Heaven and Hell

State of the Saved

The state of souls who have been saved is fairly simply described as eternal union and fellowship with God. What that looks like is something which we cannot know until we get there but it is a blissful state.

Fate of the unsaved

The fate of the unsaved is less clear. Certainly not a happy one but more than that is open to different views.

Historically, particularly in the West following St. Augustine, the belief that the unsaved would be subjected to one form or another of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) became the dominant view.

Most Christian traditions (apart from annihilationists) agree on three core things about hell:

  1. It’s real — there is a state of the soul after death that is objectively bad.
  2. It’s eternal — the condition is permanent.
  3. It’s terrible — the soul experiences something profoundly negative.

The difference in beliefs lies in the source and nature of the “torment.”

Different beliefs include:

  1. God actively punishes the unsaved in Hell.
  2. Hell is self-chosen eternal separation from God
  3. Hell is the how God’s love is experienced by those who do not accept it.
  4. Hell is anihilation of the soul. ( No ECT).

Generally this is how each tradition tends to view the nature of final punishment although there is diversity in all of them.

Roman Catholic – Hell is a freely chosen separation together with a real punishment

Catholics officially teach that:

  • Hell is definitive self-exclusion from communion with God
  • The damned freely and irrevocably choose this
  • The punishment is justified but God does not desire anyone to perish
  • Hell involves both:
    • poena damni (“pain of loss” — separation from God)
    • poena sensus (“pain of sense” — metaphorical or real “fire”)
  • Although the Catechism refers to “eternal fire”, the Church does not define the “fire” of hell literally

Eastern Orthodox – Hell is the experience of God’s love by those who reject it

In Orthodox theology:

  • God does not withdraw His presence from anyone
  • God does not hate, torture, or “punish” the damned
  • Hell is not the absence of God
  • God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28)—even for the damned
  • Instead: The same divine love that is bliss to the saints is painful to those who reject it.

The difference is not in God, but in the condition of the soul.

Analogy:

  • Sunlight is life-giving to healthy eyes
  • The same sunlight is agony to damaged eyes

The sun isn’t changing — the eyes are.

Orthodox writers (ancient and modern) repeatedly emphasize:

  • • The suffering of the damned is the soul’s own resistance
  • • It is not God torturing
  • • It is not retribution
  • • It is the interior anguish of a will bent against divine love

Traditional Protestant – Hell is the just punishment inflicted by God, eternally.

This is the classic Western view inherited from Augustine and the medieval church.

Key features:

  • Hell is punishment for sin
  • It is retributive (not just consequential)
  • The damned consciously experience torment forever
  • God’s justice requires eternal separation

This view is strongest among:

  • Conservative Reformed
  • Many Baptists
  • Many evangelical and Pentecostal groups

Annihilationism (growing minority) – Hell is permanent death, not eternal suffering.

Key features:

  • The soul is not inherently immortal
  • Eternal life is only for the saved
  • The wicked are destroyed (“perish”)
  • Hell is a final extinction after judgement

The C. S. Lewis hybrid

C. S. Lewis (especially in The Great Divorce) describes hell as a dim shadowy state where souls shrink, become less real and less substantial. For Lewis, Hell is a trajectory of dehumanisation. It is not annihilation, but an asymptotic slide toward non-being. God does not torture them. They become less human by their own choices.

His ideas are a personal/philosophical synthesis which has some resonances with Orthodoxy. Although not formally affirmed, some Orthodox thinkers, particularly of the mystical tradition such as Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa talk of the soul in hell becoming less human, less loving and less alive. Hell is a movement toward non-being, because evil is a privation (non-existence) but the soul never fully ceases to be.

It is not compatible with Catholic teaching which does not accept the possibility of an asymptotic slide toward non-being but rather that the soul remains an immortal being with full personal existence

The concept of ECT is terrible beyond imagination.

It is seemingly morally indefensible, contrary to the whole character of God who desires all to be saved even to the extent of going to the cross.

It is also pastorally problematic as it can lead to people being told that their loved ones are in a state of eternal conscious torment, whether described as separation, a slow decay into non-being or as hellfire, it is still torment..

And yet the majority of Christian traditions affirm it. Is it correct?

How the idea started is debated but one well-established view is that it started in the Late Second Temple (time of Jesus) where it appears in Apocalyptic literature and literature influenced by Persian dualistic influences (Zoroastrianism) and Hellenistic ideas about the immortal soul.

During the time of Jesus, some Jews believed in eternal punishment while others believed in annihilation or no afterlife. In particular, Josephus says the Pharisees believed that the righteous enjoy eternal reward, the wicked suffer eternal punishment and that souls are immortal

In the Early Church, ECT becomes the majority view within Christianity particularly from the time of St. Augustine, 354–430, who was heavily influenced by Platonist thought, such as the immortality of the soul, which would rule out annihilationism. Prior to that, the idea of ECT did exist but it was not the consensus or the majority view of the Church.

However, the Bible does not teach immortality of the soul and many Scriptures describe the fate of the wicked as “destruction”, “lost”, rather than a continued existence in torment.

  • “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek 18:4)
  • “Fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matt 10:28)
  • “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23)
  • “Eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9)
  • Chaff burned up (Matt 3:12)
  • Fire that consumes (Heb 10:27)

Without the external influence of Plato, Annihilationism would be the logical conclusion. Moreover, The Orthodox as well as C. S. Lewis would have no reason not to affirm that the slide to non-being wouldn’t continue to zero.

Take a look at the cross and we see a God who is willing to take the suffering and pain caused by human rebellion upon Himself rather than leave them to be lost, following their self-chosen destructive path. This speaks of a God who loves His created people as a parent loves his children and is prepared to give his life for them. It seems inconceivable that a God like that would inflict ECT on a child who refused His rescue.

Despite the majority view, my own view is with the small but growing minority of Christians who affirm annihilation of those who finally reject Jesus and His Kingdom.

Back to “What happens after Death”