The greatest show in eternity is going to be one hell of an act, theologians have told us throughout history. Tertullian was the first to say so:
What there excites my admiration? what my derision? Which sight gives me joy? which rouses me to exultation?—as I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation; governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name, in fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they raged against the followers of Christ. What world’s wise men besides, the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had no concern in aught that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more “dissolute” in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. “This,” I shall say, “this is that carpenter’s or hireling’s son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!” What quæstor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these? And yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.
Read through it a few times. Soak it in. According to Tertullian, his admiration, his derision, his joy at the sight, and his exultation, will be roused by the visible sight of those who did not believe in Jesus, groaning, living in consuming flames, tossing in flaming billows. He looked forward to hearing those who took part in plays, although with much louder voices as they scream because of their torture in hell. He longed to fix his gaze on those who were actors as they suffer in agony before his eyes. Surely, he marvels, no human priest or quæstor (a Roman official governing financial affairs) can provide you with any favour as great as watching and enjoying all this! But God will. It’s a pity that we can’t see it now, but, Tertullian encourages us, as we look around even now at those who are still alive and reject Christ, we can imagine all this happening to them. By faith, thank God, we can picture it right now.
Thomas Aquinas shares this belief:
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned … So that they may be urged the more to praise God … The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens … to the damned.
Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, “Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned,” First Article
Like Tertullian before him, Aquinas was no less clear that watching the suffering of the lost will bring us great happiness.
Protestants can’t wipe their hands here. Isaac Watts put his famous hymn writing skills to work thus: “What bliss will fill the ransomed souls, when they in glory dwell, to see the sinner as he rolls, in quenchless flames of hell.” Jonathan Edwards agreed: “The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.” – [“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739] Just in case there was any doubt about watching your own children being tortured in fire forever might not fill you with pleasure and joy, Jonathan Edwards assures you: It will.
But modern believers in eternal torment wouldn’t endorse this, would they? Would they actually endorse a theology of hell in which we sit and watch millions of people, including our lost children and friends, actually being tortured in fire – and would they agree that we will gain happiness and pleasure from the sight? In fact they so just that. In the book Two Views of Hell, Robert Peterson defends his view of hell by, among other things, pointing out that some of the most famous theologians in church history have held it. On that list are Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas and Jonathan Edwards. Far from complaining about their view, he names them and aligns himself with their views.
Feel free to abandon the traditional, mainstream historical Christian view if you like – or hold it, heck, don’t let me tell you what to think or anything. But let’s all be honest about whether or not we really hold it the traditional Christian view, OK?
Regards,
Your friendly neighbourhood annihilationist
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- Loftus on eternal torture
- Jonathan Edwards Comes to the Aid of Annihilationism
- "I believe because it is absurd" – Was Tertullian a fideist?
- Episode 005: It’s one Hell of an episode!
- Ssshhhh, don't say the M word!
- Belief-O-matic!
Tags: hell
they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned … So that they may be urged the more to praise God …
said Aquinas, but that does not imply happiness at another’s misery in any way whatsoever.
The suffering of the damned occurs because of a refusal to praise God; they suffer for the knowledge of their rejection and yet cannot reject their own sins.
This is like treating the word “fear” as in “fear of God” as a negative instead of the positive sense the word is meant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them” – does it strike you that this is about obtaining greater happiness?
I’m not using words in any negative way. Happiness is a positive word, and Aquinas believed that the saints would get more of it, and also that they would give thanks to God for this happiness, on account of witnessing the torture of the lost in hell.
Aquinas was surely aware of what Tertullian said, and it’s hard not to see him echoing his sentiment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s worth pointing out that Isaac Watts, later in life, apparently came to an annihilationist understanding in hell. I think Fudge mentions this briefly in his book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t aware of that Dave, I must look that up. I did read about Spurgeon changing his mind though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a Fatima understanding of Hell.
In other words, on this side of Heaven, we must do all in our power to help people not end up in Hell. But, knowing that God is good, and that those who end up in Hell do so through their own choice, but that God mitigates their suffering, I have no problem with the idea that I (if I get there, and I pray that I do) will understand fully the justice and the mercy of God in allowing Hell to exist. Until that time, I will continue to try and help people avoid the choice to go to Hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So Lucia, does that mean that you don’t now share Tertullian’s hope for the pure exultation and joy of watching people suffering in flames? Or does it mean that you do, but would rather describe it in other ways?
I really want believers in the traditional doctrine of eternal torment to lay their cards on the table with this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that Hell is the separation from God – the damned may not even know they are in hell, may not even know what they have been denied, or rather perhaps have denied themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, I’m suggesting that some-one else’s suffering is not the thing directly making the saints happier, but rather, their understanding of their place in heaven, as revealed by understanding the sinners place in hell. There is a subtle difference I think.
One could watch the act of some-one deny God, and the subsequent suffering caused by that act, and then be enlightened (and made happy) by the understanding of what they have gained by understanding God and God’s mercy. How could they then blame God for some-one else’s suffering caused by that person’s rejection of God? Why should that understanding not cause happiness, as distinct from having delight at seeing suffering?
Also, in the case of purgatory, one understands suffering as a purging experience. Again, something the sufferers rejoice in because they know it is the process that allows them to finally approach God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Zen, the trouble is, do you really thinkt hat all that is what the theologians that I have quoted are actually saying? They surely could easily have said that. Read through Tertullian’s ;urid details. It really sounds to me like he thought that he would delight in watching the suffering of the damned in the flames of hell.
What’s more, I hardly think that a wonderful place like the eternal presence of God really needs a ghoulish reminder that things could have turned out worse!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s more, I hardly think that a wonderful place like the eternal presence of God really needs a ghoulish reminder that things could have turned out worse!
Exactly, so you are misunderstanding (misinterpreting) the motives of Aquinas, which I think I have explained reasonably well.
I haven’t read enough of Tertullian to comment.
do you really think that all that is what the theologians that I have quoted are actually saying?
What do you mean “that is all they are saying”? What I think they are saying is therefore quite profound rather than the more mundane assumption that a saint would delight in viewing the torment of others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly? I continue to take issue with what Aquinas said, and you say exactly? OK, so exactly, I continue, for the same reasons, to think that Aquinas’s position is wrong.
What I meant is – do you really think that the theologians are limiting their claims about any positive feelings the saints will receive to a mental appreciation fo what they have in heaven? If that really is what they meant, then why did they not merit say so? Tertullian, for example, has a drawn out and ghastly way of stating short simple facts if you are correct.
I see the position you’re explaining as one that is a little embarrassd by what theologians have actually said, and tries to tone it down. But even saying that, the position you’re trying to reduce these theologians’ position to is hardly (morally) plausible: It’s as though God entertains them with the sight of the most horrific tortures imaginable for eternity so that they can look, anjoy and be filled with happiness at the sight on the grounds that “we’re safe, at least. Isn’t God kind?” That you have to make a position sound tamer by making it sound like that should set alarm bells ringing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Glenn,
When you mentioned Spurgeon my eye-balls were nearly dislocated with surprise!
Can you please point me to the source that affirms Spurgeon’s change of mind.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Man of Spin, I’ll get back to you within the next couple of days with a source. In brief, Spurgeon stated expressly that he no longer took issue with the doctrine of conditional immortality (the common name at that time for annihilationism).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
Perhaps both Aquinas and Tertullian forgot that many who thought they would be in heaven will be the ones burning in hell and the ones who never figured they were serving the Lord will be in heaven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
Thanks for posting this! I was in a Christian Chat room several days ago and was appalled when I saw one of the Christians telling one of the Atheists how he looked forward to watching him burn and squirm in Hell, knowing full well how he deserved to suffer for rejecting Christ.
This idea has always shocked me. Even when I adhered to the “traditional Christian view” of Hell. I couldn’t grasp why Christians would delight in watching men suffer. And I couldn’t grasp why–in the great, glorious presence of our King–we would have any inclination to think towards those who denied Him?!
Would we rejoice if those people suffering torment in Hell before our very eyes were our loved ones? Our children? Can one honestly hold to this notion of delighting in the torture of souls in Hell, while simultaneously holding the view that God will wipe every tear from his eye?
I can’t buy it.
Pax Christi!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
I do not share Tertullian’s view. However, I do not condemn his view either. He was converted by seeing the suffering of Christians as they were ripped apart in the arena, and was therefore alive at a time where it was physically dangerous to be Christian. Therefore, his point of view deserves more than just dismissal if it’s not understood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What does “unending torment” even *mean* in the context of eternity?
What does annihilation even *mean* in the context of eternity?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?”
Why not? God can cease upholding it. Surely God can destroy anything he has created if he chooses to, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Why not? God can cease upholding it. Surely God can destroy anything he has created if he chooses to, right?”
Can he? Assuming that he can does not address, much less answer, the question.
God *is* Truth; God cannot contradict himself. (If God could and did contradict himself, then he and all other things would cease to exist).
There is a difference, is there not, between “upholding” the passing existence of mere things, mere passing conglomerations of atoms and molecules, and “upholding” the existence of persons?
If God says, “Kristian Joensen exists,” how can he also say, “Kristian Joensen exists not?” Is not the very statement, all by itself (even without considering the first), a self-contradiction?
So, again, I ask, “Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia, your comment suggests that you think I am not correctly representing Tertullian. Is that right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ilion: In the context of eternity, eternal torment means torment that never ends. Int he context of eternity, annihilation means coming to an end and not enduring for eternity.
Lastly, yes, that which God brings into existence can cease to exist. Is there a reason to suppose otherwise?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just weighing in to affirm that I do indeed hold to the traditional view of Hell.
I won’t be debating this here, but you can e-mail me if you want to talk about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wintery, do you share the stance of Tertullian on Aquinas as noted in the blog post? Calling your view the traditional one gives the impression that you do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
Not quite right.
I think you don’t understand how he could think the way he does, therefore you don’t think too kindly of him for his apparent glee at the suffering of the damned.
Yet, if you were to consider it, if God allows it, shouldn’t it be right and proper that the damned do suffer, and given that those who are in Heaven understand more than we do here in the Church Militant, maybe the whole thing makes sense? I don’t know, I’m not anywhere near being able to totally understand it, but I won’t write it off just because it offends my sensibilities.
What I love about my Faith is the Mystery, it just gets better and better. Apparent contradictions and all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia, at least we do in fact agree on what tertullian said! I don’t think it will do to call his glee “apparent.” He seemed rather certain about it.
I suppose in the end I have to simply leave it to the reader to decide which has more going for it: We will rightly take delight and find a cause for joy in watching people be burned alive forever, or else something other than the doctrine of eternal torment is true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Man of Spin, here’s a source on Spurgeon.
Leroy Edwin Froom, in The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers vol. 2 p. 797 quotes Spurgeon stating: “I have no quarrel with the conditional immortality doctrine.”
The quote is taken from a pamphlet by Avary H. Forbes called “The Last Enemy” from 1936, but I cannot for the life of me obtain a copy. I do note, however, that Graham Scroggie, a member of Spurgeon’s congregation, embraced annihilationism too, so Spurgeon’s influence may have been at work there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t imagine being happy about such suffering and prior to now have never heard of even the implication of rejoicing over such.
But whatever…
In any case, Isaiah does address the subject in the context of the news heavens and the new earth.
Isaiah 66:22-24
“22 For as the new heavens and the new earth which I make shall remain before Me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain.
23 And it shall be that from one New Moon to another New Moon and from one Sabbath to another Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before Me, says the Lord.
24 And they shall go forth and gaze upon the dead bodies of the [rebellious] men who have stepped over against Me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mike,
Your objection has been addressed numerous times. What is described in Isaiah is a pile of corpses (that is what the Hebrew word means, no getting around it) burning and being devoured by a skolex, which is a type of worm that eats dead flesh.
And, the sight is an “abhorrence” to mankind. This is hardly the same as saying it’s a cause for celebration.
Regarding Ilion’s comment, it amuses me when theologians come up with flashy philosophical arguments that supposedly demonstrate how annihilationism is an absurdity.
God can say “Kristian Johansen exists not” if He destroys Kristian Johansen. It’s not really that complex.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Objection?
I wasn’t objecting to anything. Just trying to mention something I thought related that I didn’t see in previous comments. Sorry if was old hat to you. I had never heard of anyone rejoicing in this context before.
And I certainly did not and do not advocate celebrating anything of the sort. If you read what I wrote I said just the opposite.
Why so touchy?
Like is so often the case on these stupid blogs attempts at comments is just not worth the trouble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mike,
There was no intended “touchiness” in my response to your comments. There is no hostility in the words, mere argumentation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
I was going to ask you where you stood on this subject, guessing that the concept of eternal torment disturbs you so much that you choose not to believe it. So, I looked up annihilationist and found this from Wikipedia:
Are you in the camp that doesn’t believe in Hell at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia: “I was going to ask you where you stood on this subject, guessing that the concept of eternal torment disturbs you so much that you choose not to believe it.”
Then you’d be completely wrong. The statement on motive is wrong, and with respect, inappropriate, perhaps even morally so. I think you are also expressing a very strange view of epistemology where people can literally decide what to believe.
Once I became aware that the Bible does not teach the dotrine of eternal torment and that it teaches annihilationism instead, my views on Scripture led me to embrace that view.
“Are you in the camp that doesn’t believe in Hell at all?”
No. What I have is a theology of hell, not a denial of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People deciding what to believe is very common today. Not really knowing where you were coming from on this one, and being aware that the belief of one Protestant is quite often very different from the belief of another, I needed to ask the question. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone if you don’t know where they stand, and the impression I get from your post and your comments is that you really don’t like the idea of those in Heaven gaining any sort of joy in the suffering of those in Hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Lucia, rest assured: Your analysis of my motives was not correct. I did not reject the doctrine of eternal torment because it disturbs me, and it’s generally better to ask than to assume that this is the case.
And I daresay that literally deciding to believe something and then do it is not usually how it works. Conditioning yourself to beliefs takes time.
The point of this specific blog entry was to show people who affirm the “traditional” view because fo the rhetorical power that comes with claiming to be on the side of the majority that in fact they do not stand with tradition at all.
As for my actual motives for rejecting the doctrine of eternal torment, I do so because I become convinced that the Bible teaches annihilationism more clearly than it teaches many other true things (like the virgin birth or the ascension of Christ). I detail this view in a three part podcast series. Part one is here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn said: “I see the position you’re explaining as one that is a little embarrassed by what theologians have actually said, and tries to tone it down. “
Not at all. I get a different understanding of Aquinas, from what Aquinas has said in totality (ie his definition of Hell, his definition of happiness and then finally, his comment here in that context.
I will answer this far more completely when I have a bit more time to put into it.
I also note I have not commented on anything about Tertullian because I haven’t read enough of him to offer an opinion, so my embarrassment if it existed would be confined to what Aquinas has said, not “theologians”.
But even saying that, the position you’re trying to reduce these theologians’ position to is hardly (morally) plausible: It’s as though God entertains them with the sight of the most horrific tortures imaginable for eternity so that they can look, anjoy and be filled with happiness at the sight on the grounds that “we’re safe, at least. Isn’t God kind?”
That’s NOT what I have said at all, and I think you have failed to understand my argument completely if this is the case.
I will again consider the example of “fear” and how that word may be understood in the context of God:
Firstly, many people (notably atheists selectively quoting the bible, wonder why people fall in fear at the sight of God, and suggest that a God of love would not be a God of fear.
Imagine a child who has deliberately disobeyed the instruction of his father. They approach in fear over their guilt and shame in the transgression they fully understand is their fault, and their fault alone.
They are paradoxically greeted with love and forgiveness, as usual, and yet they still approached in fear. Who caused that fear? The parent, or the child?
I’ll continue my argument later when I have some time, but perhaps recognition (or disagreement if you will) of this first point would be useful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Zentiger, you think I have misunderstood you “completely” if I say that you are talking about how we will gain joy because of the good that we have by observing the maximum torture received by others.
You did say “Glenn, I’m suggesting that some-one else’s suffering is not the thing directly making the saints happier, but rather, their understanding of their place in heaven, as revealed by understanding the sinners place in hell.”
You seem to be wanting to talk, not about the hapiness and pleasure that oberving torture might (or might not) give, but rather about fear.
You say that you’re going to continue an argument, but what yopu’ve given me is a question. You ask who causes the fear int eh case of the child. My answer is that the father and the child cause that fear. I do not see how this is going to connect to the question of how much (if any) happiness and enjoyment watching the torments of hell will bring, but I guess I’ll find out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It connects because your definition of “happiness” is not how St Thomas used (defined) the word; just as some people think the concept of “fear of God” is about God deliberately putting fear into people, rather than people becoming fearful of God when they understand how their sin is a rejection of God, and an act against his will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, well I have told you who causes the fear: the child and the father.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FWIW, I just blogged on this very topic (www.ablogogetics.blogspot.com).
I find common versions of hell unbiblical and hillbilly theology. Yet, it is difficult to deny, biblically, that hell is both conscious and eternal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Yet, it is difficult to deny, biblically, that hell is both conscious and eternal.”
I find it pretty easy actually.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, ok, I’ll listen to the podcast! I normally don’t, as I read much faster than I listen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, so far, the argument on immortality is interesting, but not enough to convince me. It would be useful to have that argument written somewhere, as I keep forgetting what it actually is. I thought that there could be a problem with a good definition of immortality and eternal life, and found this.
Looks like I’m going to have to get this book!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s the Amazon link. Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life.
According to the review, it’s internationally recognised as the leading text on last things – heaven and hell, purgatory and judgment, death and the immortality of the soul.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia Maria,
If you are interested in studying the subject of “hell” in the bible I suggest you get hold of a copy of Edward W. Fudge’s book: “The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment”. If you are in NZ, you may be able to purchase a copy from http://www.afterlife.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia, no disrespect intended, as I understand that what is written by Ratzinger will be held in high esteem largely because of who he is, but I’m not even aware of this text in spite of my keen interest in scholarship int his area. It might be good, but it’s unlikely to be the leading text, let alone internationally recognised as being such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
I understand that no disrespect is intended. We do tend to stick to our own faith communities in regards to the scholarship that is out there.
Have you considered that not only is what Ratzinger held in high esteem because of who he is, but that he became who he is because of what he’s written? His deep understanding of our Faith? His book Jesus of Nazareth certainly shows that.
From what it says at Amazon, this book is the result of 20 years of research. It may answer all the criticisms you have of the traditional view of Hell. It certainly looks like it will to me. I’ll read it and find out anyway, since, according to the review, it is the apologetics book to read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia Maria,
If George Nathan’s review on Amazon is anything to go by, Ratzinger’s book is based on ideas that have evolved over time; i.e. extra-biblical revelation. According to the review, Ratzinger appears to believe that heaven and hell are not real places. In other words, one is at liberty to invent ones own ideas about their beliefs. I prefer to base mine on the written inspired word of God as revealed in the Bible. It doesn’t matter how many years study you put in, if you look in the wrong places, you won’t find the answer. Take a risk, get a copy of Edward Fudge’s book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ilíon: “What does “unending torment” even *mean* in the context of eternity? What does annihilation even *mean* in the context of eternity?”
Glenn Peoples: “Ilion: In the context of eternity, eternal torment means torment that never ends. Int he context of eternity, annihilation means coming to an end and not enduring for eternity.”
This says nothing, really, to address the questions I asked; it conflates time-bound existence for eternal (timeless) existence.
‘Eternity’ does not mean “a really, really, really, really, really long time,” it refers to a state of timeless existence; so, to speak of duration in the context of eternity is to speak non-sense.
Time is an aspect of God’s creation; God created time as he created space and matter — God is not “in” time; there is no yesterday nor tomorrow for God.
Ilíon: “Can that which God calls into being even cease to exist?”
Glenn Peoples: “Lastly, yes, that which God brings into existence can cease to exist. Is there a reason to suppose otherwise?”
Well! You’ve certainly made an assertion; haven’t addressed the question, though. In my response to Kristian Joensen, I’ve given a good reason to suspect that the assertion — and supposition — you are making may not actually be true. I’ve shown that it *is* a supposition, not a conclusion.
And, rather than examine the supposition to see if it can be supported as a conclusion, you merely reassert it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lucia Maria: “I think you don’t understand how he could think the way he does, therefore you don’t think too kindly of him for his apparent glee at the suffering of the damned.
.
Yet, if you were to consider it, if God allows it, shouldn’t it be right and proper that the damned do suffer, and given that those who are in Heaven understand more than we do here in the Church Militant, maybe the whole thing makes sense? …”
The example I’m using is USA-specific. But then, I’m an American, so my experiences and knowledge will naturally be centered on life in America.
Everyone knows that O J Simpson murdered two persons — and got away with it. That is, he got away with respect to human attempts at justice; whether he’s “right with God” is a different matter. And, to make matters worse, the way he got away with it — his lawyers turned his trial for murder into a trial of America for some nebulous “racism” — really sticks in the craw.
No sane person, no moral person, can rejoice as the verdict of Mr Simpson’s murder trial, for the verdict was unjust to the two murdered persons, and to all of society, and it was a lie. Had he been convicted and sentenced for the crime which everyone knows he did, then sane and moral persons woud have rejoiced, for justice and truth had been upheld.
Similarly, there is not discongruity between the redeemed rejoicing in the damnation of the damned. All deserve damnation; all are offered escape from damnation; some refuse the offer of escape from damnation.
God offers us all mercy in place of justice; some spurn the mercy, and so must have justice. Will not sane and moral persons rejoice that all person shall get what they choose?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0