Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

public hermit said:

Marilyn McCord Adams, who was a philosopher and Episcopal priest, developed an argument to refute ECT (eternal conscious torment). Her argument is candidly appropriated from the logical problem of evil by J.L. Mackie.

She begins with two premises
G: God exists, and is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
H: Some created persons will be consigned to hell forever

The argument:
1. If God existed and were omnipotent, then God would be able to avoid H
2. If God existed and were omniscient, then God would know how to avoid H
3. If God existed and were perfectly good, then God would want to avoid H
Conclusion: If G; then not-H
(If God exists, and is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good; then it is not the case that some created persons will be consigned to hell forever)

This is my first time seeing this argument, so I am curious what y'all think.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campu...l-A-Problem-of-Evil-for-Christians-pslyys.pdf

Marilyn McCord Adams - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Wow. Awesome topic. Thanks.

Since hell is a man-made doctrinal construct, it seems odd that we should create an equation to illustrate how God would avoid it. As if it is a barrier in his path.

However, I see the value in the equation as a way to explain to those of us who have been living under the spell of hell since our earliest childhood. Like suddenly discovering that the sky is not blue. But no one will believe you. They know "better".

Der Alte said:

This part of the post misrepresents what scripture actually says.
The lake of fire is called "second death" twice Rev 20:14, Rev 21:8 but scripture does not say anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.​

One of these, the false prophet, is a person he does not die but is tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

What God created He can certainly destroy but this verse does not say "God will destroy."

Click to expand...

Hi, I won't argue a 'disputable' point because I must obey the instruction to believers in Romans 14:1, but I will of course discuss without arguing. If you want to know, I certainly did read and consider that very verse along with all the others quite carefully, and think the special case of the false prophet probably refers to the spirit that possesses the human that fulfills that role, although it could be that some individual humans will manage to do a large enough evil so that their payment (of 'every penny') will be exceptional to the general case.

Sparagmos said:

But God made the rules. He decided to create an eternal place of torment for people who rejected him. He could have let people reject him and not had such a horrible consequence.

Click to expand...

Well, when we read more completely, we discover the more complete picture, which has a lot, and here's part I quickly summarized (perhaps too briefly) above:
Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

Halbhh said:

Hi, I won't argue a 'disputable' point because I must obey the instruction to believers in Romans 14:1.

Click to expand...

How do you explain your other 14k+ posts? No arguing there?

Saint Steven said:

How do you explain your other 14k+ posts? No arguing there?

Click to expand...

If you can find a merely contentious and nonpeaceful arguing from me in any post, I really ask you (strongly ask) you to help by showing me hat post so that I can repent of that sin. Please help if you can find such a post anywhere, anytime.

Halbhh said:

If you can find a merely contentious and nonpeaceful arguing from me in any post, I really ask you (strongly ask) you to help by showing me hat post so that I can repent of that sin. Please help if you can find such a post anywhere, anytime.

Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on yourself. Are we not to "contend" for the faith? Does not iron sharpen iron? Did the Apostle who wrote Romans not have sharp disputes with both Barnabas and Peter? Not to mention arguments in the synagogues with the Jews, as was his custom. Perhaps you are taking this too far.

Saint Steven said:

Don't be so hard on yourself. Are we not to "contend" for the faith? Does not iron sharpen iron? Did the Apostle who wrote Romans not have sharp disputes with both Barnabas and Peter? Not to mention arguments in the synagogues with the Jews, as was his custom. Perhaps you are taking this too far.

Click to expand...

All the verses are correct of course. a 'disputable matter' is something not key to salvation, like which day to keep the sabbath or whether to eat various foods and how to interpret side issues that are not essential to believe one way or the other. As Paul explains more fully such as in Romans 14 and elsewhere.

Saint Steven said:

The church had a "history" in the east BEFORE it had a history in the west.

Click to expand...

Universalism is an Eastern heresy and was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Go see our friends over in the Orthodox forum: EO and Universalism

Halbhh said:

***

Click to expand...

***

Click to expand...

This appears to be a cop out. I quoted scripture and pointed out how it had been misquoted. I don't consider that arguing. In this post you have made two speculative, rather than factual, statements, "probably", "it could be." I prefer to understand scripture exactly as written rather than speculate on alternate meanings.

zippy2006 said:

Universalism is an Eastern heresy and was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Go see our friends over in the Orthodox forum: EO and Universalism

Click to expand...

Friends? - lol
The rulings of the 5th council only apply to the western church. That's where your authority ends.

Universalism is alive and well.

Besides, that isn't even true. @Shrewd Manager

Saint Steven said:

Friends? - lol
The rulings of the 5th council only apply to the western church. That's where your authority ends.

Universalism is alive and well.

Click to expand...

Yes, well it seems that you claim to know more about Eastern Christianity than Eastern Christians, which would explain why you don't consider them friends. Are you even aware that the 5th council took place in Constantinople, which is modern-day Turkey? None of the early councils took place in the West.

Good luck with your history, and your geography, and your re-writing of Eastern theology.

Saint Steven said:

For what purpose is "eternal" punishment? What is the goal?
Is God really good if he does such a thing, even to the Devil and his angels?
Who is the real evil here? Doesn't God become worse than those he is punishing?

Click to expand...

Are those questions directed to me, or to Jesus in Matthew 25:41...?

Saint Steven said:

Adolf Hitler was actually a nice guy. What he was up to is just "beyond our understanding". I'm sure his motives were pure, despite what it looked like. Right?

Click to expand...

“Woe to him who strives with his Maker!
Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth!
Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?
Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’
Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’ ” Isaiah 45:9-10 NKJV

zippy2006 said:

Universalism is an Eastern heresy and was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. See this extract from the article "Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?" by the EO priest Fr Aidan Kimel:

"When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 553), citing the famous fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past three centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian does not mention the Origenist debate in his letter announcing the council nor in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council; nor do the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), cite the fifteen anathemas. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”"

DavidPT said:

Either that or God torments them for forever, thus ECT. It is then a question of, since these seem to be the only valid options, what would a God that is good do?

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

If those were the only two options, I'd say annihilation. ECT seems pointless. Sure, sustaining being, in and of itself, is good.

Click to expand...

Yes.

The only reason I can see for a banishment that is everlasting is that we were created as eternal beings, ie, able to be annihilated.

Why create us eternal? Just to condemn the eternally evil ones to an eternal judgment? I doubt it.

I don't know but it I would not be surprised to find out that if we are not created eternal we will not have an eternal life.

lismore said:

A loving God must send dangerous individuals to hell in order to protect those they are a danger to.

Click to expand...

Gal 5:9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. supports this idea.

Der Alte said:

This appears to be a cop out.

Click to expand...

Since here is breaking Romans 14:1 we'll have to stop, because I must obey it.

public hermit said:

..

Click to expand...

did the parable help explain a part?