Go to Hell - Stay there forever

[Magnanimity]

And what do you imagine happens to those who reject the sacrifice of Christ?

Yes @Fauken, that is the question! What does each one of us imagine he would do? What does the God who IS love do, in this instance? Does he act with vengeance and wrath towards these creature for whom Christ died and who he desires to save? Does the freedom of man put a stopper on the grace of God? Does the freedom of my own child stop the flow of my love and grace toward her? It plainly doesn’t and can’t ever, no matter how rebelliously she behaves. No matter even if she hates me and rejects all my greatest offers to her—the love cannot stop. And yet, the infinite God who is completely good with no admixture of evil within him, he doesn’t do this? There is a limit to divine love and mercy?

 

[Magnanimity]

As I said above, “Those who advocate for the love of God drawing all men to Christ? Maximus the Confessor, Scotus Erigena, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Clement, Gregory Nazianzen, Mechtilde, Angela of Foligno, Julian of Norwich, St Therese, Adrienne von Speyr, Edith Stein, Karl Rahner, Von Balthasar, De Lubac, Walter Kasper and probably Ratzinger…”

I am in good company. I am firmly on the side of the early Church Fathers and the church of the East, as well as of the most significant theologians of Vatican II. You have St Augustine and the scholastic Augustinians as your support … You also do not have a creed or a council to support any belief that humans are currently in Hell and will be there everlastingly. You have catechisms…

And glancing at my bio for a moment would confirm for you my Catholic Faith. Given all that I’ve said above, you could have no reason to think that I’m not knowledgeable on the subject. I have issued you numerous challenges (for authority, of which you merely have the CCC) and from the injustice of a neverending sentence for a finite crime. You made no attempt to address this disproportionality argument. You merely asserted that I don’t trust Jesus or St Paul. It is evident that our exchange has run its course. Peace be with you Gab.

 

[Gab123]

What does each one of us imagine he would do? What does the God who IS love do, in this instance? Does he act with vengeance and wrath towards these creature for whom Christ died and who he desires to save? Does the freedom of man put a stopper on the grace of God? Does the freedom of my own child stop the flow of my love and grace toward her? It plainly doesn’t and can’t ever, no matter how rebelliously she behaves. No matter even if she hates me and rejects all my greatest offers to her—the love cannot stop. And yet, the infinite God who is completely good with no admixture of evil within him, he doesn’t do this? There is a limit to divine love and mercy?

Again, the hell of the damned soul is eternal for the same reason it is eternal for Satan or the fallen angels; they don’t want God’s forgiveness, they want nothing to do with God, thus God leaves them alone, and thus the absence of God is hell.

Or are you also lobbying for Satan and the wicked angels to be admitted into heaven too?

As C.S. Lewiston would answer:

In the long run, the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins, and at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing over every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

 

[Gab123]

Given all that I’ve said above, you could have no reason to think that I’m not knowledgeable on the subject.

The issues is that your position is not what the Bible nor the Church teaches. It is what you want to believe. Mormons believe they are going to be in charge of planets. Jehova Witnesses believe that there is no hell; so you are closer in theology to that of a Jehova Witness…Do you also share their belief that Jesus is Satan’s brother?

You can rattle off names, but please, don’t besmirch the saints, they do not hold your position. You claimed St Thérèse agreed with you? Hmmm…(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gab123]

But you have no idea who you’re talking to (me) - not what I’ve read or what I know. You also very clearly didn’t realize this was an open debate. You thought it was all settled dogma!

This seems to be in vogue these days. Elsewhere someone was arguing that homosexual acts were not sinful after all, and that the Church never dogmatically taught that it is intrinsically disordered, but now we are to argue that it is “differently ordered”.

Folks, do not be deceived by the double talk and false compassion. Stay close to the teachings of the Church and do not be swayed by the winds of the times… Here is Sheen speaking about false compassion:

 

[Latin]

The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (De fide.)

Yes I agree, we have a power to reject efficacious grace but we NEVER reject efficacious grace, because the grace enlightens our mind and we EVERY TIME, FREELY and without ANY FORCE, INFALLIBLY choose to cooperate with efficacious graces.

.
IN THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION John Salza explains;

The vocation to eternal life is supernatural, it surpasses the powers of human intellect and will, he must be predestined to that end by God.

God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.

Because God’s providence governs all things, God is in control of all things and can do all things.
.
If humans have an intellect and free will, then why is it necessary for God to order us to our final end?

The answer: because God created heaven as our final end, and attaining heaven is above our nature and the nature of every creature.

The Catechism also states, “The vocation to eternal life is supernatural … It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
Because man cannot attain to eternal life by his own natural efforts, he must be predestined to that end by God.

Because we cannot attain the Beatific Vision by the power of our nature, God must direct us to this end by His power and grace.

Thus, predestination is a certain and infallible truth, revealed by Scripture and taught by the Catholic Church. End quote.

.
I have three Theological Statements for you Vico.

Please Vico answer my questions with your own words.

.
FIRST STATEMENT:
No one rejects God’s gift of efficacious grace of His call to heaven, if anyone would reject it God would instantly lose His omniscience, DE FIDE Dogma.

Do you agree Vico with the above statement?

.
SECOND STATEMENT:
NO ONE can be saved without predestined to heaven and NO ONE lose salvation who are predestined to heaven, DE FIDE Dogma.

Do you agree Vico with the above statement?

.
THIRD STATEMENT:
God’s Justice ABSOLUTELY DEMANDS, to predestine the entire human race to heaven, without it God would be an UNJUST GOD.

Do you agree Vico with the above statement?
.
Please Vico answer the three above questions.

Thank you in advance.
.
God bless

 

[Fauken]

Yes @Fauken, that is the question! What does each one of us imagine he would do? What does the God who IS love do, in this instance? Does he act with vengeance and wrath towards these creature for whom Christ died and who he desires to save? Does the freedom of man put a stopper on the grace of God? Does the freedom of my own child stop the flow of my love and grace toward her? It plainly doesn’t and can’t ever, no matter how rebelliously she behaves. No matter even if she hates me and rejects all my greatest offers to her—the love cannot stop. And yet, the infinite God who is completely good with no admixture of evil within him, he doesn’t do this? There is a limit to divine love and mercy?

There is no limit to God’s love and mercy, but we can reject it. You can love your child, but you can’t force your child to love you, or are you going to lock your child in a room with you until your child says he/she loves you?

You’re avoiding the real question here though, which answers some of the ones you posed:

While we’re on the subject of denying Hell, here’s a question: during Mass, the consecration of the wine into the Precious Blood uses the words “Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood: the blood of the new and eternal covenant, poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins ”. If all will ultimately be saved, then why isn’t it for all instead of many?

Jesus was the one who said His blood would be poured out for many. He could have said all, but didn’t. If all are saved by Him no matter what, then why was Christ’s blood poured out for many, not all?

 

[Vico]

…

1 No one rejects God’s gift of efficacious grace of His call to heaven, if anyone would reject it, God would instantly lose His omniscience.
1A Yes to the first part no to the second, because with assent to cooperate with sufficient grace one receives efficacious grace. One can reject, but efficacious grace is contingent on cooperation with sufficient grace, so the person that has it choose not to reject it.

2 No one can be saved without being predestined to heaven and none lose salvation who are predestined to heaven.
2A Yes.

3 God’s Justice absolutely demands, to predestine the entire human race to heaven, without it God would be an unjust God.
3A Yes, the universal will is sufficient grace. Some are actually damned.

But not mentioned by you is that the cooperation with grace, known by God, is essential, for to say that the will: “does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema” …

Council of Trent:

Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 A.D., taught that souls are in hell now:

Indeed, having suffered and died on the wood of the cross for the salvation of the human race, he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, (quae nunc gestant) so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Very well said! Quite Balthasarian if you!!

Just to clarify my position, I’m not saying that I don’t think Hell is real or that people can’t go there. I’m just pushing back on this idea that some have that “almost everyone goes to Hell.”

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank God for Bishop Sheen (Or… it was Archbishop when he died, right?)

I recently happened across a collection of his television program and found them incredibly illuminating. Hopefully his canonization can get underway now with the recent court ruling.

I appreciate the recommendation, but have no interest feeding someone’s pocketbook, buying a book that claims such nonsense as this

But it’s not nonsense. That’s the point. You’re discounting it because you do not believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary, by claiming that there is no evidence to the contrary.

You don’t want to read about it because you don’t believe it, but you don’t believe it because you are unwilling to accept evidence for it.

That’s not a rational state of mind. If you were truly interested in truth, you would examine all the evidence and then arrive at a conclusion.

No, we have hope in the grace of the Lord through the work of the cross. There is no condemnation if you are repenting and trusting in the lord. Stick to the sacraments and trust in the lord and not your own understanding

We certainly do have hope in the Lord, and I would never try to say otherwise. That doesn’t change the fact that mortal sin leads to damnation, and that each of us is capable of making that choice, and therefore each of us is liable to be damned.

The point of saying this isn’t to ignore or reject God’s grace, love, or mercy, but rather to emphasize that we must always be seeking it out, and never allow ourselves to fall from His grace.

He would be more vengeful than a human court of law?

It is not a matter of vengence, it is a matter of justice. I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong in asserting that our sins do not merit infinite punishment. They are an affront against an infinitely good God, and therefore are of infinite severity and consequence. I’ll agree that it’s a hard pill to swallow, but we must come to terms with the reality of sin if we are to adequately seek to avoid it.

Absolutely! That is precisely the line of reasoning used by those of us (and we are many!) who reject Augustinian infernalism. God’s grace and his mercy extend to all because Christ died for all, desires to save all and the church prays for all (“lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy”).

God’s graces DO extend to everyone. I would never say otherwise. Even the most heinous, evil individual on Earth has the benefit of Christ having died for them, and God constantly calling out to them and working towards their repentance, forgiveness, and salvation.

But just because God wills it doesn’t mean they will accept it. And if they do not accept it, they will not be saved. Christ makes this reality clear repeatedly throughout scripture. People will be damned because they will not accept Christ.

What you are proposing is called universalism, and it is an old heresy that has been repeatedly denounced and disproved.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is just CCC formulaic Catholicism. If p then q, if x then y. But the love of God knows no bounds. If he will “make him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him,” the love of God surely knows no bounds—it is not wrapped up in nice conditional, catechetical formulas.

God is not bound by the strictures of the Catechism, I agree. However, the Catechism outlines all that has been revealed to us, and so it is the basis by which we should make judgments. I would never claim that God is not capable of saving people beyond the ordinary means He has revealed to us, but we have no knowledge of those extraordinary methods and so should not rely on them.

This is the only post I’m making on this topic today. I spent way too much time debating yesterday and have work to catch up on. Feel free to respond, or not.

 

[oliver109]

You are talking about justice but mercy is still really important, look at how the homeless are often treated in society, there are people who believe that many homeless should not be helped because their life choices meant they ended up in that state. Imagine someone who commited crimes, lost their job and ended up in the street, would you say that person should remain on the street because they deserve it? No. There could be the rare instance of a homeless person who wants to remain homeless and refuses offers of help but that is the exception not the norm.

 

[Magnanimity]

St Therese of Lisieux asks, "Does not your merciful love need them [sinners] as well? …on every side, this merciful love is misunderstood, rejected. If your justice loves to release itself, this justice that extends only over this Earth, how much more your merciful love desires to inflame souls, since your mercy reaches to the heavens, The Story of a Soul, p. 263. These are Therese’s own emphases (italics).

Von Balthasar also quotes at length from a book called St Therese of Lisieux: Pious Recreations (pp. 129-130) in which St Therese has written a Christmas play for the edification of her convent. In the play the “Angel of the Last Judgment, carrying a sword and a set of scales” says,

“Soon will come the day of vengeance,
This impure earth will pass through fire…
We will see Him in the power of His glory,
No longer hidden in the guise of a child.
We will be there to chant of His victory
And to proclaim that He is the Almighty One…
You will tremble, the inhabitants of earth…
You will not be able to bear the wrath
Of this child, who is today the God of Love.
For you, mortals, He chose suffering,
Asking only your weak hearts.
At the judgment you will see His power.
You will tremble before the Avenging God!!!”

Then the “Angel of the Holy Face” appeals to the “Child Jesus” for the promised mercy for sinners. The Child Jesus says that he will listen to the request and “every soul will find forgiveness.” But the Angel of the Last Judgment objects,

“Jesus,…have you then forgotten
That sinners must be punished at the end?..
Have you forgotten, in your extreme love,
That the number of the impious is countless?..
At the judgment, I shall punish crime.
I want to wipe out all the ungrateful…
My sword is ready!..
I’ll know how to avenge You!”

The Child Jesus replies,

“O Beautiful angel! lay down your sword.
It is not for you to judge
The nature that I raise up
And have desired to redeem.
It is I, named Jesus,
Who will judge the world!”

The Angel of Judgment kneels down and dazed, admires God’s ineffable love. While speaking about St Therese’s play, Von Balthasar writes, “Therese has so lively a consciousness of the ‘always more’ aspect of divine mercy,” (Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?, p. 79). It is a shame that we who admire and would seek to follow her “little way” do not share in her “always more” confidence in the divine mercy. We are too often hasty like the Angel of Judgment looking to remind God of the justice that needs satisfaction at the end of the world…

 

[laylow]

But it’s not nonsense. That’s the point. You’re discounting it because you do not believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary, by claiming that there is no evidence to the contrary.

Nope, how you arrive at evidence is different than me. Evidence is repeatable and consistent. If God is interested in people knowing about Christianity and the truth, he can reveal any time, hell, he can do it every day if he wishes. But conveniently, he does not. Only to certain select people at certain select times. Ironically, every religion claims these same things.

You don’t want to read about it because you don’t believe it, but you don’t believe it because you are unwilling to accept evidence for it.

Not true. I have read some of these claims. I explicitly mentioned that I will not support it financially as I see it as a money grab.

 

[Latin]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination of the elect. – DE FIDE Dogma

Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity.
Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient. End quote.
.
We have a power to reject efficacious grace but we NEVER reject efficacious grace, because the grace enlightens our mind and we EVERY TIME, FREELY and without ANY FORCE, INFALLIBLY choose to cooperate with efficacious graces.

1A Yes to the first part no to the second, because with assent to cooperate with sufficient grace one receives efficacious grace. One can reject, but efficacious grace is contingent on cooperation with sufficient grace, so the person that has it choose not to reject it.

AS WEE SEE ABOVE, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS:
No one rejects God’s gift of efficacious grace of His call to heaven, if anyone would reject it, God would instantly lose His omniscience.

2A Yes.

AS WEE SEE ABOVE, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS:
No one can be saved without being predestined to heaven and no one lose salvation who are predestined to heaven.

3A Yes, the universal will is sufficient grace. Some are actually damned.

AS WEE SEE ABOVE, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS:
God’s Justice absolutely demands, to predestine the entire human race to heaven, without it God would be an unjust God.

.
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION John Salza
When God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).
.
If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace. End quote.
.
God bless

 

[Magnanimity]

There is no limit to God’s love and mercy, but we can reject it. You can love your child, but you can’t force your child to love you, or are you going to lock your child in a room with you until your child says he/she loves you?

But, can we reject that love, really? I used the example of us as parents here on Earth, and I think it is fitting–when my child rejects my love and is rebellious towards me, I know that from my perspective that I love her and am extending all the grace, mercy and love that I can toward her. But, she does not necessarily know that from her perspective. Perhaps, from her perspective my “grace and love” are oppressive forces in her life. Perhaps, she feels an inclination toward an existential “absolute freedom” to do and say and be whatever she wants to do and say and be. My love stands in contradiction of this desire to be absolutely free. My love for her is borne out of knowing (in some senses) what is best for her. She does not herself know what is best for her. She lacks wisdom and understanding because she is young and inexperienced (and likely has a faulty view of human freedom–a Sartrian view). From her perspective, my love can seem oppressive and invasive. But that is because she does not know any better. Her will and her heart persist in a fallen world thereby making her will/heart themselves “fallen.”

So, the question remains…is she really rejecting my love and grace? Or, is she rejecting her twisted understanding of my love and grace, which understanding is itself corrupted by the fallen world in which she lives. In a way, she is a victim (as we all are) of this fallen-ness. Do I hold her responsible for continuing to resist my love and therefore reach a moment when I vengefully judge her and say “depart from me?” No, I do not. Because of my own wisdom and compassion, I persist in my grace and love toward her “till the end.” If I, being evil, do this, why in the world would we suppose that God does not do the same and much more besides in his continual pouring out of his love and mercy and grace for sinners?

So, is it possible that a human could understand the divine love offered to her and reject it? We likely have to hold that it is possible. Scripture plainly teaches this possibility. But is it likely, is it probable? I don’t think so. As St Edith Stein eloquently puts it, “Human freedom can be neither broken nor neutralized by divine freedom, but it may well be, so to speak, outwitted. The descent of grace to the human soul is a free act of divine love. And there are no limits to how far it may extend.” -Edith Stein, Welt und Person, as quoted at length in Von Balthasar, Dare we Hope? p. 177.

 

[Magnanimity]

You’re avoiding the real question here though, which answers some of the ones you posed:

Jesus was the one who said His blood would be poured out for many. He could have said all, but didn’t. If all are saved by Him no matter what, then why was Christ’s blood poured out for many, not all ?

This is not the real question. For every example you might offer of some language of the limitation of Christ’s sacrifice, the New Testament probably offers ten counter-examples. Here are a few from the NABRE. I emphasize the universal aspect of the text below in bold.

“First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone… This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.” - 1 Tim 2:1, 3-6.

“For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe.” 1 Tim 4:10.

“For the grace of God has appeared, saving all…” Titus 2:11.

“For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him,
making peace by the blood of his cross, whether those on earth or those in heaven.” Colossians 1:19-20.

“In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight, he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.” Ephesians 1:7-10

“For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” 2 Corinthians 5: 14-15

“The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

“In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.” Romans 5:15

“And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.” John 12:32

And on and on the witness of the NT goes…

 

[Magnanimity]

Don’t get me wrong. I, like Von Balthasar, dare to hope, pray and work for the salvation of all, as that is clearly God’s desire–that all be saved. However, presumption is nasty and can cut both ways. Presuming heaven or hell (for oneself or others) is not permitted. Von Balthasar writes, “It is generally known that, in the New Testament, two series of statements run along side by side in such a way that a synthesis of both is neither permissible nor achievable: the first series speaks of being lost for all eternity; the second, of God’s will, and ability, to save all men,” Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell, p. 18.

 

[Gab123]

Von Balthasar also quotes at length from a book called St Therese of Lisieux: Pious Recreations (pp. 129-130) in which St Therese has written a Christmas play

Realize that at the heart of the Divine Mercy message is that God’s Mercy is Infinite. God’s Mercy is not what is being challenged. Understand the difference between God being infinitely merciful and still allowing souls to go to hell.

Again, St Therese’s Christmas play echoes the message of Fatima and Divine Mercy, which is that despite the wretchedness of our sinful state God has mercy on if we turn to His mercy in this life.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if Balthasar is claiming that hell is empty, when in fact his conclusion is a slim hope.

The reality is found in the words of Christ to St Faustina, where Jesus describes how despite an ocean of Mercy, souls still reject Him. Divine Mercy is a call for repentance, it is not for a blanket absolution of souls obstinate in mortal sin.

Oh, if sinners knew My mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy" (Diary, 1396).

"My Heart overflows with great mercy for souls, and especially for poor sinners. . . . I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them. You, at least, come to Me as often as possible and take these graces they do not want to accept. In this way you will console My Heart…" (Diary, 367).

"My daughter, know that My Heart is mercy itself. From this sea of mercy, graces flow out upon the whole world. No soul that has approached Me has ever gone away unconsoled. All misery gets buried in the depths of My mercy," (Diary, 1777).

“The two rays denote Blood and Water. The pale ray stands for the Water which makes souls righteous. The red ray stands for the Blood which is the life of souls…These two rays issued forth from the very depths of My tender mercy when My agonized Heart was opened by a lance on the Cross. These rays shield souls from the wrath of My Father. Happy is the one who will dwell in their shelter, for the just hand of God shall not lay hold of him” (Diary, 299).

"If a soul does not exercise mercy somehow or other, it will not obtain My mercy on the day of judgment. Oh, if only souls knew how to gather eternal treasure for themselves, they would not be judged, for they would forestall My judgment with their mercy" (Diary, 1317).

"Say unceasingly the chaplet that I have taught you. Whoever will recite it will receive great mercy at the hour of death. Priests will recommend it to sinners as their last hope of salvation. Even if there were a sinner most hardened, if he were to recite this chaplet only once, he would receive grace from My infinite mercy. I desire that the whole world know My infinite mercy. I desire to grant unimaginable graces to those souls who trust in My mercy (Diary, 687).

 

[Magnanimity]

It is not a matter of vengence, it is a matter of justice. I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong in asserting that our sins do not merit infinite punishment. They are an affront against an infinitely good God, and therefore are of infinite severity and consequence. I’ll agree that it’s a hard pill to swallow, but we must come to terms with the reality of sin if we are to adequately seek to avoid it.

Unless/until you counter my argument, you are not justified in your position. I ask again, when you love God, do you do so infinitely because he is infinite? The answer is plainly no. You cannot love infinitely, since you are finite. The reverse is also true. You cannot offend infinitely, since you are finite. There is nothing you can do, which would be infinite in nature or extent. God is infinite, quite right. But you and your actions are very far from infinity. To issue an unending sentence (Hell) for any set of finite crimes is the very essence of injustice. Since none of your actions are ever infinite, an infinite sentence could never justly follow from your actions. When a child steals a pencil, he does not get capital punishment as a consequence. Why? Because the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. An everlasting punishment of torment and suffering is disproportionate to any and all offenses you could ever commit. As I said, we on Earth would never even consider punishing someone until the end of time. And yet, we want to believe that the justice of God demands this? As I said, it seems that an almost morbid pathology would be required for someone to be ok with the idea of the God of love condemning
someone forever for their finite offenses.

What you are proposing is called universalism, and it is an old heresy that has been repeatedly denounced and disproved.

Nope, I’m proposing that all Christians everywhere should hope, pray and work for the salvation of all, as that is quite clearly God’s desire (1 Tim 2:4). And, just to be clear, universalism is likely a more “unanimous” teaching of the whole church going back to the beginning and up to now than infernalism is. Infernalism seems confined to the church of the West, from St Augustine on through scholasticism. Outside of that limited context, the church has not spoke with a unified voice on this issue. But, you are welcome to try to point out otherwise… Who are the great proponents of infernalism among the Church Fathers? Among the East? Among the church of the modern and contemporary eras? Who?