The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Real Hell

Thought the group might find of interest these two recent articles on Hell by Fr Stephen Freeman:

The Real Hell

More Thoughts on Hell

Very interesting articles, Father Kimel. I enjoyed them very much, especially the second. :smiley: There is so much about Orthodox theology that seems right to me. I also liked this from Father Stephen (in the comment section), having nothing particular to do with hell but touching on panentheism and immanence…

I’m only beginning to grasp this. I also wanted to thank you for your posts on the Trinity. It’s a difficult idea for me to wrap my head around, but my understanding is growing (I think).

“First. God is not a being. Not even the best being, the biggest, etc. He is not a being. That would be “a god,” like Thor or Zeus. He is the Ground of All Being, that without which nothing exists. Our existence is itself the proof of God’s existence (among other things).”

That is the thrust of Tillich’s ontology. That is why he says that God does not exist: He is existence.
That theory solves many problems that come about when God is conceived of as ‘the highest Being’ of classical theology, or even as an infinite being; but it does resonate with people who assume that it means God cannot be personal. I am not convinced that it DOES entail that; but that’s for another discussion.

Interesting, Dave.

I might have to read Tillich some time. :smiley:
I just received the book with Father Ware’s chapter we linked to in the panentheism thread, In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being, Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke eds. I’m interested in seeing the spectrum of thought on this subject. I suspect I’ll end up agreeing most with something like that of Saint Gregory Palamas, but who knows? :smiley: I’ve got my reading for the weekend cut-out for me…

Akimel,

Why is it that the theology of the Orthodox Church so draws me? I love its theology and teaching, but the robes, services, focus on Mary, icons, and Eucarist are not something I’m really interested in. Do you know of some books I could read? Or even some free articles expressing the Orthodox faith more completely?

I commend to you:

Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology

While I appreciate very much this overall approach over and against Western traditional models, and find much within it to agree with; I must say that I do have a few bones to pick with both articles:

First; From “The Real Hell – Is there such a thing?

St. Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, sees sin (and thus hell) as a movement towards “non-being.” The created universe was made out of nothing – thus as it moves away from God it is moving away from the gift of existence and towards its original state - non-existence. God is good, and does not begrudge existence to anything, thus the most creation can do is move towards non-being.”

I realize that the author is here quoting Athanasius: interestingly, I see a lot of Lewis/ Wright in this quote. While I agree with the general move here, I’m not so sure that I necessarily see degeneration toward actual non-being as a scriptural theme. And there is an underlying assumption of creation ex nihilo in this statement, which I am less confident about than Athanasius. This is a minor nitpick however.

And these are not simply picky issues about the afterlife – they are very germane issues for the present life. Christ Himself gave this “definition” of hell: “And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).”

And yet, this is not an actual definition in scripture of anything that has been translated from scripture (however erroneously) as “hell”. Condemnation means “down-judgment”, the concept is a sort of spiritual ‘demotion’; not “hell”, as it were.

Is hell real? Only for those who prefer to see the Light of God as darkness. Our lives are often quite “hellish” precisely because they are not real, not authentic, not sharing in the common life that can only come from the Lord and Giver of Life.”

Again; here is a move in the right direction with another stumble in it: This statement presumes that some prefer to see the light of God as darkness. Yet, if these are under any level of the delusion mentioned in the essay, then I think “prefer” is overstating the case for free will.

Secondly; from “More Thoughts on Hell”

The one figure in Scripture who says the most about hell and judgment is Christ Himself. Though many like to think of St. Paul as the “bad guy” of the New Testament (because of things he says about women, sexual activity, etc.), it is actually Jesus who speaks of “hell fire,” the “worm that does not die,” “outer darkness,” and such things.”

Oh dear; where have I heard this before? :wink: Christ certainly speaks of judgment; true. However, he does not speak of “hell”. He speaks of “Gehenna”. This is a different thing, as he is referring to a specific judgment of a specific group of people. That is precisely why we only find reference to Gehenna in the gospels, because it was intended for a certain audience for whom references to a place that they knew well would make sense. Once the NT turns toward inclusion of the Gentiles, none of the other NT writers mentions Gehenna, nor do they warn of it to their audiences as a consequence for sin (unrepentant or otherwise); and I think this is in and of itself suggestive.

The same is true of sin. Sin is not a legal problem. In the Garden, when God warns Adam and Eve concerning the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, He says, “In the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” This is not a legal statement. Were that the case, God would have said, “In the day you eat of it, I will kill you.” But the consequence is not legal but natural – it is inherent – intrinsic to the very nature of things.
Adam and Eve die, not as punishment, but because they have broken communion with God who alone is the Lord and Giver of Life, the source of our very being. Death is not punishment, but the natural state of a human being who moves in a direction away from God
.”

I would agree that it is true that sin is not a legal problem (one of the major weaknesses of PSA), and that its result is rather a natural consequence (“wages”). The author also rightly points out here that something occurs as a natural result of broken communion with God. Is this death, however? We first need to establish what is meant by that statement. I am not at all confident that this can be physical death (at least, not alone) to which we are referring in this context; but even if it is, then physical death, and not hell, would be the consequence for sin. Now, if by “hell”, one means “spiritual death” (whatever that means, exactly), then I think that is a stronger position, particularly in the logic of the larger argument in these essays. But this still does not equate to a definitional “hell” in the scriptural sense. Death is death; not ‘hell’ (hades, tartarus, Gehenna).

But sin, and its punishment, are not legal in nature. Were our punishment of a legal nature, then there would be no disagreement about hell as a temporary matter. For if our sins are finite in nature, then surely our punishment would be finite as well.

This is a curious statement, in that the author is arguing the opposite of what this would seem to indicate. He’s saying that if our sin and its atonement is a legal matter, then there is no question that punishment would be finite, but since it is not a legal matter, then that leaves room for doubt. But he then goes on to say;

I have listened to hours and hours of explanations of how humanity’s sin is infinite and how the offense against God’s honor (or justice or righteousness) is infinite – but this is all “after the fact,” a poor human effort to justify an image of an eternal, infinite, punishing hell-fire.

I agree with this statement, but the logic does not seem to follow.

“*When understood in such an intrinsic manner, hell does not cease to be a “threat” (as some fear), but the threat becomes more immediate and does not rest on the external action of a punishing God. It is a reflection of something already begun within us:
For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? *(1Pe 4:17 NKJ)”

I both agree and disagree with this statement. I think that both the reflection of something already begun within us and the “external” action of God are involved in judgment. The scriptural evidence would seem to indicate that it is precisely God who metes out judgment (but not “hell”) for a redemptive purpose. I think this is perhaps a bit of a forced attempt to “get God off the hook” (by making it entirely about us and our choices) ala Arminianism, for something God seems to clearly claim a certain responsibility for administering. I agree that we have a role to play in this, but it is not, and cannot, be entirely down to us. Our free-agency as finite creatures is far too limited for that. But as far as “hell” goes, it doesn’t remain a threat because it is internal rather than external. It never was a threat of either variety. Jesus warned of the Gehenna judgment to those to whom it applied, but he never warned of ‘hell’.

By the way (referring to yourself), is it Friar or Father? I understand that Fr can be the abbreviation for either.