Philosophy/Theology: Dare We Hope That All Be Saved?

[cpayne]

The title of the thread, of course, comes from Hans Urs van Balthasar’s book. Recently in the journal First Things, an intense discussion of the question, both pro and con, covered two or three months.

My answer right now is no, we can’t reasonably hope for all being saved, since there seems so much contrary to it both in Scripture and in tradition. But I’m willing to be talked out of my view. Any universal salvationists out there want to discuss it? (Or anyone else, for that matter.)

 

[cor]

The essence of God is love. God is Love Itself. And this Love being Infinite, has the Power to bring all persons to the state of being animated by divine love and thus suited to the glories of heaven.

The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a number of saints and Church Fathers who believed in the apokatastasis, the final restoration of all spirits:

newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

To that list, we can add, perhaps at least with respect to humans, Doctor of the Church, St. Therese of Lisieux, if what she wrote in a play is any indication of her thought: (this is from von Balthasar; you can read more in the link)

*Therese has so lively a consciousness of the “always more” aspect of divine mercy that, in a Christmas play for the edification of the members of her religious order, she has various angels assemble around the crib: the “Angel of the Child Jesus” and the “Angel of the Holy Countenance” (the Passion) sing of the infinite love of the Son of Man in anticipation of his coming suffering but also of his Resurrection and triumph. Then there appears the “Angel of the Last Judgment, armed with a sword a pair of scales”. The following excerpt from his lines may be cited here:

“The day of reckoning is coming soon; this impure world will be forced to go through fire. We will see the radiance of his glory, no longer concealed beneath the features of a child; we will extol his triumph and acknowledge him as the Almighty. You will tremble; the inhabitants of the earth will not bear the wrath of this Child, who today is the God of love. He chooses suffering and demands in return only your frail heart. At the time of judgment, you will recognize his power and quake before the avenging God.”

Then “the angel of the Holy Countenance” speaks, requesting of the Child the promised mercy for those sinners whose conversion gives God greater joy than do the ninety-nine righteous who have no need of repentance. After this comes the voice of the Child: “I will listen to your request: every soul will find forgiveness.” The Angel of Vengeance once again objects: “Do you forget, Jesus that the sinner must be punished; do you forget, in your exceeding love, that the number of the godless is endless? At the time of judgment, I want to punish the crimes, to destroy all the ungrateful; my sword is ready, well will I know how to avenge you!” Then the Child Jesus: "Beautiful angel, lower your sword. It is not for you to judge the nature that I desired to set in being and to redeem. I myself am the Judge of the world, and my name is Jesus. The Angel of Judgment kneels down and, “quite beside himself, wonders at your unutterable love.”*

books.google.com/books?q=%22every+soul+will+find+forgiveness%22&btnG=Search+Books (click on “Dare We Hope…” to read it)

Here’s a non-Catholic resource on universalism:

tentmaker.org/

Some universalist passages in scripture:

1 Cor 15:22
Col 1:20
Rom 5:18
Rom 11:32

I’ll focus on Col 1:20

“and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

If there are souls or spirits to be forever in hell, then they would not be among the “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven” that are to be “reconciled” – those in hell are not reconciled! I don’t see any way around this. And note it says Christ came to reconcile all things whether things on earth or things in heaven – or in the heavens – that would include the fallen angels as the heavens (sky or skies) are their abode, even though they are cast out from the beatific presence of God.

In the Old Testament it says that even if a mother should forget her child that God would not forget any of us.

 

[Pax]

Christ’s reconciliation of all things unto himself doesn’t have to be interpreted in the broadest sense possible. Interpreting it in such a broad sense makes many verses of scripture nothing more than useless tidbits of meaningless prose.

I’ll give but a couple of examples:

Rev 20:10
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Rev 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Matthew 18:18
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire.”

 

[cpayne]

Thanks for both thoughtful replies. Let me think about this for a few hours before jumping back in. If anyone else wants to join in, feel free–I’ll be reading but maybe not commenting directly.

I do have another question: Does universal salvation reduce or even destroy outright the motivation for evangelism?

 

[Greg27]

Personally I would consider this a theological rather than a philosophical question.

From a philosophy of religions standpoint, some thinkers have made rational arguments that God’s justice (that is the God of the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) requires some people to be punished eternally in a domain of suffering called hell. Richard Swinburne gave several interesting arguments to support this. One the other hand, other philosophers of religion (including atheists) argue the notion of an eternal hell is a very good reason for not believing that God exists.

Personally from a theological and philosophical standpoint I find the idea of an eternal hell reprehensible. I can’t accept it is reasonable to believe a good, loving being punishes people eternally, however grave the sin is. However, some religions believe in the eternity of hell and argue for it, so my view is obviously not shared by everyone. But I think from a Philosophical perspective, it is hard to argue what is good about punishing anyone with infinite suffering for trillions and trillions of years, to infinity.

 

[cpayne]

Eleonore Stump has a truly wonderful article called something like “God’s Love and Dante’s Hell,” in which she argues convincingly that humans, given the opportunity, would continue away from God until they reduce themselves to the evil of total privation. In that view, Hell itself is a place of God’s love, despite the suffering; God is saying to those in Hell, “You cannot go any further away from Me; here I arrest your opportunity to continue into virtual non-existence.” As the sign over Dante’s Hell says (partially), “Primal Love made me.”
Aquinas argues, “Everything that exists is good insofar as it exists in reality.” For God to allow people to remain in existence in Hell might be the only contact with Goodness they will eternally allow–the goodness of continued existence.

 

[Greg27]

The doctrine of hell is not an easy one to swallow. Of course in Catholic theology there are things like mortal or deadly sin, and the grim medieval and Renaissance paintings of things like the last judgement can make hell seem like the ‘hellfire’ sermon of James Joyce, where an angry God’s wrath burns up sinners for endless eternity.

I haven’t found classical philosophical arguments for hell’s existence that convincing, not contemporary arguments either. The most appealing picture to me of hell is that of Balthasar, where the sinner faces God whether bound to hell or heaven, and experience God’s prescence either as eternal joy or eternal pain. In so far as who goes to hell I feel many people are a bit too presumptous to judge on this matter in this life, tending to forget judgement will in the end be up to God.

In a way I like the picture that Eriugena proposed; in hell sinners are tormented by their disordered attachments which in mortal life cut them off from growing into God. Dante’s vision in inferno with the various mortal sinners trapped by their sins is an updated version of this. Created human nature is uneqivocally good, so it would be wrong to suggest God wants to ruin or destroy this nature, rather, it is we who cut ourselves off from God through constant denial of his goodness (and consequently our own). I often like to think of hell as a door which we will close after we throw the key away, outside of the opening of the door, and never dare to try and open it from the inside, as time stretches to infinity (to perhaps use a modern analogy). On the other side is God, but on our side there is only ourself.

 

[cor]

Christ’s reconciliation of all things unto himself doesn’t have to be interpreted in the broadest sense possible. Interpreting it in such a broad sense makes many verses of scripture nothing more than useless tidbits of meaningless prose.

The language used in the verse I quoted seems to incline towards the broadest sense possible; it was very explicit. What other sense could you make out from the text?

When faced with seemingly contradictory scriptures one can either 1) reexamine the proposition that all of the scriptures are inerrant OR 2) say that the first universalist scripture is as you apprehended it to be (supporting universalism) and the second set of scriptures do not say what they may seem at first glance to say OR 3) say that the first universalist scripture does not support universalism despite it seeming to do so and that the second set of scriptures do say what they may seem at first glance to say.

We’ll set aside (1) and just look at the twin choices of (2) and (3). Well, you have chosen option (3) – but you don’t give a reason for favoring (3) over (2) (not to say you don’t have one; if you’re Catholic you might then proceed to appeal to some ecclesiastical authority) I on the other hand will choose (2) and give a textual reason.

I’ll give but a couple of examples:

Rev 20:10
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Rev 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Matthew 18:18
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire.”

With regard to the middle passage, there is no mention of their state in the lake of fire continuing for ever. With regard to the first passage, the Greek says:

kai okarnos tou basanismou auton eis aionas ton aionon anabainei

That italicized phrase literally means “eons of the eons.” The word “eon” comes from the Greek “aion.” All these Bibles translate it in this more literal way:

“for the eons of the eons.” Concordant Literal New Testament

“for the ages of the ages.” Young’s Literal, and others

“for the aeons of the aeons.” The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson

"unto the ages of the ages.: Rotherham’s Emphasized, and others

“through the ages of the ages.” The Holy Bible in Modern English

As you can see, translated literally, there’s no implication of everlasting punishment.

The same kind of thing is true of the last passage you quoted. The Greek is from the same root there as well.

Here’s a book that goes into the Greek:

tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
(I have not read it, but it looks profitable)

And here’s a vehemently anti-univeralist website that admits that the Greek does in fact literally translate in this way:

carm.org/uni/aionion.htm

*To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into “eternal,” “forever,” and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is “aionion.” It comes from the Greek root “aion” meaning “age.” This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root “aion,” are what the universalists use to attempt to show that “aionion” does not always mean “eternal” but can refer to a finite period of time.
** The truth is, they are right.** It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.*

 

[Pax]

I would certainly agree that all languages have a broad range of meanings associated with various words and terms. You are also right to look at the context. IMHO the context makes it quite clear that the scriptures I quoted are indeed speaking of eternity. The translators are usually highly qualified people and they normally translate the quoted passages in terms of eternity. They do this based on the meanings of the words and the context in which they are used.

It should also be noted that we do not need to depend only upon English translations from the Greek. Translations in virtually every other language also translate the passages I quoted in terms of “eternity.” The most telling translation in this regard is the Latin Vulgate which was translated by Jerome around 405 AD. Jerome is arguably the greatest scripture scholar of all time and his command of the Greek and Latin languages was superb. His translation of the Greek into Latin is as follows:

Rev 20:10
et pseudoprophetes et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum.

saecula saeculorum means: For ever.

Matthew 18:8
si autem manus tua vel pes tuus scandalizat te abscide eum et proice abs te bonum tibi est ad vitam ingredi debilem vel clodum quam duas manus vel duos pedes habentem mitti in ignem aeternum

ignem aeternum means: The eternal fire.

You also mentioned that in the following verse “there is no mention of their state in the lake of fire continuing for ever.”

Rev 20:14 says:
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Please be advised that this is where the context is important. Nowhere in the book of Revelation is there anything that suggests that the things thrown into the lake of fire ever escape. Instead, Rev 20:10 would strongly suggest that “anything” thrown into the lake of fire is going to remain there “for ever.” In addition to this Rev 20:14 is in such close proximity to 20:10 that the connection to eternity is virtually inescapable. Likewise, Rev 20:14 says that death and Hades are thrown into the lake fire. Clearly, death and Hades are finished and they will never emerge from the lake of fire. Furthermore, the lake of fire is referred to as the “second death.” This term has a degree of finality that simply cannot be ignored. There is a lot more in scripture that indicates that hell is eternal but what has been quoted here should be sufficient.

I hope this helps.

 

[Janitor_Minor]

Besides learned books, etc., I think we should take note of the mystics, apparitions, etc. more. Just one occurence as an example … the apparitions with Our Lady of Fatima. Why would Our Lady show 3 small kids a vision of hell and the poor souls in it if there was no such place? Living a good life and trying to make very good use of God’s mercy is our only hope.

Another thought … some folks hate God and want nothing to do with Him. No amount of praying will change their minds. They worship satan and will the rest of their lives. There will be no mercy here. In another apparition, a saint was praying for a sinner with as much ernestness as possible … Our Lord appeared to him and told him that even if His Mother, Our Lady, would pray for that guy his entire life, it would do no good …

I met a guy that used to be in a hard rock bad. One day he overdosed and ended up in a hospital in a coma. He said for 3 days God hung him over hell and that is all he watched. Now please spare me the psycho babble about what our minds can do to us. There’s a difference between what our minds do to us and what God does to someone He’s talking too. {He is no longer in the band, has changed his life and wants to help others stay on the right path.}

These are just some of the example off the top of my head. Hell is real, very real … and a whole hell of alot of folks are going there. The biggest portion of the folks presently in hell are there do to impurity …

And once again I will say … some folks actually hate God and will always hate Him. They are consumed by satan and will always be.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Some universalist passages in scripture:

1 Cor 15:22
Col 1:20
Rom 5:18
Rom 11:32

I’ll focus on Col 1:20

“and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

If there are souls or spirits to be forever in hell, then they would not be among the “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven” that are to be “reconciled” – those in hell are not reconciled! I don’t see any way around this. And note it says Christ came to reconcile all things whether things on earth or things in heaven – or in the heavens – that would include the fallen angels as the heavens (sky or skies) are their abode, even though they are cast out from the beatific presence of God.

In the Old Testament it says that even if a mother should forget her child that God would not forget any of us.

You indicated in your response to me that this passage should be interpreted in the “broadest possible sense” and that it is explicit in that regard. I strongly disagree with that assessment. The preceding verses make it quite clear that those that are being reconciled are those that believe in Christ. Moreover, Col 1:21-23 further explains verse 21. This passage demonstrates that the reconciliation described is provisional. As such, it can be lost.

Col 1:21-23 reads as follows:
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preachd to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Also keep in mind that not all who hear the gospel accept it. Only those that accept the gospel of Jesus are reconciled to Him.

 

[cor]

I would certainly agree that all languages have a broad range of meanings associated with various words and terms. You are also right to look at the context. IMHO the context makes it quite clear that the scriptures I quoted are indeed speaking of eternity. The translators are usually highly qualified people and they normally translate the quoted passages in terms of eternity. They do this based on the meanings of the words and the context in which they are used.

I gave you a bunch of translations which translated it literally (see post above) Different translations will have different translation philosophies. The less literal the translation philosophy, the more theological interpretation and bias color it and bias it. For example, the NIV (which I nevertheless often use for the forums since it’s the default on biblegateway), apparently renders the same Greek word as “tradition” when the NT speaks of it negatively and as “teaching” when the NT speaks of it positively.

The most telling translation in this regard is the Latin Vulgate which was translated by Jerome around 405 AD. Jerome is arguably the greatest scripture scholar of all time and his command of the Greek and Latin languages was superb. His translation of the Greek into Latin is as follows:

Rev 20:10
et pseudoprophetes et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum.

saecula saeculorum means: For ever.

That’s not quite true. “saecula saeculorum” means literally “ages of ages.” Idiomatically it can mean for ever, but that’s not the literal meaning (here nor anywhere where the Greek aion is used).

The Latin Dictionary at Notre Dame is offline at the moment, but here’s another source which gives the literal meaning (as well as the idiomatic one):

webster.com/dictionary/in+saecula+saeculorum

Matthew 18:8
si autem manus tua vel pes tuus scandalizat te abscide eum et proice abs te bonum tibi est ad vitam ingredi debilem vel clodum quam duas manus vel duos pedes habentem mitti in ignem aeternum

ignem aeternum means: The eternal fire.

“aeternum” (under the entry in the form aeternus) according to An Elementary Latin Dictionary, means “of an age, lasting, enduring, permanent, endless.”

books.google.com/books?id=QXcKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA38&lpg=RA1-PA38&dq=aeternus+age+latin&source=web&ots=VAqH-aJh4n&sig=1SlXPmG_WV1t3CGmihvuW636C1Y

So it can mean endless, but not necessarily. I have no idea what meaning Jerome had in mind when he translated. But Jerome was actually a universalist initially and then later changed his mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apokatastasis#in_Christianity

And out of six “theological schools” in the ancient Church, four supported universalism whereas only one supported eternal damnation:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation#Early_history

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.u.ii.html
(The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge)
“In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”

So the “sense of the faithful” seems to be on the side of universalism.

 

[cor]

You indicated in your response to me that this passage should be interpreted in the “broadest possible sense” and that it is explicit in that regard. I strongly disagree with that assessment. The preceding verses make it quite clear that those that are being reconciled are those that believe in Christ. Moreover, Col 1:21-23 further explains verse 21. This passage demonstrates that the reconciliation described is provisional. As such, it can be lost.

Col 1:21-23 reads as follows:
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preachd to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Also keep in mind that not all who hear the gospel accept it. Only those that accept the gospel of Jesus are reconciled to Him.

You seem to be interpreting Col 1:20 to be speaking of the reconciliation of those who hear and accept the gospel. I assume you are only including human beings, wayfarers or pilgrims on earth here. Then how do you explain the bolded phrase"

“and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

What “things in heaven” are “reconciled” on your interpretation? In my interpretation, it is the angels, in particular the fallen ones who battle in the heavens with the unfallen ones. Your interpretation is already a stretch but here it seems impossible to reconcile with the text. Any answer to that?

 

[NonnisiteDomine]

The title of the thread, of course, comes from Hans Urs van Balthasar’s book. Recently in the journal First Things, an intense discussion of the question, both pro and con, covered two or three months.

My answer right now is no, we can’t reasonably hope for all being saved, since there seems so much contrary to it both in Scripture and in tradition. But I’m willing to be talked out of my view. Any universal salvationists out there want to discuss it? (Or anyone else, for that matter.)

Isn’t there some sort of law of opposites in existence? If we believe in Heaven, having tasted some of it’s sweetness already in the Sacrament of Love don’t we have to also believe in Hell and the power of our choice to which place we will exist eternally? Truly we have probably all had a good taste of it as well.

Isn’t Hell what happens to man when he has repeatedly chosen to hate good and embrace evil until he reaches the point that Love is his enemy? God doesn’t cast any into Hell but He cannot invite any into Heaven who do not love. Though we cannot judge hearts, it does appear that some die in hatred. What then? Does God now say that man’s free will is no more? I don"t think so. But who knows, there is great power in salvific suffering could our prayers reach even into to Hell.

Blessings

 

[Pax]

It really doesn’t matter if there were various schools of thought in the early Church when it came to theological speculations. What matters is what the Church “universal” happened to teach. If we depended on sheer numbers we would have to believe in Arianism because that particular heresy was believed by a majority of church members at one point in time.

The meanings of the passages provided are in my opinion quite clear and I stand by what I have written. Moreover, translators and scholars stand with my position and not yours. Absolute literal translations from the Greek do not necessarily convey the correct or intended meaning of the words. You used the term “idiomatic” which certainly comes into play when understanding and translating between languages. I will stick with the many respected translations of scripture available to us.

To suggest that only a translation that is absolutely “literal word” for “literal word” is the one that gives the true meaning is nonsense. Translation bias can occur, but that is something different than translating the literal idea and intention of the author in his original language into an understandable and truthful rendition in another language. You even admit that certain words have a range of meaning. Your problem is that you prefer certain meanings within that range over others because your chosen meanings support your view. Likewise, you make the claim that everyone else is introducing their personal bias and theological view. Sorry, but that attack has just been turned around on you. Languages are translated accurately from one to another when the intended meaning is properly rendered from one to another. Scholars are much better at this than either you or I. Naturally, no translation is inspired or perfect, but some are certainly better than others.

You asked for my thoughts on the phrase “and through him to reconcile to himself things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” In this regard I would refer you to biblical commentaries that address the issue. The Haydock Biblical Commentary gives the following statement:

Ver. 20. To reconcile all things unto himself,…through the blood of his cross, (i.e. which Christ shed on the cross) both as to the things on earth, and…in heaven: not that Christ died for the Angels, but, says St. Chrysostom, the Angels were in a manner at war with men, with sinners, as they stood for the cause and glory of God; but Christ put an end to this enmity, by restoring men to his favour. (Witham) — In heaven. Not by pardoning the wicked angels did Christ reconcile the things in heaven, but by reconciling good Angels to man, who were enemies to him before the birth of Christ. (St. Augustine)

I hope this helps.

 

[cpayne]

NonnisiteDomine’s post made me think. It’s difficult for me to think of Hell as the “opposite” of Heaven, just as I can’t think of Satan as the “opposite” of God (dualism) and I can’t think of evil as the “opposite” of good (since good has ontological reality, of which evil is the privation or lack). So is Hell a privation of Heaven? Would that make Hell have functional reality, but not ontological?

I hope these questions are clear, since they don’t even seem really clear to me as I read over them.

 

[NonnisiteDomine]

NonnisiteDomine’s post made me think. It’s difficult for me to think of Hell as the “opposite” of Heaven, just as I can’t think of Satan as the “opposite” of God (dualism) and I can’t think of evil as the “opposite” of good (since good has ontological reality, of which evil is the privation or lack). So is Hell a privation of Heaven? Would that make Hell have functional reality, but not ontological?

I hope these questions are clear, since they don’t even seem really clear to me as I read over them.

I’m just a baby here…but is not God all that is good while Satan is all that is not good? Is not Satan also a being? Evil is a lack of goodness because it cannot exist in the same place, it is still very real in my understanding.

 

[cor]

You asked for my thoughts on the phrase “and through him to reconcile to himself things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” In this regard I would refer you to biblical commentaries that address the issue. The Haydock Biblical Commentary gives the following statement:

Ver. 20. To reconcile all things unto himself,…through the blood of his cross, (i.e. which Christ shed on the cross) both as to the things on earth, and…in heaven: not that Christ died for the Angels, but, says St. Chrysostom, the Angels were in a manner at war with men, with sinners, as they stood for the cause and glory of God; but Christ put an end to this enmity, by restoring men to his favour. (Witham) — In heaven. Not by pardoning the wicked angels did Christ reconcile the things in heaven, but by reconciling good Angels to man, who were enemies to him before the birth of Christ. (St. Augustine)

I hope this helps.

The fact is not all “translators and scholars” are on your side. Many scholars are on my side. You can read some of their works in some of the links I posted above in the thread.

As for this interpretation in this commentary, it seems to be “ad hoc.” No one would have believed that the unfallen angels were at war with man before the birth of Christ were it not for this verse and the necessity of reconciling it with an Eternal Torment view. Also, it would seem to suggest that the good angels were at war with the Blessed Virgin Mary prior to the birth of Christ, which doesn’t seem to square with Catholicism, nor with the scriptures, nor with good religious sense. It also seems to run contrary to the book of Tobit (included in the Catholic OT) where the angel Raphael is very much the friend of man in that passage. It also seems to contradict the general theological teaching that every man from birth has a guardian angel – how are these guardian angels at “war” with the very men they are charged with protecting?

A world with an eternal Hell is a world where evil has an enduring, everlasting sway where God never achieves total and complete victory over evil. That is philosophically as well as scripturally unacceptable.

 

[cpayne]

I’m just a baby here…but is not God all that is good while Satan is all that is not good? Is not Satan also a being? Evil is a lack of goodness because it cannot exist in the same place, it is still very real in my understanding.

Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that Satan didn’t exist. What I meant was that Satan is not God’s opposite. God is God, Supreme Being, All-Powerful Creator. Satan is just another part of God’s creation–not on the same level as God.

Evil is functionally real; it has real effects. Ontologically, however, evil is not a “thing,” but a deprivation of a good thing. Put it this way: Good exists; any sort of existence evil has is derivative off the primary existence of good. Good and evil aren’t equivalent in power or status.

What all this got me thinking about was this question: Does Hell have a similar sort of derivative relationship to Heaven, perhaps existing as a “lack of Heaven”?

 

[NonnisiteDomine]

Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that Satan didn’t exist. What I meant was that Satan is not God’s opposite. God is God, Supreme Being, All-Powerful Creator. Satan is just another part of God’s creation–not on the same level as God.

Evil is functionally real; it has real effects. Ontologically, however, evil is not a “thing,” but a deprivation of a good thing. Put it this way: Good exists; any sort of existence evil has is derivative off the primary existence of good. Good and evil aren’t equivalent in power or status.

What all this got me thinking about was this question: Does Hell have a similar sort of derivative relationship to Heaven, perhaps existing as a “lack of Heaven”?

A lack of Heaven forever? Sounds like Hell!
I am out of my league here but have enjoyed this!

Blessings