Great article. Very charitable as well. I agree about the holiness of God being the main issue. I think that in the "Hellgate" episode, Gavin Ortlund did a great job of defending the orthodox stance as well.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Concerning the interpretation of Hebrews 10:28-29, however, I’m wondering if we have inadvertently missed the author’s rhetorical ability. What I mean, is that most scholars note how well Hebrews was written, both in style and rhetoric. The author was clearly educated rhetorically (I.e., Aristotle, Quintilian) and rhetoric, at its core, is persuasion. Those two verses are clearly meant to be persuasive and as such, uses exaggerated language to prove a point. But it sounds like you are interpreting it literally. I am just not sure we can apply that passage to the doctrine of the afterlife while noting the persuasive language used. Moreover, it says nothing about eternity, torment, consciousness, resurrection, post mortem punishment, final judgment, etc. With all due respect, connecting this passage to hell seems to be making quite a leap.
Interesting point about Hebrews 10:28-29. I'm certainly in agreement that a sin against God is a very significant thing, but it doesn't seem that gets us all the way to ECT.
In Hebrews 10:27, the author clarifies what punishment those who "tread the blood of Jesus underfoot" in verses 28 and 29 will receive: "...judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries". Devouring can't be endless torment - something cannot be devoured indefinitely. Eventually, it is consumed, and is no more. Even if it takes a long time, the image of fire devouring something communicates a ceasing to be, not a continuing to be tortured.
In regards to the severity of this punishment, I think we've come to think of the irreversible destruction of the wicked as "not all that bad", when, in reality, to cease to exist permanently is a severe fate, but a just one for those who reject God. It is not, though, as extreme as ECT, and it is not intended to be. It is a punishment matching the price Jesus paid (death, not everlasting torture), and the clearly defined penalty of sin (Romans 6:23).
Great article. Very charitable as well. I agree about the holiness of God being the main issue. I think that in the "Hellgate" episode, Gavin Ortlund did a great job of defending the orthodox stance as well.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Concerning the interpretation of Hebrews 10:28-29, however, I’m wondering if we have inadvertently missed the author’s rhetorical ability. What I mean, is that most scholars note how well Hebrews was written, both in style and rhetoric. The author was clearly educated rhetorically (I.e., Aristotle, Quintilian) and rhetoric, at its core, is persuasion. Those two verses are clearly meant to be persuasive and as such, uses exaggerated language to prove a point. But it sounds like you are interpreting it literally. I am just not sure we can apply that passage to the doctrine of the afterlife while noting the persuasive language used. Moreover, it says nothing about eternity, torment, consciousness, resurrection, post mortem punishment, final judgment, etc. With all due respect, connecting this passage to hell seems to be making quite a leap.
Interesting point about Hebrews 10:28-29. I'm certainly in agreement that a sin against God is a very significant thing, but it doesn't seem that gets us all the way to ECT.
In Hebrews 10:27, the author clarifies what punishment those who "tread the blood of Jesus underfoot" in verses 28 and 29 will receive: "...judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries". Devouring can't be endless torment - something cannot be devoured indefinitely. Eventually, it is consumed, and is no more. Even if it takes a long time, the image of fire devouring something communicates a ceasing to be, not a continuing to be tortured.
In regards to the severity of this punishment, I think we've come to think of the irreversible destruction of the wicked as "not all that bad", when, in reality, to cease to exist permanently is a severe fate, but a just one for those who reject God. It is not, though, as extreme as ECT, and it is not intended to be. It is a punishment matching the price Jesus paid (death, not everlasting torture), and the clearly defined penalty of sin (Romans 6:23).