Can an Eastern Orthodox believe in universal redemption, or that no one goes to hell?

[Magnanimity]

The idea in common Catholic understanding that someone can end up in hell via mortal sin that is not direct or conscious malice against God strikes me as odd.

Me too and not a little bit odd. But even in the case of “malice against God,” when one considers the Augustinian line (that God made us for himself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God), how does one exercise “malice” toward the one that you were made for? To exercise such malice would seem to require some defect, some fault, it would seem, which would entail that one is more “broken” than “culpable.”

But, like you say. I have plenty more to learn, and I’m by no means done letting St Thomas teach me.

 

[thistle]

Me too and not a little bit odd. But even in the case of “malice against God,” when one considers the Augustinian line (that God made us for himself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God), how does one exercise “malice” toward the one that you were made for? To exercise such malice would seem to require some defect, some fault, it would seem, which would entail that one is more “broken” than “culpable.”

But, like you say. I have plenty more to learn, and I’m by no means done letting St Thomas teach me.

I guess you ignored my post two up from this.

By committing a mortal sin (which is ALWAYS deliberate - you cannot commit a mortal sin by accident) by definition is a DIRECT rejection of God’s love.

 

[steve-b]

RealisticCatholic:

Do you think an eternal hell can at all be reconciled with a good God and human free will, and if so, what would those conditions be?

Hmm, such a good question! I’ll assume that by “eternity” we’re meaning “neverending” and “inescapable.” So, let’s see, did you ever read CS Lewis’ Great Divorce? I did a while ago, maybe 15+ years ago. In it (sorry to spoil) he envisions a sort of bus-line that would go to Hell upon death (or could be taken to heaven, if so desired). Which would make Hell “escapable.” Folks also like to quote Lewis as saying that the door to Hell is locked “from the inside,” by the prisoner. Very Rev Robert Barron describes the person in hell like the individual at a party but who doesn’t want to be there at all, so she’s slunk over in a corner, moping. This is in line with the “getting what you want” aspect that you mention above.

All of this imagery, I can wrap my mind around. I really can get that. But my main problem with it is that it seems like pretty much more of the same—more of the dysfunction that fills this present reality.

But considering a place of neverending torment/suffering from which there is no exit? That’s a very hard pill to swallow.

I’m not sure of a couple of things. First, how could God be said to love those in this place? To love another is to will and work for the good of the other, as other, so how is God loving a human in such a realm as Hell? God is holding that person in existence so that she may be tormented forever, and we all understand this to be love?!

All one ever hears in reply to this question is that God is honoring the choice of the human (as if that’s the greatest good—to honor another’s choice—even if that choice leads to one’s utter ruin in Hell and the complete thwarting of the possibility of beatitude). But perhaps more to the point, I’m thoroughly Thomistic in my understanding of God. God is simple. There is no potentiality within him whatsoever, so He is not standing by to see what my decision is going to be, and then He’ll send me to Hell. And I don’t mean foreknowledge, because choosing to send me to Hell on the basis of His foreknowledge of my free act is still a contingent decision on His part, which isn’t possible. He has no potentiality to actualize. He’s also impassible. He cannot be affected (e.g., “offended”) by my decisions, for or against Him.

Predestination is scriptural. Explained HERE

As for judging,.

John 5:22
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

And Jesus told us in multiple parables, how He will judge… He spoke of Hell and people going there, forever, more than anyone.

 

[steve-b]

Do you think an eternal hell can at all be reconciled at all with a good God and human free will, and if so, what would those conditions be?

I have much to learn, and I want to learn more about Aquinas’ thought.

But going off my gut and what I do know, I would say hell is possible, but only if someone made such a choice fully, freely, and without ignorance.

The idea in common Catholic understanding that someone can end up in hell via mortal sin that is not direct or conscious malice against God strikes me as odd.

Look at the following

Lk 13:23-28

In that explanation

Did those who were rejected want to enter heaven? Yes. Did they want condemnation? No
Why were they condemned? Their evil actions. Which is a judgement

Who does the judging?

John 5:22
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

 

[Magnanimity]

Predestination is scriptural. Explained HERE

Scriptural and Thomistic so it’s gotta be true!!

He spoke of Hell and people going there, forever,

And yet, many of the greatest saints and intellectuals of the church have disbelieved in a Hell, which is inescapable and neverending. :man_shrugging:t2: Not Hell per se, but this prison-concept of Hell that is advocated by the “forever” qualification.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

You could be a little more respectful, especially considering you don’t even seem to be paying close attention to what @Magnanimity and I are even saying, to begin with.

We know mortal sin’s definition.

What we are saying in the specific post you’re responding to is that it is hard to see how one could deserve hell from a mortal sin, even if deliberate sin that is not out of malice. According to common understanding, I can go commit a mortal sin like fornication, even without directly intending to insult God or obstruct my final end. Without full malice.

And it is where I would say that that person is never fully responsible, because he is never fully acknowledging all the adequate information to make a proper decision.

Do a thought experiment on your own and ask yourself if someone could commit a mortal sin in Heaven, and then consider what it is about our state on Earth now that allows us to. That may help you think about this whole thing from a different angle.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I think it could be argued that people who aren’t scandalized by the thought of eternal or everlasting torment and suffering are not actually considering what eternal or everlasting means. We’ve become numb to those words in abstract, theological conversation. But now ask someone to imagine it. To imagine living forever, but full of torment and suffering. Take the worst pain on Earth, which is usually mixed with some goodness and doesn’t last forever. But now take that pain and imagine in, unending, forever… without escape.

If that does’t scandalize someone, it should at least give us pause to be responsible and think through hell carefully.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Predestination is scriptural. Explained HERE

Scriptural and Thomistic so it’s gotta be true!!

Many people get it wrong however.

He spoke of Hell and people going there, forever,

Magnanimity:

And yet, many of the greatest saints and intellectuals of the church have disbelieved in a Hell, which is inescapable and neverending. :man_shrugging:t2: Not Hell per se, but this prison-concept of Hell that is advocated by the “forever” qualification.

The Church confirms hell is inescapable and never ending , because that’s what Jesus taught.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[Magnanimity]

people who aren’t scandalized by the thought of eternal or everlasting torment and suffering are not actually considering what eternal or everlasting means. We’ve become numb to those words in abstract, theological conversation. But now ask someone to imagine it.

I completely agree! And there is something a little bizarre in that folks always really think of “the others” as bound for hell, not themselves. Von Balthasar has a couple of really interesting points on this particular issue. First, he notes that Kierkegaard had just the opposite belief. That is, he was confident that “others” were bound for heaven. But, he thought hell was a more plausible destination for himself!

Also–and Bathasar devotes a whole chapter in his book on this one–St Paul has those amazing lines where he says “I would wish myself accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren.” As in, St Paul would sacrifice his own salvation (and end up accursed from Christ) so that “others” could be saved. Now that is the proper attitude of the Christian, and one which quite a few saints have held too. In fact, I believe that both Sts Theresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux could not bear that fact that they would end up in heaven if even one soul were in hell!! That is love. That is sacrifice. That is mercy. And that is what God and his saints are all about.

An attitude of “well, sucks to be you in hell, but at least I made it!” is flatly reprehensible. It is completely alien to the love of God in Christ.

 

[Usagi]

An attitude of “well, sucks to be you in hell, but at least I made it!” is flatly reprehensible. It is completely alien to the love of God in Christ.

Absolutely. But there is a considerable gap between belief that eternal damnation is possible (based on the data of Scripture and Tradition) and pleasure in the idea of anyone actually suffering that fate.

 

[Magnanimity]

pleasure in the idea of anyone actually suffering that fate.

I was trying to describe something possibly worse–an attitude of indifference. An attitude of genuinely not caring about lost souls. I’m not sure that such an attitude is even possible for a saint. John Henry Newman was absolutely tormented by the reality of hell.

No one gets left behind. We’re not stopping until hell is empty and its existence is no longer needed. I think that would be a proper attitude. I don’t know how a person could even sleep at night believing it to be possible that her child could be tormented and suffer forever. Who just accepts that reality? A sadist would. But who else?

 

[steve-b]

St Paul has those amazing lines where he says “I would wish myself accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren.” As in, St Paul would sacrifice his own salvation (and end up accursed from Christ ) so that “others” could be saved**…

Re: Rom 9:3

It doesn’t end there with his hypothetical statement

he finishes his thought HERE

Magnanimity:

In fact, I believe that both Sts Theresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux could not bear that fact that they would end up in heaven if even one soul were in hell!! That is love. That is sacrifice. That is mercy. And that is what God and his saints are all about.

Can you give an actual reference , properly referenced, where those saints had that view.

Thanks in advance

OOPS I corrected Rm 9:3 to the correct link

 

[Magnanimity]

Re: Rom 9:3

It doesn’t end there with his hypothetical statement

he finishes his thought HERE

You didn’t read quite far enough, I’m afraid. St Paul considers this entire Jewish thought-experiment all the way through the end of chapter 11. And he has this particularly nice verse in which he says “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) as the culmination of Romans 9-11. “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Rom 11:32)

And “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,” isn’t a hypothetical. It’s a disposition. It’s his character. It’s who St Paul is. He, unlike most of us, would truly consider having himself be cut off to save some. That’s amazing love.

Can you give an actual reference , properly referenced, where those saints had that view.

Will do later tonight. But just so we don’t miss the forest for the trees, I reiterate that an attitude of indifference…an attitude of genuinely not caring about lost souls is reprehensible and alien to the love of God. St Paul has just the opposite view.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: Rom 9:3

It doesn’t end there with his hypothetical statement

he finishes his thought HERE

You didn’t read quite far enough, I’m afraid. St Paul considers this entire Jewish thought-experiment all the way through the end of chapter 11. And he has this particularly nice verse in which he says "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26) as the culmination of Romans 9-11. "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." (Rom 11:32)

And “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,” isn’t a hypothetical. It’s a disposition. It’s his character. It’s who St Paul is. He, unlike most of us, would truly consider having himself be cut off to save some. That’s amazing love.

Q: why didn’t you open this link? HERE

And

To your point,

If they are all saved,

1. Why did Paul give up on his people in favor of going to the gentiles?
2. why is Paul even evangelizing them if they are going to be saved anyway?
3. why would he even hypothesize giving up his own salvation for the sake of his brothers if they are going to be saved anyway? If that is the case, That then Seems like he makes an empty comment

AND

Why would Jesus give the following order to His apostles, ?

Matt 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Why are the sheep of the house of Israel,…LOST according to Jesus?

Can you give an actual reference , properly referenced, where those saints had that view.

Magnanimity:

Will do later tonight. But just so we don’t miss the forest for the trees, I reiterate that an attitude of indifference…an attitude of genuinely not caring about lost souls is reprehensible and alien to the love of God. St Paul has just the opposite view.

Who are you accusing of that?

All the passages I quoted, is my name on any of them? No. ARE the consequences I quoted coming from me? No

Everything I quoted came from the Church and scripture.

 

[Magnanimity]

Can you give an actual reference , properly referenced, where those saints had that view.

Per your request, quotes from some of the fiercest hearts alive in God’s love:

“This is what makes me so sad for all the souls who have fallen into disgrace. I want to help them return. Especially those who have been baptized and are already lovers of Christ. I would willingly suffer a thousand deaths if it meant I could set even one such soul free from such terrible torture.

This vision also makes me wish that we would all do everything in our power to avoid this outcome for ourselves. Let us neglect nothing. And may it be the Lord’s will to give us the grace to serve him in all ways.” (Theresa of Avila, The Book of My Life, XXXII)

“How could I ever reconcile myself, Lord, to the prospect that a single one of those whom, like me, you have created in yοur image and likeness should become lost and slip from your hands? No, in absolutely no case do I want to see a single one of my brethren meet with ruin, not a single one of those who, through their like birth, are one with me by nature and by grace. I want them all to be wrested from the grasp of the ancient enemy, so that they all become yours to the honor and greater glorification of your name.
If only your truth and your justice were to reveal themselves, then I would desire that there no longer be a hell, or at least that no soul would go there. If I could remain united with you in love while, at the same time, placing myself before the entrance to hell and blocking it off in such a way that no one could enter again, then that would be the greatest of joys for me, for all those whom I love would then be saved.” Dialogues of Catherine of Siena

Yeah, these saints totally got it. Amazing love.

 

[Magnanimity]

Q: why didn’t you open this link? HERE

I believe that Romans, chapters 9-11 (as I stated is an entire and complete thought) answers all your questions regarding St Paul and Israel. Give all three chapters a read for the entire context.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@Magnanimity

I may not know the answer to this issue, and I’m still struggling. But it is worth noting that theological giants have not neglected this same kind of problem.

I just scanned over my book Introduction to Christianity by Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger), and he hints at the belief of some that only a kind of creature like an angel could really definitively choose an eternal hell. Now, what he says after doesn’t really strongly address how to answer why a human can go to hell.

But the point is, this question is not new. And I think there are people smarter than me who explain it better.

For another example, even a lay theologian like Peter Kreeft gets the issue. In his book Angels and Demons as well as his book Everything You Wanted to Know about Heaven, he addresses why anyone would sin and choose hell — because it is folly to do so! And he said indeed it is, which is why he doesn’t agree with Plato that evil is merely do to ignorance. Again, it goes back to pride.

So the point is, at least for me, I’m not thinking of anything new. Other Catholic thinkers out there have addressed this in some way or another. And I’m sure Aquinas knew the predicament too. Which is why I need to find out more.

 

[thistle]

I can go commit a mortal sin like fornication, even without directly intending to insult God or obstruct my final end. Without full malice.

This is where you are wrong. Committing a mortal sin is a deliberate act and by definition is a direct rejection of God’s love. Such an act is one of malice and with intent to insult God.

 

[Usagi]

Of course, we all want all souls to end up in Heaven. So does God. What we don’t know or control is what those other souls will end up wanting.

Even those saints you quote, though, are taking that attitude in the belief that Hell is a real possibility. If everyone is going to be saved no matter what we do, there is no need for such love and concern.

 

[Magnanimity]

then Cardinal Ratzinger), and he hints at the belief of some that only a kind of creature like an angel could really definitively choose an eternal hell.

Yes, in Von Balthasar’s book Dare We Hope he mentions Ratzinger on a number of occasions, not as one that explicitly advocates universalism, but as one whose theology is certainly friendly to it.

Plato that evil is merely do to ignorance. Again, it goes back to pride.

Yeah, the Platonic line “to know the good is to do the good,” probably does have a fair amount of truth to it. But, as you suspect (and I agree) it cannot be the whole story—mere ignorance.

And I’m sure Aquinas knew the predicament too. Which is why I need to find out more.

Well, I’m with you in this. I’ve been highly interested in this issue for a couple of years now. If you come across anything particularly relevant, please bring it up! And I’ll do the same.