Early church opposition to endless hell

[ArmyMatt]

Can you please give an example of how love can torment. I'm having a hard time seeing it.

read St Maximos the confessor or St Isaac the Syrian. if someone loves you, and you don't love them in return, their love is torment. we see this all the time.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Can you please give an example of how love can torment. I'm having a hard time seeing it.

I just had to answer this question to a bunch of elementary school students a little while ago. I don't like the get into much details of eschatology with them. (I don't want them to misunderstand and besides, they are easily fascinated with the subject.)

But I answered one little boy, after we established that God is everywhere and God loves everyone - what is it like if you hate someone and they love you and want to hug you and you can't get away from being in the same room with them? (Again a topic that requires sensitivity with kids.) But they could all imagine such a situation.

 

[AMM]

I just had to answer this question to a bunch of elementary school students a little while ago. I don't like the get into much details of eschatology with them. (I don't want them to misunderstand and besides, they are easily fascinated with the subject.)

But I answered one little boy, after we established that God is everywhere and God loves everyone - what is it like if you hate someone and they love you and want to hug you and you can't get away from being in the same room with them? (Again a topic that requires sensitivity with kids.) But they could all imagine such a situation.

Okay this might sound somewhat... blasphemous? (and like you said - sensitivity), but I know several of my non-orthodox friends if they heard this description, they would liken it to basically some sort of stalking or assault. But I know that's not what you're trying to say nor do I think that's what hell is like. But does that make sense or am I not explaining well?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Okay this might sound somewhat... blasphemous? (and like you said - sensitivity), but I know several of my non-orthodox friends if they heard this description, they would liken it to basically some sort of stalking or assault. But I know that's not what you're trying to say nor do I think that's what hell is like. But does that make sense or am I not explaining well?

I understand what you're saying. That's why I said it takes sensitivity and you have to make SURE they aren't misunderstanding. It's easy to misunderstand.

That's another reason I don't like explaining it to children. But I'd rather do it in this way thsn explain how God's love can be torment, how God can be a consuming fire.

I have to REALLY draw a distinction between humans expressing affection and this analogy. I just figured it was safe to leave it with you. But you are correct, it has to be handled carefully.

 

[AMM]

I understand what you're saying. That's why I said it takes sensitivity and you have to make SURE they aren't misunderstanding. It's easy to misunderstand.

That's another reason I don't like explaining it to children. But I'd rather do it in this way thsn explain how God's love can be torment, how God can be a consuming fire.

I have to REALLY draw a distinction between humans expressing affection and this analogy. I just figured it was safe to leave it with you. But you are correct, it has to be handled carefully.

The analogy I used the other day was fire or something like a hot tub. If you're already warm, then the heat feels nice. But if you have frostbite and are ice-cold, then the heat is going to be painful to you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Speaking of which, I think I'm going to focus more on "state" next time I'm asked. The kids can understand if a person made themselves cold by turning against God, like a snowman ... and God's love being like a radiant light. That might more easily introduce another step so that I don't risk what you brought up.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The analogy I used the other day was fire or something like a hot tub. If you're already warm, then the heat feels nice. But if you have frostbite and are ice-cold, then the heat is going to be painful to you.

I like that too.

I guess you were answering just as a similar idea struck me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The analogy I used the other day was fire or something like a hot tub. If you're already warm, then the heat feels nice. But if you have frostbite and are ice-cold, then the heat is going to be painful to you.

Further I like this better for teens. Which should soon be my main focus.

Thank you.

 

[AMM]

Further I like this better for teens. Which should soon be my main focus.

Thank you.

I like that too.

I guess you were answering just as a similar idea struck me.

We did seem to post right at once!

You're welcome, I forget who gave me that example, but I think it was someone in TAW. Maybe not. But it's not original to me. I hope it helps

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay this might sound somewhat... blasphemous? (and like you said - sensitivity), but I know several of my non-orthodox friends if they heard this description, they would liken it to basically some sort of stalking or assault. But I know that's not what you're trying to say nor do I think that's what hell is like. But does that make sense or am I not explaining well?

it's not stalking if God is everywhere present by nature. God is not only following, He is also what the sinner is running toward, and Who is running with him. that is why it's a maddening attempt to escape from the One Who is no matter where you turn.

 

[Toolbelt]

So hell is basically remorse. If im understanding your veiw of it correctly. The problem with this is that there are people who are sociopaths and dont feel remorse in the usual sense.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So hell is basically remorse. If im understanding your veiw of it correctly. The problem with this is that there are people who are sociopaths and dont feel remorse in the usual sense.

no, hell is not remorse in that sense. the sinner sins because he doesn't want to follow God. so hell being God's presence means he can only face that which he hates.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think it was an overstatement to consider it torment, consuming fire, suffering, an undying worm.

Not just a little regret.

But what's important I think is to understand it's not because of God's retribution, but rather because of the actual state of the person (which is of their own doing and choice).

So if I ever give any other impression, please forgive me. Of course Fr. Matt is the one to listen to. I'm just chiming in, for my own benefit in case I need correction as much as for anyone else's.

 

[SaintCody777]

The Orthodox do affirm that there will be eternal conscious punishment for the unrepentant. I did hear of a few Anglican ministers endorsing annihilation.
To tell you the truth, eternal conscious torment scares me a heck of a lot more than simply being wiped out of existence. There are some famous Orthodox saints, like St. John Chrysostem Justin Matyr who described the vivid details of hell.
Chrysostom on Hell and Eternity (II)

The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers (Many saints mentioned and quoted in this article also happen to be Orthodox Christian saints)
The everlasting concious hell is unpopular in today's society. Some sects and peoole, like the SDA, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongnites, and certain Evangelicals try to minimize the seriousness of hell by saying that the wicked will simply be annihilated. Others, take the downplaying of hell much further by either thinking and saying its going to be a big party bash, where they'll join all their friends and party forever more, or deny hell entirely, like Universalists do. Nevertheless, hell is really a place of everlasting torment for those who willingly reject the given grave of God. We, Orthodox, are NOT judgemental and God does not want anyone to perish. But if a person willfully rejects Gods grace, he will forever reaps the results.

 

[prodromos]

Can you please give an example of how love can torment. I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Read the parable of the Prodigal Son but focus on the son who remained. He is loved by his father, but he refuses to go in to the celebrations.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and with that, in Daniel, the same fire that was bedewed for the 3 Holy Youths in the furnace killed the Chaldeans who put them in there

 

[Toolbelt]

Read the parable of the Prodigal Son but focus on the son who remained. He is loved by his father, but he refuses to go in to the celebrations.

You bring up a good point but, this is one particular vice. It might be the sin of pride. Because he felt he was an ideal son and deseved better or more than his brother. Is everybody that is going to hell. Going to feel this exact way? I dont believe so. I believe its more related to character than vice alone.

 

[Toolbelt]

and with that, in Daniel, the same fire that was bedewed for the 3 Holy Youths in the furnace killed the Chaldeans who put them in there

That was a real fire though and a miracle lndeed. The lake of fire is suppose to be a fire from our own making and is a figurative fire dealing with our reaction to love.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That was a real fire though and a miracle lndeed. The lake of fire is suppose to be a fire from our own making and is a figurative fire dealing with our reaction to love.

sure, that's why it's a prototype of the fire to come.

 

[rakovsky]

ClementofA,
Let me sort out your issue with ArmyMatt.
You cited the once-highly-respected Apocalypse of Peter as an example of universalism:

"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage),
McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

In The Apocalypse of Peter, Peter sees the various sufferings of the sinners who are consigned to Hell, and prays that Christ will save them.

There is a passage in the Ethiopic version that scholars think is a separate story written centuries later and which is placed after the Apocalypse of Peter. Here is M.R. James' translation with his paraphrasing in brackets:

'The Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son.'
[The destiny of sinners -their eternal doom- is more than Peter can endure: he appeals to Christ to have pity on them.]
And my Lord answered me and said to me: 'Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.'

[Peter weeps many hours, and is at last consoled by an answer which, though exceedingly diffuse and vague does seem to promise ultimate pardon for all:]

'My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away,' . . . 'It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men.'

Army Matt correctly wrote:

apokatastasis doesn't contradict hell. that's the main point that had been brought up that you either are ignoring or not getting.

In response, you asked:

According to what definition?

"Apocatastasis or apokatastasis (from Greek: ἀποκατάστασις; literally, "restoration" or "return") is the teaching that everyone will, in the end, be saved."

The idea of a Restoration does not contradict the idea of a Hell, nor does the universalism in the passage quoted above contradict the idea of Hell, since both can be found in the same text.
According to the scheme in the section that I quoted, Peter sees the sinners condemned to Hell and suffering in Hell, and he prays and so the Lord has mercy on them and shares the Kingdom of God with them, saving them out of Hell.

My impression reading the text is that according to the story, the condemned sinner experience the eternal realm of Hell, but then are rescued or saved out of their would-be eternal torments, a bit like the Catholic concept of Purgatory. Peter sees the sinners suffering in Hell, so their torments are real and not just hypothetical. But then due to the prayers of the righteous, they are saved out of the state of Hell. To give a real world analogy, punishments and suffering is a real phenomenon in the world, but sometimes people are fortunately rescued and saved out of their punishments. The fact that a person underwent some punishment (like prison time) is not in contradiction to the idea that the person was at some point saved from it (eg. paroled early). In the same way, the idea of a Hell is not in contradiction to universalism, whereby all sinners will be saved from Hell.

Likewise, Restorationism, the idea of a Restoration to a former blessed state, is not in contradiction to the concept of a Hell. As I understand it, Origen held both beliefs, ie. that in his scheme, sinners could suffer in Hell, but then the world and the sinners who had been suffering could be restored to their former blessed state. An example of this is the idea of the salvation or Restoration of the Devil. Per the Book of Revelation, the devil would be chained in Hell. But per the theory of Restorationism, even the Devil could be restored to his pre-Fall state. Of course, this is theoretical, but my point is that, as Army Matt noted, these concepts are not in contradiction.

You also wrote:

In Rev.20:11-15 those in Hades get out of Hades, so Hades (Lk.16:19-31) is not a place of unending torments.

The idea that people get out of Hades is not, I think, necessarily in contradiction to the idea that Hades itself is a place of unending torments. Suppose that your school room was a constant place of homework and studying 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, and that nothing else was allowed. The fact that you could get permission to leave your schoolroom would not be in contradiction to the fact that the schoolroom itself was a place of constant work.
In the general Christian scheme, sinners could be assigned to go to the place of unending torments forever, but in the Universalist or Restorationist schemes, one option is that God could have mercy even on the people who were assigned to go there, and then find a way to rescue them out of this state. Such a theory is not in contradiction to the idea that there is a Hell at all.

I noticed that you made a lot of abstract or philosophical arguments. Those can be harder to argue against to your satisfaction because of the abstract nature of those arguments. More concretely and specifically, one of the main points that I would like to make to you is that both concepts (universalism and hell) can be found in the Apocalypse of Peter that you correctly cited as universalist.

Army Matt made this point:

no, it's your interpretation based on parts of a few Fathers, a few guys who are not Fathers, and modern scholars. if you were really rooted in reason, especially when debating us, the 5th Council would end this discussion. plus every council afterwards which affirmed the 5th. there is nothing really reasonable about what you have been posting.

To my knowledge, the 5th Council rejected a theory of Restorationism that it ascribed to Origen (although I have seen an argument that the anathema was not an official, accepted full part of the Council), but it did not reject Universalism per se.