No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2016
Recent work on the morality of hell spans the various subdisciplines of theology, with the ironic exception of theological ethics. An adequate defence of hell requires a positive account of how God's eternally tormenting some humans is beautiful, just and worthy of worship. This suggests a short-term and long-term task. The short-term task, which this article pursues, tests whether an adequate moral theory is available by evaluating three possible candidates, the third of which is the most interesting, as it offers a historicist defence of hell: we believe hell is cruel only because of aversions to cruel and unusual punishment that emerged in modernity. Nonetheless, all three defences are inadequate, suggesting a longer term goal: we need either better moral theories or better accounts of hell, as well as greater analytic clarity regarding theological statements of the form, I want doctrine y to be true but believe doctrine x is true.
1 MacDonald, Gregory (ed.), All Shall Be Well: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology from Origen to Moltmann (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2011)Google Scholar.
2 Talbott, Thomas, The Inescapable Love of God (Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers, 1999), p. 8Google Scholar.
3 MacDonald, Gregory, The Evangelical Universalist: The Biblical Hope that God's Love will Save us All, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 2012), p. 4, emphasis addedGoogle Scholar.
4 Specifically, Greggs is sensitive to the fact that Origen was condemned for holding to something like universalism (though whether the anathemas were directed at his universalism in particular is much debated).
5 MacDonald, All Shall Be Well, p. 12, n. 22.
6 Kvanvig, Jonathan, The Problem of Hell (New York: OUP, 1993)Google Scholar; Walls, Jerry, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992)Google Scholar.
7 Finnis, John, ‘Hell and Hope’, in Religion and Public Reasons: Collected Essays, vol. 5 (Oxford: OUP, 2011), p. 370CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Walls, Jerry, ‘Heaven and Hell’, in Rea, Michael (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2009), p. 494Google Scholar.
9 Hunsinger invokes a similar concept, also drawn from Augustine, which he calls ‘the strong view of hell’, defined by seven components. Hunsinger, George, ‘Hellfire and Damnation: Four Ancient and Modern Views’, Scottish Journal of Theology 51/4 (1998), pp. 410–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Augustine, City of God 21.17; trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 1972).
11 Augustine, Enchiridion,112; trans. Albert Outler (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955).
12 Finnis, ‘Hell and Hope’, p. 368.
13 Augustine, City of God 21.24.
14 Augustine, City of God 21.17–18; Augustine, Enchiridion 112.
15 Shklar, Judith, Ordinary Vices (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1984), p. 8Google Scholar.
16 Ibid., p. 7.
17 Medieval and renaissance artists were allowed to depict hell so vividly and imaginatively because it is not as clearly depicted in the Bible as, say, the nativity or crucifixion. Thus they did not risk violating an authoritative definition of it. Cassidy, Brendan, ‘Laughing with Giotto at Sinners in Hell’, Viator 35 (2004), p. 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, p. 7.
19 Dante, Inferno 3.4–6; trans. Robin Kirkpatrick (London: Penguin, 2006).
20 Quoted in Schneewind, J. B., The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 30–1, emphasis addedGoogle Scholar.
21 The two don't always go together, as they don't in John Hare's divine command theory. Partly this shows that the voluntarist-intellectualist dichotomy is not as simple as often portrayed. See Hare, John, God's Call: Moral Realism, God's Commands, and Human Autonomy (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001)Google Scholar.
22 See Talbott, Thomas, ‘Punishment, Forgiveness, and Divine Justice’, Religious Studies 29/2 (1993), p. 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Crisp, Oliver, ‘Divine Retribution: A Defence’, Sophia 42/2 (2003), p. 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Recent work has challenged the feudal setting of Cur Deus Homo, pointing to various alternatives. Some even complain of a historiographical ‘tyranny’ asserting feudalism as a construct for interpreting Anselm. Others emphasise the Benedictine roots of Anselm's thought, while still others accept his feudal presuppositions while trying to show their plausibility outside that context. These are helpfully surveyed in Whidden, David L., ‘The Alleged Feudalism of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and the Benedictine Concepts of Obedience, Honor, and Order’, Nova et Vetera 9/4 (2011), pp. 1055–87Google Scholar. I am therefore going somewhat against the grain of recent scholarship in returning to the feudal interpretation that was for a long time the default position.
25 Both Anselm and Augustine use aesthetic metaphors in regard to hell, though readers often miss this, focusing too much on forensic metaphors. See Brown, David, ‘Anselm on Atonement’, in Davies, Brian and Leftow, Brian (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Anselm (Cambridge: CUP, 2004)Google Scholar; Brown, Frank Burch, ‘The Beauty of Hell: Anselm on God's Eternal Design’, Journal of Religion 73/3 (1993), pp. 329–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holmes, Stephen R., ‘The Upholding of Beauty: A Reading of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo’, Scottish Journal of Theology 54/2 (2001), pp. 189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sohn, Hohyun, ‘The Beauty of Hell? Augustine's Aesthetic Theodicy and Its Critics,’ Theology Today 64(2007), pp. 47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Anselm, , Cur Deus Homo 1.21 (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh, 1889)Google Scholar.
27 Crisp, ‘Divine Retribution’, p. 40.
28 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo 1.15.
29 Mohler, R. Albert, ‘Modern Theology: The Disappearance of Hell’, in Morgan, Christopher W. and Peterson, Robert A. (eds), Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 36–7Google Scholar.
30 Ibid., p. 19.
31 Ibid., p. 24.
32 Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Oxford: OUP, 1996), ch. 13.1Google Scholar.
33 Ibid., ch. 14.
34 Lewis, C. S., ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’, Res Judicatae 6 (1953), p. 227Google Scholar.
35 Ibid., p. 229.
36 See Lewis, C. S., The Problem of Pain (London: HarperCollins, 2002), ch. 8Google Scholar; Lewis, C.S., The Great Divorce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)Google Scholar.
37 McGowen, Randall, ‘Civilizing Punishment: The End of the Public Execution in England’, Journal of British Studies 33/3 (1994), p. 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Almond, Philip C., Heaven and Hell in Enlightenment England (Cambridge: CUP, 2008)Google Scholar; Walker, D. P., The Decline of Hell: 17th Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964)Google Scholar.
38 O’Donovan, Oliver, The Desire of the Nations (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), p. 250Google Scholar.
39 Ibid., p. 270.
40 Ibid., p. 276.
41 Ibid., p. 260; emphasis added.
42 Ibid., p. 278.
43 Augustine, City of God 19.6.
44 O’Donovan is especially clear in showing how this happens in Grotius's thought. O’Donovan, Oliver, The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), ch. 7Google Scholar.
45 Mohler, ‘Disappearence of Hell’, p. 24.
46 Lewis, Problem of Pain, pp. 119–21; emphasis added. The moral hell that Lewis defends is not Augustine's; rather, he weakens it in various ways, especially by removing the penal element.
47 Stump, Eleonore, ‘Dante's Hell, Aquinas's Moral Theory, and the Love of God’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16/2 (1986), pp. 181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A similar view is suggested in Finnis, ‘Hell and Hope’, p. 370.
48 Piper, John, ‘How Does a Sovereign God Love? A Reply to Thomas Talbott’, The Reformed Journal 33/4 (1983), p. 13Google Scholar.
49 Dan Delzell, ‘N. T. Wright Wrong about Eternal Torment?,’ The Christian Post, 22 Dec. 2012.