Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens

[redleghunter]

By Albert Mohler

Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice? Are we embarrassed by the biblical doctrine of hell?...The lesson of theological liberalism is clear—embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial. Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell.

Theological liberals do not intend to destroy Christianity, but to save it. As a matter of fact, theological liberalism is motivated by what might be described as an apologetic motivation. The pattern of theological liberalism is all too clear. Theological liberals are absolutely certain that Christianity must be saved…from itself.

Liberalism: Saving Christianity From Itself

The classic liberals of the early twentieth century, often known as modernists, pointed to a vast intellectual change in the society and asserted that Christianity would have to change or die. As historian William R. Hutchison explains, “The hallmark of modernism is the insistence that theology must adopt a sympathetic attitude toward secular culture and must consciously strive to come to terms with it.”[1]

This coming to terms with secular culture is deeply rooted in the sense of intellectual liberation that began in the Enlightenment. Protestant liberalism can be traced to European sources, but it arrived very early in America—far earlier than most of today’s evangelicals are probably aware. Liberal theology held sway where Unitarianism dominated and in many parts beyond.

Soon after the American Revolution, more organized forms of liberal theology emerged, fueled by a sense of revolution and intellectual liberty. Theologians and preachers began to question the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, claiming that doctrines such as original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and substitutionary atonement violated the moral senses. William Ellery Channing, an influential Unitarian, spoke for many in his generation when he described “the shock given to my moral nature” by the teachings of orthodox Christianity.[2]

Though any number of central beliefs and core doctrines were subjected to liberal revision or outright rejection, the doctrine of hell was often the object of greatest protest and denial.

More at link below:

Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens - AlbertMohler.com

 

[SkyWriting]

By Albert Mohler

Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice? Are we embarrassed by the biblical doctrine of hell?...The lesson of theological liberalism is clear—embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial. Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell.

Theological liberals do not intend to destroy Christianity, but to save it. As a matter of fact, theological liberalism is motivated by what might be described as an apologetic motivation. The pattern of theological liberalism is all too clear. Theological liberals are absolutely certain that Christianity must be saved…from itself.

Liberalism: Saving Christianity From Itself

The classic liberals of the early twentieth century, often known as modernists, pointed to a vast intellectual change in the society and asserted that Christianity would have to change or die. As historian William R. Hutchison explains, “The hallmark of modernism is the insistence that theology must adopt a sympathetic attitude toward secular culture and must consciously strive to come to terms with it.”[1]

This coming to terms with secular culture is deeply rooted in the sense of intellectual liberation that began in the Enlightenment. Protestant liberalism can be traced to European sources, but it arrived very early in America—far earlier than most of today’s evangelicals are probably aware. Liberal theology held sway where Unitarianism dominated and in many parts beyond.

Soon after the American Revolution, more organized forms of liberal theology emerged, fueled by a sense of revolution and intellectual liberty. Theologians and preachers began to question the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, claiming that doctrines such as original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and substitutionary atonement violated the moral senses. William Ellery Channing, an influential Unitarian, spoke for many in his generation when he described “the shock given to my moral nature” by the teachings of orthodox Christianity.[2]

Though any number of central beliefs and core doctrines were subjected to liberal revision or outright rejection, the doctrine of hell was often the object of greatest protest and denial.

More at link below:

Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens - AlbertMohler.com

O.K.

 

[FireDragon76]

The author makes sweeping generalizations about the motivations and actual attitudes of "liberal" churches. In addition, he's just wrong about believing that the peculiar evangelical emphasis on Hell and Hellfire Preaching is universal chronologically or geographically. Some of the early church fathers were far more "liberal" than to hold up Hell as an example of "God's perfect justice". They were more focused on themes of recapitulation, restoration, and redemption, than reprobation.

 

[redleghunter]

They were more focused on themes of recapitulation, restoration, and redemption, than reprobation.

Of course the church fathers would. They knew such a focus kept souls from judgment.

Meaning, we are being saved from something are we not?

I'm sure the church fathers took statements from Jesus Christ such as "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" quite seriously.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Cappadocians' emphasis was more on being saved to something. Whereas Al Mohler wouldn't have the first clue what "recapitulation" meant. All he knows is that he misses that ole time religion of scaring the pants off people.

 

[redleghunter]

The Cappadocians' emphasis was more on being saved to something. Whereas Al Mohler wouldn't have the first clue what "recapitulation" meant. All he knows is that he misses that ole time religion of scaring the pants off people.

If one is 'saved to something' certainly it means the other option is....?

I'm sure Mohler would know the Logos of the Father comments of Irenaeus.

You have to remember, this article is in reaction to the progressive dismissal of truth to appease some and sugarcoat the message for others.

 

[Jack Terrence]

By Albert Mohler

Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice?

Eternal torment is NOT God's perfect justice. It is cruel and unusual punishment. The lake of fire symbolizes annihilation. Please note that death and the grave are cast into the lake of fire. Death and the grave are non personal and cannot suffer conscious torment. It means that they are abolished. Similarly, men are annihilated.

 

[FireDragon76]

You have to remember, this article is in reaction to the progressive dismissal of truth to appease some and sugarcoat the message for others.

What can we do, though? I don't think that necessarily means liberals alone are to blame (look at the number of conservative Christians that embrace conditional immortality of some kind). Mohler is looking back to a past that just can't be implemented again, an era when church attendance was not optional and was socially normative.

 

[FireDragon76]

For a lot of modern people, they don't need to be preached to about hell. They are all too familiar with hellish images on the evening news. Preaching to them about hell in the hopes it will motivate them to believe is confusing Law and Gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

Eternal torment is NOT God's perfect justice. It is cruel and unusual punishment. The lake of fire symbolizes annihilation. Please note that death and the grave are cast into the lake of fire. Death and the grave are non personal and cannot suffer conscious torment. It means that they are abolished. Similarly, men are annihilated.

Jesus called it everlasting:

Matthew 25: NKJV

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, 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?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 9: NKJV
42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where

‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—48 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’


Daniel 12: NKJV

12 “At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.

 

[redleghunter]

What can we do, though? I don't think that necessarily means liberals alone are to blame (look at the number of conservative Christians that embrace conditional immortality of some kind). Mohler is looking back to a past that just can't be implemented again, an era when church attendance was not optional and was socially normative.

I think his point was how something uncomfortable to preach went to ignore to outright ridicule and led to error.

I agree conditional immortality knows denominations both liberal and conservative.

Shocking as conditional immortality was another doctrine which arose in the 19th century among many others.

Jesus said the punishment would be everlasting.

 

[FireDragon76]

Another thing I think we should consider is that maybe Jesus is not laying down a systematic theology of reprobation. From reading Martin Luther, I realize he has a certain way of writing and thinking that is very similar to Jesus, in that he can engage in hyperbole and lurid imagery to emphasize a point- and he's famously misunderstood on this point often. So I would submit that while Jesus talks about punishment for the wicked, we do not necessarily have the details that some theologians assume.

I have my own issues with annihilationism, I actually think it doesn't make sense of human dignity if God just erases peoples existence. I wouldn't be the first to suggest that.

 

[redleghunter]

Another thing I think we should consider is that maybe Jesus is not laying down a systematic theology of reprobation. From reading Martin Luther, I realize he has a certain way of writing and thinking that is very similar to Jesus, in that he can engage in hyperbole and lurid imagery to emphasize a point- and he's famously misunderstood on this point often. So I would submit that while Jesus talks about punishment for the wicked, we do not necessarily have the details that some theologians assume.

I have my own issues with annihilationism, I actually think it doesn't make sense of human dignity if God just erases peoples existence. I wouldn't be the first to suggest that.

Yeah I would never compare Luther's use of hyperbole with the words and teachings of Christ. I understand your point. Jesus used direct metaphors to teach clear truths.

Luther in his polemics attempted the same but sometimes over did his "descriptors."

I think Luther and Pope Francis have to be explained a lot. Jesus? Not so much.

 

[mark kennedy]

By Albert Mohler

Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice? Are we embarrassed by the biblical doctrine of hell?...The lesson of theological liberalism is clear—embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial. Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell.

In a word, yes, the children of perdition will suffer the fires of hell.

Theological liberals do not intend to destroy Christianity, but to save it. As a matter of fact, theological liberalism is motivated by what might be described as an apologetic motivation. The pattern of theological liberalism is all too clear. Theological liberals are absolutely certain that Christianity must be saved…from itself.

Liberal and conservative are terms that reference to idea of change. Some will be more progressive with regards to change while others will be more conservative. They simply gave up too much with regards to traditional Christian theism and it's a philosophy of compromise.

Liberalism: Saving Christianity From Itself

The classic liberals of the early twentieth century, often known as modernists, pointed to a vast intellectual change in the society and asserted that Christianity would have to change or die. As historian William R. Hutchison explains, “The hallmark of modernism is the insistence that theology must adopt a sympathetic attitude toward secular culture and must consciously strive to come to terms with it.”[1]

Which includes, but is not excluded to, the naturalistic assumptions of secular academics. We should come to terms with it but traditional Christian theism doesn't rely on consensus, it relies on God's eternal nature and divine purposes.

This coming to terms with secular culture is deeply rooted in the sense of intellectual liberation that began in the Enlightenment. Protestant liberalism can be traced to European sources, but it arrived very early in America—far earlier than most of today’s evangelicals are probably aware. Liberal theology held sway where Unitarianism dominated and in many parts beyond.

The Enlightenment and ineffective leadership influenced by the Enlightenment were direct causal factors of the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. These combined to form a climate of diluted institutional authority and a populace enamored with change. This climate produced an increasing level of violence that the leaders lacked the ability to stop or control. Unlicensed violence had been a steadily growing part of the French Revolution, beginning with parades and protests and intensifying to blood baths on city and village streets. These violent episodes continued unchecked by the leadership, until the violence ran its course.

A total of 16,597 executions took place in Paris between March 1793 and late August 1794. An additional 40,000 were executed without trial or died in prison and in excess of 200,000 died in the civil war in the Vendee during this time period. Over 98 percent of the executions were for alleged opposition to the National Convention,(1) the ruling body in France from 1792 to 1795. The chance that the enlightened French could affect a rational change from a Monarchy to a constitutional republic washed away in a rain of blood, the Reign of Terror. (The Enlightenment and Ineffective Leadership of the Reign of Terror. by Charles Hayes)​

The French Enlightenment didn't come without it's baggage.

Soon after the American Revolution, more organized forms of liberal theology emerged, fueled by a sense of revolution and intellectual liberty. Theologians and preachers began to question the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, claiming that doctrines such as original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and substitutionary atonement violated the moral senses. William Ellery Channing, an influential Unitarian, spoke for many in his generation when he described “the shock given to my moral nature” by the teachings of orthodox Christianity.[2]

All that with no reference to the Great Awakening and the Bloodless Revolution of England.

Though any number of central beliefs and core doctrines were subjected to liberal revision or outright rejection, the doctrine of hell was often the object of greatest protest and denial.

More at link below:

Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens - AlbertMohler.com

The French Enlightenment is more then a refusal to believe God will hold the wicked accountable.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Luther and Pope Francis have to be explained a lot. Jesus? Not so much.

What about your eye causing you to sin and casting it out? That really does need some explanation, else we are going to have some busy emergency rooms.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Jesus called it everlasting:

Matthew 25: NKJV

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

The Greek word aionios does NOT mean "everlasting." It means "an indeterminate period of time." It comes from the word aion which means "age." Death and the grave are also cast into the lake of fire. Please answer how death and the grave suffer eternal torment. They don't. Death and the grave are abolished. So men are annihilated. Fire vaporizes or annihilates things.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Greek word aionios does NOT mean "everlasting." It means "an indeterminate period of time." It comes from the word aion which means "age." Death and the grave are also cast into the lake of fire. Please answer how death and the grave suffer eternal torment. They don't. Death and the grave are abolished. So men are annihilated. Fire vaporizes or annihilates things.

I looked into the annihilation thing and resolved every passage but this one:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)​

 

[redleghunter]

What about your eye causing you to sin and casting it out? That really does need some explanation, else we are going to have some busy emergency rooms.

Indeed. You could call the Mark 9 discourse in question establishing a hard theology on eternal punishment. However, Matthew 25 seems to be quite clear. Jesus was not using a parable when He explained separating the righteous from the unrighteous. I do believe Matthew 25 is what is used for judgment day by most of the early church fathers. For example, Irenaeus (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.27 (St. Irenaeus)).

 

[redleghunter]

The Greek word aionios does NOT mean "everlasting." It means "an indeterminate period of time." It comes from the word aion which means "age." Death and the grave are also cast into the lake of fire. Please answer how death and the grave suffer eternal torment. They don't. Death and the grave are abolished. So men are annihilated. Fire vaporizes or annihilates things.

Aionios is used twice in Matthew 25:46. Once to describe 'everlasting punishment' (αἰώνιος aiōnios κόλασις kolasis); and again to describe life eternal (ζωή zōē
αἰώνιος aiōnios). If you are operating from a different lexicon let me know.

Stongs G166 aionios:Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Even the Latin Vulgate gets it right:

et ibunt hii in supplicium aeternum iusti autem in vitam aeternam

Strongs G166 aionios:

The KJV translates Strong's G166 in the following manner: eternal (42x), everlasting (25x), the world began (with G5550) (2x), since the world began (with G5550) (1x), for ever (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
   
   
2. without beginning
   
   
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting

A few points. First is if we go by your definition, our eternal life with God is 'an indeterminate period of time.' That sure changes a lot of Christian teachings and even apostolic teaching in the NT. Where we see 'eternal' life in 1 John 5:20 I'm guessing it is not an 'indeterminate period of time.' It really means eternal. I mean the Apostle John used the same word aionios.

Secondly, trying to wrest a root of a word is not how we exegete as the NT writers did not use the root but the actual word. I see this approach as begging the question, as we have ample evidence of aionios used throughout the NT which there is absolutely no debate the meaning is 'eternal' or 'everlasting.'

Finally, we can check the OT too. I quoted Daniel 12:2. The English used there for everlasting life and everlasting contempt is again the same word owlam. Again, the lexicon lines up with 'everlasting.'

The KJV translates Strong's H5769 in the following manner: ever (272x), everlasting (63x), old (22x), perpetual (22x), evermore (15x), never (13x), time (6x), ancient (5x), world (4x), always (3x), alway (2x), long (2x), more (2x), never (with H408) (2x), miscellaneous (6x).

long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

1. ancient time, long time (of past)
   
   
2. (of future)
   1. for ever, always
      
      
   2. continuous existence, perpetual
      
      
   3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

Owlam H5769: Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

 

[redleghunter]

What about your eye causing you to sin and casting it out? That really does need some explanation, else we are going to have some busy emergency rooms.

In support of your avatar:

“Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God – the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer