The following is another section I wrote on C.S. Lewis and the problem of evil, from my MPhil in 2003. There is material added in the Additional 2008 section.
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html
To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.
The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).
So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!
Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.
Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.
Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.
It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.
Additional 2008:
Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).
Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.
I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.
Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).
He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.
I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.
Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html
To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.
The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).
So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!
Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.
Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.
Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.
It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.
Additional 2008:
Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).
Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.
I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.
Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).
He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.
I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.
Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html
