once you deny hell, what's next?

Why did Jesus even die if not to save people from Hell??

Many confidently assert that the Bible CLEARLY teaches Eternal Conscious Torment and says NOTHING which could support annihilationism. 

Quite a few are asking, "Has Kirk Cameron lost his salvation? Was he ever saved in the first place?"

Why would anyone who actually understands the Bible think his salvation rests on having 100% correct doctrine?

Who among us has perfect doctrine?

I can guarantee you that the ones accusing Kirk Cameron of not taking the Bible seriously have never truly wrestled with the question of hell for themselves. 

If they can't tolerate Cameron questioning the doctrine, there's no way they have allowed themselves to ever question it. 

Anyway, this is a (much-needed) reminder that when it comes to interpreting the Bible, a healthy dose of humility is in order on all sides.