“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.”This description is the framework by which C.S. Lewis views hell, and those who are in it. He does not view one’s fate as being determined by a prayer, or by good things done on earth, but by the ability for one to fully surrender oneself to the will of God. For Lewis, hell is not a place that people are sent to by God, but it is a place where people willingly choose to be. He believes in a metaphorical view of hell, where one’s afterlife is determined not by God, but by one’s own character. This metaphorical view of hell reconciles passages that are contradicting under other views of hell, and provides resolutions to many objections concerning the doctrine of hell. In making his argument, Lewis raises five main objections to the traditional view of hell, and his solutions to these objections are what form his view of hell.
In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis states that he believes hell is a positive retributive punishment inflicted upon by God. While he believes the punishment comes from God, he believes that the people receiving the punishment in hell are there by their own choice. His metaphorical view of hell sees hell as a place of eternal separation from God. He writes that people are saved by their choice to fully submit to the will of God, which involves the letting go of their sin in favor of choosing God. People are in hell not because they never said a prayer, or did not do enough good things on earth, but they are there because of their inability to give up their sin. They are there by their own choice, and this view is established through his five objections.
II. Objection 1
C.S. Lewis’ first main objection is centered on the idea that God should not punish anyone, and that there should be no hell. Many people do not believe that anyone could be sinful enough to warrant eternal punishment. In his objection to this, Lewis describes a man full of lust and greed who treats people poorly and yet this man has no guilt for any of his actions. He believes that in his success he has found the answer to the meaning of life, and that he has gotten the best of God and of everyone else. Lewis writes that the notion that God should forgive a man like this while he remains engrossed in his sin is based on confusion between the terms condoning and forgiving. If God were to allow this man into heaven, then God would be condoning his sin, not forgiving his sin. “Forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete,” Lewis writes, “and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.” For people to enter heaven we must accept God’s forgiveness, but people like the man Lewis describes, feel they have no need for forgiveness, so they would be unable to accept the free gift from God. It is people like this who deserve punishment. Some people become so caught up in their own sin that they do not even realize they are doing wrong.
III. Objection 2
Lewis’ second objection to the problem of hell focuses on the problem of eternal punishment for temporal sin. The traditional view of hell paints a picture of those not saved being thrown into the lake of fire for everlasting punishment. Many people view this as immoral, which makes them object to the doctrine of hell as a whole. Lewis also does not believe that it is moral for God to punish someone infinitely for sins they committed during their short time on earth, but he provides an alternative. Any sin that people could commit on earth would not be enough to warrant such a harsh punishment. Lewis believes we need to view time as a line, which is effective because events happen in order and two different times cannot happen at once. He says the beginning of time is on one end of the line, and the end of time is on the other, and humans exist somewhere in the middle. Because our time on earth is so small in compared with eternity, we only make up a very small portion of the line. Lewis states that when we sin, we damage our portion of the line, but that is all the damage we can do because we are only around for a small time, and effect only a small portion of the line. He then questions why God would punish someone for eternity, the length of the whole line, for damaging only his or her small portion of the line.
One possible solution to this problem would be an annihilationist view of hell, stating that people are only punished in hell based on the severity of their sin, and when their punishment is over, they will cease to exist. But there is Biblical evidence for hell being eternal, and that those in hell will be in hell forever, as shown in Revelation 14, and Mathew 25. To reconcile this, Lewis states that human sin must not be temporal, and that it must continue after death. For sin to continue after death, those in hell must continue to sin while in hell.
According to Lewis, for people to be able to sin in hell, they must have the option to not sin while in hell. This brings about the possibility of people having a second chance after death, meaning that theoretically someone who did not follow God while on earth, could accept a second chance and choose to follow God after death, and spend eternity in heaven rather than hell. The necessity of having this second chance theory is brought about by the contradiction of God punishing people eternally for sins committed in their finite life. If God punished people eternally for temporal sin, that seems to be unjust and out of character, because eternal conscious punishment is too harsh of a penalty for sins committed in one’s short time on earth. It would be much more logical if God were to punish someone eternally if they choose to sin eternally. By envisioning the way to make God’s eternal punishment just, Lewis opens the door for people to have a second chance at salvation after death. Here Lewis is more focused on the continuation of sin after death, the fact that this opens up the opportunity for a second chance is secondary to Lewis’ argument.
The question that arises out of Lewis’ second chance theory is the question of how many chances one gets at salvation after death. Theoretically, if people are given enough chances after death, everyone could end up in heaven. This contradicts the passages from the Bible that state that there will be people in hell forever. Lewis believes that God will keep giving people chances until they reach the point where one more chance will not make any difference. He writes, ”I believe that if a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given.” He goes on to say that at some point God giving more chances would be pointless, and that God knows for everyone when enough will be enough. He does not believe that many people will take the second chance after death. If people were damned to hell by God, then it would make sense for everyone to want to be out of hell. But since people are in hell by their own choice, Lewis believes that they will remain in hell by their own choice.
In The Great Divorce,C.S. Lewis tells a story of what he believes hell to be like. In the story, people in hell go on a bus to visit heaven, and while in heaven he introduces the reader to many characters who do not want anything to do with heaven. The book starts out with Lewis describing hell. He describes it as feeling very empty because over time people have fought with one another and now live millions of miles away from each other. Hell has most of the things that are in earth today, such as theaters, malls and restaurants. When the people of hell get to heaven they do not like anything about it. In heaven, they are like ghosts, which says as much about the complete otherness of heaven as it does the people of hell. The ghosts of hell are weightless, and everything in heaven is painful to touch, it even hurts them to walk on the grass. This shows how difficult it will be for one to be in heaven, and that it will take a lot of transformation and one must be willing to give up everything for it.
Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis tells stories of many people from hell who actually prefer hell to heaven for many different reasons. The first person introduced is a man who finds out that there is a murderer in heaven. He becomes very angry because he cannot understand why God would let a murderer in, and keep him out. He thought he lived a good life and deserved to be in heaven, while the murderer deserved to be in hell. He could not accept the free gift of salvation from God, he wanted to earn it himself, and this kept him out of heaven. Another person introduced is a famous painter from earth. While in heaven all he can think about is painting the beauty he sees in heaven. He is so caught up in wanting to paint, that he cannot enjoy simply being in heaven. The next person introduced is a woman whose husband has died and is in heaven. She is a very controlling person, and she wants to find her husband because she thinks that he will be in trouble without her. All she can think about is controlling her husband again, and she has no desire to give up control, which is what it would take for her to remain in heaven. In every case in The Great Divorce, the people of hell are not only people that are traditionally thought of as being in hell, such as murderers, rapists, atheists and those of other religions. While Lewis would say that hell does contain those kinds of people, they are not what he focuses on here. His focus is on the very kind people who do good things, but are unable to fully surrender their will in favor of God’s.
In this objection, Lewis deals with the traditional view of hell is that hell is a place of everlasting punishment for the wicked. In this view, the people in hell are there because God sent them to hell as punishment for their sins on earth. The people do not have any opportunity to get out of hell; they are there to be punished forever. In The Problem of Pain Lewis makes an objection to this view based on his belief that it would not be moral for God to send people to hell eternally as punishment for their sins committed in their relatively short time on earth. His alternative view is that it would make more sense if death was not final, and that people could continue to sin after death. It is much more just for God to punish people eternally for eternal sin rather than temporal sin. This solution opens the possibility for a “second chance” after death. For people to be able to sin eternally, they must have the option to not sin, but Lewis does not give very much hope for people to accept salvation after death. In The Great Divorce Lewis argues that most people in hell will be too caught up in their sinful desires that they cannot willfully surrender to the will of God.
IV. Objection 3
C.S. Lewis’ next objection to the traditional view of hell is centered on the, “Frightful intensity of the pains of hell as suggested by medieval art and, indeed, by certain passages in Scripture.” Lewis writes that the traditional view of hell believes hell to be a place of intense torture, but he does not believe that this is the case. He acknowledges that this view of hell as being a place of intense torture does have Biblical evidence in Revelation 20 where John writes that the Devil and all those that he deceived will be thrown into the lake of fire where they will be tormented eternally. Lewis cites Von Hugel in cautioning people, “not to confuse the doctrine [of hell] itself with the imagery by which it may be conveyed.” He believes that people have become too enamored with what they believe hell to be like, that they have separated it from the doctrine of hell entirely. Traditionally people tend to focus too much on how hell is a lake of fire where people will be tormented forever, that they lose track of the doctrine of hell and therefore do not spend time studying what Jesus actually taught about the very purpose of hell because they are too caught up in what they believe to be the very nature of hell; it being a lake of fire for eternal torment.
In attempt to study the very nature of hell, Lewis cites the three different symbols that Jesus uses to describe hell. Jesus speaks of hell as being “punishment,” “destruction,” and “banishment into the darkness outside.” Lewis writes that the image of fire is very significant because it combines the ideas of torment and destruction, as in the idea that fire can be used to both torment and destroy something, or someone. He contends that all three of these descriptions of hell by Jesus were intended to convey something completely terrible, and that whatever interpretation anyone can come to will most likely not be awful enough to describe the nature of hell. The problem with the traditional view of hell is that it is contradicted by some of Jesus’ descriptions of it. If hell is seen as a lake of fire for eternal torment, that can definitely be described as being “punishment,” for one way of punishing someone could realistically be throwing them into a lake of fire for eternal torment, but it cannot be described by the other two symbols as easily. Speaking of hell as a lake of fire for eternal torment does not go as well with the symbol of “destruction” because while one may be able to be destroyed by fire, the traditional view of hell sees the fire and punishment to be everlasting, therefore it would not be possible for someone to be destroyed by the fires of hell because the torment lasts forever. Finally, “banishment into the darkness” is not a good symbol to describe a lake of fire for eternal torment because a lake of fire is a concrete place that one must be sent to, not a place of banishment. If hell is understood as being a lake of fire for eternal torment, Jesus only supports that view of hell in one of his three descriptions of it.
Lewis does not believe that for our view of hell it is fair to take only one of the three symbols Jesus uses to speak of hell, in this case that of it being “punishment.” He believes that we must consider that all three terms are equally proper symbols. We must understand that if Jesus only wanted to describe hell as being “punishment,” then that would be the only word he would use when describing it. Because he used three symbols, he must have had more in mind than hell simply being “punishment.” He suggests that “destruction” is a symbol that accommodates the other two symbols as well. He writes that the destruction of one thing means the creation of another, such as how if someone were to burn a log the result would be gas, heat and ash. The characteristic that gas, heat and ash all share is that they are in the state of having been a log. By using the word “destruction” to describe hell, Jesus is implying that there are human souls who will be destroyed. “If souls can be destroyed,” Lewis asks, “must there not be a state of having been a human soul?” This state, the state actually ceasing to become a human soul is what Lewis believes happens to those in hell, and this state can be equally described by the symbols of “punishment,” “destruction,” and “banishment.” According to Lewis, people who cannot surrender their will to God will be banished away from God into the darkness. When they are banished, they will gradually cease to become human souls, become weightless and like ghosts, and all this happens as punishment from God for their sin.
On the other side, Lewis believes that to enter heaven is to “become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth,” and to enter hell is to be completely “banished from humanity.” God creates humans with a purpose of how they we were meant to live. Then the fall happened, by us refusing to surrender their own will in favor of God’s. This separated us from God, therefore making us unable to live they way that we were created to live. Then God sent Jesus to, in part, show us the way that we were created to live, and died so that humans could have the opportunity to be with God for eternity. According to Lewis, humans were created to be human, and this is what those who enter heaven will finally become. This is where Lewis gets the idea that in hell people cease to become human. If in heaven, when people are united with God they become fully human, then those who are separated from God will gradually cease to become human altogether.
As described in The Great Divorce, the people in hell are there by their inability to give up their sin and surrender themselves to God. The people that Lewis describes are so twisted that they have the option to be in heaven, but because it would require total surrender, they want nothing to do with heaven. Like most everyone, the people of hell want to be happy. The difference with them is that they only want to be happy under their own terms. God created humans to live a certain way, and this way is best characterized by the ability of one to say to God, “your will be done.” Those in hell do not trust God to make them happy, and they are too caught up in saying “my will be done.” Lewis describes the people of hell as having the desire to bring hell into heaven. It is not enough for them to live alone in their sin, they want everyone to be caught up in their sin along with them. They live in a way that they do not want anyone else to be happy or to have any joy at all. For reasons like this Lewis states, “There may be truth in the saying that ‘hell is hell, not from its own point of view, but from the heavenly point of view.” Those in hell do not realize how twisted and un-human they are becoming by their constant rebellion to God. Only those in heaven, who can look at hell from the outside can truly realize how lost those in hell have become. It takes one who truly knows the right way to understand how wrong the wrong way really is.
In this objection, C.S. Lewis argues that hell can best be described by the word “destruction,” for destruction is a symbol that reconciles Jesus’ other descriptions of hell as being “punishment,” and “banishment.” This “destruction” that happens to those in hell is literally the destruction of human souls. Not so much as literally making human souls into nothing, but the idea that those in hell gradually cease to become human. Their desire continue holding onto their sin drives them further and further away from God, and further and further away from the way that they were created to be.
V. Objection 4
The fourth objection Lewis makes is on the idea that no one could feel happy and blessed in heaven while knowing that there are humans suffering in hell, and if they could feel happy and blessed knowing this, would that make us more merciful than God? Lewis believes that this thought comes from the idea of heaven and hell co-existing in the same way that two countries, such as England and America co-exist. Under this view of co-existence, one could say that the horrors of hell are going on right this minute, but Lewis does not believe that to be the case. He points out that while Jesus spent time describing the horrors of hell, he usually emphasized the finality of hell. When Jesus speaks of sending people to hell, it is always at the end of his teachings. For example, at the end of the parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22, Jesus describes a man at the banquet who does not have on the right garment, so he is cast out and banished into the darkness. Jesus uses this “casting out into the darkness” as the end of his parable, not the beginning of a new one.
Lewis writes that we know a lot more about heaven than we do hell. In John 14 Jesus speaks of going to heaven to prepare a place for his followers. “Heaven is the home of humanity,” Lewis writes, “and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is ‘the darkness outside’, the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.” Since hell was not a place made for anyone, like heaven was, then the very nature of the two places is different. In this way, those in heaven will not view those in hell as co-existing the way someone in England would view someone in America. In The Great Divorce, Lewis does speak of heaven and hell co-existing in some sense, but those in heaven can still feel joy even though they know there are people in heaven. This comes from the idea that those in hell are there by their own choice, and works the same way that people in hell view those in heaven. Lewis believes that people in hell have the desire to bring hell into heaven, and to have those in heaven choose sin like they are choosing. In the same way, those in heaven will have the desire for people in hell to surrender their will and choose Gods. It would be one thing if the people of hell were under intense torture and wanted to be in heaven, but because the people of heaven and the people of hell both want others to join them, the people of heaven will still be able to feel happy and blessed while there are people in hell. The people in heaven will be happy, blessed, and filled with joy for they are finally able to life they way they were created to be, and the fact that there are people who do not want to live this way will not make that joy any less.
VI. Objection 5
The final objection Lewis makes is on the statement that the loss of a single soul to hell means that God cannot be omnipotent. The idea is that God could not be all-powerful if there are people in hell, because if God were all-powerful then he would have the power to make everyone go to heaven. Lewis does not look at it like this. He believes that the greatest feat that God has ever accomplished is that of creating beings who are capable of resisting their creator. In this sense, God would be all powerful if he created beings that could not resist him, and that everyone would end up in heaven. But Lewis believes that it is far more powerful for God to create beings that have the ability to resist him. He writes that those in hell are so successful at resisting him that the doors of heaven are locked from the inside. He believes that the ghosts of hell may wish to come out of hell, but they “certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through with alone the soul can reach any good.” The fact that God could create people who are capable of such rebellion to him, makes him even more omnipotent than if he had not created them with this freedom to rebel.
VII. Other Views of Hell
In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis deals with his own objections to the traditional view of hell as well as confronting objections that others have of the doctrine of hell as a whole. His views and theory of what hell comes out through his objections. Lewis’ view of hell is very strong based on the fact that his view clears up many basic contradictions that arise in other views of hell, even though he does not deal with them directly.
The traditional view of hell most commonly believes that one needs to follow God in their life on earth, and accept God’s forgiveness to enter into heaven. Those who do not follow God will be sent to hell for eternal punishment in a lake of fire. The contradiction to this view is mainly theological, and only Biblical to the extent that what we know about God’s character comes from the Bible. The contradiction is the question of, under this view what happens to those who have not heard about Jesus, or have heard incorrectly i.e. a man’s family is killed by Christians, so that causes him to reject Christ? The traditional view would state that since these people did not follow God while on earth, they will be sent to hell. If this were true, then God would have created millions and millions of people over time just to send them to hell for something they have never heard about. This does not seem to align with God’s character, for we know God to be a loving God who loves and wants the best for people. Yet under this view, it would be better for God never to have created these people at all, if in the end he is going to punish them for something they have never heard of.
Lewis’ view of hell states that for God’s punishment to be eternal and just, the sin of the people in hell must be eternal as well. Because of this, he states that death must not be final and that people will have a second chance to choose to follow God after death. Based on the people presented in The Great Divorce, Lewis does not give very much hope for people to turn to God after death. But because this option is available, it reconciles the problem of those who have not heard about Jesus, and those who have heard wrongly about him. If God gives people to option to surrender themselves to his will even after death, then this gives the people who have never heard about God hope for they will have the same opportunity to spend eternity in heaven as everyone else does.
An annihilationist and a universal view of hell ultimately both believe different things, but they have one main thing in common. Annihilationist’s believe that no one will be in hell eternally, that after being punished for their sins, the people of hell will cease to exist. Universalist’s believe that one way or another, everyone will end up in heaven, and that no one will be in hell forever. While they are different, both views believe that there will not be anyone eternally punished in hell. Lewis does not address these views directly, but he would point to the texts in Revelation 20, Matthew 25 and others throughout scripture that specifically say that the people in hell will be punished forever. Some of Lewis’ arguments have no Biblical basis, such as his belief that people will have an opportunity to choose God after death, but his reasoning behind these arguments is both Biblical and theological to the extent that they are necessary to reconcile the character of God with the some of the texts and beliefs that are contradictory.
Throughout The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis addresses many objections that people have of the doctrine of hell, and reconciles the objections to form a doctrine of hell that is consistent with the character of God. In the end, he summarizes his argument in one way, “What are you asking God to do?” he asks, “to wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary.” Here, to those who believe that God should be more forgiving towards people, Lewis says that God has already done everything he can do for us to have an opportunity of salvation for our sins. Lewis does not believe it takes a prayer, or a certain amount of good works to enter heaven, but the ability to voluntarily surrender oneself to the will of God. Those who are unable to do this will be banished to the darkness outside that is, hell. Lewis believes that there is opportunity for people in hell to turn to God even after death, but he does not give much hope for this. He writes that those in hell will gradually move further and further away from God, becoming less and less human, and moving toward “the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.” Based on his view, those who choose to give up their lives and follow God, will become fully human once they reach heaven, and will finally be able to live in the way they were created to be. Those who are unable to give up their lives and follow God effectively choose to follow their own will and choose to not be human.