Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To hell with freedom

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. John Hick, in hisPhilosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1983), concludes his discussion of what he calls “The Augustinian Theodicy” with the comment that hell “… would render impossible any solution to the problem of evil, for it would build both the sinfulness of the damned and the nonmoral evil of the pains and sufferings into the permanent structure of the universe” (p. 45). And in hisDeath and Eternal Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976) he claims that unlike pre-20th century days when “theology was exempt from moral criticism and the theologian could with good conscience attribute to God an unappeasable vindictiveness and insatiable cruelty … today theological ideas are subject to an ethical and rational criticism” (p. 200). Charles Hartshorne, inOmnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: SUNY Press, 1984), a veritable catechism of fallacies, gives us even less rationale for rejecting the idea of hell (see pp. 97–99). Hans Kung, inEternal Life (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1984) claims that the eternal punishment of hell “remains subject to God and His will” (p. 42), for no punishment, even freely gained, can be “definitive” if God is all-good, all-merciful and almighty (p. 137).

    Google Scholar 

  2. St. Augustine,The City of God BK XXI, Chapter XXIII, cited in Oates,Basic Writings of St. Augustine (New York: Random House, 1948), p. 593.

    Google Scholar 

  3. This is how I think Dante'sInferno needs to be interpreted and this view is nicely presented in C.S. Lewis'The Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Although some contemporary theists would deny this doctrine e.g. James Ross in hisPhilosophical Theology (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), most who develop the freewill defense take this position.

    Google Scholar 

  5. This position is defended in the paper “Omnimpotence and Concurrence” by Zeis and Jacobs in theInternational Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 14: 17–23 (1983).

  6. St. Thomas Aquinas, I.II q.87 a.3 ad 1.

  7. See n. 1 above.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erie Community College, State University of New York, New York, USA

    John Zeis

Authors
  1. John Zeis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zeis, J. To hell with freedom. SOPH 25, 41–48 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02789848

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02789848

Keywords

Search

Navigation