How Hitler and Judas could end up in heaven

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.

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.

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.

I think you’re right about the ultimate moral lesson concerning riches, but the details of this parable (yes, parable) are anything but realistic. Will all of the redeemed be placed by angels in Abraham’s capacious bosom? Are heaven and hell in immediate proximity to each other? Is heaven below the earth, or is hell in the sky? Do we have to get carried past hell to heaven, or is hell above heaven? Are are they next to each other? Will we be having conversations between heaven and hell? Really now, what could be more of a story than this? :-)

I’ve gone as far as to say, (and to quote Paul, I speak as a mad man) if I were a betting man, I would bet that it is exactly like the anesthestetic state. That is, at the moment you die, you are awakened in resurrection, even if you died millennia ago.

And to take it a step further, because out body died, and out body includes our brain, all memories of loved ones are erased as well - and are really no longer relevant.

Beyond that, I’m a blind man talking to a blind man about the color “blue”. ;-)

Judas and Hitler are going to the lake of fire. They never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior. My Bible makes that clear. There is NO other way to the Father. None. There is no purgatory where they can EARN their salvation. NO where in Scripture is there any mention of any such thing. This is all man made up. It is Jesus Christ, WHILE you are alive on this earth, that you must accept. You must do it while you are alive. No one can later on pray you in.

It’s a parable.

Just my opinion, of course. But I feel that those that say it is not a parable say so because they have a vested interest in it NOT being a parable. I figured out it was a parable before I even got into this “what is hell?” discussion.

BTW, what is the rich man’s name? Why is he where he is? Why is Lazarus where he is?

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration.

That’s not the definition of a parable. It’s not “earthly” illustrations. It’s illustrations to which the hearers can relate, earthly or otherwise.

Today he may use a scene from Iron Man.

And even, for arguments sake, if it is a parable, surely it is a picture of what happens to people who are like the rich man...

All we know about the rich man is that he is rich and has brothers.

Interesting!

Even if we do remember our past lives, we will not need to contemplate the everlasting misery of the lost. All of the lost will be tormented only proportionally to their deserts, and then they will be no more. That is just. And I also think it is a sufficient deterrent in the here and now.

RE: It’s a parable.

Where in Luke 16 does it say that?

And even if it were a parable ( for the sake of argument ), why is it not something that does not express a truth about the afterlife and the fate of people with the same attitude as the rich man?

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a “real” story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.

The devil is in the details of so many of the sentences there I don’t know where to start. I’ll say that the teaching behind it most definitely does not remain the same. I supplied a link to a discussion that gets completely different messages out of it than you do. And to say that Jesus taught of the existence of heaven and hell is not being argued here. The question is, what is actually meant by heaven and hell.

RE: All we know about the rich man is that he is rich and has brothers.

Yes, and we also know that he was in torment, wanting water to dip is parched tongue (Luke 16:24).

RE: I supplied a link to a discussion that gets completely different messages out of it than you do. And to say that Jesus taught of the existence of heaven and hell is not being argued here. The question is, what is actually meant by heaven and hell.

Well, he is showing us in what he taught in Luke 16, A PICTURE OF THE AFTERLIFE AND THE FATE THAT AWAITS PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE THE RICH MAN.

Oh, brother. The two valid reasons for divorce are adultery and abandonment !
Not really.

Jesus said that if you leave her for reasons other than adultery, you make an adulterer of her. He’s not saying it’s ok because of adultery. Rather, he’s saying you can’t make her an adulterer because she already made herself one.

And that's another thing! How was Lazarus supposed to get there to drop a little water into his mouth, and what good was that supposed to do him? Wouldn't the fires have burned Lazarus?

Do you see what pressing the details in a parable results in??

I don’t know what you mean by tolerating adultery. Do you mean not judging others? Well, I take the Jesus perspective regarding the woman at the well. And he ended it with “Go and sin no more”. But I now go to a Baptist church in rural KY. I’m really having a hard time with the judgementalism there. Regarding alcohol, you’d think they were Muslims. But I’m being judgemental even bringing it up.

RE: How was Lazarus supposed to get there to drop a little water into his mouth, and what good was that supposed to do him? Wouldn’t the fires have burned Lazarus?

I don’t know how that question invalidates the reality that the rich man was in CONSCIOUS torment.

The place he was in was also mentioned — HADES.

If you want to argue that his torment is TIME LIMITED, maybe you might have a point, but the reality of the torment cannot be ignored.

And even if it were a parable ( for the sake of argument ), why is it not something that does not express a truth about the afterlife and the fate of people with the same attitude as the rich man?

It’s a little like saying, even though the bible speaks many times of the brothers of Jesus, since the word could also sometimes be translated as “cousin”, we should assume it really means cousin - espeically if that interpretation is absolutely necessary to support some other beliefs we have about Jesus’ mother.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.