Orthodox view of Hell

Whilst the topic has been done to death, I didn't want to wade through all old threads. There is currently a thread in one of the subforums asking if hell is fair. I've recently discovered the (O)orthodox view of hell, and this is a sample:

Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God… But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises)

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Faith - Volume IV - Spirituality - The Kingdom of Heaven - Heaven and Hell - Orthodox Church in America

In my opinion (fwiw), this is much more consistent with the merciful God that manifested Himself as humble man to bear the sin of the world on our behalf. I do not presume to understand God, so I could be wrong which leads me to ask:

Are there any theological objections to the above phrasing of hell?

I have always appreciated the depiction of hell that comes from after-death experiences.

in those experiences, to the extent that they are not pleasant, as the life of the deceased flashes before his eyes, what he experiences is his life's actions and deeds through the eyes of those who have had to deal with them. The pain that he caused them is now his pain.

Even unfeeling psychopaths have been known to develop a conscience after returning from such an experience.

This is very similar to the kind of vision of the afterlife that is presented in the movie Flatliners.

There is true justice in such a depiction of hell. Probably more important than justice though, is the ability to forgive those who have done us wrong, so that what they will experience when they become one with us through Christ is not the condemnation and the pain, but the overriding love that forgiveness brings.

eternal guilt? that sounds worse than anything Dante has come up with.

I see no theological issues with the OP, and completely agree with poster ChristsSoldier115 that its theology is far worse than anything Dante cooked up in his Inferno.

godenver1 said:

Are there any theological objections to the above phrasing of hell?

Click to expand...

Is there anyone who hasn't sinned against love?

seeingeyes said:

Is there anyone who hasn't sinned against love?

Click to expand...

Christ.

To my mind, perhaps the only difference between the two conceptions of hell are a difference in who will be damned. The Orthodox God damns (loves) all unrepentant people (who also synergistically damn themselves), and he saves (loves) all repentant people (who also synergistically save themselves). Theoretically, there may be atheists who are repentant and are saving themselves. Also, theoretically there may be unrepentant Christians who are being damned by God. This was the position of C.S. Lewis (see "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity") and George MacDonald, not to mention earlier Platonists like St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Plato (see "Gorgias"). This is largely consistent with Pagan religion, of various forms. See C.S. Lewis "Abolition of Man."

By contrast, the Presbyterian God monergisticaly damns (curses) all people he refuses to forgive, and monergistically saves (blesses) all people he chooses to forgive. To those he will forgive, he also gives Christian faith: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Eph 2:8-10. So the dividing line between heaven and hell according to Presbyterianism is acceptance or rejection of the divinity of Christ. Arguably, this same dividing line exists for the Orthodox if you consider Christian conversion to be a part of repentance.

In any case, the Bible tends to teach Calvin's view of God rather than Plato's view of God. If divine revelation is important, then sublime Christianity needs to be different from natural Paganism. And it is -- God treats certain humans differently than other humans, and this is the difference between the saved and the damned: "Branches were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." Romans 11:20-22.

Moreover, if the Orthodox God's blessings are what the damned would experience as equally as miserable as the Presbyterian God's cursings, then really there is no difference at all, from the human's experience, between the two. To call it the "Scourges of Love" rather than the "Scourges of Hate," and to imagine this as solving a problem created by human sentiments, is really to say that you are satisfied with verbal solutions. The source of the external influence remains the same -- God. The effect of the external influence remains the same -- infinite suffering. The cause of the suffering remains the same -- the mutual refusal of God and man to adapt to one another.

You really haven't made any clear distinction at all. Unless some practical difference would follow from one or the other side's being correct, the dispute is idle. This solution fails Charles Sanders Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim: "Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object." The Orthodox position can be neither "true" nor "false" until it can first be relevant.

Ceridwen said:

By contrast, the Presbyterian God

Click to expand...

He also created a realm of fire and torments in order to punish the damned. That's the difference here. The nature of the suffering in Orthodox hell differs from the suffering in sectarian hell;

the former involves the suffering of incompatibility with God's divine presence, and the latter involves suffering because your god wanted to punish people for violating his rules, according to his supposed divine right as king of the universe.

All suffering is not equal, and the differences transcend mere sentiment.

Your god will not survive the end of this century, while our God is beyond the ages; the ages themselves will judge your god. The 400-year reign of a particular ba'al (which dared to call itself by the name of the true God) over many human hearts will come to an end quietly, and without much ado.

Blessed be the name of the true Lord Jesus Christ.

One interesting thing I notice is that the Orthodox view jives with modern science in that science posits "spacetime" - space and time are two interwoven things. In eternity, outside of spacetime, there will be no "time" or "place", i.e., Hell is not a place created by God for punishment, it is simply the state of being in the ultimate reality of His presence, which is Love, and which will always feel like Hell if you've rejected it.

godenver1 said:

Are there any theological objections to the above phrasing of hell?

Click to expand...

Yes. My objection is that there is no evidence in the Bible for the above phrasing of hell.

Apparently your "orthodox" view of hell is not in line with the rhetoric the Bible uses speaking of hell fire. Jesus used the word "torture". "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." Mt 18:34,35 Even demons declared to Jesus, "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" Mt 8:29

Or consider Jesus' parable:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 13:46-50

This is not the kind of rhetoric reflected in your "orthodox" quote. What does that tell you? Better to stick with the Bible rather than with fallible post-Biblical theologians.

godenver1 said:

Whilst the topic has been done to death, I didn't want to wade through all old threads. There is currently a thread in one of the subforums asking if hell is fair. I've recently discovered the (O)orthodox view of hell, and this is a sample:


The Orthodox Faith - Volume IV - Spirituality - The Kingdom of Heaven - Heaven and Hell - Orthodox Church in America

In my opinion (fwiw), this is much more consistent with the merciful God that manifested Himself as humble man to bear the sin of the world on our behalf. I do not presume to understand God, so I could be wrong which leads me to ask:

Are there any theological objections to the above phrasing of hell?

Click to expand...

It appears theologically sound to me, fwiw.
It allows for "fairness" to apply, if only in that the suffering is by consent.

That is the essence of, the fulcrum in the functioning of, relationships beginning with God, ourselves, and our neighbors as in the two greatest commandments.
And therein is how agape works in what looks superficially like a contradiction.

bcbsr said:

Or consider Jesus' parable:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 13:46-50

This is not the kind of rhetoric reflected in your "orthodox" quote. What does that tell you? Better to stick with the Bible rather than with fallible post-Biblical theologians.

Click to expand...

I don't think all parables are literal

Cappadocious said:

The 400-year reign of a particular ba'al (which dared to call itself by the name of the true God) over many human hearts will come to an end quietly, and without much ado.

Click to expand...

Those are some strong feelings. By it I take you to mean that Presbyterians are incorrect in their theology of God. I agree with you that Orthodoxy and Presbyterianism does not share the same words to express theology. As stated earlier, I don't believe that the differences have any practical bearing, and in their consequences they are identical. I won't take you to mean any disrespect to God or Presbyterians.

seeingeyes said:

Is there anyone who hasn't sinned against love?

Click to expand...

Just the One.

Ceridwen said:

Those are some strong words. By it I take you to mean that Presbyterians are incorrect in their theology of God. I agree with you that Orthodoxy and Presbyterian does disagree on some of the words that we use to express theology. As stated earlier, I don't believe that the differences have any practical bearing, and in their consequences they are identical. I won't take you to mean any disrespect to God or Presbyterians.

Click to expand...

I don't think most Presbyterians are Calvinist, anymore.

I don't think traditional labels are adequate anymore.

If the hell of divine hatred ("The wicked, those who love violence, the Lord hates with a passion," Psalm 11) can be understood by the Orthodox, with no loss of pragmatic consequence for the human, as a hell of divine love, then perhaps one would be able to say that a heaven of divine love can be understood, with no loss of pragmatic consequence for the human, as a heaven of divine hatred? As Saint Basil the Great says, “The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves." Would not the Orthodox also have to say that the goods in heaven do not have God as their cause, but ourselves?

If salvation is a synergistic process, where the real difference lies in a person's moral orientation, not determined by external input, then would an Orthodox person agree with the statement in John Milton's Paradise Lost that "The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven"? As Dr. Kalomiros says, "Love has bliss in it, hatred has despair, bitterness, grief, affliction, wickedness, agitation, confusion, darkness, and all the other interior conditions which compose hell."

If the River of Fire was a river of divine hatred rather than a river of divine love, even though this distinction relates to no conceivable sensible difference, would this distinction in the account of the phenomenon survive logic? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle.

Ceridwen said:

As Dr. Kalomiros says, "Love has bliss in it, hatred has despair, bitterness, grief, affliction, wickedness, agitation, confusion, darkness, and all the other interior conditions which compose hell."

Click to expand...

This is the sticking point, I believe. People don't hate being loved. They just don't believe that they are.

God is truth and light. God’s judgment is nothing else than our coming into contact with truth and light. In the day of the Great Judgment all men will appear naked before this penetrating light of truth. The ‘books’ will be opened. What are these ‘books’? They are our hearts. Our hearts will be opened by the penetrating light of God, and what is in these hearts will be revealed. If in those hearts there is love for God, those hearts will rejoice in seeing God’s light. If, on the contrary, there is hatred for God in those hearts, these men will suffer by receiving on their opened hearts this penetrating light of truth which they detested all their life.

So that which will differentiate between one man and another will not be a decision of God, a reward or a punishment from Him, but that which was in each one’s heart; what was there during all our life will be revealed in the Day of Judgment. If there is a reward and a punishment in this revelation – and there really is – it does not come from God but from the love or hate which reigns in our heart. Love has bliss in it, hatred has despair, bitterness, grief, affliction, wickedness, agitation, confusion, darkness, and all the other interior conditions which compose hell.

St. Symeon the New Theologian