Hell

[mark_a]

SedesDomi:

This question of the eternality of suffering in the afterlife was what initially drove me out of Protestantism, and Christianty in general.

Thanks, and good day!:yup:

That’s surely a well thought out post you have there. Sometimes I think the Church has a better explanation of purgatory than hell.

I personally like the Jehovah’s Witness concept of hell where your soul is destroyed, not tormented forever, but I have trouble with some of the rest of their basic theology.

I personally *think *that euthanasia is mercyful in some situations, but I would not dare pull the plug on a loved one.

No religion can suit anyone 100%. It all boils down to a question of submission to authority.

 

[Sheen]

SedesDomi:

This question of the eternality of suffering in the afterlife was what initially drove me out of Protestantism, and Christianty in general. I thought, how could a loving God put a time limit on when a person could decide to choose him?

If God put everyone in Hell the moment they sinned, we’d all be there by now. It is through His great mercy and His love for us that He sent His Son to redeem us. It is through His great mercy and His great love that we are able to seek His forgiveness over and over and over again.

Jesus has taught us quite clearly that we must strive for holiness; we must repent of our sins. He has told us that we are to be His hands and his feet that do good here on earth.

God wills all men to be saved and to be with Him forever; however, not wishing to force our love, he mercifully endowed us with free will to choose or reject Him. Those who die unrepentant of mortal sin have separated themselves from God, not the other way around. God has always been there.

The scenario you describe of the person getting to hell and suddenly realizing it’s not so great is impossible. The soul in hell carries with him his self-love and attachment to sin – that’s what puts him there.

God IS love. Hell is devoid of all Love. A soul in hell has no capacity for Love and so does not desire to be united to God. Those who are in hell have put themselves there by the choices they have made in exercising their free will. They have chosen to separate themselves from God, and once in hell, they suffer the pains of their loss. Since they are still attached to their sin, their rejection of God who is Love, they are unable to Love Him even there.

SedesDomi:

My own reply to the question of “Why did Jesus die on the cross if hell were not eternal” revolves around the question of eternality. Maybe hell isn’t literally eternal; maybe hell lasts a long, long, time, such that it may as well be “eternal” from the perspective of earthlings like us.

If you are arguing that semantically “eternal” just might mean a long, long time, I would say two things:

1. Prove it. There is nothing in Scripture or Church teaching that would lead one to believe this – quite the opposite is stated quite forcefully. Scripture teaches that we can, through our own choices, choose to separate ourselves from God forever, and
2. We must apply the same definition to heaven then, and conclude that heaven is also not eternal and will eventually end. This is, of course, an impossibility since beholding the face of God (the beatific vision) is Heaven – and God IS, without beginning, without end.

 

[Fergal]

Padre Pio once asked a man if he believed in hell to which the man answered “No Father, I don’t.”
“Ah” said St. Pio “you will when you get there”

Just a thought.

Fergal
Naas
Ireland

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Sheen:

Now, if I’ve completely misunderstood your point, I apologize. As I said, I wasn’t 100% sure of your point.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood **your **point. It seemed to start from the axiomatic “We should choose good now”, then add in “Why be good now, if I’m going to Heaven, anyway?” and implying that that proves the thesis, “If I’m not good now, I will not go to Heaven.” We know from the story of the Good Thief that such is not the case, for he was assured Paradise by Jesus Himself, and after a life of crime. The parable of the vineyard workers even suggests that the latecomers will be given the same reward as those who were on the crew since birth.

What concerns me is that your point subtly includes the attitude that my will has some good in it that might be desired above the Will of God, if I could just get away with it. BUZZZZZ!!! Wrong Answer! Not now, not then, not ever. Period. God isn’t making you jump through hoops. He’s trying to get you to choose to truly live. The idea that sin has any sort of good to offer you is a bald-faced, unqualified lie. Reject that!

I am not saying that that it is safe to assume one can ever choose Heaven after having chosen evil during one’s temporal life. I am saying that even if it were safe, that doing of the Will of God is still its own reward today, right now, and sinning is its own punishment today, right now. Eternal and temporal consequences are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I am saying that the attitude that doing the Will of God is to be desired above all else is the very attitude that is held right now by every occupant of Heaven itself, and is in fact the primary reason that Heaven is a paradise. There is no bliss outside the Will of God, and there is no Hell except in slavery to our own wills. (That implies that pleasure is not Heaven, per se, and suffering is not Hell, per se, but our suffering Holy Father continues to advocate for this position, even now, so I dare to continue to hold it.)

I am also saying that FelixBlue has not considered the possibility that Hell is the greatest mercy possible for someone who insists upon eternally living outside the Will of God.

Although the Church has not assigned a single person definitively to Hell, the Scriptures seem fairly clear that some will indeed choose that, whether directly or indirectly. But that is not our call. If God gets every single soul to freely reconcile to Himself before it is all over, what could be better than that? We can only hope that such a thing is possible, for if it is, I don’t think any will be waving Bibles at Him, demanded explanation. The Pharisees, remember, were quite sure they knew what the Scriptures said, and they were quite wrong. That the scholars of the Church won’t go on record as saying, “Somebody gotta burn” gives me hope. By the Judgement Day, though, all will be clear. In the meantime, one thing is abundantly clear: there is only good that will come from clinging to good, and only regret that will come from choosing evil, now and always.

 

[Sheen]

BLB_Oregon:

…and implying that that proves the thesis, “If I’m not good now, I will not go to Heaven.” We know from the story of the Good Thief that such is not the case, for he was assured Paradise by Jesus Himself, and after a life of crime. The parable of the vineyard workers even suggests that the latecomers will be given the same reward as those who were on the crew since birth.

You did misunderstand. I’m not talking about being good. An atheist can be good, but that does not assure him of heaven.

What I was talking about is reptenance vs. unrepentance, striving to be holy vs. wallowing in pleasurable sin.

So, I have no quarrels with your examples. The Good Thief was repentant, thus he merited heaven. The story of the workers in the vineyard illustrates the generosity and mercy of God. He welcomes us whenever we repent and turn back to Him.

BLB_Oregon:

What concerns me is that your point subtly includes the attitude that my will has some good in it that might be desired above the Will of God, if I could just get away with it. BUZZZZZ!!! Wrong Answer! Not now, not then, not ever. Period

:nope: BUZZZZZZ!!! Wrong Answer! (Sorry; I couldn’t resist) How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion???

Please don’t be concerned. I did not suggest – subtly or otherwise – any such thing, “not now, not then, not ever. Period.”

I’m not even sure what that means – “that my will … might be desired above the Will of God, if I could just get away with it”???

BLB_Oregon:

God isn’t making you jump through hoops. He’s trying to get you to choose to truly live. The idea that sin has any sort of good to offer you is a bald-faced, unqualified lie. Reject that!

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the right post? I never said anything even remotely like what you are claiming I subscribe to.

BLB_Oregon:

I am also saying that FelixBlue has not considered the possibility that Hell is the greatest mercy possible for someone who insists upon eternally living outside the Will of God.

Hell is a mercy? You mean that place where there is eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth? A mercy?

BLB_Oregon:

If God gets every single soul to freely reconcile to Himself before it is all over, what could be better than that?

What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the souls in hell? And before “what” is all over?

If you are talking about hell one day ceasing to exist, that is heresay, my friend.

BLB_Oregon:

The Pharisees, remember, were quite sure they knew what the Scriptures said, and they were quite wrong.

Are you questioning the authority of the Church which has always taught that hell is eternal and that teachings to the contrary are anathema?

BLB_Oregon:

one thing is abundantly clear: there is only good that will come from clinging to good, and only regret that will come from choosing evil, now and always.

Yes, now and always. (Though, many who choose evil will not realize their regret until the time for repentance has passed them by)

 

[BLB_Oregon]

:nope: BUZZZZZZ!!! Wrong Answer! (Sorry; I couldn’t resist) How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion???
…
…

Hell is a mercy? You mean that place where there is eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth? A mercy?

If you are talking about hell one day ceasing to exist, that is heresay, my friend.

You said: *"If all are ultimately saved, why did Jesus bother spending so much time teaching us about avoiding sin and about striving to be holy?

What’s my motivation to do any of that? It’s a complete waste of time if there is no eternal separation from God. I can do whatever I want with no eternal consequences."*

This implied to me that you think that people might rightly choose a life of crime if they had the assurance that they would be saved from eternal damnation in the end. Being in the Will of God, a waste of time? What utter nonsense! No one with an appreciation of the reality of sin would ever choose to follow those lies, even if they had the assurance that God would reel them back in someday. So I may well have misunderstood you (since you were trying to make a case for the opposite behavior), but I didn’t pull it out of thin air.

I am not talking about Hell not existing. I am saying that there exists within the teaching of the Church the possibility that it will not have any people in it. But absolutely, it must remain a choice, and Hell will exist eternally.

Hell, a mercy? Yes, a mercy. For to see the face of God, when one stubbornly remains outside of His Will, would be a greater torment than being removed from His Presence. In Hell, there is at least that mercy. I submit that even there, God’s mercy abounds.

 

[jimmy]

FelixBlue:

I don’t know. I used to…

Saint John Bosco also had a vision of Hell.

 

[Mijoy2]

QUOTE=Sheen]

God IS love. Hell is devoid of all Love. A soul in hell has no capacity for Love and so does not desire to be united to God. Those who are in hell have put themselves there by the choices they have made in exercising their free will. They have chosen to separate themselves from God, and once in hell, they suffer the pains of their loss. Since they are still attached to their sin, their rejection of God who is Love, they are unable to Love Him even there.

First, forgive me if I messed up my attempts for quotation. Sheen, I took these two statements out of order from your post. Allow me to attempt to articulate the problem I have with them.

First on the above quote: I love the concept of God being love and of Hell being devoid of love. It’s the rest of this quote I find disturbing. On face value, without digging beneath the surface, it seems like a nicely wrapped canned answer. However when one begins to address specifics it becomes troubling. I realize that many of the people who post here in these wonderful forums are devout Catholics. From that conclusion I’d assume that it is likely many of them surround themselves with other Catholics. There friends and family may be devout Catholics. I am new to the faith after a long absence (over 30 years). I, actually can count on one hand the number of devout Catholics I know and none of them are close friends of family members. This fact makes me ponder the doctrine of Hell quite deeply and personally. The original poster said it well when he stated that we are relatively silent about hell with respect to what we believe.

If we were somehow privy to information that our beloved neighbor was told he/she had 6 months to live and for some reason couldn’t communicate to them about this, we’d likely spend many a nights at home crying and feeling heartbroken. However if our beloved neighbor was non-Catholic and therefore we felt thier soul was in jeaprody we’d hardly give it a second notice. Death, is like a pebble of sand on the beach in comparison to eternal torment in hell being all of Cape Cod.

Most people (in my circle) never even contimplate God or go to Mass outside of weddings and funerals. Yet, when they do give it some thought, they believe they are going to heaven (or at least not going to Hell) if, in fact God exists at all. It is just not something they think about. These are people who truly believe they have high moral standards, bring thier children up respecting others, have much love in thier homes and if you were to get to know them you just might love them and enjoy thier company dearly.

I have such a inner conflict when I come to these forums and read between the lines which direct me to conclude that when push comes to shove you believe my friends soulls are in serious jeapody.

If you allow me to take a leap and suggest that I may not go to Hell (assuming I die without mortal sin on my soul) because I happened to pick up a book “mere christianity” and ultimatley fell i Love with my faith, and they go to Hell because they may die before falling upon such a journey?

On Hell being devoid of Love. Does that mean that I can assume that an individual who is there, say a close friend who passed away, then they are not missing thier loved ones and are now regretful and repenting (although to now avail) because these actions would be an act of love? Maybe this is the answer, once in Hell you no longer have the capacity to love. If many of the comments in these posts are true, there are a lot of loving people there.

Sheen:

God wills all men to be saved and to be with Him forever; however, not wishing to force our love, he mercifully endowed us with free will to choose or reject Him. Those who die unrepentant of mortal sin have separated themselves from God, not the other way around. God has always been there.

cont.

 

[Mijoy2]

Is rejecting Him the same as simply never coming upon reason to deeply contimplate Him? If one were to be born into a circle of family and friends who support the notion that as long as you are “good”, you will not go to Hell, and they for whatever reason never take it beyoud that ( I think I just desribed the vast majority of people in this country. I know I just described the VAST majority of people I know) they are more likely then not going to hell for all eternity?

The statement I have the most difficulty with is: “They chose to go to hell”. Ask them, they certainly do not believe they are choosing hell.

Am I to think that only because of the luck of the draw I have a shot at avoiding Hell? If I were to die during one the many foolish acts of irresponsibilty I performed when I was younger (which were many) I’d be in hell now? Only by luck did I so get another chance?

I hope I got the point that so troubles me across.

 

[FelixBlue]

The Augustinian:

You’re Catholic, not Protestant. The Scriptures aren’t totally clear on things like Sacred Tradition, the Marian Dogmas, and even the Trinity!

Also, look to the basis of the apokatastasis; it seems to me to be Pelagian. Look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article here.

Yes. But the message I was responding to was referring to Scripture…and, according to traditional teaching, Scripture and Tradition are the two founds of knowlede. So, Scripture is important… So I ask again, how many scriptural passages make it absolutely clear that damnation is permanent/eternal?

The apokatastasis was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 543. This is pretty early, relatively speaking.

Yes, relatively early. But on the other hand, it seems that many Christians went without this “important” doctrine of the permanence of damnation for centuries (after all, Origen had a HUGE influence on early theology…especially in the East). I would argue that 500 years is a very long time. I would also question the weight or the importance of that one anathema…Afterall, if you look at other anathemas, some seem to slip quietly away.

True, Church Fathers may disagree on certain things. They’re not the entire Church, whom we look to for the final say on these doctrinal matters. And, did you notice anybody defending apokatastasis after Constantinople? I don’t think so.

As to the defense after 543, the answer is that in the West, you’re right, the doctrine did seem to fall away (but for a few). Why? Simply put, Augustinian theology had taken full stage and the theology of the east wasn’t as “popular” anymore. What’s more, since many in the west didn’t read Greek (Augustine for example), they had problems coming to an exact understanding of both scripture and eastern Theologians.

Another question: why didn’t Augustine come out against Gregory of Nyssa and the other Cappadocians who clearly formulated Trinitarian Theology during the 4th century? Are we to see these saints (Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great–all believers in the final restoration) as heretics? If so, can I call them saints? And what of the great eastern theologian Maxiumus the Confesser? Was he a heretic for following Origen on this? (By the way, I named my last child after him for this reason…but just a side).

 

[FelixBlue]

The Augustinian:

There’s a difference between saving a drowning person and saving a soul: the soul is saved by the free reception of God’s grace. Like I said before, we cannot pressure them, or else they may end up rejecting God and the Faith altogether. Or do you not believe that Prudence is a virtue?

Your argument goes something like this:

1. If people do not act like something exists, it must not exist.
2. People do not act like Hell exists.
3. Therefore, it must not exist.

Notice any problems in your premises?

The Augustinian

You misunderstand the point of the analogy. THe point is that sometimes we do foolish things to accomplish something far more important, not to compare, point by point, drowning with salvation.

Secondly, you set my argument in syllogistic fashion as if it is a deductive argument. Rather, it is an empirical/inductive argument, two different beasts entirely. It is only an argument based upon probability.

 

[FelixBlue]

flick427:

The best way I’ve found to accept Hell as a reality though I don’t like it of course is this:

God gave man free will.
We can chose Him, or we can choose sin.

I like your argument, but I believe it fails in this way:

Whenever we choose something, we percieve that we choose what is good for us whether we know it to be bad or not. Let’s face it, that’s what the process of rationalization is. In your analogy, the man, for by whatever mistaken reasoning or feeling, has judged the temptress a greater good that his wife of 10 years. Does that make it good actually? No. Nevertheless, he believes so.

In the same way, when we reject God, it isn’t so much the infinite God we reject (because again, our knowledge is faulty here), it is rather the finite good we are choosing. And there is a difference, although one necessitates the other to a degree. Is that wrong? Yes! Yes! Yes! And we will “pay”.

Look at it in terms of the prodigal son: the Father (God) allows the son (creation) to go away from him. The father knows what’s ahead for the son; but he also knows that EVENTUALLY the son will reach the depths of despair (the punishment as it were) which will purify him (all part of the God’s knowledge and grace) and allow the son to return…in greater fashion! This parable is a parable for creation and redemption. Reflect on it…it is beautiful.

Cheers.

 

[davidv]

Mijoy2:

Is rejecting Him the same as simply never coming upon reason to deeply contimplate Him? If one were to be born into a circle of family and friends who support the notion that as long as you are “good”, you will not go to Hell, and they for whatever reason never take it beyoud that ( I think I just desribed the vast majority of people in this country. I know I just described the VAST majority of people I know) they are more likely then not going to hell for all eternity?

The statement I have the most difficulty with is: “They chose to go to hell”. Ask them, they certainly do not believe they are choosing hell.

Am I to think that only because of the luck of the draw I have a shot at avoiding Hell? If I were to die during one the many foolish acts of irresponsibilty I performed when I was younger (which were many) I’d be in hell now? Only by luck did I so get another chance?

I hope I got the point that so troubles me across.

What do we really mean when we say we reject God? Isn’t it that we chose to sin rather than to obey? Love is the subject of the greatest and second commandment. 1. Love God. 2. Love our neighbor. So disobedience of these two commands would be a failure to love. Love in this context is giving of ourself for the service on another. With regard to deep contemplation, this is a practice that I believe to be far down the path of spiritual maturity. We first have to have conquered serious sin.

Given the above, a person who goes to hell, I believe, has at every opportunity, satisfied their own needs rather than someone else’s. They will have no love in them. They no capacity to love another because the only one they think of is themselves.

It is not a matter of luck. The law of God is written on our hearts and we have a deep longing to be with the one who created us. So unless we completely extinguish the voice of conscience by complete selfishness, there is hope that we won’t go to hell.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I’m not going to get into the Church Fathers because I’m probably not as well-read as you, and I do not have the time to look into them. However, we both know that individual theologians aren’t right all the time, even if they are saints. In the case of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it’s possible that his writings might have been tampered with; even if he did believe in the apotakastasis, there’s not necessarily any sin, since the Church did not reach a final decision yet. I’m sure that if they lived today, they would have abided by the teaching of the Church.

Although it is true that there are some verses in Scripture which may have a universalist interpretation, there are certain verses which clearly imply eternal damnation. For example, Our Lord taught that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was not forgiven after death. The Apocalypse clearly states that the damned were to be punished for all eternity, in the “second death”. And whatever our doctrinal differences, the Orthodox and Protestants (for the most part) teach that there is eternal damnation. There is a very, very large burden of proof on you. Before we continue the discussion, please post all the verses which you believe indicate a universalist position.

As for your argument from practice, perhaps I do not understand it very well, but I thought the syllogism accurately showed it. I understand your point; yes, Hell is the greatest of all perils, much greater than death itself. But, like I said earlier, conversion involves many different variables, beginning with the person doing the evangelizing, and those who will listen to him. People have different gifts; we can’t all stand up on soapboxes and expect mass conversions. How long did it take you to convert to the Church?

Perhaps it’s true that many Catholics, and Christians in general, don’t act as if Hell is real. Yet, many Catholics don’t act as if the Eucharist is really the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, either, even the devout Catholics who do believe in the Real Presence. Otherwise, they would try to attend Mass as much as possible, and very carefully examine themselves so that they will not even have the slightest hint of sin, in order to be worthy of their Lord. Of course, many of us are not perfect. Your argument is more of a challenge than a clear refutation. Indeed, we are all called to put our beliefs into action.

God bless,

The Augustinian

 

[FelixBlue]

OK, I am going to make a response to all who see clear and irrefutable evidence in the Bible that the punishment of Hell is without end, that is, it is permanent, unending damnation.

Before I do so, let me state my position as clearly as possible: I believe in remediable, restorative punishment. I do not believe this punishment to be permanent as I believe in the final restoration of all things under the one Godhead.

Accordingly, I believe in the last judgement. I believe in justice. I do not believe that Hitler, the Jew-hater and killer will be in heaven; rather, I believe that Hitler, the God-lover (by the grace of God and Hitler’s free choice) will be in heaven. But my God!! You might say? How Hitler? How? How me? How you? How? Because we will all have our time in the mud feeding of the nasty husks that pigs don’t even care for. There will be purification/sanctification.

With that said, let me address the Scriptures:

For one, the word “eternal” or “everlasting” in scripture is the Greek word “aionos” which has several possible meanings. Generically (and I’m quoting from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon as I don’t pretend to be a Greek scholar), it means, “lasting for an age or a period of existence (aion)”. Secondarily it means ever-lasting or eternal. Now the interesting thing is that latter meaning (according to Liddel, etc.) originated in Plato. So, really, to fully understand what that means, we’d have to go to Plato to see what he meant…something I don’t have time at the moment to do. Still, I do find it interesting that two great theologians of the early Church (Origen and Gregory of Nyssa), who were clearly “baptized” Platonists, ended up interpreting “aionos” as “lasting for an age” (finite no matter how long) rather than going with the latter meaning of eternal, lasting forever.

At any rate, the point is this: there is some question as to what the word really means. You are prejudiced to believe it means forever. I seem prejudiced to go along with what many in the early Church (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor) believed. If my take is true, the word “aionos” should be taken as a kind of intensifier, a kind of exageration indicating the fact that being separated from God, from Love, is bad…no, Jesus seems to say, you don’t understand…REALLY BAD. It’s gonna feel like forever!!

So take this or leave it. But you have to admit, at least, that there is some question etymologically. We should look into it further.

I’m going to continue in another message as I don’t want to go over the 4000 word limit…

 

[FelixBlue]

As for scripture passages indicating the possibility, or what even seems like the fact, that all will be saved, here we go:

Romans 5:18 and 19: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness ws justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Is there not a clear parallel here?

Romans 12:32: “For God has bound all men over to obedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

By the way, the idea of God “handing over” or “binding over” so that men might be saved is a fairly common thesis throughout Paul’s letters.

I Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”

Again, the parallel is unmistakeable. But look at the broader passage, it is a matter of time: Christ reigns until all is put under his feet.

I Corinthians 15:28: “When he [God] has done this [putting everything but God under the feet of Christ], then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

Does this all not really mean all? Does it not mean hell, or punishment, as well?

I Timothy 4:9: This is a trustworthy saying…that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

This seems to indicate two categories of saved persons: the believers and those who (for whatever reason) have not believed. Yet God is the Savior of both! Here we look to Thomas’ and others’ understanding of the beatific vision and how it will be differerent but equally beatific for individual souls.

I Timothy 2:3 and 4: “This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

Of course this will be “refuted” with the answer: yes, although God wants it, he allows. Yes, but really…give it something but knee-jerk reflection. At least consider the fact that God, that Love, does not fail.

Revelation 22:1 and following (focusing especially on the following): “And the leaves of the tree are for the healling of the nations. No longer will there be any curse…”

But wait? I thought the cursed suffer in everlasting fire? Could it be they will eventually be purged of their self-love? (Isn’t this purgatory?) Admittedly, this passage is fairly weak. But at least consider this interpretation.

OK. There are seven passages that seem to indicate at least the possiblity of universal salvation.

There are other minor passeges that imply the same, but it would be fruitless to quote them as they can easily go both ways.

As for the early Fathers, I have already made the argument that many of them held to the final restoration of all things (including demons!). Yes, as one gentleman did, you can point to other Fathers that did not. I agree. Still, I would argue that Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen (the presider over the Council of Constantinople) and Basil the Great were more significant that the few that were mentioned. It is only when Augustine comes along that there is confusion as to what apokatastasis (final restoration) is: it is not Pelagianism; it is not man saving himself by his own original goodness; rather it is the final redemption and sanctification of all by God in Jesus Christ.

At this point, can we agree at least that the Bible is not entirely clear on this issue (given the etymological problems and the above passages) and that significant early Church fathers believed in the final restoration?

Thus, is it possible to believe that the anathema in 543 was not on the level of a permanent de fide teaching…?

 

[FelixBlue]

BLB_Oregon:

But if anyone has even a shred of the attitude it takes to choose Heaven, why would they want to continue to follow their own awful wills instead of the will of God? It would be like a two-year-old putting off potty training because they don’t really have to know how to keep the load out of their pants until preschool!

Jesus bothered to teach us about avoiding sin and striving to be holy because that is the only way we are ever going to realize the joy intended for us from the beginning of time. That is what He meant by “The Kingdom of God is at hand!” Come and get it, right now! You don’t have to wait!

And as Fr. Richard Rohr has said: Brothers and sisters, don’t you realize… if that is not the Good News, there can be no Good News?

Yes!! I cannot agree more. And I love your analogy of potty training.

The argument that we need the doctrine of hell to make us be good is entirely bogus!! I wish to be good because I wish to be happy. I wish to follow Christ because I know him to be the way…

When Jesus “threatens” hell, he does so in the mode of the prodigal son’s father…“Yes, you may go son…take all of your inheritence…” knowing the heart-ache the son will find, the torture of being separated from the Father. But he, the Father, also knows that he will eventually return.

 

[FelixBlue]

SedesDomi:

After studying the Catholic Church for the past year or so (thanks to the influence of a former girlfriend who was Catholic), I’ve realized that – for me – this Hell question still remains, and I find the orthodox Christian definition of Hell lacking. So I could never become Catholic, though I have deep love for the Catholic Church with its rich history, tradition, and discipline.

In any event, I do think that – for those who find it a reasonable thing to believe in – that the idea of eternal hell is a natural consequence of the idea of an eternal heaven. If you have one, then why assume the other does not exist? (Hinduism and Buddhism – as well as Sufism, and even perhaps Kabbalah – have ways of getting around that, but that topic is for another forum.)

My own reply to the question of “Why did Jesus die on the cross if hell were not eternal” revolves around the question of eternality. Maybe hell isn’t literally eternal; maybe hell lasts a long, long, time, such that it may as well be “eternal” from the perspective of earthlings like us. Besides, how long has the universe been in existence? 14 billion years or so? I sure wouldn’t want to suffer 14 billion years in hell, and I would surely thank anyone if she saved me from such a potential fate!

Thanks, and good day!:yup:

A few points (from my rather lousy perspective):

One, I obviously agree with you that Roman Catholicisms conception of eternal damnation/hell is lacking. Even so, I believe that Catholicism best describes reality–as opposed to any other religion. Thus, I find myself repeating with the apostles, “Lord, where do we go, you have the words of eternal life.”

I find myself in the position of having to deny that the Church “officially” believes in eternal damnation (though a very difficult trick to accomplish).

As to the argument that if there is eternal heaven there must be eternal hell, I find it unconvincing, and here’s why: God is Heaven. God is…he is the self-subsisting Being (according to Thomas); whereas evil has no being in itself, but is parasitical and only exists within created being (which is good). Thus, while heaven/God must necessarily exist; hell, the abode of evil and death, must not necessarily exist. Your position (and man who have argued for this) is tantamount to dualism–that both Good and Evil must exist. Sorry, God is the only necessary being.

By the way, although I have tremendous respect for Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, it falls short in many ways…but as you say, a discussion for another time.

Lastly, you bring up an important point about the nature of time: when we speak of something as being eternal, our ratiocinative minds necessarily see it in terms of duration or time, when in fact the word eternal is merely the negation of the word time. Thus, etermal punishment is a punishment that occurs outside of time.

 

[FelixBlue]

Sheen:

Not according to FelixBlue who says all will ultimately be saved. So my question to him was: If I can enjoy the sins of the flesh and do whatever I want to and know that I’ll eventually end up in heaven anyway and experience that joy Jesus speaks about, what’s my motivation to forgo all earthly pleasures? I’m going to end up in heaven no matter what (according to FelixBlue).

Holy Smokes! Let me just say that I wish we could all get together over a few pints so these misunderstandings could be avoided.

Right…you will end up in heaven. But you will still have to go through the painful temporal separation from God (which, by the way, is what enjoying the sins of the flesh is and causes). So what is your motivation? You’re not an idiot and you don’t want to be in hell now! You want the happiness and joy that comes from knowing God now!

I am not saying that one should go out and flesh it up because you’re just going to go to heaven anyway. Look at what St. Paul says in Romans 5 at the end and the beginning of 6. Right after he indicates that all will be saved (Rom. 5:18 and 19), he asks the question (in 6:1): What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means!!"

Clearly he was responding to people who took the message of universal salvation to be a license to go out and “live it up.” To the contrary! Real living it up is living for Christ!

All I ask is that you don’t exagerate what I’m arguing. Please don’t turn my position into something it is not. That’s called a straw man argument.

Cheers (I’m lifting that imaginary pint). By the way, do any of you live in the DAllas/Fort Worth area?

 

[The_Augustinian]

FelixBlue, I don’t want to play psychologist, but I think your emotional prejudices are clouding your judgement. You have come up with some very impressive rationalizations for the apotakastasis, but they are not conclusive. Yes, there are passages which can be interpreted in a universalistic way. Yes, there are Church Fathers who taught the apotakastasis. If we look at the Scripture alone and the Fathers alone, then, on the face of it, we may not have a clear victory for either side. The Council of Constantinople settled this with an anathema. You argue that it might not have been de fide. First of all, you place an authority above the Church. This has very large implications. Refer to another thread on this forum entitled “The Perils of Dissent”. Of course, we both know that you are engaging in huge contradictions if we take Catholic doctrine and dogma as a whole.

As for the Council itself (whose president was Eutychius and was attended by mostly Eastern bishops), what other doctrines did it anathemize? Of the nine anathemas of the Council, the first eight dealt with the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. Here is the ninth:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.

Ironically enough, if the apotakastasis is true, God forbid, then the Church along with her separated brethren would have been teaching a fundamental error for the greater part of two millennia. So the gates of Hades have prevailed, after all!

Anathema sit,

The Augustinian