NO. Hell exists only because God's Mercy exists. When an individual soul falls into the Void, the pain gets progressively worse in its eternal Fall. Although Hell will not stop the pain, Hell can stop the pain from getting worse. Since each soul has Free Will, each lost soul can choose to stop at Hell or continue its fall into the Void.

If Hell exists, then its name would be found in the past.

NO. If you restrict yourself to a linear time sequence, Hell's real name and purpose will only be found in the future. Until you learn your own name and purpose, you will not learn the true name and purpose of Hell.

If Hell exists, then more should have been written about it.

NO. Hell exists and too much has been written about it. Hell is insignificant in comparison to the Eternal Adventure. Since the Lord God is the Alpha and Omega of every eternal sequence, you should trust God to correctly deal with the eternal sequence of Hell.

Hell exists.

YES. If you stand on Earth in a 3-dimensional space, you would point down toward the center of the Earth - that is the direction of Hell's "wide gate" (Matthew 7:13). For a first order delineation of the "Earth/Hell" Initial Mass Displacement, check: [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com}.

Best Regards,

Frank Hatch

When Piper dismisses the seperationist position, he also states, "if someone is going to emphasize that people freely “choose” hell, or that no one is there who doesn’t “want” to be there, surely he should make every effort to clarify that, when they get there, they will not want this."

In this case, I think we can say both and embrace the tension. The Reformed view of sin says all are bent on choosing anything but God, so by saying they choose hell, its simply a syllogism that reflects the irrationality of depravity. Saying that they choose the reality of hell, is another thing, which as Piper says, should be qualified.

It seems Keller emphasizes Lewis' point of view to show that hell, while being something no one would clearly want is something they do choose. Paul's understanding of God's judgement does seem to give way to the idea of poetic justice. Is not his wrath revealed in giving people over to what they want.

I do love that Piper brought the focus back to Jesus. However, I do think Jesus' was using metaphor, to clearly show that no one in their right mind would want this, especially since he was using imagery of their day. But is that not the irony of his imagery, that this is where one is cast based on their choices? So why can't it be both a place one chooses and a place no one wants?

Then again, I realize the main argument here is regarding the two camps on hell: "present wrath" and "seperation", both of which are systematic categories where the details can easily be pushed beyond the limits of scripture. So if its matter of whose hell is worse, they are both God forsaken, miserable place.

I thought this was about Piper and Lewis. My mistake.

Andrew, I am not sure where you get the idea of "the traditional reformed view" as there is about as much difference on this as on anything else, unless you are reading a systematic theology that says "this is the traditional reformed view", blah, blah, blah. Frankly, give me YOUR view brother, the one you get from Scripture and drop the second tier commentary. Keller is boring, frankly. He is provocative when he rebels against his own BCO, but he is about as interesting to read as the farmer's almanac.

Diachronic? Synchronic? Do you mean through time and with time? How are you using these terms?

I fully appeciate the fact that our theology can make something appear contradictory when it is not. I studied under John Frame at RTS who teaches systematics and ethics from a perspectival approach.

However, not all differences are merely perspectival. There are real differences. Perspectives can be shown to be complimentary though at first appearence they may not seem to be so.

The traditional view says God is present in wrath.
The seperation view says that in wrath God withdrawls and is not presnt.

Present and Not Present are different...not different perspectives but really different. Yes they both assert that Hell is God's judgement of sin in wrath but they have different views of how he does that.

If you read my post I tried to put forth two complimentary or perspectival truths about Hell from the traditional viewpoint that captures something of the seperationist idea. Again...

Hell from one perspective is…

1. The experience of torment resulting from being seperated/cutoff from the enjoyment of God’s presence and therefore all good (note: I said the enjoyment of his presence not his presence).

Hell from another perspective is…

2. The experience of torment resulting from God’s presence drawing near in wrath.

This is perspectival not contradictory...there is a difference.

It's okay for Piper and Keller to disagree on this. Those in the gospel coalition have many real differences that can not be reconciled. Praise the Lord that these men agree and partner in the central truths of the gospel. Hopefully our positions will be refined and nuanced as we interact with each other and the Scriptures. But let's seek to do that and not gloss over real differences.

I echo the request for a public exchange between Keller & Piper on this topic.

Diachronic vs synchronic readings of scriptures creates blind spots in systematic theologies that customarily compare views as being necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, we are all quick to pursue complementary readings of the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, and grant freedom . But we are too quick to deny complementary readings of the nature of hell BECAUSE historically we have spent most of our time defending against those whose denial of hell causes them to soften the warnings of the scriptures.

I strongly get the sense that they are talking past one another. Keller says Jesus' words about hell are "probably" metaphor for something indescribably worse. Piper responds to Lewis' false dichotomy, and I don't think Keller makes the same mistake.

Brother...where did this come from? Jim just noted a difference of opinion and said he thought a discussion might be helpful. Not sure that was necessary.

As for Keller/Lewis's perspective being symphonic with Piper I would disagree. Keller denies the traditional reformed view of Hell being the presence of God in wrath in favor of the seperation view. He takes great pains to expound his view in "The Reason for God".

"In short, hell is simply one's freely chosen identity aprt from God on a trajectory into infinity"

"That is why it is a travesty to picture God casting people into a pit who are crying 'I'm sorry! Let me out!'"

The Reason for God p. 78-79

If their views are symphonic or complimentary perspectives neither Piper or Keller seem to recognize that.

I hold to the traditional reformed view that hell is God's presence in wrath and find Keller's view to be unbiblical. However I think the traditional view can be stated so as to capture some of what seperationists are getting at. I would do it this way...

Hell from one perspective is...

1. The experience of torment resulting from being seperated/cutoff from the enjoyment of God's presence and therefore all good (note: I said the enjoyment of his presence not his presence).

Hell from another perspective is...

2. The experience of torment resulting from God's presence drawing near in wrath.

This would capture different aspects of the sinners experience yet remains complimentary. Both can be asserted without denying/contradicting eachother. As stated it seems that Kellers' view and Pipers' view are antithetical.

I also think a public discussion would be helpful.

LOL! I agree with you. I think Lewis offers a perspective.

But in the end your witty remark at the end tells me that in the big scheme you and Piper both agree - that our ultimate "opinions" should be formed base on what Jesus says versus what Oprah (popular culture) or any other Christian leader would say.

Hope I'm reading you right, there :0)

Blessings!

If what I want is a cheeseburger, and all I want is a cheeseburger in space and time, an eternity of cheeseburgers would be hell. Why, because in space and time I enjoy a cheeseburger with all the other fixings of this temporal world. Reduce it to a cheeseburger and it is hell.

Maybe sometimes we would do well to follow Jesus and ignore Piper. Whoaa, is that a heresy these days?!