Month: enero 2026

Criticisms

Compassion Without Clemency: When Justice and Mercy Coincide

As observed by Joey Dear ten years ago, “Some conditionalists believe that the wicked deserve their annihilation, and some believe that they actually deserve worse but God annihilates them out of mercy.”1Joseph Dear, “How Conditionalists Approach Wrath, Love, and Other Things,” Rethinking Hell [blog], October 15, 2015, https://rethinkinghell.com/2015/10/15/how-conditionalists-approach-wrath-love-and-other-things/; emphasis added. We at Rethinking Hell are among those conditionalists who take the first view: the damned receive precisely what they deserve. But as Joey also observed, conditionalists who emphasize God’s mercy often don’t, in fact, think the damned get less than they deserve. Joey chalked this up to “cognitive dissonance”: “God is loving and merciful, and so he is merciful even in final punishment. However, the final punishment is not less than the unsaved deserve, but exactly what they deserve.” Recently, however, a different explanation occurred to me, one that vindicates conditionalists who appeal to mercy but nevertheless think the damned will get exactly the justice they deserve. Continue reading “Compassion Without Clemency: When Justice and Mercy Coincide” →

 

References
￪1 Joseph Dear, “How Conditionalists Approach Wrath, Love, and Other Things,” Rethinking Hell [blog], October 15, 2015, https://rethinkinghell.com/2015/10/15/how-conditionalists-approach-wrath-love-and-other-things/; emphasis added.
Uncategorized

The Cop-Out of Calling Eternal, Fiery Torture a “Caricature” of Eternal Conscious Hell

Some may wonder why I have such a bone to pick with what I sometimes call the modern, metaphorical view of eternal conscious hell. 1 What I refer to as the modern, metaphorical view of eternal conscious hell is the general view of eternal conscious hell that denies literal fire of any sort, denies that God is actively torturing the wicked, and instead mainly sees hell as the natural, internal turmoil that occurs within the heart of a wicked person when they are cut off from God (who they hate anyway). Some variations, like what has become popular in Eastern Orthodox circles, say that the torment is from the opposite of separation from God, and is the internal turmoil of sinners who have to spend eternity in the loving (not wrathful) presence of the God they hate. For our purposes these views are substantially equivalent. After all, what is so bad about this view? Isn’t it a better view to hold than the actually-traditional view of hell as a divine torture chamber, where God burns the wicked alive forever and fills their bodies and souls with torment beyond measure out of his unending and untamable wrath? It certainly is much more philosophically and theologically justifiable, right?

Continue reading “The Cop-Out of Calling Eternal, Fiery Torture a “Caricature” of Eternal Conscious Hell” →

 

References
￪1 What I refer to as the modern, metaphorical view of eternal conscious hell is the general view of eternal conscious hell that denies literal fire of any sort, denies that God is actively torturing the wicked, and instead mainly sees hell as the natural, internal turmoil that occurs within the heart of a wicked person when they are cut off from God (who they hate anyway). Some variations, like what has become popular in Eastern Orthodox circles, say that the torment is from the opposite of separation from God, and is the internal turmoil of sinners who have to spend eternity in the loving (not wrathful) presence of the God they hate. For our purposes these views are substantially equivalent.
Responses

Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics, Part 5: When Astrophysicists Theologize

“Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics” Series Links

This article is the fifth in a series of articles addressing the case for traditionalism offered by the young-earth-creationist and astrophysicist Jason Lisle. To access other published articles in this series, use the following links:

 

It’s been nearly three years since my last article in this series, but I’m returning to it now after being distracted for a while by life’s challenges. Previously, I explored some of the ways astrophysicist and fellow young-earth creationist Jason Lisle inaccurately psychologizes conditionalists, mischaracterizes their position, and philosophizes poorly in defense of eternal torment; now I turn to that which matters more than anything thus far: Lisle’s mishandling of the biblical data. Even if everything else I’ve written is true, the Bible could still teach the doctrine of eternal torment, and Christians would be obligated to accept it. As it turns out, the Bible doesn’t teach the doctrine; it teaches conditionalism—even in the passages Lisle thinks contradict it.

For the reader’s convenience, the texts Lisle discusses are in their canonical order below. Where he treats multiple texts together, or where multiple texts are closely related, I’ve chosen a representative text for the section header and placed the others in parentheses. And because we at Rethinking Hell have dealt with these texts in numerous articles over the years, I’ll cover these only briefly and link to further reading for those interested in a more exhaustive treatment. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of ground to cover, so settle in and buckle up. Continue reading “Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics, Part 5: When Astrophysicists Theologize” →