I would now like to post some quotations from Paul Johnson's book entitled _A History of Christianity_ and obtain your input:
He writes: "Ambrose [of Milan] was a superstitious and credulous man, with a weird cosmology. He distinguished between paradise and the superior Kingdom of Heaven, already inhabited by Constantine and (after his death) Theodosius. He thought, in fact, there were seven heavens. Then there was Hades, where people waited for the last judgment, and purgatory, a place of second baptism or furnace of fire, where the precious metal in a soul was tested to rid it of the base alloy. Finally, there was Hell, divided into three regions, of increasing horror" (p. 107).
On pages 340-342, Johnson's comments are a bit long to type at this point, so I will just summarize them. The historian points out that Scotus Eriugena denied the existence of an eternal or material hell, and substituted "pangs of conscience" in its place. But despite having misgivings about an eternal hell, he refused to believe that such ideas should be taught pastorally. Why not? So that the parishioners would be frightened into serving God by being told that an eternal hell existed (whether it, in fact, did exist or not). This is why "the three most influential medieval teachers, Augustine, Peter Lombard, and Aquinas, all insisted that the PAINS of hell were PHYSICAL as well as mental and spiritual, and that REAL FIRE played a part in them" (caps. for emphasis).
Johnson also reports that "the general theory was that Hell included any horrible pain that the human imagination could conceive of, plus an infinite variety of others . . . Jerome said that Hell was like a huge winepress. Augustine said it was peopled by ferocious flesh-eating animals, which tore humans to bits slowly and painfully, and were themselves undamaged by the fires." In view of the observations above (1) how can some professed Christians say that Catholicism does not presently espouse a different view than what has been expressed in the past, when one reads about contemporary discussions concerning Hell which exclusively refers to it in terms of separation from God? (2) What kind of God is this described by the previously-mentioned writers? What type of God could carry out such punishments? The God of the Bible evidently could not torture souls for eternity (Jeremiah 7:31; 1 John 4:8).
8 comments:
I've just found this blog, and must admit you're doing a good job!
Theocratic greetings from Lenoir, NC (USA)!
I appreciate your encouraging comments.
Your brother,
Edgar
Paul Johnson's descriptions of hell, particularly in the medieval period, represent one stage in the theological development of Christian thought. Early Church Fathers and medieval theologians like Augustine and Aquinas explored hell in graphic, physical terms, reflecting the cultural and philosophical influences of their time. However, Catholic doctrine has developed over centuries, guided by Scripture, tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. Modern theology emphasizes hell primarily as eternal separation from God, consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1033-1035).
While early and medieval Christian writers may have interpreted hell in physical terms, the Church has never definitively dogmatized specific imagery of hell, such as real fire or flesh-eating animals. The Church teaches that hell is a state of definitive self-exclusion from God, where the soul suffers the loss of eternal communion with God. Over time, the Church's understanding of hell has become more nuanced, focusing on the relational aspect between the soul and God rather than physical torment.
Jeremiah 7:31 and 1 John 4:8, cited by Johnson, do not refute the possibility of eternal punishment. Jeremiah 7:31 condemns child sacrifice in the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), and 1 John 4:8 affirms God's love but does not negate His justice. The Bible, including passages like Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, affirms that eternal punishment exists for those who reject God's love and refuse to repent.
The descriptions of hell in early Christian writings, like the fiery winepress or ferocious animals, often employ symbolic language to communicate the horror of eternal separation from God. This figurative imagery serves as a vivid warning of the consequences of sin but should not be understood in a purely literalistic sense. The Church acknowledges that much of the language used to describe hell is symbolic and aims to convey the spiritual suffering associated with separation from God.
Just to clarify, the part about Jeremiah 7:31 and 1 John 4:8 does not come from Johnson, but from me. It's my commentary that follows a discussion of Johnson. However, my point is that it seems highly unlikely that God would torture someone forever in a lake of fire since he found it offensive for the Israelites to burn their children in fire as a sacrifice to Molech. Secondly, Jehovah is love. How loving is eternal torture that is unceasing or never ends? As humans, if a human imitates God, then he/she does not put a child's hand on a hot stove to teach the child a lesson. Today, that would be called abuse. So why are some people attributing these acts to God?
The biblical depiction of eternal punishment is not a form of cruelty but a consequence of free will and justice. Jeremiah 7:31 condemns child sacrifice because it was an abomination against God. However, God’s justice is distinct from human injustice. Hell is the result of a willful rejection of God’s love, not something He "wants" to impose. In contrast to Molech worship, God’s judgment is a response to sin, not an arbitrary punishment.
God is indeed love (1 John 4:8), but He is also just. Love and justice coexist in God's nature. Eternal separation from God is the result of a soul's rejection of His love. God's justice respects human free will, allowing individuals to choose their eternal destiny (Matthew 25:46). While God is love, He is also just. His love does not negate His justice. In Scripture, God’s justice is revealed through the consequences of sin, which, in the case of unrepentant sin, includes eternal separation from Him (Matthew 25:46). Eternal punishment is not arbitrary torture but the outcome of a soul's rejection of God's mercy. God’s love is offered to all, but those who refuse it by their own free will choose separation from God, which is hell.
Many of the descriptions of hell (such as fire) are symbolic of intense spiritual suffering—alienation from God—not necessarily physical torture. The lake of fire represents the complete, final separation from God rather than literal flames (Revelation 20:14). The biblical concept of hell, especially as described in Catholic theology, is less about physical torture and more about the spiritual anguish of being eternally separated from God. The imagery of fire is often symbolic of the torment caused by this alienation. Just as the Israelites' burning of children to Molech was a distortion of true worship, so too would it be a distortion to view hell solely as a physical place of torture without understanding the spiritual dimension of eternal separation.
God does not "send" people to hell in a vindictive sense. Hell is the result of a person's free choice to reject God. Just as a child can disobey parental guidance despite loving care, so humans have the freedom to reject God’s love, but this freedom entails consequences. God respects human freedom, even if it means eternal separation from Him for those who persist in rejecting His grace.
The analogy of a parent burning a child’s hand on a stove to teach a lesson is misplaced. God’s justice is not equivalent to human notions of punishment. Divine justice respects human dignity and free will. It is not about coercion but allowing individuals to bear the natural consequences of their choices. Hell is not a punishment inflicted by God but the freely chosen state of those who reject God's mercy.
God respects human freedom to such an extent that He allows people to reject Him permanently. Hell is not about God imposing endless torture, but about individuals choosing to separate themselves from Him, resulting in an eternal state of alienation. The concept of eternal punishment aligns with God’s justice, not as an act of divine sadism, but as a natural consequence of rejecting His love and grace.
Hell represents the consequence of free rejection of God, not an arbitrary act of cruelty. It is a state of self-exclusion from the eternal joy found in God's presence.
Keep in mind that I'm addressing particular views of hell that do teach persons are sent to hell by God or they do teach eternal punishment/torture as Johnson documented. I have found similar pronouncements in early theologians like Tertullian and Lactantius. Even Aquinas seems to writew this way and Augustine.
I tend to disagree that the analogy of the parent and stove is misplaced, especially for at least some articulations of the hell doctrine. To torture someone pphysically for all eternity would be akin to a parent abusing his/her child. But I understand that you're proposing spiritual alienation rather than an eternity of physical torture.
One other objection would be that eternal alienation/spiritual suffering presupposes an immortal soul. We've had that discussion before, but I still believe the soul is not immortal: it can die and does not survive the body's death.
Another thing about many articulations of the lake of fire is that they fail to allow for the metaphorical import of Revelation's language.
You're right that early theologians like Tertullian, Lactantius, and Augustine articulated views of hell that included ideas of punishment. However, their writings often involved both literal and figurative interpretations. Augustine, for instance, emphasized the spiritual consequences of sin—separation from God as the greatest suffering. It's important to understand that historical views evolved and the Church recognizes that hell's primary suffering is this alienation from God, not necessarily endless physical torture.
The analogy of a parent burning a child remains inadequate because it presupposes direct infliction of harm. Hell, according to most modern theological articulations, isn't about God actively torturing souls, but rather, souls experiencing the natural consequences of their rejection of God’s love. God respects human free will to such an extent that those who reject Him choose separation, which results in their suffering—not because God desires it, but because it's a consequence of their own choices.
The idea of eternal alienation doesn't require the inherent immortality of the soul as you suggest. Even theologians who accepted the doctrine of annihilationism (the belief that the soul ceases to exist) argue that the final judgment could involve annihilation after a period of spiritual suffering. This means that the doctrine of hell doesn’t necessarily stand or fall on the immortality of the soul. Revelation’s metaphorical language doesn't exclude a non-physical, spiritual reality of hell—it uses imagery to convey profound truths about the consequences of sin.
Post a Comment