[Article] Apprehending Apokatastasis: The Incoherence of Everlasting Perdition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mythicalbio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole point of it is the fact that God could make a universe where all humans freely choose to be with Him. If this is possible, why not do so? Having humans choose hell doesn’t create or strengthen free will. If God could not make that universe, then He isn’t omnipotent. If He can but didnt, then in His act of creation He willed evil eternally for a portion of mankind, and then is not omnibenevolent. Since either of this is obviously unacceptable, it seems to imply universalism, or that the solution is something up there with the Trinity, in terms of being a mystery. Free will doesn’t necessarily imply hell, or those who never did a mortal sin are somehow less free, or those who never did a venial sin.
 
Last edited:
I think there are some people that are so depraved that they would love the existence of Hell and sin more than they love being with God but i think they are few and far between. The only thing that is stopping me from believing that all are saved is the existence of people who genuinely enjoy evil but they are rare and i don’t think that there would be any people like that on this forum or at your average church.
 
Do you think the paradox is valid, and that it would imply one of those things? Thinking separately from the Bible.

Now, if universalism is true, it would mean concerning the statements of Jesus are: 1) warnings 2) referring to a temporary age (aeon vs eternal, which is a debate in translation) 3) referring to the strict way of salvation, so few are they who find it directly 4) the verses in the eschatological discourse are about judging nations not individuals, or the like solutions.

There are many debates on the interpretation of these verses, and it is not at all perspicuous, none of Scripture is. It only implies a rejection of the Bible if the Bible says what you think it does, and it is not clear that it does.
 
I think that a reform is due with how we approach the question of Hell and damnation, for too long i feel that priests have taught about how easy it is to take the low road and end up in Hell and that it is something that can be chosen suddenly just like that. I think that is too simplistic, Hell i think is only chosen after very careful deliberation and with such a hatred of the teachings of the church that the sinner actively desires to never repent, to be free from anything to do with God and religion, St Thomas Aquinas said this that i find relevant here: To sin with the intention of persevering in sin and through the hope of being pardoned, is presumptuous, and this does not diminish, but increases sin. To sin, however, with the hope of obtaining pardon some time, and with the intention of refraining from sin and of repenting of it, is not presumptuous, but diminishes sin, because this seems to indicate a will less hardened in sin.

What i think Aquinas is trying to say here is that only those who sin with the intention of never repenting are in danger of Hell while those who sin but with the hope of repenting can always be pardoned.
 
I really don’t believe that at all and don’t fancy believing it either! we are told all the time that we choose to go to Hell so surely the folks that end up there are not at all surprised when they hear their verdict?
 
I never think that was meant to be taken literally, it was merely illustrating the point that there are grave consequences for failing to do good in life.
 

From the article: But the Fifth Ecumenical Council did condemn Origen, right? Yes. His name is included in the list of heretics denounced in canon 11:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
The canon does not specify which of Origen’s teachings are condemned, nor do the acts record any discussion of them by the council fathers. Origen is simply included in a list of previously condemned heretics. This is where things get tricky. The others in the list were condemned by previous ecumenical councils and their heresies were well known; but those councils had never condemned Origen. Which teachings of Origen, therefore, did the bishops of the Fifth Council believe to be antithetical to the apostolic faith? We do not know—neither the canons nor the acts of the council tell us. This point needs to be stressed. We must not assume that because the council fathers condemned Origen by name they therefore intended to condemn his teaching on apokatastasis. The establishment of conciliar dogma requires more than guesswork and conjectural inference. F. Nutcombe Oxenham, 19th century Roman Catholic theologian and translator of Karl Josef von Hefele’s monumental A History of the Councils of the Church , succinctly states the historical problem and interpretive task:
Let me say to any who may consider it an important matter to be assured whether Origen was, or was not condemned, by some ancient Synod, two things—(1) That if it could be ever so conclusively proved that “Origen was condemned” by the Fifth Council, this would afford no evidence whatever that he was condemned on account of his doctrine of restitution, since he held a great many other doctrines much more open to blame than this one. And then (2) Supposing Origen’s doctrine of restitution had been “by itself condemned,” this would be no condemnation of the doctrine of restitution, as now held. e.g. by Mr. Jukes or by Dr Farrar [two 19th century exponents of universal savlation]; since their two doctrines of restitution are in many important points essentially different.
Click to expand...
In short, it is not condemned or clearly so.
 
No. These were addressed at the Catholic Church Counsels. Neither are all certainly saved nor is the Holy Trinity responsible for damnation through sin.
 
Last edited:
Mythicalbio said:
The above reasoning leads Hart to the conclusion that a pernicious incoherence lies deep within the theological tradition.
  • God freely created the cosmos ex nihilo .
  • God is the Good and wills only the good.
  • God will condemn a portion of his rational creatures to everlasting torment.
Two of these propositions may be rationally held without contradiction, argues Hart, but not all three simultaneously. If God wills hell, he cannot be genuinely good.
Click to expand...
Which ever way you look at it there is a necessary consequence to rejecting the eternal will to the good. To reject it is to ultimately stand outside the good, and if a person can possibly exists in such a state then it is a state that necessarily lacks of what is ultimately good which is the eternal unity with what is good and that is God.

The above argument only succeeds if hell is not ultimately a natural consequence of rejecting the good. Certainly if hell as a state of being does not have to exist but does anyway then it is nothing more than an artificial preference of God, and it would make sense therefore to say that God is directly willing the eternal suffering and torment of those who reject him; which would seem malicious precisely because it is not a necessary consequence of the good. But in reality the suffering and torment of hell is a natural and necessary consequence of rejecting an eternal union with God because of the natural incompatibility of sin and heaven or God and evil.

God eternally wills the good and the eternal union of all people with the good, and in doing so necessarily rejects evil forever and all those who oppose the good. This is justice, but it also a natural justice that is a necessary consequence of God’s nature which is love and not an artificial ideology that God has about what should happen to people who do not serve the lord. It’s not that might makes right and therefore hell, but rather it more the case that hell is a possible and natural outcome of the teleological ordering of things and God’s unbreakable will to what is good.
 
Last edited:
This is true but the point is that God could have made a world where no one ultimately rejects Him, as rejecting Him isn’t necessary for free will. If God could not make a world like that, then He isn’t omnipotent or didn’t make the world freely. If He could but didn’t, then by His free act of creation He willed the end results of damnation for many directly, so isn’t omnibenevolent. This is the question it is posing. So how do you resolve it? Remembering that a creatures will is finite, efficacious grace is infallible, and God has the power to save all if He so chooses. Hell might be a possible consequence, but it doesn’t have to actually occur for all doctrines concerning freedom to be maintained, or else those who never did even a venial sin are considered somehow less free humans (Mary, Jesus, some others if you accept that tradition).
 
Mythicalbio said:
This is true but the point is that God could have made a world where no one ultimately rejects Him
Click to expand...
Could he? If the ultimate Goal of the good is eternal union with God and we have the freedom to reject that eternal union, then some kind of hell or eternal separation is a very real possibility and is a natural and necessary consequence.
 
Last edited:
How does Hell become God? I’m intended. Am I God?

I don’t find the three propositions contradictory. The punishment of the wicked is the natural order of things and so is a good in itself.
 
It may be possible but it doesn’t have to happen, is the idea. If it does happen then He deliberately made the world so that it would, since He could very well make it a possibility but not a reality.

@Wesrock Becomes God in the sense of His eternal will. God has eternally willed that you exist, so in a sense, you are “part” of God, since you are definitely included in His will. His act of keeping you alive, giving you grace, etc, is something He willed directly in creating the world. You obviously aren’t literally part of God’s nature, but the plan for your existence is eternally in His will. Likewise,if God makes a universe where people to go hell, He has eternally planned that and intended it in the very fact of creating that universe. That is what is meant. This would have to mean that God fully intended to torment many beings in creating the world, unless there is another solution.
 
Mythicalbio said:
It may be possible but it doesn’t have to happen, is the idea. If it does happen then He deliberately made the world so that it would, since He could very well make it a possibility but not a reality.

@Wesrock Becomes God in the sense of His eternal will. God has eternally willed that you exist, so in a sense, you are “part” of God, since you are definitely included in His will. His act of keeping you alive, giving you grace, etc, is something He willed directly in creating the world. You obviously aren’t literally part of God’s nature, but the plan for your existence is eternally in His will. Likewise,if God makes a universe where people to go hell, He has eternally planned that and intended it in the very fact of creating that universe. That is what is meant. This would have to mean that God fully intended to torment many beings in creating the world, unless there is another solution.
Click to expand...
It means he fully intended the good of wickedness being punished.
 
Mythicalbio said:
It may be possible but it doesn’t have to happen, is the idea.
Click to expand...
If by that you mean we don’t have to reject an eternal union with the eternal good, then yes we don’t have to suffer hell. But if you mean that hell or an eternal separation from God is not a necessary consequence of rejecting an eternal union with the eternal good then you are in error. Hell necessarily follows from an eternal separation from God and it is impossible for it not to.

Hell is not something created. Hell is simply the condition or state of a person that has eternally separated from the good or God, and it happens necessarily. So the idea that God could have created a different world where hell does not occur for free-creatures is simply not possible.

The contradiction would be a world where hell was not the ultimate consequence of mortal sin. That would be incoherent.
 
Last edited:
I mean that no one has to enter that state, specifically in the sense that God doesn’t have to make a.world where anyone does. It is a natural consequence, but it doesn’t have to happen, if it does, why so? It means God made it where creatures world do so.
 
Last edited:
Mythicalbio said:
I mean that no one has to enter that state, specifically in the sense that God doesn’t have to make a.world where anyone does. It is a natural consequence, but it doesn’t have to happen, if it does, why so? It means God made it where creatures world do so.
Click to expand...
God made it possible through free will, that human and angelic creatures could attain the Beatific Vision. Catechism 1264 excerpt: "Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.“67” 2 Tim 2:5.
 
This is absolutely true, but if it is God who first wills and acts in everyone, wouldn’t they all obtain the crown eventually since He only wills good? No one wills good without God, at least salvific goods, so why doesn’t He just cause everyone to freely will and act their salvation, so that He can give it to them? Humans at least.
 
Last edited:
Mythicalbio said:
I mean that no one has to enter that state, specifically in the sense that God doesn’t have to make a.world where anyone does.
Click to expand...
While this is logically possible, it may not be feasible, since it depends on the free will of creatures. In our world, God’s greatest creature chose to oppose him. God could not logically know what Lucifer’s decision would be until Lucifer actually existed. Consider the probability was truly 50/50. As we know, Satan played a critical role in the Fall of Adam & Eve. The free will of God’s greatest creature has had an enormous impact on the rest of creation, but God does not change his mind, and he chose to create the world anyway. He sent a Redeemer to salvage as much of it as feasible.
 
Mythicalbio said:
No one wills good without God, at least salvific goods, so why doesn’t He just cause everyone to freely will and act their salvation, so that He can give it to them? Humans at least.
Click to expand...
This may not be feasible in every logically possible world. Our wills are not completely passive: that’s a condemned heresy; so whether sufficient grace is efficacious must involve some active cooperation by the human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top