Eternal Punishment or Universal Salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter romano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate what you are saying, Romano, but here is what the Church teaches:
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” **
1034** Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616
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."617 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.
“…If he will not hear the Church, treat him as a heathen and a publican…”

Even if you have difficulty, please believe the Church. In time, God will lead you to the truth. Please, Lord Jesus, let that truth be found in this world, and not the next.
RyanL
 
**In Catholic Answers library there is an excellent article on the subject of Hell that begins as follows:
**

**The Hell There Is!

“The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons—all have rejected or modified the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer a serious threat. In recent decades, this decay has even invaded mainstream Evangelicalism, and a number of major Evangelical figures have advocated the view that there is no eternal hell—the wicked will simply be annihilated…”**

**If you are really interested in an official Catholic answer to the question of Hell’s existance – I suggest you read the article in its entirety. Its an easy, informative read and can be found at: catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp
**

Love & peace in Christ,

**Bob
**
 
Grace & Peace!

Romano, I often ask myself the same questions. I’d like to share my thoughts, if I may. Perhaps they’re similar to yours? And perhaps, by God’s grace, we will help each other understand God’s Mystery of love in Christ.

I will confess, from the outset, that I have trouble with the concept of hell, trouble with the idea of an All-Loving God damning anyone for any sort of eternity to any kind of hell. But God is one, and God’s Love must therefore be one with God’s Justice–indeed, God’s Love is God’s Justice. And this is a great and holy mystery. God is not duplicitous, loving some and damning others–God loves all people equally, sending his blessing on righteous and wicked alike.

GRACE IS A NEVER-ENDING FLOOD
There is a Chinese Proverb that states, “If a plum falls from heaven, open your mouth.” The grace and blessing of God is constantly showered upon us, but if we do not turn to receive it, we will not receive it. God will not force us to receive his gifts. It therefore seems to me that whether one experiences God as Wrath or as Love has much to do with the individual experiencing God. Jacob Boehme’s image of the fall of Satan sees Satan as able to look on the Flame of God, the Fire and Light in God. Satan, however, coveted the Fire, but did not want the Light, and experienced this Light-less Fire as Wrath in consequence. Of course, Fire here is Power, Justice, Judgment and Light is Love. Charles Williams writes of the Devil in his novel “A War in Heaven,” that all destruction is but his destroying of himself. I think this is highly illuminating.

HELL IS NO PLACE
In short, I think that Hell is no “place” to which one goes, but a state of being. I do not think that Hell is necessarily separation from God, as if God is in another room of the house and those in hell can’t get there. If anyone is in Hell, and if any one in Hell can be said to have any sort of being, then this being is from God and, if reflected upon, could lead one back to God (but perhaps the inability to reflect in this way is part of what makes Hell Hell). Keep in mind also the Psalmist’s words that God is even in the Pit. Hell must therefore be, it seems to me, the self-conscious, willing destruction of one’s own being in spite of, and within reach of the bliss of God’s Love. It is self-willed self-destruction, much as Gottle wrote above, I think.

SIN AND HELL
And the reason for it is as Gottle pointed out above–sin is disordered self-love. The Fathers discussed the human being as comprised of body, soul, and spirit. The highest part of the soul is the intellect, not to be confused with mere thought, with mentation. The intellect is more commonly referred to as the heart. If the heart is turned toward the spirit of God in the person, it is joined with the spirit, becomes spirit, and brings the body into that blissful communion as well. If the heart turns toward the body, it becomes body, and falls away from the spirit, falling in to the flesh. Here we have two opposing principles: Spirit and Flesh, in which, let us be clear, Flesh is not the corporeal body, but the complex of passions and unruly desires, of egotism, into which the heart/soul can fall. In the East, this distinction may be disucussed in terms of Self and ego.

SELF AND EGO
The Self is the presence of God in us–it is what we truly are by grace in Christ. The ego is our pettiness, our sinful nature. When Adam and Eve were tempted in the garden, they were told that they would be as gods–and sin therefore is the removal of the Self from the throne of the heart and its replacement with the aggrandized ego, the replacement of the Divine Will with the human will and the beginning of the satsifaction of the human will to power which is, in essence, antichrist. This power, however, is false because it is intrinsically linked with non-being.

CONTINUED…
 
…CONTINUED

EGO AND THE FALL
Let’s go back a second. In the act of creation, because what is created is necessarily subordinate to that which creates it, part of the being of the created thing contains within it a latent imperfection–that is, we are necessarily less perfect than the All-Perfect One who made us. Insofar as we remain in union with the Perfect One, we are made perfect and this imperfection in our nature is merely latent–our perfection becomes supernaturally natural to us (in the words of theologian Jean Borella). But in the act of taking ourselves as objects of our own worship, in the act of turning from God, this imperfection opens out into an abyss of unbeing, of sin, into which we fall. That abyss is hell, and it is inside of us by virtue of this latent imperfection. And it is this abyess which is ego. It is this abyss which is set on the throne of the heart when we sin. And it is this abyss that Christ measured, limited, and sealed up in his incarnation, death, and resurrection.

THE NATURE OF HELL
Hell is, therefore, the choice to live in the abyss–which is the choice to not be what God created us to be. Which is the choice to destroy all that God has given us, including our own being. It is a state of being in which the Love of God is experienced as Wrath. To paraphrase Williams again, All destruction is but our destroying of ourselves.

REMAINING QUESTIONS: UNIVERSAL RESTORATION?
This, for me, is the nature of hell. But it brings up some questions I’m sure you’ve considered. If one retains one’s being in hell, is it possible for one to get out of hell? That is, given that one’s being is a mirror of God’s Being, would it be possible that, by reflecting on one’s own being, even in the midst of hell, one could attain a vision of God and be rescued from hell? This is a difficult question.

Peter in Acts 3 preached “Repent therefore and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” I hope for this universal restoration of which Peter speaks. And if the souls in hell are not included in this restoration, I do not see how it could be universal. There must therefore be some hope for the damned–though they themselves would not know it, or may even be incapable of knowing it.

Granted, some of Origen’s teachings were condemned many hundreds of years after his death, but he was one of the most original and daring Christian thinkers of his time. It was Origen’s belief that God’s patience being infinite, he could wait, being perfect love, for the eventual turning of the hearts of all sinners to him. That is, God would not force anyone to come to him, but God would wait and could wait until all people did. I am quite fond of this understanding of the loving patience of God, that God’s love would eventually convince all sinners that their true home is in him. Becuase this love is insistent. Because it is unfailing. Because it does not rest until the lost lamb is found and brought back into the fold.

There are times when I think, given the symbolism of Baptism–water and fire–that the fire that will consume the universe at the last day is not a destructive fire, but a cleansing one. That God himself will baptist the universe with his Spirit. Perhaps it is such that those who have identified themselves with the abyss, when the abyss is destroyed (or evaporates–the abyss is actually insubstantial–that is, it has no share in Reality, like evil–of which it is an image–that has no share in Being), will finally be able to see God. Perhaps these people will be destroyed with the abyss and will get their destructive wish granted. I do not know. I do know that all evidence indicates that Hell is not eternal as God is eternal–I believe that the eternity of hell lies in the quality of its suffering, not in its duration. After all, even Death will die, and has already been conquered by Christ.

CONTINUED…
 
…CONTINUED

CHRISTIAN DUTY
In the meantime. I think it is well within Christian charity, as these things remain mysteries, to pray that none are in hell, that none fall into hell, and that all people be brought to the Life, Light, Love, Unity, and Peace of God.

AQUINAS
Re: Aquinas, I find his Aristotelianism, insofar as it became popular, a subtle cause of the nominalism that has led to modernism and the undermining of the neo-platonic spirit of the Church Fathers. He fails, I think, to make a proper distinction between Principle and Manifestation. Regarding the rejoicing of the righteous at the suffering of the damned, I think the idea repugnant–not the idea that the righteous would rejoice in the doings of the justice of God, but the leap made from that to rejoicing in the suffering of the damned is a leap that leaves the compassion of the saints in the dust and makes heaven out to be the abode of callous and sadistic moralists. From the point of view of Principle, there is no Hell, there is no Heaven, there is no Purgatory, there is only Being–it is at this level when we have, by grace, been brought through Christ by the Spirit into the bosom of the Father, that God is truly All in All. And there is no Hell in the bosom of the Father.

I hope some of these ramblings may be helpful. May God correct me where I have gone astray!

–Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
trailblazer said:
RAMANO: At times many of of have and will struggle with teachings of Christ via the Church. It is tempting to say, I know better and everyone else is wrong. Yet, such is what Satan would urge. At such times, wouldn’t it be best to admit to Divine Mystery and accept that when it comes to teachings on faith or morality, the Church is our safeguard and stronghold to keep us from the grasp of Satan.
If I understand correctly, you are rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church in favor of a few INDIVIDUAL thoughts from 2 people, one who lived 600 years ago and has never been beatified. In other words, if the teaching does not suit you, its wrong and you are right? This sounds like power and ego talking rather than humility and obedience. You should examine yourself carefully. I will say a prayer for you.

Love & peace in Christ,
Bob

FWIW, she is quite often referred to as “Blessed Julian of Norwich” in various books of Saints. As is Richard Rolle, against whom no such objection can be brought. She might well have been canonised, had it always been possible for the normal business of such processes to continue. Due to a little local trouble in the 1550s, it wasn’t.​

I have a lot of sympathy for the “merciful view”
  • I disagree with it, both because it brims with difficulties, and because I cannot see how eternal punishment is in any way a reproach to the fact that God is Love.
People find it morally atrocious - and that is a good sign: it is a difficulty for such people, because it seems to wrong God by suggesting that He is an ogre or a tyrant or a sadist. Our trouble on earth, is to reconcile two things which seem to be opposed to each other.

IMO, part of the problem is a failure noted by Father Faber 150 years ago - a failure to realise that we are creatures, and that God is our Creator. Faber’s books show he was no sadist - he has been blamed for presenting too happy a vision of Christianity. He talks of hardly anything but the Love of God - “All For Jesus” is about nothing else. Sin, penance, Purgatory, the Cross, Death, Hell, are all reasons for him to admire God’s Love & mercy and compassion. For he was in no doubt that there is a Hell; and that we can damn ourselves.

And another great failure or blind-spot, is that we have so poor an idea of the gravity of sin.

(One has to hope that no lurkers who are liable to scruples see any of this - it would be too awful if they were to suffer harm.) ##
 
The Church honors Julian of Norwich with the title Blessed. While Juliana of Norwich was a profound mystic, I have found some of her thoughts to be in conflict with Church teaching tradition…of course, that is only my opinion and I am far from an authority.
 
Deo Volente (Mark)
I was very moved by your post(s). I found it very profound.It seems to me to be truth and from a Catholic perspective. Thank-you and God Bless.
 
Dear romano,

quote:
…I can now appreciate why St Thomas Aquinas, after a lifetime spent struggling to express ideas similar to those of some on this thread, dismissed his own entire lifework as “chaff” and refused to write another word.
Absolutely accurate.
St Thomas Aquinas spent his whole life struggling to make Christianity, an Eastern religion, fit into the procrustean bed of Western (Aristotelian) thought.
“Procrustean bed.” Exactly. I’ve been saying the
same thing for at least 20 years, even employing
the same term.

When Aristotelian thought came in the front door,
biblical, Eastern thought went out the back door.
In trying to jam the faith into philosophical
categories and a Roman legal framework,
[ie. Roman Empire] tremendous damage was
done, that has affected the faith for 800 years.

The Scripture, that spoke to the whole human
being, was replaced by anaemic, deadening
philosophical terminology, coupled with it’s
equally anaemic cousin, canon law.

[Aristotle is *the philosopher, to me.]

I have embraced Judaic thought. Still, I maintain
the views, re Aquinas, expressed above.

And you’re right, romano. In the end, all manner
of things shall be well.

reen12
 
40.png
rubycanoe:
Deo Volente (Mark)
I was very moved by your post(s). I found it very profound.It seems to me to be truth and from a Catholic perspective. Thank-you and God Bless.

I’ll second that 🙂 (with some reservations about the last paragraph :))​

 
40.png
romano:
Hi All:

Here is a prayer that, when praying the rosary, is optionally tacked on by many after each Glory Be:

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy.

Now then, to pray that Jesus “lead all souls to heaven” surely implies that, in some mysterious way that we cannot understand, Jesus has the ability to do just that. In fact, to deny him this ability becomes blasphemy since it is to insult the majesty of God “with whom all things are possible.”.

The others will speak for themselves, should they see fit - I’ve always assumed that it was a prayer only for the living: not for those who are no longer in this world. If we reject God in this life and die in that rejection, then that is that. We cannot help the damned (should there be any) by our prayers - any there may be, are self-exiled from the friendship of Christ. One is damned not because God is not inexhaustibly compassionate & Almighty, but because one does not want Him. What is the good in being given free will, if our choices, even for evil, are not to draw their consequences after them ?​

If this prayer is evidence of prayer for God’s mercy leading to Heaven - it is also a petition that we may be saved frim the fires of Hell.

There are many things God cannot do - He cannot be false, He cannot be unrighteous, He cannot approve evil, He cannot sin, He cannot forgive the impenitent, He cannot lie. ##
Why pray that Jesus lead all souls to heaven if there is no way he could do this? Your “justice” is a human justice and is not that of God.

Is it not equally possible that the POV being argued for is “a human [mercy] and is not that of God” ? God is merciful - that is not in the least doubtful. But He is also Holy and Righteous, and “of purer eyes than to behold evil”.​

(That’s Habakkuk 1.13, BTW - who was not a Father, nor a theologian, but a Easterner: and an Easterner whose words are found in the Bible as Holy Writ.) Is the God of all Holiness any less implacably opposed to evil and sin, & is He less righteous and terrible, than as described in the OT or NT ?

The Book of Revelation has these passages:

Rev 1:12 …I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,

Rev 1:13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast;

Rev 1:14 his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire,

Rev 1:15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters;

Rev 1:16 in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,

Rev 1:18 and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades…​

…continue…]
 
…continued & ended]

Rev 6:12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood,

Rev 6:13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale;

Rev 6:14 the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Rev 6:15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong, and every one, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains,

Rev 6:16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;

Rev 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand before it?"

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.

The third angel poured his bowl into the rivers and the fountains of water, and they became blood.

Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of water say, "Just art thou in these thy judgments, thou who art and wast, O Holy One.

Rev 16:6 For men have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink. It is their due!"

Rev 16:7 And I heard the altar cry, “Yea, Lord God the Almighty, true and just are thy judgments!”

God is praised for his judgements upon the wicked, and rightly - I hope St. John will not be called a “sadist”. 😦 It is entirely possible to abominate one’s own wickednesses, and to believe that they richly deserve damnation; and to be glad that God is too merciful to overlook them. ##
God’s justice is very different, as is made clear in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-15. You should read it. Here is a comment on it from Fr Hilarion Alfeyev’s ‘The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian’, p. 296. ISBN 08790775X:

"A place in the kingdom of heaven is given to a person, not on the basis of his worthiness or unworthiness, but on the basis of God’s mercy and love for humankind. The kingdom of heaven is not a reward, and gehenna [which will have an end] is not a requital: both are gifts of a merciful God ‘who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’" [1 Tim 2:4]

And you would actually assert that God cannot save all men?

Can God avert the events of 1517 ? Perhaps - but to do so might well make nonsense of the choices men made then - and since. We live within time & space, even though God does not. We make choices - including choosing to sin. If we become hardened and die - how can we be saved ? If we can be saved after death, why don’t we forget about Christ in this world, sin, and be saved in the next ? Why did the martyrs die for Christ when they could’ve have had a good time as apostates, and been forgiven after death ?​

IMHO, this doctrine is immoral. 😦 - unless, of course, I’ve missed something; which is quite possible ##
The parable of the laborers in the vineyard tells us that, from God’s point-of-view, work, whether large or small, is work and that all workers deserve equal recompense no matter how much work they may or may not have done. Similarly, sin is sin, and all deserve equal recompense.

This must mean that, since we are all sinners, we are all destined for hell. Or it must mean that God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, willl lead all souls to heaven, though it will take longer for the wicked to get there since they will have to undergo the dreadful detour of gehenna.

Why need that parable mean either 🙂 ? If it must mean both - it may mean neither. There are other possibilities. FWIW, I’ve never heard of either those interpretations until I read that post. IMO, it doesn’t refer to eschatology at all - I think it may be about the call of the Jews and Gentiles.​

What I agree with entirely, is that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a reward: it is the exercise of the Kingship of JHWH - so how *could *it be a reward ? ##
 
Dear Friends in Christ:

Thank you for your interesting and informative responses, and for your concern and prayers, but I’m still not altogether convinced by your arguments. Christ tells us that we should love our enemies, but to wish them in hell, as some on this thread seem to, shows a strange sort of love. Hell has got to be so horrific that it becomes a place (or state) that one wouldn’t wish on one’s worst enemy.

God wishes all men to be saved, but the notion that one must repent before death runs into a serious problem, the problem of exactly when ‘death’ may be said to occur. Even doctors can have trouble determining this. Who is to say what happens in the moments following one’s apparent death and one’s actual death?

If God wishes to save all, perhaps there is a brief moment, following one’s apparent death, when the yet unrepentant are, through God’s infinite mercy, shown their own soul?

The Desert Father Poemen once said: “The wickedness of men is hidden behind their backs.” But if, during that brief instant when one is still hovering between life and definitive death, God were to turn the unrepentant around and allow them a glimpse of the soiled and ravaged state of the beauty He originally endowed them with, surely even the most hardened sinner would be led to repent?

As a Catholic one isn’t of course allowed to embrace, as an article of faith, a belief in universal salvation. But I see nothing wrong in hoping for it, and, given the above, I wouldn’t care to assert its impossibility. In fact, and as I have already pointed out, such an assertion would seem to be tantamount to blasphemy.
 
40.png
romano:
Dear Friends in Christ:

Thank you for your interesting and informative responses, and for your concern and prayers, but I’m still not altogether convinced by your arguments. Christ tells us that we should love our enemies, but to wish them in hell, as some on this thread seem to, shows a strange sort of love. Hell has got to be so horrific that it becomes a place (or state) that one wouldn’t wish on one’s worst enemy.

To wish them in Hell would be immoral, obviously​

God wishes all men to be saved, but the notion that one must repent before death runs into a serious problem, the problem of exactly when ‘death’ may be said to occur. Even doctors can have trouble determining this. Who is to say what happens in the moments following one’s apparent death and one’s actual death?

If God wishes to save all, perhaps there is a brief moment, following one’s apparent death, when the yet unrepentant are, through God’s infinite mercy, shown their own soul?

That sounds likely enough - death is when God thinks it is; not when we do. Except for this: we must repent before death - whenever, or however, that may be.​

The Desert Father Poemen once said: “The wickedness of men is hidden behind their backs.” But if, during that brief instant when one is still hovering between life and definitive death, God were to turn the unrepentant around and allow them a glimpse of the soiled and ravaged state of the beauty He originally endowed them with, surely even the most hardened sinner would be led to repent?

That, is between God and the individual - it’s not the business of anyone else.​

If our responses to God in this world are anything to go by, there’s no reason to assume that knowledge of self as seen by God must necessarily lead to repentance. The encounter with God in this life can lead to hatred as well as to love. And the ways of a man’s heart are fully open only to God, in life and in death. ##
As a Catholic one isn’t of course allowed to embrace, as an article of faith, a belief in universal salvation. But I see nothing wrong in hoping for it, and, given the above, I wouldn’t care to assert its impossibility. In fact, and as I have already pointed out, such an assertion would seem to be tantamount to blasphemy.

Agreed - apart from the idea that it is blasphemous to to assert that universal salvation is impossible. Can one really say either way - and is it any business of ours ? What God has not revealed, we will not be able to discover. What one can do, is have some idea of one’s own state before God; and only of one’s own.​

Von Bathasar’s book “Dare We Hope?” is very illuminating. ##
 
Grace & Peace!

Romano, Gottle, I read something the other day that seemed to speak to this issue. I’m a great fan of Charles Williams who, to me, is an unfortunately unregarded lay theologian (and Inkling with Lewis and Tolkein). He was an Anglican, like Lewis, though I find his theology more catholic than Lewis’. In his book The Descent of the Dove: A Short History of the Holy Spirit in the Church, he writes briefly on Origen (one of my favorite theologians in general) and has this to say (in the beginning, keep in mind his tongue-in-cheek concessions to British propriety):

“The imaginations of the Alexandrian Fathers were courteous; their visions were humane. Origen extended that vision so far as to teach the final restitution of all things, including the devils themselves. It is impossible that some such dream should not linger in any courteous mind, but to teach it as a doctrine almost always ends in the denial of free-will. If God has character, if man has choice, an everlasting rejection of God by man must be admitted as a possibility; that is, hell must remain. The situation of the devils (if any) is not man’s business. The charity of Origen schematized then too far; he declared as a doctrine what can only remain as a desire.”

I think it is the desire for universal restoration then, that is good, that is holy, and that should be fostered. I think it absolutely in line with Christian hope–this hope is an expression of the compassion that comes to us from God. But I believe that Williams is correct in asserting that to make it a doctrine is to rob us of choice. It is one thing to say that God’s love is irresistable, that it draws all things to itself. I think it is, I think it does, and I must hope and trust that it will. It is another thing to state as doctrine that you have no choice but to worship in the end. I think such a doctrine would be contrary to the Spirit of God–God wants us all to come to him. But God wants us to choose to come to him, and wants us to know that we must make a choice.

Reminds me of the story of the monk in the desert who visits his spiritual father and says, “Father, I do my work. I say my prayers. I go about my business. I’m nice to people.” His father turns to him, lifts his hands to heaven, and immediately it’s as if his hands have become flames and tongues of fire reaching to the sky. And his father says simply, “Why not become a fire?”

We can only become the flame of love if we can choose it, if we are allowed to choose it. It may be (and I hope it is so) that all people, and that all beings throughout the worlds will choose it at one point or another, in this life or in the next, even perhaps in the midst of the pains of hell itself–who knows? I hope it’s possible. But final impenitence cannot be denied anyone. It’s a dark and mysterious gift, this choice–but how good and merciful the Giver, and how good and merciful the Gift!

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

(rubycanoe, thank you for your kind words! I may be Anglican, but it is my desire to be catholic in its fullest sense!)
 
Dear romano,

quote:** romano**
Dear Friends in Christ:
Thank you for your interesting and informative responses, and for your concern and prayers, but I’m still not altogether convinced by your arguments. Christ tells us that we should love our enemies, but to wish them in hell, as some on this thread seem to, shows a strange sort of love. Hell has got to be so horrific that it becomes a place (or state) that one wouldn’t wish on one’s worst enemy.
God wishes all men to be saved, but the notion that one must repent before death runs into a serious problem, the problem of exactly when ‘death’ may be said to occur. Even doctors can have trouble determining this. Who is to say what happens in the moments following one’s apparent death and one’s actual death?

If God wishes to save all, perhaps there is a brief moment, following one’s apparent death, when the yet unrepentant are, through God’s infinite mercy, shown their own soul?

The Desert Father Poemen once said: “The wickedness of men is hidden behind their backs.” But if, during that brief instant when one is still hovering between life and definitive death, God were to turn the unrepentant around and allow them a glimpse of the soiled and ravaged state of the beauty He originally endowed them with, surely even the most hardened sinner would be led to repent?

As a Catholic one isn’t of course allowed to embrace, as an article of faith, a belief in universal salvation. But I see nothing wrong in hoping for it, and, given the above, I wouldn’t care to assert its impossibility. In fact, and as I have already pointed out, such an assertion would seem to be tantamount to blasphemy.
You know what your post puts me in mind of?

Jesus urged the lepers who were healed by

Him, to go and present themselves to the

priests, according to the Mosaic Law.

His mother and foster-father brought Him to the

Temple, in accord with the Mosaic Law.

Now, picture Him in a synagogue, with the

“interpreter’s” of the Law, waiting to see if

He would heal the man with the withered hand

on the Sabbath…for them, this would be to

transgress against the Mosaic Law, in terms

of doing “work” on that day.

What does the New Testament say: [paraphase?]

“He looked at them with anger…”

They saw the Law; He knew the love with which

the covenant…and the Mosaic Law…was given.

If we, as human beings, fret over the salvation

of each human…can God do less?

See the Book of Jonah, chaper 4: 4-11

usccb.org/nab/bible/jonah/jonah4.htm

This was the God of Israel, speaking to Jonah.

Jesus of Nazareth said: "With God, all things

are possible."

Thanks for your post, romano.
God bless you,

Maureen*
 
Deo Volente:
Grace & Peace!

Romano, Gottle, I read something the other day that seemed to speak to this issue. I’m a great fan of Charles Williams who, to me, is an unfortunately unregarded lay theologian (and Inkling with Lewis and Tolkein). He was an Anglican, like Lewis, though I find his theology more catholic than Lewis’. In his book The Descent of the Dove: A Short History of the Holy Spirit in the Church, he writes briefly on Origen (one of my favorite theologians in general) and has this to say (in the beginning, keep in mind his tongue-in-cheek concessions to British propriety):

“The imaginations of the Alexandrian Fathers were courteous; their visions were humane. Origen extended that vision so far as to teach the final restitution of all things, including the devils themselves. It is impossible that some such dream should not linger in any courteous mind, but to teach it as a doctrine almost always ends in the denial of free-will. If God has character, if man has choice, an everlasting rejection of God by man must be admitted as a possibility; that is, hell must remain. The situation of the devils (if any) is not man’s business. The charity of Origen schematized then too far; he declared as a doctrine what can only remain as a desire.”

I think it is the desire for universal restoration then, that is good, that is holy, and that should be fostered. I think it absolutely in line with Christian hope–this hope is an expression of the compassion that comes to us from God. But I believe that Williams is correct in asserting that to make it a doctrine is to rob us of choice. It is one thing to say that God’s love is irresistable, that it draws all things to itself. I think it is, I think it does, and I must hope and trust that it will. It is another thing to state as doctrine that you have no choice but to worship in the end.

If we were saved despite not wanting to - there would indeed be “Forc’t Hallelujahs”.​

God’s Love is irresistible - it does not follow that it will always be recognised as Love.

If we had to be saved - would this not imply the very thing that people protest against: that God is no greater than our ideas about Him ? Why should His mercy not be great enough to allow us exactly what Williams mentions - the real possibility of our damning ourselves, and so avoiding Him ?

And why is our comfort so important 😦 ? ##
I think such a doctrine would be contrary to the Spirit of God–God wants us all to come to him. But God wants us to choose to come to him, and wants us to know that we must make a choice.

Reminds me of the story of the monk in the desert who visits his spiritual father and says, “Father, I do my work. I say my prayers. I go about my business. I’m nice to people.” His father turns to him, lifts his hands to heaven, and immediately it’s as if his hands have become flames and tongues of fire reaching to the sky. And his father says simply, “Why not become a fire?”

We can only become the flame of love if we can choose it, if we are allowed to choose it. It may be (and I hope it is so) that all people, and that all beings throughout the worlds will choose it at one point or another, in this life or in the next, even perhaps in the midst of the pains of hell itself–who knows? I hope it’s possible. But final impenitence cannot be denied anyone. It’s a dark and mysterious gift, this choice–but how good and merciful the Giver, and how good and merciful the Gift!

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

(rubycanoe, thank you for your kind words! I may be Anglican, but it is my desire to be catholic in its fullest sense!)

Thanks for posting that 🙂

 
Hi All:

Here’s a bit of Saint Isaac for you to mull over. We are told that he felt that “the final outcome of the history of the universe must correspond to the majesty of God, and the final destiny of human beings should be worthy of God’s mercifulness” (Hilarion Alfeyev, ‘The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian,’ p287):

**“I am of the opinion [Isaac claims] that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more – and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them – and whom nonetheless he created. . . . Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings.” **

:bowdown2:
 
I think a key Gospel passage to help us understand what I believe is the answer to this question is the dynamics found in Luke 15: 11- 32 (the Lost Son/Loving Father). First, the Love of the Father is constant however an essential expression of His Love is allowing His son to choose his own life (Free Will) The son finds himself in the terrible situation he was in because of his own choices - condemned by his own actions not anyone else. Reconciliaton eventually comes again as the result of the son’s choice again the Father’s love was constant but rejected until the son Freely choos to return to the Father’s Love. So is there Universal Salvation? I say yes - Christ died for all, however, becuase of God’s infinate Love we have the Free Will to accept or reject God’s Love and Salvaation and thus Eternal Punishment for those who do reject God’s ever present Love.
 
Hi All:

Here’s a bit of Saint Isaac for you to mull over. We are told that he felt that “the final outcome of the history of the universe must correspond to the majesty of God, and the final destiny of human beings should be worthy of God’s mercifulness” (Hilarion Alfeyev, ‘The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian,’ p287):

**“I am of the opinion [Isaac claims] that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more – and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them – and whom nonetheless he created. . . . Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings.” **

:bowdown2:
Thank you Romano. Your comments here are what I believe, and I have the one book by St. Issac and now purchased the other you mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top