Unpopulated Hell

[forthright]

Our RCIA class has been discussing sin & confession recently, and comments regarding mortal sin and “going to hell” seem to have struck a nerve with one of the candidate’s sponsor. After some heated discussion, I was willing admit that no, in fact, we do not have certain knowledge that anybody is in hell. Likewise, I admitted that, since full knowledge and consent of the will are preconditions for mortal sin, that ignorance, emotions, and mental disorders mitigate the guilt due to sins. I was also willing to admit that we should certainly hope and pray for the salvation of all souls, even those who we suspect may have died impenitent.

On his side, he confirmed the existence of free-will, the existence of hell, and the existence of mortal sin. We both said that it is not our position to judge, and that ultimately we must leave it up God’s ultimate justice and mercy.

But I’m still perplexed by why he was so adamant as to pick this topic to boldly and confidently present his opinions to the class. Since he quoted Fr. Richard Neuhaus, I read a Neuhas article defending the “unpopulated hell” theory.

What I don’t get, and what I’m asking people to comment on here, is what could be the motivation behind this perspective. Jesus obviously didn’t pull any punches about the risk of hell. If God, in his infinte mercy is going to bring everybody to heaven anyway, what’s the point following God’s law. Neuhaus dismisses this argument as “profoundly wrongheaded and spiritually perverse.” He continues to say that, “one cannot rationally and knowingly choose to live contrary to God’s will, since to do so is contrary to one’s own nature,” which I find to be blatantly absurd given that all humanity, to one degree or another, lives contrary to God’s will.

I’m just dumbfounded as to why this is worth arguing about. I mean, if Jesus taught that hell was a real possibility and we are to act and live as though hell were a real possibility, why bother proclaiming that hell might not be, in actual fact, a real possibility?

 

[Coming_Home_1]

Like what Fr. Corapi said, if your not certain there is no hell, is it not worth laying your money down on the side thats not eternal fire and suffering, just in case your wrong, you haven’t lost much that way. (or something like that). I don’t remember excactly his quote word for word, but it’s from his talk “Heaven and Hell”. I’m sure you can find it on fathercorapi.com

 

[mchale]

What I don’t get, and what I’m asking people to comment on here, is what could be the motivation behind this perspective. Jesus obviously didn’t pull any punches about the risk of hell. If God, in his infinte mercy is going to bring everybody to heaven anyway, what’s the point following God’s law. Neuhaus dismisses this argument as “profoundly wrongheaded and spiritually perverse.” He continues to say that, “one cannot rationally and knowingly choose to live contrary to God’s will, since to do so is contrary to one’s own nature,” which I find to be blatantly absurd given that all humanity, to one degree or another, lives contrary to God’s will.

I’m just dumbfounded as to why this is worth arguing about. I mean, if Jesus taught that hell was a real possibility and we are to act and live as though hell were a real possibility, why bother proclaiming that hell might not be, in actual fact, a real possibility?

I think we might be misinterpreting a little of what the late Father Neuhaus is saying here. Hell is a real possibility. Hell is a real state of being. The question is whether anyone ultimately will be condemned to Hell.

Ultimately, I think we need to keep in mind that we are are better selves are at constant war with our baser selves. All too often our baser selves win and when it does, we sin. But that doesn’t mean that those sins are chosen in a rational way.

Ultimately, I believe that Father Neuhaus is arguing that all people, no matter how evil are ultimately given (perhaps at the moment of death) a full understanding of their sins and the choice to repudiate them and accept God’s love or to reject God’s love (i.e. choose Hell). Now Father Neuhaus doesn’t seem to believe that anyone would choose hell, but I think ultimately there might be some who are so self-righteous in their sins that they ultimately would prefer an eternity of Damnation than admit they are wrong.

I pray I am not one those people .

Hell is a real possibility, just not one we can be sure is ever exercised.

–
Bill

 

[WarriorAngel]

Our RCIA class has been discussing sin & confession recently, and comments regarding mortal sin and “going to hell” seem to have struck a nerve with one of the candidate’s sponsor. After some heated discussion, I was willing admit that no, in fact, we do not have certain knowledge that anybody is in hell.

Well - what does this mean? - say if we go to Heaven and we have no more tears and we are blissfully happy and recieving the rewards for our worth… and anyway as i was saying…
What does it mean if it were better to have not been born at all?

I mean obviously if someone died and the Lord taught those men for 40 days - and they come out teaching that Judas would have been better off not being born - then where do we suppose he is, if not hell?

So i think we were given knowledge that Judas is in fact in hell.
And that he isnt alone. Or Jesus would not have taught this to us.

We cannot say for a fact who they are… and we do not know. But we can surmise that Jesus didnt lie…and that hell exists and that the path to destruction is pretty broad and easy.

 

[bankerdavid]

Well - what does this mean? - say if we go to Heaven and we have no more tears and we are blissfully happy and recieving the rewards for our worth… and anyway as i was saying…
What does it mean if it were better to have not been born at all?

I mean obviously if someone died and the Lord taught those men for 40 days - and they come out teaching that Judas would have been better off not being born - then where do we suppose he is, if not hell?

So i think we were given knowledge that Judas is in fact in hell.
And that he isnt alone. Or Jesus would not have taught this to us.

We cannot say for a fact who they are… and we do not know. But we can surmise that Jesus didnt lie…and that hell exists and that the path to destruction is pretty broad and easy.

We don’t even know if Judas is in hell. God may have done something to keep him out of hell. That said, I think there’s a lot of people who know about God, but don’t think they need him in their life to have a good life. Those who die this way may be absented from heaven, which is what hell actually is supposed to be. It’s a state of being outside of God’s abiding light.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know Fr. Neuhaus’ entire argument, but I know he has said that we are permitted to desire what God surely desires, which is that nobody goes to hell. We are permitted to hope that nobody goes to hell, but we are not permitted to teach it, or to believe it as a certainty.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Not so sure about the Church not knowing…

: Against Heresies, II.20 (St. Irenaeus)CHURCH FATHERS
Lord also declared regarding him, Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed; Matthew 26:24 and, It were better for him if he had never been born; Mark 14:21 and he was called the son of perdition John 17:12 by Him.

: Homily 81 on Matthew (Chrysostom)CHURCH FATHERS
Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve disciples. Oh the shamelessness of Judas! For he too was present there, and came to partake both of the mysteries, and of the meal, and is convicted at the very table, when although he had been a wild beast, he would have become tame.
For this cause the evangelist also signifies, that while they are eating, Christ speaks of His betrayal, that both by the time and by the table he might show the wickedness of the traitor.
…

But woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. See again in His rebukes His unspeakable meekness. For not even here with invective, but more in the way of compassion, does He apply what He says, but in a disguised way again; and yet not his former senselessness only, but his subsequent shamelessness was deserving of the utmost indignation. For after this conviction he says, Is it I, Lord? Oh insensibility! He inquires, when conscious to himself of such things. For the evangelist too, marvelling at his boldness, says this. What then says the most mild and gentle Jesus? You say. And yet He might have said, O thou unholy, thou all unholy one; accursed, and profane; so long a time in travail with mischief, who hast gone your way, and made satanical compacts, and hast agreed to receive money, and hast been convicted by me too, do you yet dare to ask? But none of these things did He say; but how? You say? fixing for us bounds and rules of long suffering.

---

But the good only should be born, he would say, and there were no need of hell, nor punishment, nor vengeance, nor trace of vice, but the wicked should either not be born at all, or being born should straightway depart.

Basically the early fathers knew the references from Jesus in the Gospels meant he would be eternally punished.

Jesus didn’t mince words when He was quoted in the order above by St Ireneaus.

Read this one; the prophecy of Judas…
: Exposition on Psalm 109 (Augustine)CHURCH FATHERS

AND finally do people go to hell?
Read this -
: No One Can Harm the Man… (St. John Chrysostom)CHURCH FATHERSWhat is the purpose of hell? What is the purpose of such great … such are the pleasant things of this life) or letting go its shadows: but the better … For even thus did Judas perish, not only having been unassailed by any trial …

And I agree. Hell is the furthest most point from God’s Presense = which is itself the most painful experience… Being near Him and not seperated completely without hope - is our reward as Heaven.
His Love and Light will be so consuming with the utmost peace that we will want for nothing more again.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I use a very simple logic that makes only 3 assumptions. The assumptions are that: 1) God is completely benevolent and would never be disingenuous and 2) Jesus is the Son of God and has His nature and the bible accounts are accurate accounts of His teachings and 3) “Hell” is not a metaphor for “forgotten” or “unseen” or “removed from existence” but is in fact a real place and or state that is terrible in more ways than we can imagine and there is an opposite place or state called “heaven” that is its opposite that is more wonderful that we can imagine.

Given that then it would have been completely disingenuous and even cruel for Jesus to warn us in no uncertain terms that “many” go by the wide gate to their destruction and “few” are they that attain to heaven. It would also have been disingenuous to stoop to exaggeration and hyperbola just to compel us to listen out of fear. And it would have also been insincere and disingenuous for Jesus to speak about hell more than perhaps any other topic in the NT - according to some reckoning. Therefore it is safe to conclude that hell is populated and owing to the earnestness of Christ’s mission and the severity of His suffering and His warnings and due to the need for divinity to become involved in the first place we can assume that Hell is HIGHLY populated - probably 100’s of millions if not “many” billions.

James

 

[mdcpensive1]

Very good James, I like what you said.

In another direction we can look at the writings about Fatima. I know it is not a matter required belief, but the three children were given a glimpse of hell by the Blessed Mother. The three children saw something like flickers of light falling into the place. It was extremely frightful. Our Mother said that it was souls from a future war. What we know of hell we get about 80% from the words of Jesus. Our Lady wants us to know how horrible it is not knowing her Son. It scares me that it could be a place without love and compassion and I hope I have nothing to do with it.

mdcpensive1

 

[SeekingHeaven]

In my opinion, it seems that hell is a place for those who willingly and knowingly choose to be there. Those who deny Christ 'til the end, even when seeing him face to face, are the ones I think who will end up there (even moreso knowing that blasphemy or utter rejection of God is the only unforgiveable sin if you stay in that state of mind). If you want to be with God, which is what he wants of us anyway, then it’s up to his divine mercy to do with us as he sees fit.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m reading Fr Neuhaus’ book, Death on a Friday Afternoon which is a reflection on the 7 last words of Jesus on the cross. In his chapter reflecting on Jesus’ words to the good thief “today you will be with me in paradise,” he discusses the idea that one can hope hell will be empty.

I felt uneasy reading this chapter and think it could be a dangerous idea if it really catches on. I am thankful for God’s mercy, but if we all end up in heaven no matter what we do, it makes the drama of life–with the reality of good and evil and the choices we make with our free will–all seem meaningless.

 

[Shin]

The unpopulated Hell idea is a heresy based on the fact that we don’t have a reverse of the canonization process in the Church. Simple as that.

Tradition tells us that in fact there are many people in Hell, and the sense of Tradition is in fact that it is a majority that goes there.

Those who teach that there is no Hell, but use the ‘unpopulated Hell’ pretense should listen to the words of St. Leonard and St. Vincent.

‘Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, “Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell.”’

St. Leonard of Port Maurice

Or perhaps they will listen to St. Teresa of Avila. . .

‘I had the greatest sorrow for the many souls that condemn themselves to Hell, especially those Lutherans. . . I saw souls falling into Hell like snowflakes.’

St. Teresa of Jesus

Or perhaps they should listen to Augustine… or perhaps they will listen to none of the saints…

Perhaps they will listen to Our Lady then?

‘Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them.’

Our Lady at Fatima

But perhaps they will not listen to Our Lady… will they listen to Jesus Christ then… ?

“Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?” Matthew 23:33

Are these not in Hell – you know that they did not repent do you not, who else persecuted the early Christians?

Ah but perhaps they will not listen to God Himself…

Well then we know where these teachers are going.

 

[thistle]

Our RCIA class has been discussing sin & confession recently, and comments regarding mortal sin and “going to hell” seem to have struck a nerve with one of the candidate’s sponsor. After some heated discussion, I was willing admit that no, in fact, we do not have certain knowledge that anybody is in hell. Likewise, I admitted that, since full knowledge and consent of the will are preconditions for mortal sin, that ignorance, emotions, and mental disorders mitigate the guilt due to sins. I was also willing to admit that we should certainly hope and pray for the salvation of all souls, even those who we suspect may have died impenitent.

On his side, he confirmed the existence of free-will, the existence of hell, and the existence of mortal sin. We both said that it is not our position to judge, and that ultimately we must leave it up God’s ultimate justice and mercy.

But I’m still perplexed by why he was so adamant as to pick this topic to boldly and confidently present his opinions to the class. Since he quoted Fr. Richard Neuhaus, I read a Neuhas article defending the “unpopulated hell” theory.

What I don’t get, and what I’m asking people to comment on here, is what could be the motivation behind this perspective. Jesus obviously didn’t pull any punches about the risk of hell. If God, in his infinte mercy is going to bring everybody to heaven anyway, what’s the point following God’s law. Neuhaus dismisses this argument as “profoundly wrongheaded and spiritually perverse.” He continues to say that, “one cannot rationally and knowingly choose to live contrary to God’s will, since to do so is contrary to one’s own nature,” which I find to be blatantly absurd given that all humanity, to one degree or another, lives contrary to God’s will.

I’m just dumbfounded as to why this is worth arguing about. I mean, if Jesus taught that hell was a real possibility and we are to act and live as though hell were a real possibility, why bother proclaiming that hell might not be, in actual fact, a real possibility?

We do not know who is in Hell but we do know there are many in Hell because Jesus himself said so.

Jesus’ words in Matt 7:13-14

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Judging by how many times I have heard the “Are You Saved Brother” evangelization script invoked on poorly catechized Catholics to lure them away from their faith I would say that hell is also populated with a large number of people who called themselves Christians. The following verse confirms that hell is populated.

Mathew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES the will of my Father in heaven.”

The Error of Balaam:
*Jude 10:11
These men revile things they do not understand, and things which they know by instinct. woe to them, for they have gone the way of Cain and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam and perished in the rebellion of Korah" (Jude 10,11). *

That said, here is how to defeat The Error of Balaam and his recruitment script:

Presumptuous heretic: “Hey brother are you saved”?
Catholic: "I am Catholic, I believe in Christ but I don’t presume to judge for God. I hope and trust in His Mercy and strive to follow His commandments.

P: “What - you aren’t certain that you are saved?!” You must not know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior". If you don’t know if you are saved then you aren’t. Have you been born again?
C: "Catholics are in a personal relationship with Christ from the moment they have been baptised. This is when we are born again by spirit and water and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is reconfirmed in the sacrament of Confirmation later in life. In Confirmation we reaffirm our faith before an apostolic bishop, that is to say, a bishop who has received the same divine ordination and spiritual authority as did the original apostles when Jesus breathed His spirit of universal authority on them. The ordained apostolic bishop physically lays hands on us to give us his apostolic blessing as one who is confirmed in Christ. This is how a Catholic has confidence that if we continue to persevere and grow in our faith all our lives we will attain salvation.

P: Bishops? Laying on of hands? Who needs apostolic authority? All you need is Jesus. It sounds to me brother that you don’t know for sure if you are saved! So what sin of yours is so great that Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient to atone for it? All you have to do is “believe” that you are saved and no matter what - you are saved brother. Can’t you see why I am so much happier in my confidence of salvation than you are in your uncertainty?
C: Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice paid for the entire debt of humanity’s sin. All who call themselves Christians believe this. But there is no biblical validity to the idea that there is a universal salvation for all humankind that is unconditioned. You admit that by professing the need to believe. That is just one condition which Christians all well understand. ‘What sin is so great that Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient to atone for’? Simple - the sins one does not repent of brother. This is the other necessary condition for the believer. You see one must believe and also turn away from sin, do penance and repent for all grave sins committed since baptism. Further, one must cooperate with Gods grace over their entire lives and strive to perfect their faith and respond to the Holy Spirit’s transformational works within themselves to achieve inner sanctification and bear fruit. We may pray for forgivness of smaller venial sins. But grave sins like heresy, murder, fornication etc. require the apostolic authority of “loosing and binding” to be forgiven. One must ordinarily confess these kinds of sins before that apostolic authority to be forgiven.

P: That’s nonsence. Look how happy I am and feel! I am happy. I am content. I know I am saved. It’s clear from your somber tone that that you are not saved.
C: I have told you “I believe”. What does my continence have to do with it? Is mere belief sufficient or not? Have you repented of your sin of presumption that you are saved before God gets to judge you saved? Have you repented of your sin of spreading a different gospel than what the apostles handed down to us brother?

P: See - you are not saved! You are depressing me. All you Catholics are going to hell. I’ll pray for you brother that you too will come to your senses and be saved some day. Bye!
C: Wait, can you show me in the bible where it says God listens to the prayers of an unrepentant sinner?

:Cricket Sounds:



James

 

[expectthebest]

We do not know who is in Hell but we do know there are many in Hell because Jesus himself said so.

Jesus’ words in Matt 7:13-14

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

This is difficult to reconcile. Knowing that I can try and the odds are still against me. Difficult and depressing…This is one of the things that makes it very hard for me to be happy in my Faith. I try to follow my Faith but I also have to try to not become depressed by my Faith, a battle which I have lost more than once.

 

[forthright]

This thread is heading off in a slightly different direction than what I had originally hoped for. Personally, I’m comfortable with the idea of a populated hell because I believe in free will. (Honestly, what would really be the point of this charade if everyone were somehow “tricked” into ultimately choosing God?) At the same time, I don’t wish eternal damnation on anyone, and I certainly hope that all may share in His divine presence some day. As Fr. Neuhaus points out, at the end of each decade of the Rosary, I pray, “. . . lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most of thy mercy.” It would be great if all were saved.

In addition, I agree that we have no absolute certain knowledge that anyone is in hell. Fr. Neuhaus, citing Pope John Paul II’s book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, states correctly, “the Church has never taught that even Judas Iscariot is damned.” Jesus’ words describing Judas do not verbatim state that Judas is damned to hell for all eternity, and there is some wiggle room in there for interpretation - just as there is wiggle room when we interpret Romans 5:18, “just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.”

My problem with this is that I’m not a psychologist, sociologist, or any other kind of “ist.” What I would like to know, and can’t seem to wrap my head around, is why someone would agree that there is a hell, that hell is eternal separation from God, that mortal sin exists, that sinning is a choice we make of our own free will, that mortal sin destroys our relationship with God, and that dying in a state of mortal sin would result in eternal separation from God, then turn around and make a big deal about all the theologians who claim no one goes to hell, how we don’t know for certain anybody is really in hell, how we don’t know for certain that God doesn’t give us one last chance to repent at the moment of death, how God could offer the grace of perfect contrition at the moment of death, etc. etc.

It just seems to me that there must be some underlying motivation as to why someone would choose to believe in an “unpopulated hell” then build up a bunch of circumstantial evidence and straw man arguments to support their belief. Any ideas on what a person is thinking when they almost demand acceptance of an unpopulated hell theory but clearly and visibly stop right at the very edge of outright heresy?

 

[Pug]

then turn around and make a big deal about all the theologians who claim no one goes to hell, how we don’t know for certain anybody is really in hell, how we don’t know for certain that God doesn’t give us one last chance to repent at the moment of death, how God could offer the grace of perfect contrition at the moment of death, etc. etc.

I’m not sure I fully understand all your words in the post, but I’ll try to answer because it interests me. I think I have seen despair operating in people, urging them to believe in universalism as a way to “resolve” their despair of salvation. I know, that is not what you are talking about, but perhaps it is similar. Or perhaps a person has a beloved deceased relative, and when they think about that relative, and fear that the relative could be in hell, then they would rather think most everyone goes to heaven, lest they hate God for abandoning the relative.

Myself, knowing that I have free will is scary. For a time in the past, it terrified me. Let me describe the terror. To me it seems like something I can’t control or predict, something that just happens to me, even though I would like to choose the right things, often I don’t. So, making hell depend on my free choice is like a sentence of doom. Obviously I will end up there if I have any (name removed by moderator)ut (I am talking about how it subjectively seems, and not talking about doctrine). So I can see how someone could resolve a terror like that with saying that it must be that hell is essentially empty, save for some demons. I don’t resolve it that way myself, but I could see how someone would. I resolve it in another way, but that isn’t relevant to the point.

I think for modern people, the doctrine of hell is extremely difficult to accept. Maybe it was hard for people before as well, I don’t know.

 

[selylidne]

Our RCIA class has been discussing sin & confession recently, and comments regarding mortal sin and “going to hell” seem to have struck a nerve with one of the candidate’s sponsor.
…

But I’m still perplexed by why he was so adamant as to pick this topic to boldly and confidently present his opinions to the class. Since he quoted Fr. Richard Neuhaus, I read a Neuhas article defending the “unpopulated hell” theory.

What I don’t get, and what I’m asking people to comment on here, is what could be the motivation behind this perspective. Jesus obviously didn’t pull any punches about the risk of hell. If God, in his infinte mercy is going to bring everybody to heaven anyway, what’s the point following God’s law. Neuhaus dismisses this argument as “profoundly wrongheaded and spiritually perverse.” He continues to say that, “one cannot rationally and knowingly choose to live contrary to God’s will, since to do so is contrary to one’s own nature,” which I find to be blatantly absurd given that all humanity, to one degree or another, lives contrary to God’s will.
…

Hi,
One possible motivation is mentioned below. I’ve read some very, very incorrect statements in this thread, some of which I want to address.

The “empty Hell” theory is traditionally known as “apocatastasis”. First, and contrary to some claims in this thread, it is NOT a heresy. There is a document that is sometimes falsely attributed to the Council of Constantinople that mentions the word “apocatastasis” but condemns only a silly Gnostic version of it–but again, the document is falsely attributed to the Council and you won’t find that text if you read what the Council produced. In fact, far from being a heresy, the view was at some times (not recently) the majority view among Catholics, and was explicitly taught by many Doctors of the Church, even recent ones. So, whatever else its merits, pending a definitive statement by the pope, apocatastasis is an entirely legitimate opinion. It is equally certainly NOT a required belief.

Second, Jesus did not warn us against Hell. He warned against divine punishment, Hades, and Gehenna. The Church’s doctrine on Hell developed to its current state. The Eastern Orthodox believe in Hell, of course, but they define the term very similarly to how Catholics think of Purgatory. This simply goes to show that there are other valid ways to think about divine punishment, Hades, and Gehenna besides our category of Hell. An alternative interpretation of “it would be better for him had he not been born” is simply that, if he had not been born, he would have spent far less time in purgatory.

Third, there are some theological reasons to think that God might ultimately save everyone (perhaps after unimaginably long “ages upon ages” in Purgatory). Three quick examples:

• God has perfect foreknowledge. Why would He create someone He knew would reject Him and end up in Hell eternally?
• If God wills that all men should be saved, but this does not happen because God is just and must punish sin, then we have set up a contradiction inside God where His justice is opposed to His mercy. (Apocatastasis view: He punishes them only in order to save them.)
• We can hope and pray that God should ultimately save everyone. How could it be that creatures are more merciful than God? God’s mercy must be infinite.

Fourth, there are some scriptural reasons, too.

• Romans 5:18. “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” Original Sin affected all men, every single human. Scripture uses the exact same “all men” for describing both Original Sin and justification, so might it not mean the same, every single human?
• The words usually translated “forever and ever” literally mean “ages upon ages”, and suggest a very long time rather than an infinite time.
• John 17:1-2. “Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.’” Similarly, John 6:37. “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” Each of those seems to say that God the Father put everyone in Jesus’ care, and Jesus will save everyone in his care, which would mean he’ll save everyone.

Fifth, spreading the Gospel is still imperative even if apocatastasis is true. Following Christ now would prevent “ages upon ages” of punishment in the afterlife. While it may be the case that everyone will get to Heaven eventually, it would be woefully unloving of us to write off their temporal suffering as of no account. No one gets a free pass to Heaven. They must change and cooperate with God’s grace. It is much easier and more effective to do that in this life.

Finally, the usual reason I’ve heard people give for vociferously defending apocatastasis / “empty Hell” is that they feel the customary view of Hell makes God out to be a wicked tyrant. It is intolerable to believe evil of God, and so they naturally protest. (If you cannot believe in a good God, it is better to not believe in God at all, because otherwise you’d be committing idolatry!)

Personally, I consider it very likely that Hell is empty. Whether or not it is true, it is necessary to “work out my salvation with fear and trembling.”

As a really-really-final irony, remember from your geography that the dread valley of Gehenna rises gradually until it becomes the holy Mount Zion.

 

[forthright]

Pug - Your response is very much what I’ve been looking for. It just seems odd to me that someone would accept hell as the eternal destination of an unrepentant mortal sinner, then argue vociferously that no one is in hell. I’d like to hear others’ ideas on what would motivate a person to argue this way.

Selylidne - I don’t think I called the theory a heresy, but maybe someone else did. In reading up more on the topic, I ran across this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles that was a response to the original article in the same magazine by Fr. Neuhaus. It is well worth the read, and, personally, I think Dulles’ article is much more fair and balanced. (If you read the Dulles article, make sure to also read his correction to the article when he responds to readers’ comments.)

 

[bankerdavid]

Sister, my only point is that we on earth are not to judge. We can suppose, but God may have saved Judas due to some good works he did for His Son. We just don’t know.

Not so sure about the Church not knowing…

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, II.20 (St. Irenaeus)
Lord also declared regarding him, Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed; Matthew 26:24 and, It were better for him if he had never been born; Mark 14:21 and he was called the son of perdition John 17:12 by Him.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 81 on Matthew (Chrysostom)
Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve disciples. Oh the shamelessness of Judas! For he too was present there, and came to partake both of the mysteries, and of the meal, and is convicted at the very table, when although he had been a wild beast, he would have become tame.
For this cause the evangelist also signifies, that while they are eating, Christ speaks of His betrayal, that both by the time and by the table he might show the wickedness of the traitor.
…

But woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. See again in His rebukes His unspeakable meekness. For not even here with invective, but more in the way of compassion, does He apply what He says, but in a disguised way again; and yet not his former senselessness only, but his subsequent shamelessness was deserving of the utmost indignation. For after this conviction he says, Is it I, Lord? Oh insensibility! He inquires, when conscious to himself of such things. For the evangelist too, marvelling at his boldness, says this. What then says the most mild and gentle Jesus? You say. And yet He might have said, O thou unholy, thou all unholy one; accursed, and profane; so long a time in travail with mischief, who hast gone your way, and made satanical compacts, and hast agreed to receive money, and hast been convicted by me too, do you yet dare to ask? But none of these things did He say; but how? You say? fixing for us bounds and rules of long suffering.

---

But the good only should be born, he would say, and there were no need of hell, nor punishment, nor vengeance, nor trace of vice, but the wicked should either not be born at all, or being born should straightway depart.

Basically the early fathers knew the references from Jesus in the Gospels meant he would be eternally punished.

Jesus didn’t mince words when He was quoted in the order above by St Ireneaus.

Read this one; the prophecy of Judas…
CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 109 (Augustine)

AND finally do people go to hell?
Read this -
CHURCH FATHERS: No One Can Harm the Man… (St. John Chrysostom)What is the purpose of hell? What is the purpose of such great … such are the pleasant things of this life) or letting go its shadows: but the better … For even thus did Judas perish, not only having been unassailed by any trial …

And I agree. Hell is the furthest most point from God’s Presense = which is itself the most painful experience… Being near Him and not seperated completely without hope - is our reward as Heaven.
His Love and Light will be so consuming with the utmost peace that we will want for nothing more again.