How Hitler and Judas could end up in heaven

The Week ^ | 06/04/2014 | Damon Linker

[SeekAndFind]

In certain schools of Christian thought, hell is not everlasting, but a more painful form of purgatory.

M any Christians presume that hell is a place where brutally painful punishments are inflicted on evildoers for an indefinite, and perhaps infinite, amount of time in the afterlife. Think of a medieval torture chamber with no exit — or fire extinguishers.

But this, as I argued in a recent column, makes no theological sense. If morality is good, then doing the right thing must be its own reward and doing the wrong thing must be its own punishment. To think that a sinner deserves extra, externally imposed suffering presumes that morality isn't good and that those who commit evil deeds benefit from their actions — which is another way of saying that those who do the right thing are fools.

The more theologically sound position is to hold that hell is a state of being, whether in this life or the next, in which we confront our own self-imposed alienation from what is truly good — from God, in other words. This educative punishment can be extremely painful, but the pain flows intrinsically from knowledge of our own immoral acts. It isn't inflicted on us by some external tormenter.

That, at any rate, was my argument.

Let's just say that my readers weren't universally appreciative of it. A fair number of them apparently want very much to believe that a fairly large number of people are going to be made to suffer egregiously in hell for their bad behavior in life.

I suspect that these same readers, and perhaps many more, will be equally adamant that I'm wrong to follow the implications of my argument a few steps further — to assert that Christians have reason to believe that the punishments of hell, whatever they may be, are temporary for all.

That's right: I think it's likely that if there is an afterlife, everyone — even Judas, even Hitler — eventually ends up in heaven.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that several Gospel passages seem to describe an eternity of damnation for at least some people in the afterlife (Matthew 7:13-14, 25:31-46; Mark 9:45-48; Luke 16:23; John 3:36). Though I'd also like to point out that only in one verse (Matthew 25:46) does Jesus speak of something that could plausibly be translated as "eternal punishment," and in words (aeonios kolasis) that could perhaps more accurately be rendered as "eternal correction."

Then there are those contrary passages that seem to imply that God wants everyone — and perhaps even all of creation — to enjoy salvation (Romans 5:18, 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 28; Philippians 2:10-11; Colossians 1:19-20; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 21:4).

This tension — not to say contradiction — has led some thinkers to dismiss or argue away the implications of the latter passages. Of all the church fathers, Tertullian may have gone furthest in this direction, writing at length and in gory detail about the endless sufferings inflicted on sinners in hell, and even suggesting that observing these torments is an important source of the bliss that accompanies salvation in heaven.

The problem with this position is that it seems to be a form of what Friedrich Nietzsche called "Christian malice": A psychological malady in which the stringent self-denial that Christianity demands of its adherents leads them to feel intense resentment for those who are insufficiently ascetic. Nietzsche delighted in showing how this dynamic can turn Christians from preachers of love into hateful fanatics out to inflict suffering on anyone who dares to enjoy life.

Not all Christians have confirmed Nietzsche's critique as perfectly as Tertullian. Others have been driven by theological reflection to move in the opposite direction — to speculate that all people might eventually enjoy salvation in heaven, no matter how awful their worldly sins may have been.

Origen in the 3rd century and Hans Urs von Balthasar in the 20th both affirmed versions of universal salvation. Yet I find the most compelling variation in the writings of the 4th-century theologian Gregory of Nyssa — a major figure in the history of Christianity, though one more widely revered today by the Eastern Orthodox than by the Western churches.

Gregory maintained that hell resembles something like what Catholics have traditionally called purgatory: A place of sometimes excruciatingly painful purgation of sins in preparation for heaven. The pain is not externally inflicted as punishment, but follows directly from the process of purification as the soul progresses toward a perhaps never fully realized union with divine perfection. Gregory describes this process as a "constant progression" or "stretching forth" (epektasis) of oneself toward an ever greater embrace of and merger with God in the fullness of eternity — a transmutation of what is sinful, fallen, and finite into the transcendent beauty of the infinite.

Hell, in this view, would be the state of agonizing struggle to break free from sin, to renounce our moral mistakes, to habituate ourselves to the good, to become ever more like God. Eastern Orthodox theologians (and, interestingly, Mormons, who hold similar views) call it a process of divination or sanctification (theosis) that follows directly from the doctrine of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ. It is a formula found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other ancient theologians: God became a human being so that human beings might become like God.

All human beings.

One imagines that this would be a long, painful process — rendered longer and more painful for those who have fallen furthest from God during their lives. They are the ones for whom the afterlife is truly hellish — like a climb up a peak far, far higher than Mount Everest with little prior preparation or training, no expensive gear, and no Sherpas to help carry the load. But there would eventually be progress toward God, even for the climber who starts out in the worst possible shape, and from the lowest possible point in the valley below.

And at least there would be no dungeon pointlessly presided over by satanic, whip-wielding sadists.

[metmom]

Because Jesus never taught soul annihilation.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: That’s not a practical way to interpret that scripture for one simple reason: Every rich person is different.

The emphasis of the teaching is not on the man’s wealth, it is on the fact that the rich man DID NOT CARE about helping Lazarus.

[PieterCasparzen]

I agree with your reading of Scripture.

I remember in both OT and NT, we are commanded not to add to or take away from God’s Word (just a sample of applicable verses):

Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

1 Timothy 4

“1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

A common theme in the Bible is to do ALL of what the Lord commands and ONLY what the Lord commands, to not add to, take away from or change God’s revealed Word. It is very emphatic. Remembering King Saul’s unlawful offering (not heeding the direct revelation of the prophet Samuel):

1 Samuel 10:8 “8 And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do.”

1 Samuel 13:13 “13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.”

He was told to wait for Samuel and he did not, he went and performed the sacrifice for himself. What’s worse, he made excuses instead of repenting when Samuel confronted him. We all sin and God will forgive, but we must repent and ask for his forgiveness, instead of stubbornly denying that we sinned.

If we look throughout all of Scripture we find a prohibition of drunkenness, but no prohibition of drinking alcoholic beverages. When we add that strict prohibition, we are making up a rule that does not exist in Scripture.

Yes, they had fermented wine in Biblical times; wine keeps very well around 55F (+/- depending on the expert you talk to; this is around normal ground temperature once you go down a few feet).

Regarding worship, once again, the Bible should be our guide; this is the WCF link:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXI.html

[PieterCasparzen]

:) I see, you're Roman Catholic and I'm Reformed Presbyterian.

I think we know how the rest goes :)

Just two morsels for thought, if I may. Accordingly, don't feel you have to answer.

I say it of the Blessed Virgin, for example, but not for me...

I find no Scripture to support salvation working differently for different people; I find numerous verses which emphatically state that people are all the same in God's eyes (e.g., 1 Peter 1,2; Acts 10:34, etc.).

In one sense, God can "choose" me, but I can still reject Him.

I find no example in Scripture where God's will was overpowered by a person. I find many verses, however, which point out emphatically that God is all-powerful over all men and that no man - or even whole nations - can ever overpower God and no man can thwart God's will (e.g., 1 Chronicles 14:10, Deuteronomy 3:2-3, etc.).

[cuban leaf]

The emphasis of the teaching is not on the man’s wealth, it is on the fact that the rich man DID NOT CARE about helping Lazarus.

---

And here is where you touch on the meaning of the parable.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: And here is where you touch on the meaning of the parable.

Sure ( again, I am simply assuming that it is a parable, but that, I doubt ), let us not forget the FATE of the rich man. His fate is NOT metaphorical. It was meant to be a warning.

The word — torment, the fact that he is conscious, cannot be taken to be metaphorical. That would be stretching the parable ( even if we concede that it is ).

[paladinan]

:) I see, you're Roman Catholic and I'm Reformed Presbyterian.

:) I was tempted to tease you for a bit, and pretend to be an Eastern Orthodox (who have a passionately strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and a strong belief in her perpetual sinlessness) who was mortally offended by the suggestion that I could possibly be a "Romanist", but I'll relent. Yes, I'm Roman Catholic.

Just for the record... I'm still interested in your answers to the specific questions in my (long) post in comment #174:

1) Is God responsible for man's sin, or is He not?
2) Are you saying that (from God's perspective) we humans do not have free will?
3) How do you go from "God knows all things from eternity" to "God created us without [real] free will", since logic doesn't support that jump?

Just two morsels for thought, if I may. Accordingly, don't feel you have to answer.

I'm grading final exams, at the moment, so I'll have to be briefer than usual... but I'll have a go.

[paladinan]
I say it of the Blessed Virgin, for example, but not for me...

[PieterCasparzen]
I find no Scripture to support salvation working differently for different people; I find numerous verses which emphatically state that people are all the same in God's eyes (e.g., 1 Peter 1,2; Acts 10:34, etc.).

(??) You may have to explain your reasoning to me, on that one. Salvation (which is offered to all--cf. Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4, etc.) certainly worked differently for Judas Iscariot than it worked for the good thief on the cross! And as for "all the same in God's eyes"--yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that all of us are infinitely loved by Him; no, in the sense that some (by their free cooperation with God's grace) are closer to Him in certain ways (cf. the Apostle John ["whom Jesus loved", as distinct from the others], King David [a man after God's Own Heart"]). "Equal" does not mean "identical"; and my salvation path is not identical to yours; you struggle with certain sins, and I struggle with certain others.

[paladinan]
In one sense, God can "choose" me, but I can still reject Him.

[PieterCasparzen]
I find no example in Scripture where God's will was overpowered by a person.

I'm not surprised... since that's a logical impossibility. But it's not a function of "overpowering" God's Will; God *permits* us to leave Him, if we choose to do so. Love is the free choice to seek the best good of the beloved; it does not remove the freedom of the beloved, or else it ceases to be love. To say that anyone can be "forced" to love someone is to say that a circle can be "forced" to have four right angles; for that to happen, it would cease to be a circle altogether!

In short: it's not a violation of God's Will to do something which God permits (even though it grieves Him)... right?

[cuban leaf]

It was meant to be a warning.

---

Of sorts, yes. To Israel.

http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html

The first two paragraphs:

“Before reading my opening statement there will be many who will find fault with this paper. “What parable?” they will ask. Contrary to all the Scriptural proof that Luke 16:19-31 is indeed a classic example of a parable, there are many who deny this fact. The reason for so many desiring to take this parable literally is an attempt to add credence to the heretical teaching that God Almighty is going to torture the vast majority of all humanity who has ever lived by burning their flesh with real fire in a hellhole of insane pain for all eternity. But even if we take this parable literally, it still does not support such an absurd and evil teaching. When the truth is seen, the Rich man is overcome with great emotional torment by whatever “this flame” represents, but he is not physically being burned or barbecued in this flame..

“That the Rich man is in a most distressful situation, there is no argument. But he is not “burning in eternal hell fire.” That Lazarus is being comforted, there is also no argument, but neither is he presently basking in the sunshine of heaven. The two main figures in this parable represent whole nations of people who are either being shown the spiritual things of God or are being blinded to the spiritual things of God. The situation looks particularly grim and bleak for the Rich man, but certainly not hopeless as is taught in the pulpits of mainstream Christianity.”

[SeekAndFind]

RE: “That the Rich man is in a most distressful situation, there is no argument.

Good, then we agree that the torment is real and the place is real and the consciousness is real.

Since the DURATION of the rich man’s situation is not mentioned, I can’t garner anything from this particular teaching.

RE: But he is not “burning in eternal hell fire.”

We don’t know if it is eternal or not, so we can speculate one way or the other. So, the above, for me, is speculation.

RE: That Lazarus is being comforted, there is also no argument, but neither is he presently basking in the sunshine of heaven.

Again, speculation. Simply making a statement does not de facto make it correct.

RE: The two main figures in this parable represent whole nations of people

They might represent whole nations, but nations are still made up of people and Lazarus and the rich man are presented as INDIVIDUALS.

RE: The situation looks particularly grim and bleak for the Rich man, but certainly not hopeless as is taught in the pulpits of mainstream Christianity.”

Again we don’t know if it is hopeless or not. All we know is that his requests were all DENIED. Any attempts to determine whether the rich man’s situation is eternal or not is speculation.

We know these:

* The rich man is in torment.

* The place is called Hades.

* The rich man is conscious.

* His requests were all denied.

[cuban leaf]

RE: “That the Rich man is in a most distressful situation, there is no argument.

Good, then we agree that the torment is real and the place is real and the consciousness is real.

---

Seriously? That is what you gleaned from that statement? You are no longer being serious.

[cuban leaf]

RE: But he is not “burning in eternal hell fire.”

We don’t know if it is eternal or not, so we can speculate one way or the other. So, the above, for me, is speculation.

---

Interesting that you focused on one word, “eternal”. Take it out and you get to the core of what he was saying. Feel free to address THAT issue.

[cuban leaf]

We know these:

* The rich man is in torment.

* The place is called Hades.

* The rich man is conscious.

* His requests were all denied.

---

You didn’t read the link. It addresses every single one of your questions, in spades, but I posted your list because actually we know a LOT more than that as outlined in the article I posted. Here is the author’s list:

THE RICH MAN

He was RICH ... Ver 19
He wore PURPLE & CAMBRIC ... Ver 19
He made MERRY (Gk: cheerful, & glad) SPLENDIDLY [like Angels-Acts 10:30] DAILY ... Ver 19
He had a nice HOUSE (”his gate”) Ver 20
He gave Lazarus FOOD [Gk. psichion, “a particle of food left over”-scraps] Ver 21 He DIED and was [Gk. entombed] Ver 22
He lifts up his eyes in [Gk. hades “the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE] Ver 23
He is in TORMENTS ... Ver 22
He’s ALIVE with a BODY, “eyes,’ Ver 23
He desires a drop of WATER ... Ver 24
In life he got GOOD things ... Ver 25
He is respectful toward authority (”FATHER Abraham”) Ver 24
He was TORMENTED ... Ver 25
He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26
Exhibits LOVE toward his family even while in torment (”I have five brothers”) Ver 28
PLEADS for their welfare (”Nay..”) Ver 30

LAZARUS

He was POOR ... Ver 20
Probably CRIPPLED (”was laid”) Ver 20
DISEASED (”full of sores”) Ver 20
HUNGRY (”desiring to be fed”) Ver 21
He DIED Ver 22
Is “carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom” Ver 22

He’s ALIVE with a BODY, “finger “Ver 24
In life he got EVIL things ... Ver 25
Was COMFORTED [Gk. parakaleo = “to comfort when in distress”] Ver. 25
He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26

[CatherineofAragon]

Still trolling religion threads, I see.

[SeekAndFind]

OK, all of those things are mentioned in the teaching... how does that prove one way or the other that the rich man won’t be there for eternity?

[cuban leaf]

OK, all of those things are mentioned in the teaching... how does that prove one way or the other that the rich man won’t be there for eternity?

---

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound argumentative, but that is a red herring. The word was included because that is part of the whole picture that OTHERS paint into said picture that he is refuting.

[cuban leaf]

...and anyone who tries to suggest that Hell is NOT eternal has to resort to the most extraordinary mental calisthenics...

---

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The bible says hell is not eternal.

[cuban leaf]

The first death is physical death.

The second death is eternal separation from God.

---

I completely agree. It is wha I was taught from my first days as a Christian in my AG church.

And separate from God there is no life.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The word was included because that is part of the whole picture that OTHERS paint into said picture that he is refuting.

Which OTHERS? Certainly not me.

Since you are arguing that punishment is not eternal, how can we glean it from THIS particular teaching?

[cuban leaf]

Because Jesus never taught soul annihilation.

---

What do you mean by “soul annihilation”?

[cuban leaf]

OK, all of those things are mentioned in the teaching... how does that prove one way or the other that the rich man won’t be there for eternity?

---

The parable is not about how long he will be there. It’s not brought up.