Posted on 06/04/2014 6:52:46 AM PDT by 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.
Perhaps the concept of good and evil are just human traits, and God, being the almighty creator of all, has no need for it?
Using that logic, it is VERY easy to believe the lost are annihilated and virtually impossible to accept that God even allows the lost to be tortured for “linear time never ending”. It simply doesn’t match His personality as presented in the entirety of the bible.
The Holy Bible, and Christianity in general, offers a spectrum of belief on the matter of life after death.
I do see your point of view.
From my point of view, it is not a good thing to ascribe human characteristics or human logic or thinking to God.
His Ways are not our ways. He is truly ineffable.
The best clues I have to His wishes are what his Son told us in scripture. To me, the red ink offers the clearest path. And next to that is what the Apostles gave us.
Whether or not sinners are annihilated or burn for eternity is up to God.
Neither option is very appealing.
Interesting. I have often thought of the Episcopal priest in CS Lewis’s GREAT DIVORCE when it comes to this type of “creative thinking” about Hell.
Re: your idea that Revelation uses symbolic language... yes, of course it does. But you seem to take that as a signal that interpreting it is now a “free-for-all”, where any theological (amateur or otherwise) may inject any meaning he wishes onto it... and that simply won’t do.
I have a friend who is a pre-tribulationist. He’s studied the bible far more than me and teaches large classes. He is convinced that the beginning of Revelation 4 is proof of pre-trib rapture. I, on the other hand, believe the much more literal explanation in Revelation 7 after the sealing of the 144,000 is proof of “mid-tribulation” rapture.
I think I’m right, but I understand I may be missing something and could actually be wrong. But again I fall onto my understanding of God’s personality to support my position. And the personality of God allows His people to go through no small amount of tribulation, as happens throughout the bible not to mention the fates of the apostles. But it strengthens us.
But this is why, although I value Revelation a great deal, I understand that different people come up with different interpretations of the actual meanings of the phrases and stories it contains.
But at the end of the day I think any of us that use its words to believe they solidly support a position on something like the tribulation or hell is being too smart by half.
I don’t see anything there that, at the level you present it, I disagree with.
“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?”—Romans 9:20
FWIW.
For you to assume that God will “shovel us all into Heaven, wholesale” (even Satan and the demons!)...
My post was about the fate of the lost: those who DON”T enjoy eternal life. And my point is that they are simply destroyed, not tortured for linear time neverending. They don’t have eternal life. That is what the bible clearly teaches.
This writer invokes the ideas of an atheist madman as a critic of classical Christian doctrine? Absurd. Another Rob Bell wannabe, apparently.
I would have to answer that I am the man You made.
Good post.
Jim, is there a policy?
What is “punishment”, and what is the purpose of punishment?
Regarding your parents, if they are unconcerned about salvation, are they repentant? The beauty of the “lost are annihilated” message is that those that choose Christ choos freely, not because they are afraid of the alternative.
If someone chooses Christ simply because they don’t want to be tortured, have they really chosen Christ, or are they hedging their bets? And where does the concept of the “cheerful giver” fall into this?
My personal belief is that a person who goes to church solely because he is afraid of hell is not a Christian. And if he IS a Christian, he’s not concerned about hell.
Human motivation comes from two things:
1. fear of a bad thing happening.
2. Desire for a good thing to happen.
Christians, when they are being Christian, are in number 2 mode. Number one is fear, and fear is the lack of faith. And the fearful will experience the second death (Revelation 21:8)
And number one is from the pit of hell. And the “turn or burn” message is number one, if you get my drift. ;-)
Why couldn’t we talk about Him or love for that matter? I don’t believe the bible has to be referenced when we speak of God.
We are in agreeement.
I think I see your point (though I’d still say that it’s incorrect in many parts), but: the idea of eternal hell isn’t exactly a tiny and obscure Scriptural “blip”; it’s rather central to the Gospel message... and anyone who tries to suggest that Hell is NOT eternal has to resort to the most extraordinary mental calisthenics (or else deny the Bible and its contents altogether)! It’s akin to those who try to deny the divinity of Christ; a significant number of people try it (Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other modern subscribers to the Arian heresy), but they have to do violence to the Biblical context (and the Biblical text, sometimes going so far as to “re-translate” the Bible in keeping with their beliefs, as the JW’s do in their “New World” version [I can’t call it a “translation”, as such, since it’s so distorted]).
Simple logic demands that there have to be limits on how far one is allowed to “interpret” the Scriptures; we are not free to go into la-la land and say “Black can really be interpreted to mean white, if only we have the eyes to see it!” Words mean things... and those who try their utmost to “explain away” even the clearest Biblical passages seem to be doing their best to inject their own preferences onto a text which simply doesn’t agree with them.
From OUR PERSPECTIVE we have NO EXCUSE.
I’m a human being. I can have a mind and a body. If I’m on a business trip and a whore throws herself at me, in the reality of what it means to be a human being - I HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE IN MY MIND.
But think a minute. What brought me to be sitting in that restaurant having dinner ? What brought that woman to that restaurant that evening ? She didn’t know I was going to be there. I didn’t know she was going to be there.
We were both living our lives, and our lives intersected.
From our human perspective, we have free will. And we do not know what our own future holds.
Will we walk out our front door tomorrow and a piano falls on our head ? Will our flight crash ? When we blow through that stopsign, will we just breeze right through the intersection ? Or will we be crushed from the side by a fully-loaded 18-wheeler ?
Now let’s consider God’s viewpoint.
There are Bible verses which say God predestinated the elect. You certainly can look them up and study them.
What of everyone else ? (human sniffle, sniffle, whine)
But it’s not fawewww ! What about the other people that God did not predestinate ?
Woops, we’re thinking like humans again.
Let’s be logical instead. If those who are saved, S, are predestinated to be saved, what about NOT S ? NOT S (not saved) are not part of that group S (saved). NOT S were not predestinated to be saved. By inference can we conclude that NOT S were predestinated to not be saved ? Where NOT S predestinated to be NOT S, if S were predestinated to be S ?
The only flimisical argument available to us puny humans is that God predestinated S to be saved, and the rest.... he leaves that entirely up to them. They’re not predestinated to be saved, they’re not predestinated to damnation. God leaves it entirely up to them, whatever they want to do. Maybe God influences them along the way, but God does not really know what their choice will be. Well, the Bible tells that God is ominscient, he knows the future. Hmmm... I’ve got to get my flimsical tale really flexible now. Well, he knows what they will do in the future, those who are not predestinated to be saved. He knows what their ultimate choice will be. God set the whole heavens and earth in motion, mind you - and he set them in motion such that he could predestinate S being saved. But he actually did not force the NOT S to not be saved. All God’s plans could have worked out in countless different ways, depending on the choice that every member (millions of people) in NOT S wound up making for themselves.
Will Pieter commit adultery with that woman he meets in the restaurant while on a business trip ? God didn’t know what Pieter’s choice would be. God had two entirely different versions of God’s plan for the world, one if Pieter had sex with the woman, and a different one if Pieter didn’t. Because if Pieter commits adultery with that woman, his life and the woman’s life will take an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PATH than if Pieter does not commit adultery with that woman.
And so on, for millions of people.
Do you see how nonsensically impossible it is to have a plan for the entire universe which determines what will happen far into the future, but in that plan leave an enormous space of possibilities which are indeterminate at the time the plan is made ?
Do you see how from Pieter’s perspective - he had no idea how events in his life would unfold up until now and how they will unfold in the future ? So from Pieter’s point of view he has the full capability to make choices as his life happens ?
It seems that too many on FR are too quick to try to get Jim to pull the trigger on those that have the audacity to disagree with their opinon. And worse, based on a remark in an internet post that could be interpreted many ways.
It’s kinda creepy.
And number one is from the pit of hell.
I don’t believe the bible has to be referenced when we speak of God.
I don’t think Paul referenced it very often. At least, not the NT. ;-)
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.