A Further Note on Hell: Mystical Visions and Judgment
This note will probably only make sense after you read my previous essay “Hell.” This is an addendum more than anything. I am not here revoking anything I’ve said, I’m only adding to it.
The first issue I wish to deal with are some objections that my conception of Hell is “rosy” or in some way not really Hell. I don’t know how to stress that this is further from the truth. If we are creatures created to be with God, then certainly there can be nothing worse then separation from the fount of all love, joy, and reason.
There are some visions of Hell had by some mystics, such as John Vianney, where Hell is described as being quite literally a lake of fire. I do not necessarily disagree with this picture, but I only think that these pictures painted are metaphorical, and that there is no gain to be had from strictly maintaining that there is positive punishment in Hell. Certainly, based on the argument made, there cannot be anything worse than separation from God. Anything in addition to this couldn’t even be noticed. In fact, I think my conception of Hell is ultimately more terrible than a mere lake of fire. To be tortured in fire for eternity would be infinitely better than actually being cut off from God! While the idea of sensual pain is more immediately striking, I guarantee that, properly understood, there cannot be anything worse than being cut off from God. To have any positive pain in addition to the pain of being cut off from God would be like cutting the fingers off of an arm that’s already been cut off of us. The idea of having our fingers cut off is a rather painful thought, but once you realize these fingers will have already been severed by being attached to the arm that’s been cut off, you see that the reason I’m not concerned with whether the “flames” are literal or not is simply because its like wondering whether it would be more painful to have my thumb or pinky cut off when its my arm that’s being cut off.
The flames of Hell are an accurate depiction, I will not deny. They are useful for illustration, to pertinently explain that Hell will be painful. But to insist that primary reason for Hell being suffering is because of some fire rather than the separation from God is an elementary mistake.
Now, as to judgment, there will be more I have to say. In my last essay I did not actually cover what constituted reasons for judgment. While I left it as being ultimately a “choice,” I didn’t explain precisely what form this choice took.
Judgment, in Hans Urs von Balthasar’s conception, is not an act of God, but an act of the sinner, wrought upon one’s self by refusing the forgiveness, salvation, sanctification, love, and perfection of God. A person judges themselves to Hell by judging God.
While I do not wholly agree with this, it does help to illustrate to an extent of how I view judgment. Ultimately, judgment is rendered by God, through His own action; there would not be judgment if God did not commit it. There is no one who can rightly judge except God.
But, to the extent that I agree with Balthasar, God’s judgment is dependent upon the person’s heart of whom He is judging. (Luke 16:15)
By making the heart be the basis of judgment, there are certain implications that follow. But first, what is the heart?
The heart, as it would be intuitively understood, is the totality of the person’s desires and acts as committed based on the knowledge they could know to have.
This idea is easier shown with a few scenarios.
First, take the atheist who has grown up his whole life without ever once having been challenged to believe in God in any way; in fact, he never really considered the idea of God, but just unwittingly assumed that a God did not exist. While this may seem silly to those who are very committed and intellectual theists, allow us to assume that this man’s life really was without challenge, and nothing existed for him that made him have to ponder on God.
Is there hope for this man?
I would say yes, but only qualifiedly. This man could be saved, because his witting beliefs were formed out of unwitting assumptions. Ultimately, whether he will be saved will be based on whether he rejects God or not; and whether he rejects God or not is something only God truly knows, in His omniscience. In this way, the eternal fate of souls is indeterminable, since we do not have access to other people’s hearts, even those whom we are closest to. “It is between him and God” is as good as we may say.
But for ourselves, we are master. Whether we reject God or not in our heart is our choice to make, as best we can make it. It’s not ultimately dependent upon a witting recognition of Christ’s saving grace, for while it is ordinarily necessary, God is not bound to work through the ordinary (or revealed) methods. “The Sacraments are bound to God, but not God to the Sacraments.” God can work in ways other than a confession in the saving power of Christ. While ultimately, if we choose to reject Christ in the end, if we reject Christ in this life based upon unwitting assumptions or misunderstandings, then our rejection of Christ may not be so in the end.
This is an important distinction to make; my beliefs now are not necessarily my beliefs in the end. By “in the end, “ I mean those beliefs I hold in my heart based upon what I will of God for me. For every person, their beliefs in the end are indeterminate, and so that is why we cannot judge, but it is God’s alone. It is simply that we have no way of knowing whether Richard Dawkins the avowed atheist is really an atheist in the end in his heart; only God through His omniscience would know.
But, do not mistake this for a leniency. It is still our responsibility to act on our knowledge, and one of the most intuitive principles we hold as humans is to gather more knowledge. While it is not knowledge that saves, if we hold our beliefs through a lack of will to gather that knowledge we would have otherwise held, then that is as bad as knowing and rejecting; while ultimately only God can judge the extent to which our ignorance is not entirely our fault, or how culpable we are for our ignorance.
For an illustration of culpability, imagine this. A girl grows up in Saudi Arabia, and is, inevitably, Muslim. Based upon what she knows and learns about Allah, she worships Him as best she knows. All she ever learns about Christianity is that it is a good, but false, religion. In her entire life she only has one encounter with a Christian, who strongly advocates that she convert, but based upon what she has learned her entire life about what to believe, she rejects the Christian and so remains a Muslim.
According to some Christians she would be wholly culpable for this rejection, but this is obviously irreflective of the reality. Did she reject the Christian message because she truly rejected Christ, or because she had been taught to reject Christ and was trusting in the wisdom of those imams who she knew could be trusted to be wise about so many other things?
Only God would be able to judge her by knowing how culpable she was for her rejection of Christ. While yes, if she obstinately holds a belief in Mohammed as prophet to the end, she would be damned, we do not know whether she would. Since God judges our hearts, and not our minds, there is hope for the Muslim woman from this scenario.
That is, in a nutshell, my though about judgment. God through His omniscience judges perfectly, so we cannot ever say we know what is required of a person to be saved now, since God will know whether we accept of reject Him in the end; but whether we accept or reject Him in the end is also dependent upon how we act now, and so we are responsible to the knowledge we have now and to gain more knowledge.
