Hell

[FelixBlue]

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.

I have considered this possibility. But I believe the greater mercy would be anihilation. Afterall, our free will is a created thing (strangely created outside our free will) and thus finite. Isn’t it logical that it could also be uncreated/anihilated?

Don’t get me wrong, though, I don’t hold to this position. I hold to the final restoration…

 

[FelixBlue]

challenge

than a clear refutation. Indeed, we are all called to put our beliefs into action.

I agree with you. The “argument” from the way people behave is more of a challenge than a clear refutation.

But that is the way of argumentation…a piling up of arguments and challenges until one is convinced…

So, perhaps it was an exageration on my part to even call it an argument…unless, as I have pointed out, it is more of a inductive/empirical argument.

 

[FelixBlue]

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:

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

You bring up a very good point. The anathema is strong! In truth, I don’t remember the circumstances of this council and will have to go back and review it.

But for now, let me ask you this: if I can find any anathemas that have since been clearly rescinded, would you be willing to allow the possibility of rescinding this anathema regarding “the teachings of Origen”?

Also, you’re right, and I’m not ashamed to admit that, aside from being a “rational” issue, this is also an emotional issue. Even so, I believe I am at least marshalling good evidence from Scriptures and the Fathers.

Notice also that Gregory of Nyssa wasn’t condemned (OK, that’s a weasel thing to argue…)

Cheers.

 

[Sheen]

FelixBlue:

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!

How is enjoying the sins of the flesh “painful”? If sin was painful, nobody would do it. I doubt you’re going to see much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” in a strip club. Where’s that painful feeling of separation from God while you’re in there enjoying yourself?

So, it seems you are saying we are suffering “hell on earth” when we are sinning. You could, according to what I believe your theory is, walk into that strip club and say to all those men enjoying themselves (and they are enjoying themselves; they’re not experiencing any pain in their separation from God or they wouldn’t be there), “Hey, guys! This is as bad as it gets! And guess what else? You’re going to heaven anyway!”

So, on one hand you have the guy who avoids sin because he loves God and he ends up in heaven. On the other, you have the guy who doesn’t give God a thought his entire life and sins like the dickens – and he ends up in heaven, too. Who’s the idiot???

 

[atombomb14]

FelixBlue:

I reject the doctrine of hell for the following reasons:

1. The punishment outweighs the crime.

Man’s concept of justice is and has always been that a punishment should be proportional to the crime. Even in our most draconian view of justice, an eye was demanded of an eye, etc.

But with hell, the punishment far exceeds the nature of the crime. Hell is an eternal/infinite punishment for a temporal/finite crime.

And yet some (Anselm and others) will argue that the crime is actually infinite in dimension because it is against God.

This brings me to my second reason.

1. Full culpability requires full knowledge. But here, even though the crime is technically against the Infinite/Eternal God, man does not have full knowledge of God. At best, man’s knowledge is abstract. Following the idea of Cardinal Newman, our knowledge of the infinitude of God is notional…abstract. At anyrate, I could quote any number of Church Fathers on the fact that our knowledge of God is incomplete (Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Thomas, etc.).

Thus a simple sylogism:

Full culpability requires full knowledge.
Man does not have full knowledge.
Therefore, man is not fully culpable.

Ergo, no hell.

1. Culpability also requires a full participation of the will (which is already impossible given our incomplet knowledge). We happened to be born, however, with a proclivity to sin. We are weak. Concupiscence and the whole story. Can we be blamed? Yes…but only to a degree. And degrees are finite. Hell is not. Thus no hell.
2. Although there are many other arguments (most having to do with the nature of God), the strongest argument in my view is the following:

We (from bishops to priests to the average Joe Layman) simply do not behave as though people are going to hell.

Imagine you are standing next to a burning house with people inside and you know you have the capacity or at least the possibilty of getting into the house and pulling them out to safety. Do you stand outside and do nothing? Do you strike up a conversation about politics or make a sandwich or engage in necessary recreation?

But that is what we do regarding others and hell.

The Church teaches that there is hell and that some are going to eternally be separated from God. But we (in general) behave as though notihing is going on.

So, those are my main arguments. I’d like light and prayers from anyone. My desire is to be faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, but I find it increasingly difficult to do so. I can only do mental gymnastics for so long. If the doctrine of hell is wrong, then so must be the doctrine of the teaching authority of the Church.

Thanks from a convert (of 12 years) who wishes to remain “solid”.

FELIX…
I almost agree with your post.Youmake a very cogent argument.-However, I would modify it to say that I believe that the VAST MAJORITY of people will NOT go to hell but will go to purgatory…and that very very few will go to hell or straight to heaven.Those who MAY go to hell are those who actively work for eveil and against GOD–in a conscious way to destroy souls and separate them from God. They have full culpability. The majority of us will be in purgatory–with joy but still regretting that we did not fully devote ourselves to sanctity here on earth.—You are SOOOOOOOOO right—we here on earth don’t act like anybody is goimng to hell—except for some of the religious people going door to door and others we dismiss as religious nuts.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I had a thought on the eternal nature of Hell. That seems to be a sticking point why at least 2 posters in this thread reject Catholicism. I would ask them to consider this idea if that is their stumbling block to embracing Christ’s Church.

After Final judgement we will all have ressurected bodies. We will all have either the miserific or beatific vision.

For those in heaven EVERY tear will be wiped away.

This suggests a state of being that is radically different from the sequential moment by moment we currently live in. I think our concept of time may be altered as well as our abiltity to change, of which time is a required component.

The concept of eternal could be converted to a permanent state of being I am not arguing so much for a radical new interpretation of hell merely that how we view these scriptures is probably leaving a lot to be desired as they deal with an aspect of reality that we will not experience until our natures have undergone a radical change; therefore, all should take these ideas with a great deal of humilioty and trust in God’s love for us while seriously accepting Christ’s warnings and at the same time not daring to judge the propriety of God’s judgement about a spot of space time that we are ill equipped to fully or even partially understand.

just some thoughts

 

[FelixBlue]

Sheen:

How is enjoying the sins of the flesh “painful”? If sin was painful, nobody would do it. I doubt you’re going to see much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” in a strip club. Where’s that painful feeling of separation from God while you’re in there enjoying yourself?

So, it seems you are saying we are suffering “hell on earth” when we are sinning. You could, according to what I believe your theory is, walk into that strip club and say to all those men enjoying themselves (and they are enjoying themselves; they’re not experiencing any pain in their separation from God or they wouldn’t be there), “Hey, guys! This is as bad as it gets! And guess what else? You’re going to heaven anyway!”

So, on one hand you have the guy who avoids sin because he loves God and he ends up in heaven. On the other, you have the guy who doesn’t give God a thought his entire life and sins like the dickens – and he ends up in heaven, too. Who’s the idiot???

I love your argument! It’s great! Especially the image of walking into a strip club.

But it doesn’t quite answer what was originally a parenthetical argument for me.

Here’s my argument:

True and full happiness is full union with God.
The opposite of this happiness is separation from God, when I choose myself over God and others.
Thus, while going to the strip club may feel fantastic, I argue that it is not true happiness. The “happiness” of seeing the hottie doing the lap dance is really a counterfit happiness.
Again, I argue this because in choosing the “happiness” of lust, I separate my self de facto from the true source of happiness and joy, God. The is true as well for any other sin. And this is why many people who seem to have it all, end up feeling empty…that is, they end up feeling unhappy.
So, then, happiness is union with God; unhappiness is disunion.
Living for “the flesh” is unhappiness–but a counterfeit happiness. If you deny this, we should talk about heresy…

 

[The_Augustinian]

“He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.”
–Mk. 3:29

Besides the apokatastasis, Origen taught other heterodox doctrines like the pre-existence of souls. Now, I’m sure you’d want to separate the individual teachings of Origen, too. So, no, there’s no way to deny that an eternal Hell is the official teaching of the Church. *Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
*
The notion of a second chance for the dead takes all the finality out of death. God has already given us all the necessary graces in order to serve Him in this life. The damned do not perish because of sin, but final impenitence. How much more time should God give to the wicked? A thousand years? Ten thousand? Even a million years to repent? God may be a patient God, but His judgments are perfect, and there is only one judgement after death, the Last Judgment being a reiteration of the particular judgments.

Hell by definition is a place totally removed from the grace of God. So a defender of the apokatastasis must either deny the role of God’s grace in salvation or believe that those who die in the state of mortal sin go to Purgatory, where God’s grace abounds. However, this means that there is no such thing as mortal sin, that all sin is venial, and one cannot be outside a state of grace in this life, including even apostates and the unbaptized.

Thus, insisting that the grace of God will save the souls of even that of the most repugnant and unrepentant sinner is in itself an offense to the perfect justice of God and is rightly condemned by nearly all Christians.

Grace,

The Augustinian

 

[SedesDomi]

FelixBlue:

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).

After re-reading the “eternal damnation” portion of the CCC, I noticed that even though the Church teaches that damnation is eternal, it never says in the CCC that any one particular person has in fact been damned. It does say this, though: “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’”. [1035]

Has the Church ever proclaimed any one particular person has in fact died in a state of mortal sin?

(As a side question: if those in a state of mortal sin experience hell immediately after death, then why do they need to be resurrected in bodily form in order to experience the Last Judgment, after which they are simply returned to hell, but now in an embodied form?)

 

[The_Augustinian]

If the blessed are going to be resurrected, then it makes sense for the damned to be resurrected. Since we are a composition of body and soul, our reward and punishment in Heaven and Hell will be incomplete without our bodies.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[SedesDomi]

MichaelTDoyle:

I had a thought on the eternal nature of Hell. That seems to be a sticking point why at least 2 posters in this thread reject Catholicism. I would ask them to consider this idea if that is their stumbling block to embracing Christ’s Church.

I plead guilty to being one of those two posters. But actually the idea of an eternal hell is not the only reason I’ve rejected Christianty. I have other reasons as well, reasons that play a part in me being more closely aligned with the dharmic traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, e.g.), but with a healthy admiration for the mystical Abrahamic traditions (Sufism, Kabbalah, as well as some Origen and Meister Eckhart).

 

[BLB_Oregon]

FelixBlue:

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.

Did you notice in today’s reading (21st Sun, Ord Time) that when asked if many would be saved, Jesus avoided the question altogether. He said, rather “Strive to enter through the narrow door.” Or as the Act of Contrition says of the reason we detest our sins: “… because I fear Your just punishments, but most of all because Thou Art All-Good and deserving of all my love.”

Ergo, we should strive to be good first of all because God is deserving of it, because we are grateful, and only secondarily because we wish to gain the reward of Heaven and avoid the punishments of Purgatory and Hell.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

SedesDomi:

Has the Church ever proclaimed any one particular person has in fact died in a state of mortal sin?

No. Absolutely not. That is the judgement of God, since the final state of a person’s soul is known only to God. For that matter, when the Church has declared saints, she has done so only after God has provided a clear “witness” in the form of miraculous intervention after the saintly person was asked to intercede.

 

[Sheen]

FelixBlue:

Again, I argue this because in choosing the “happiness” of lust, I separate my self de facto from the true source of happiness and joy, God. The is true as well for any other sin. And this is why many people who seem to have it all, end up feeling empty…that is, they end up feeling unhappy.

Yes, I agree with all of that. But such a one is not eternally separated from God – yet. He still has the opportunity to repent and turn to God. However, if this same person remains unrepentant and knowingly rejects God to the day he dies, you still say that person goes to Heaven.

Ergo, there is no eternal consequence for sin. If it feels good, do it!

But, you say, this attitude only leads to unhappiness, separation from God, and who would choose that over happiness and union with God? Well, I’ll tell you who – Strip Club Freddy, who is an avowed atheist and doesn’t give a whit about being in union with God because God doesn’t exist. Oh, yeah, he used to go to church when he was a kid, but he grew out of that superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense. He didn’t need a church telling him what he could or couldn’t do with his life. He’s perfectly happy boozing it up and livin’ loose. He’s free to do what he wants, with and to whomever he wants. There is no piper to pay, and if I feel a little low from time to time – no matter. There’s always that next, bigger high. Life’s a gas, man! (I think Freddy became a hippy during that last thought process!)

So, now – back to your original contention that hell does not exist. Does Strip Club Freddy, the Hippy get a free pass when he dies? No eternal consequences for his complete and total rejection of God?

 

[FelixBlue]

“He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.”
–Mk. 3:29

Besides the apokatastasis, Origen taught other heterodox doctrines like the pre-existence of souls. Now, I’m sure you’d want to separate the individual teachings of Origen, too. So, no, there’s no way to deny that an eternal Hell is the official teaching of the Church. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Thus, insisting that the grace of God will save the souls of even that of the most repugnant and unrepentant sinner is in itself an offense to the perfect justice of God and is rightly condemned by nearly all Christians.

Grace,

The Augustinian

I will ignore your initial quote as you seem to have ignored what I argued regarding the word “aionos” or eternal/everlasting. Remember the Greek!

Secondly, you seem to have ignored my earlier question asking what your response would be if I could point out where the Church has apparently changed her position regarding other conciliar decisions/anathemas.

Here are a few candidates:

1. The sixth ecumenical council (Const. III) cleary condemned and anathematized Pope Honorius as a heretic for supporting, in an official letter, the monothelite heresy. Go back and look at the anathema!

Now, you can draw a few possible conclusions:

The one you will be will be to this affect: well, well, the Pope’s teaching in this case not ex cathedra according to Vatican I’s definition (a nice anachronism) and therefore it’s OK because he was only teaching privately, etc.

Fine. But there is an alternative view. At the very least, the council was recognizing the need to condemn the pope as heretical in this instance. But why if they thought he was only acting as a private theologian? Exactly. The council fathers believed he was acting in his official capacity, and therefore saw the need to censure him officially. This seems to undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility…

But admitting that this could go both ways, lets take a look at another issue.

This issue has to do with morality–not discipline or practice, but morality (and as you know, papal or concilar teaching can judge on matters both doctrinal and moral).

The issue is usury, the practice of charging interest for money (a practice, by the way, condemned by most Christians until Calvin).

Both the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) (both ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Church) strongly condemn usury and anathematize (actually, they use the word excommunicate, but they are roughly synonymous) folks who practice usury.

What does the Church say of usury today? Do you carry a credit card? Exactly. I do to. This seems to me to be an “anathema” that has been rescinded. You could argue “development of doctrine” here; but frankly, there is an outright contradiction.

I will finish in the next box as I don’t want to go over the limit.

 

[Sheen]

And one more question, FelixBlue:

Read Matthew 25:31-46, The Judgment of the Nations. Verse 46 says, “And these (the unrighteous) will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This passage is speaking of the judgment; this happens after you die, not while you are alive. According to you, there is no judgment because all go to Heaven. Clearly Jesus is teaching something else. He is saying some (the righteous) will go to eternal life, and some (the unrighteous) will go off to eternal punishment. He is not talking about being temporally unhappy or empty vs. being temporally happy.

So, since the judgment is after a person dies (plenty of Scripture available to back that up), where is this place of eternal punishment Jesus talks about? Certainly you will not contend there is punishment in heaven?

Additionally, to say eternal does not necessarily mean forever, would present a second difficulty in that, not only does hell exist (which you contend it does not) but will eventually end, heaven exists (which you contend it does) and must also end.

 

[FelixBlue]

OK. So there are at least two problematic portions of councils. The first, I admit, is not a rescinsion. It only raises the problem of what papal infallibility really is (which, by the way, is a huge question in theology right now. You may point to what VI says, but in point of fact, most theologians can only point to infallibility only being used twice, on the two Marian doctrines of the immaculate conception and the assumption. The whole thing is very ambiguous indeed).

As to the condemnation of Origen and Origenism, I have a few questions that I don’t yet have answers to (and please take me as genuine, although I know it may seem I’m trying to squeeze orange juice out of orange crayons):

1. When the fifth council condemned Origen, what were the political motivations behind the condemnation?
2. Also, what were they really condemning? Regarding the pre-existence of souls, is it possible the Fathers were afraid of the Origenist doctrine somehow infringing upon the unique existence of God? Is there a way to explain this pre-existence so that these souls are not co-eternal with God? I don’t know. I’d have to go back and see what these Origenist monks were really teaching before I know whether or not the council fathers had them right (after all, even during this long thread, I’ve been accused of many beliefs that are not mine…). Also, regarding the apokatastasis (the final restoration), were the council fathers concerned primarily with this restoration itself or that the Origenists taught that it was necessary according to the inner dynamics of the cosmos (therefore leaving God out of the picture)? If they were really concerned with the unique existence of God and the idea that creation is not necessary, then it would seem possible to reformulate the doctrine of final restoration to rid it of these offenses against the nature of God’s existence and will to create.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Look, another example is Luther. The Church anathematized him and his position on justification and sanctification. Now, it seems we are coming to understand we didn’t quite understand Luther, and that his position is much closer to the Catholic position than was realized in the 16th century.

So, regarding the Fifth Ecumenical Council, I’ll throw out this thesis:

The Church was not condemning all formulations of “final restoration”. Rather, they were condemning theories that contradicted the Church’s teaching on God’s unique existence and God’s freely creating.

 

[FelixBlue]

BLB_Oregon:

Did you notice in today’s reading (21st Sun, Ord Time) that when asked if many would be saved, Jesus avoided the question altogether. He said, rather “Strive to enter through the narrow door.” Or as the Act of Contrition says of the reason we detest our sins: “… because I fear Your just punishments, but most of all because Thou Art All-Good and deserving of all my love.”

Ergo, we should strive to be good first of all because God is deserving of it, because we are grateful, and only secondarily because we wish to gain the reward of Heaven and avoid the punishments of Purgatory and Hell.

Yes. Also, there was a rather “universalist” passage in the first reading today from Isaiah, saying something to the affect that “all brothers will be brought from all nations…to Jerusalem”.

You’re right about our fundamental motivation. Did you also notice in the second reading today that God disciplines those he loves…

 

[FelixBlue]

Sheen:

Yes, I agree with all of that. But such a one is not eternally separated from God – yet. He still has the opportunity to repent and turn to God. However, if this same person remains unrepentant and knowingly rejects God to the day he dies, you still say that person goes to Heaven.

Ergo, there is no eternal consequence for sin. If it feels good, do it!

But, you say, this attitude only leads to unhappiness, separation from God, and who would choose that over happiness and union with God? Well, I’ll tell you who – Strip Club Freddy, who is an avowed atheist and doesn’t give a whit about being in union with God because God doesn’t exist. Oh, yeah, he used to go to church when he was a kid, but he grew out of that superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense. He didn’t need a church telling him what he could or couldn’t do with his life. He’s perfectly happy boozing it up and livin’ loose. He’s free to do what he wants, with and to whomever he wants. There is no piper to pay, and if I feel a little low from time to time – no matter. There’s always that next, bigger high. Life’s a gas, man! (I think Freddy became a hippy during that last thought process!)

So, now – back to your original contention that hell does not exist. Does Strip Club Freddy, the Hippy get a free pass when he dies? No eternal consequences for his complete and total rejection of God?

To answer your last question, no, he does not get a free pass: as scripture says, “whatever a man sows, this he must also reap.” He will “pay”. The payment, however, will not be eternal. Does an armed robber who gets 10 years get a free pass? According to your argument, he must…because it is not the death penalty! Come on! I keep on insisting that those who sin and those who reject God do pay the price of that rejection. I am only saying that the price is not eternal. So, there is no free pass. If you wish to look at it that way, you have a poor understanding of the spiritual life. Will he make it FINALLY to heaven, to final unity with God? Yes. But not before being purified. Think of it in the words of St. Paul from I Cor. 3: “…the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

So one more time: no free pass. There is discipline.

Regarding Freddy, I wonder if your fictional character really understands what he is rejecting. Do typical atheists reject the God that you and I believe in, or do they typically reject an impression of God they have formed in their mind. Let me give you an example. The typical atheist says, “I don’t believe in God because he causes evil.” Now is this true of God? If not, then the athiest doesn’t reject the true and loving God, but only his idea of God. This is also true for one who rejects God for gold or glory or girls. Their idea of God is all wrong.

Do you believe it possible for a devout Hindu to be saved?

 

[FelixBlue]

Sheen:

And one more question, FelixBlue:

Read Matthew 25:31-46, The Judgment of the Nations. Verse 46 says, "And these (the unrighteous) will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

This passage is speaking of the judgment; this happens after you die, not while you are alive. According to you, there is no judgment because all go to Heaven. Clearly Jesus is teaching something else. He is saying some (the righteous) will go to eternal life, and some (the unrighteous) will go off to eternal punishment. He is not talking about being temporally unhappy or empty vs. being temporally happy.

So, since the judgment is after a person dies (plenty of Scripture available to back that up), where is this place of eternal punishment Jesus talks about? Certainly you will not contend there is punishment in heaven?

Additionally, to say eternal does not necessarily mean forever, would present a second difficulty in that, not only does hell exist (which you contend it does not) but will eventually end, heaven exists (which you contend it does) and must also end.

I have given the etymology for the word “eternal” before. It is “aionios” “aionion” here and can mean both “lasting for a period of time” or “forever.”

Also, I have never denied the judgment. Judgments do not always imply the best possible and the worst possible. Here, judgment merely implies that the goats are going to be SERIOUSLY punished, something I’ve agreed with from the first minute.

I see what you are saying regarding the parallellism of vs. 46. However, as you presumably decline the parallelism of St. Paul (in the verses I mentioned above) I will also go with the alternative meaning for “eternal” in relation to the punishment.

Also, as I explained elsewhere, the idea of hell does not logically follow from the idea of heaven. What is heaven? It is God. God necessarily exists (thus is a logical necessity); whereas hell (if it exists at all) is contingent (and therefore not a logical necessity). Thus to get rid of the idea of eternal damnation is not the same as getting rid of the idea of eternal beatification or divinization.

This is, by the way, where I differ strongly with the Origenist understanding of final restoration. Their understanding is largely Platonist: they see creation as a necessary immanation from the One and that it will necessarily return to the One (the apokatastasis). I see no necessity involved: it is all due to God, who, as St. John says, is Love (look at St. Paul’s conception of Love in 1 Cor. 13 and see if that allows for Hell…). God creates from love and restores from love.