the two main theories discussed in the movie were the classical view of an eternal, punishing hell that contains people sent there because they did not accept Christ's offer of being the way, the truth, and the life. the universal view contains a temporal hell. there are some various offshoots in terms of the length and condition of that hell and even who goes there which i'll bring up but that's the main tenant.
i really don't have a great way to discuss the rest of the movie so i'm gonna do a good ole bullet point approach to some of the takeaways i had. not necessarily things i agreed with and not necessarily did i disagree with them either. just thought provoking stuff.
ps i'm going to say "i" instead of "we" because i'll own up to what i'm saying but feel free to include yourself in what i say if it applies
- i take on assumptions that are given to me as dogmatic or factual. obviously, hell was one of those things where i was never given an alternative to the classic view.
- if i believe that God seeks to be one with His creation and is also all-powerful, then why would there be a permanent hell? if there is a permanent hell then there are two options, either God is not powerful enough to save everyone and see His will come to fruition or God does not want to save His creation. He may have a select group who He called (called calvinism and commonly held belief by pastors such as mark driscoll) and only they will be saved. how is this loving and also how does this fulfill His desire to be one with His creation?
- a common argument for a permanent, punishing hell is the identification of evil people such as hitler. surely hitler cannot be strolling in the pearly gates with me on the day of judgement. but if i do this, i condemn hitler ourselves and deny him Christ's grace that i turn around and expect to be bestowed upon me. who made me the judge?
- could the eschatology of hell and heaven have arisen from the human view of justice which primarily comes out of retribution? i want evil done to those who did evil so i impose hell on the text to satisfy my human desire for retribution. i sure hope that my view of justice is not the same as Christ's view of justice. and if it isn't the same, who am i to define what His view is? could it not supersede my understanding?
- universalists have never proposed the lack of hell, only the lack of a permanent, suffering hell. when we pass through the refining fire (1 Cor 3:11-5) the wheat will be burned off to allow the silver, gold and precious stones to remain. could that maybe indicate that we all pass through "hell" and have our sin burned away so that only our Christ-like attributes remain? this may mean that hell lasts longer for the hitlers of the world while mother theresa just dips her little toe in but could we all experience it?
- "hell is a human desire. i would suggest that Christ ethics supersede human ethics"
- "we don't read the bible as it is, we read the bible as we are" ~ thomas talbott
- "if we really believed in hell, we wouldn't be in college, we would be like schindler from schindler's list, trying to sell his ring just to save one person. maybe the westboro baptist church contains the only people who actually believe in hell"
- and finally, if we hold a universalist eschatology, what does that mean for the great commission? for evangelism?
that's all i got. let the discussion begin between each of us, and our respective friends at school. by no means do we have to get all heated about this, for none of us have the answer. but honest, fair and civil discourse can do nothing but improve our theology and our view of the great God we serve and strive to love.
