Front Row Seats in Hell

they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned … So that they may be urged the more to praise God …

said Aquinas, but that does not imply happiness at another’s misery in any way whatsoever.

The suffering of the damned occurs because of a refusal to praise God; they suffer for the knowledge of their rejection and yet cannot reject their own sins.

This is like treating the word “fear” as in “fear of God” as a negative instead of the positive sense the word is meant.

It’s worth pointing out that Isaac Watts, later in life, apparently came to an annihilationist understanding in hell. I think Fudge mentions this briefly in his book.

I have a Fatima understanding of Hell.

Mary opened her hands and rays of light from them seemed to penetrate the earth so that they saw a terrifying vision of hell, full of demons and lost souls amidst indescribable horrors.

This vision of hell was the first part of the “secret” of Fatima, and was not revealed until much later. The children looked up to the sad face of the Blessed Virgin, who spoke to them kindly:

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

“To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

In other words, on this side of Heaven, we must do all in our power to help people not end up in Hell. But, knowing that God is good, and that those who end up in Hell do so through their own choice, but that God mitigates their suffering, I have no problem with the idea that I (if I get there, and I pray that I do) will understand fully the justice and the mercy of God in allowing Hell to exist. Until that time, I will continue to try and help people avoid the choice to go to Hell.

I think that Hell is the separation from God – the damned may not even know they are in hell, may not even know what they have been denied, or rather perhaps have denied themselves.

Zen, the trouble is, do you really think that all that is what the theologians that I have quoted are actually saying? They surely could easily have said that. Read through Tertullian’s lurid details. It really sounds to me like he thought that he would delight in watching the suffering of the damned in the flames of hell.

What’s more, I hardly think that a wonderful place like the eternal presence of God really needs a ghoulish reminder that things could have turned out worse!

Exactly? I continue to take issue with what Aquinas said, and you say exactly? OK, so exactly, I continue, for the same reasons, to think that Aquinas’s position is wrong.

What I meant is – do you really think that the theologians are limiting their claims about any positive feelings the saints will receive to a mental appreciation fo what they have in heaven? If that really is what they meant, then why did they not merit say so? Tertullian, for example, has a drawn out and ghastly way of stating short simple facts if you are correct.

I see the position you’re explaining as one that is a little embarrassd by what theologians have actually said, and tries to tone it down. But even saying that, the position you’re trying to reduce these theologians’ position to is hardly (morally) plausible: It’s as though God entertains them with the sight of the most horrific tortures imaginable for eternity so that they can look, anjoy and be filled with happiness at the sight on the grounds that “we’re safe, at least. Isn’t God kind?” That you have to make a position sound tamer by making it sound like that should set alarm bells ringing.

Man of Spin, I’ll get back to you within the next couple of days with a source. In brief, Spurgeon stated expressly that he no longer took issue with the doctrine of conditional immortality (the common name at that time for annihilationism).

Glenn,

Thanks for posting this! I was in a Christian Chat room several days ago and was appalled when I saw one of the Christians telling one of the Atheists how he looked forward to watching him burn and squirm in Hell, knowing full well how he deserved to suffer for rejecting Christ.

This idea has always shocked me. Even when I adhered to the “traditional Christian view” of Hell. I couldn’t grasp why Christians would delight in watching men suffer. And I couldn’t grasp why–in the great, glorious presence of our King–we would have any inclination to think towards those who denied Him?!

Would we rejoice if those people suffering torment in Hell before our very eyes were our loved ones? Our children? Can one honestly hold to this notion of delighting in the torture of souls in Hell, while simultaneously holding the view that God will wipe every tear from his eye?

I can’t buy it.

Pax Christi!

What does “unending torment” even *mean* in the context of eternity?

What does annihilation even *mean* in the context of eternity?

“Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?”

Why not? God can cease upholding it. Surely God can destroy anything he has created if he chooses to, right?

Lucia, your comment suggests that you think I am not correctly representing Tertullian. Is that right?

Just weighing in to affirm that I do indeed hold to the traditional view of Hell.

I won’t be debating this here, but you can e-mail me if you want to talk about it.

Glenn,

Not quite right.

I think you don’t understand how he could think the way he does, therefore you don’t think too kindly of him for his apparent glee at the suffering of the damned.

Yet, if you were to consider it, if God allows it, shouldn’t it be right and proper that the damned do suffer, and given that those who are in Heaven understand more than we do here in the Church Militant, maybe the whole thing makes sense? I don’t know, I’m not anywhere near being able to totally understand it, but I won’t write it off just because it offends my sensibilities.

What I love about my Faith is the Mystery, it just gets better and better. Apparent contradictions and all.

Man of Spin, here’s a source on Spurgeon.

Leroy Edwin Froom, in The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers vol. 2 p. 797 quotes Spurgeon stating: “I have no quarrel with the conditional immortality doctrine.”

The quote is taken from a pamphlet by Avary H. Forbes called “The Last Enemy” from 1936, but I cannot for the life of me obtain a copy. I do note, however, that Graham Scroggie, a member of Spurgeon’s congregation, embraced annihilationism too, so Spurgeon’s influence may have been at work there.

Mike,

Your objection has been addressed numerous times. What is described in Isaiah is a pile of corpses (that is what the Hebrew word means, no getting around it) burning and being devoured by a skolex, which is a type of worm that eats dead flesh.

And, the sight is an “abhorrence” to mankind. This is hardly the same as saying it’s a cause for celebration.

Regarding Ilion’s comment, it amuses me when theologians come up with flashy philosophical arguments that supposedly demonstrate how annihilationism is an absurdity.

God can say “Kristian Johansen exists not” if He destroys Kristian Johansen. It’s not really that complex.

Mike,

There was no intended “touchiness” in my response to your comments. There is no hostility in the words, mere argumentation.

Lucia: “I was going to ask you where you stood on this subject, guessing that the concept of eternal torment disturbs you so much that you choose not to believe it.”

Then you’d be completely wrong. The statement on motive is wrong, and with respect, inappropriate, perhaps even morally so. I think you are also expressing a very strange view of epistemology where people can literally decide what to believe.

Once I became aware that the Bible does not teach the dotrine of eternal torment and that it teaches annihilationism instead, my views on Scripture led me to embrace that view.

“Are you in the camp that doesn’t believe in Hell at all?”

No. What I have is a theology of hell, not a denial of it.

Well Lucia, rest assured: Your analysis of my motives was not correct. I did not reject the doctrine of eternal torment because it disturbs me, and it’s generally better to ask than to assume that this is the case. 🙂

And I daresay that literally deciding to believe something and then do it is not usually how it works. Conditioning yourself to beliefs takes time.

The point of this specific blog entry was to show people who affirm the “traditional” view because of the rhetorical power that comes with claiming to be on the side of the majority that in fact they do not stand with tradition at all.

As for my actual motives for rejecting the doctrine of eternal torment, I do so because I become convinced that the Bible teaches annihilationism more clearly than it teaches many other true things (like the virgin birth or the ascension of Christ). I detail this view in a three part podcast series. Part one is here.

Zentiger, you think I have misunderstood you “completely” if I say that you are talking about how we will gain joy because of the good that we have by observing the maximum torture received by others.

You did say “Glenn, I’m suggesting that some-one else’s suffering is not the thing directly making the saints happier, but rather, their understanding of their place in heaven, as revealed by understanding the sinners place in hell.” So it really is something you have said.

You seem to be wanting to talk, not about the happiness and pleasure that observing torture might (or might not) give, but rather about fear.

You say that you’re going to continue an argument, but what you’ve given me is a question. You ask who causes the fear in the case of the child. My answer is that the father and the child cause that fear. I do not see how this is going to connect to the question of how much (if any) happiness and enjoyment watching the torments of hell will bring, but I guess I’ll find out!

OK, well I have told you who causes the fear: the child and the father.

“Yet, it is difficult to deny, biblically, that hell is both conscious and eternal.”

I find it pretty easy actually. 🙂

Well, so far, the argument on immortality is interesting, but not enough to convince me. It would be useful to have that argument written somewhere, as I keep forgetting what it actually is. I thought that there could be a problem with a good definition of immortality and eternal life, and found this.

Part Two deals with the theology of death and the various notions of human immortality that have existed from Jewish antiquity up through our own day. Ratzinger points out that the Jewish understanding of Sheol, where the shades of the dead lingered, was sim­ilar to the opinions of neighboring cultures. The idea of bodily resurrection was an innovation over and against the common human expectation of a bodiless afterlife, and resurrection was itself the natural outgrowth of the Hebrew concept of man as a creature made body and soul in the image of God. Death of the body was shown in Genesis 1-3 to be a punishment for breaking fellowship with God and not the natural end of a life. Salvation from sin and death, therefore, was salvation of man from his alienation from God. The healing of that rift of necessity meant the restoration of man to bodily immortality. The intermediate state of the soul after death, therefore, was a result of the sinfulness of man, and it was natural that some elements of purgation would be associated with it in preparation for the restoration of man to bodily life in resurrection.

With this in mind, Ratzinger reviews the teaching of the Church on human immortality. There was no clear guidance from patristic sources on what human immortality — especially in the intermediate state, but also in a resurrected body — actually meant. There was a strain of thought in the patristic period strongly influenced by Platonism in which the soul was treated almost like a “ghost in a machine” with a strong sense of the body/soul dichotomy. This Hellenistic attitude based immortality of the soul on something innate to the human person and separate from the “mortal” body. Ratzinger points out several theological problems with this and shows how they could be circumvented by St. Thomas Aqui­nas’s brilliant solution to the question based on Ar­istot­le’s notion of eternal forms as being preserved within real objects and not as members of an unchanging alternate realm. St. Thomas’s new anthropology could be summed up as anima unica forma corpus (i.e., the soul is the unifying principle of the body), and did justice to the original Hebrew understanding of man as an irreducible and integral whole.

Looks like I’m going to have to get this book!

Lucia Maria,

If you are interested in studying the subject of “hell” in the bible I suggest you get hold of a copy of Edward W. Fudge’s book: “The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment”. If you are in NZ, you may be able to purchase a copy from http://www.afterlife.co.nz

Glenn,

I understand that no disrespect is intended. We do tend to stick to our own faith communities in regards to the scholarship that is out there.

Have you considered that not only is what Ratzinger held in high esteem because of who he is, but that he became who he is because of what he’s written? His deep understanding of our Faith? His book Jesus of Nazareth certainly shows that.

From what it says at Amazon, this book is the result of 20 years of research. It may answer all the criticisms you have of the traditional view of Hell. It certainly looks like it will to me. I’ll read it and find out anyway, since, according to the review, it is the apologetics book to read.

Ilíon: “What does “unending torment” even *mean* in the context of eternity? What does annihilation even *mean* in the context of eternity?”

Glenn Peoples: “Ilion: In the context of eternity, eternal torment means torment that never ends. Int he context of eternity, annihilation means coming to an end and not enduring for eternity.”

This says nothing, really, to address the questions I asked; it conflates time-bound existence for eternal (timeless) existence.

‘Eternity’ does not mean “a really, really, really, really, really long time,” it refers to a state of timeless existence; so, to speak of duration in the context of eternity is to speak non-sense.

Time is an aspect of God’s creation; God created time as he created space and matter — God is not “in” time; there is no yesterday nor tomorrow for God.

Ilíon: “Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?”

Glenn Peoples: “Lastly, yes, that which God brings into existence can cease to exist. Is there a reason to suppose otherwise?”

Well! You’ve certainly made an assertion; haven’t addressed the question, though. In my response to Kristian Joensen, I’ve given a good reason to suspect that the assertion — and supposition — you are making may not actually be true. I’ve shown that it *is* a supposition, not a conclusion.

And, rather than examine the supposition to see if it can be supported as a conclusion, you merely reassert it.

Ilíon: “If God says, “Kristian Joensen exists,” how can he also say, “Kristian Joensen exists not?” Is not the very statement, all by itself (even without considering the first), a self-contradiction?”

Dave: “Regarding Ilion’s comment, it amuses me when theologians come up with flashy philosophical arguments that supposedly demonstrate how annihilationism is an absurdity.

God can say “Kristian Johansen exists not” if He destroys Kristian Johansen. It’s not really that complex.”

Have you really thought about this before asserting it?

God calls into being by speaking (that’s an anthropomorphism, of course, but it’s about the best we can do in attempting to understand God).

In God’s very act of saying the name of “Kristian Joensen,” God says “Kristian Joensen exists.” For God to say “Kristian Joensen exists not” it were as though God says, “Kristian Joensen both exists and exists not” — and that is a contradiction, which is impossible for God.

As a wise man once said, it’s really not that complex.

Lucia Maria: “Oh, ok, I’ll listen to the podcast! I normally don’t, as I read much faster than I listen.”

I almost never listen to anyone’s podcasts (*) and other media … put it in writing so that I can analyze it; don’t waste my time with ephemeral sounds.

(*) I have listened to some of Mr Peoples’ podcasts, and I’ve enjoyed some of them, to a point … but I haven’t got much out of them, or at least not nearly as much as I might from reading it, because they’re verbal; here and gone even as one hears it.

I have to agree with Dave, Biblically, there is a “construct” God uses to “call things into existence”, just saying a name does not make it exist.

Also, perhaps you are confusing “THE Word” with language.

Andrew,

Thanks, but no thanks. I’m done picking and choosing what I’m going to believe. I lived for 20 years like that. Now I’m happy just believing what the Church tells me to believe, and, strangely enough, what she tells me to believe weaves together into a wonderful, cohesive tapestry.

Lucia, I really don’t know that being made in God’s image is going to do what you want it to here. It’s far from obvious what that phrase even means, and what’s more, if Athanasias is right, being cut off from God and finally divorced from His purpose for us is to lose that very image.

Glenn,

I find it truly amazing that a person who seeks to take an evidence based approach is accused of literally picking and choosing his beliefs!

Are you talking about yourself being accused, or Andrew? Because if you are, I was talking about myself.

Lucia, I was talking about Andrew. Your suggestion was that to do what he did – namely to take a book that presents a case, examine that case and weigh up how good it is, would mean that you would be picking and choosing your beliefs.

By your reasoning, a jury just picks and chooses whether or not the defendant is guilty!

you’ll be aware that the Old Testament also says that the animals have the breath of life from God as well.

Really? I missed that in the Creation story.

Lucia, I was talking about Andrew. Your suggestion was that to do what he did – namely to take a book that presents a case, examine that case and weigh up how good it is, would mean that you would be picking and choosing your beliefs.

By your reasoning, a jury just picks and chooses whether or not the defendant is guilty!

Ah. Here’s the thing. If a book is Catholic and orthodox, I will read it because I can trust it. If a book is Catholic and not orthodox, then I’d better have a good reason to read it, because to deliberately read something I know to be partly false for no good reason is to put my own faith in danger. Likewise with Protestant books. I no longer have to work out what to believe based on evidence. I believe on faith. How I came to this point is a very long story, but having been what I’ve been through and knowing what I know now, I will not jeopardise that faith.

And yes, I do see Protestand and non-orthodox Catholic as picking and choosing (but in that comment I was talking about myself). How could it not be? Basing it on “evidence” is putting the Lord God to the test. Not something I want to be doing.

Lucia, I didn’t say it was in the creation story. It doesn’t have to be in Genesis 1-2 in order to be biblical.

True, but the Creation story, by virtue of it being the Creation story, tells us alot about what we are and what went wrong. If God breathed only into Adam, and not into the animals when they were created – surely that means something?

So, where is the reference to the breath of God in sheep in the OT?

Lucia, I don’t know what to do. I know where the evidence is about the breath of life is in the Bible, but here’s the thing: I’m not Catholic. You’ve already told me that “I no longer have to work out what to believe based on evidence. I believe on faith.” You wouldn’t read things that would endanger your existing beliefs, so you say. This means that if your existing theology contains errors, you don’t want to find out about them.

Should I proceed with evidence or not? And if I should, would you read a book written by a Protestant on hell?