Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

zippy2006 · Aug 7, 2021

Hmm said:
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:

I like Kimel's contributions, but he began as an Anglican priest, then became a Catholic priest, then became an Orthodox priest, then when his son committed suicide he started supporting Universalism via David Bentley Hart. He isn't recognized as an authority in EO, and he himself admits that he is no scholar.

It's just a fact that the denial of Hell--which is a bit different from Apokatastasis--is a historical heresy in the Orthodox Church. Some, like Hart and Kimel, would like to see a change of doctrine on this point. There have been recent exchanges between Hart and orthodox Orthodox on this topic that may be of interest. But as I said, go visit the Orthodox forum if you want to learn more.

Der Alte · Aug 7, 2021

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

So you are accusing me of being weak in faith? Perhaps it is best you drop out. However I will continue monitoring this thread and and pointing out errors.

TedT · Aug 7, 2021

public hermit said:
If I am in the presence of the divine, unmitigated, why would I ever look away? What finite pleasure or title or relationship or whatever will compare? Of course, that is basically the problem of evil in a nutshell, haha. I mean, why did anyone ever look away to begin with?

It has become an axiom in my theology that when we knew GOD and HE proclaimed to every person in creation HIS divinity and the gospel of salvation as found only in the Son (Col 1:23) that we did not know him AS GOD in HIS glory and power.

Romans 1:18+ telling us that everyone saw the proof of HIS divinity and power clearly because it was clearly seen when HE created everything yet they still persist in rebellion, loving their sin more than the truth, tells me that sin is indeed enslaving and controls sinners.

IF HE had proven HIS deity and power before our choice to accept HIM or to reject HIM as GOD, there is no way anyone would reject HIM whether they wanted a GOD over them or not. That is, such proof before the choice would effectively eradicate the free will nature of the choice as the proof would coerce us to chose only for HIM.

Since the purpose of making this choice was to find all those persons in HIS image, ie capable of being a suitable bride for HIM, who wanted to be HIS bride and live in HIS reality, this purpose necessitated our free will in this matter so that we chose by faith, an unproven hope, that HE was telling us the truth about HIS being our GOD and about the Son as our saviour which the reprobate rejected as the lies of a false god driven by psychosis.

Hmm · Aug 7, 2021

zippy2006 said:
He isn't recognized as an authority in EO, and he himself admits that he is no scholar.

No, but in the extract I gave he is quoting Norman P. Tanner who is a church historian.

zippy2006 said:
It's just a fact that the denial of Hell--which is a bit different from Apokatastasis--is a historical heresy in the Orthodox Church.

But we were discussing Apokatastasis (Christian Universalism) which, as you imply, does not deny Hell.

TedT · Aug 7, 2021

Sparagmos said:
Adam’s argument is irrefutable. Any omnipotent and omniscient being that would create an eternal hell would not be benevolent.

i refute it in post #39. If you dispute my post, that does not make it a non-refutation but only not convincing to you.

zippy2006 · Aug 7, 2021

Hmm said:
But we were discussing Apokatastasis (Christian Universalism) which, as you imply, does not deny Hell.

This thread is about Universalism in the sense that denies Hell. The conclusion of the OP is that Hell doesn't exist (or that it is logically impossible that anyone could ever be sent to Hell, which amounts to the same thing).

Saint Steven · Aug 7, 2021

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

Well, I quoted your post.
But if you prefer to defer to a mistranslation, I'll accept that as an answer. Thanks.

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?

Saint Steven · Aug 7, 2021

Sabertooth said:
“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

That surprising. You are agreeing with my post? Wow.

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?

Sabertooth · Aug 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
That surprising. You are agreeing with my post? Wow.

I thought that you were comparing God's unknowable standard to a human who was obligated to human standards. And criticizing Him accordingly.

(If framing that as agreement makes you happy, don't let me spoil your fun.)

Saint Steven · Aug 7, 2021

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

Do you leave after three goodbyes, or what? - lol

I'm not trying to get rid of you, but... ???

Hmm · Aug 7, 2021

zippy2006 said:
This thread is about Universalism in the sense that denies Hell. The conclusion of the OP is that Hell doesn't exist (or that it is logically impossible that anyone could ever be sent to Hell, which amounts to the same thing).

The 'H' premise in the OP is that hell is forever, not that it doesn't exist or that people can't be sent there:

public hermit said:
H: Some created persons will be consigned to hell forever

This is consistent with the main Christian universalist view that some people may go to hell but this will be for a duration that is limited even though it may be long (an eon), and they will all eventually achieve reconciliation to God and go to heaven when God will finally become all in all.

TedT · Aug 7, 2021

TedT · Aug 7, 2021

Halbhh said:
(Italics added; notice that the wheat needs to grow to maturity before being harvested)

Matt 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. [How are they good when they are obviously sinners? GOOD cannot have reference then to their righteousness so that leaves us with good referring to their status as elect, as His sheep gone astray, who are redeemable.]

25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. [a reference to verses 36-39]

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ [that is, bring judgement upon them?]

29 “ ‘NO!’ he answered, [postpone the judgement...] ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. You are right, the harvest IS the time of the maturity of the plant but the only maturity that saves one from the judgement is a full maturity in holiness, that is, a complete agreement with GOD's determination to bring the judgement upon these demonic eternally evil reprobate weeds.

Since this growing together ends with the harvest I see it as being helpful to the maturity of the good seed and since the only thing the reprobate can offer is to be the ultimate bad example, then it suggests that the sin of the good seed was to reject GOD's description of the weeds as eternally evil and the need for hell.

Saint Steven · Aug 7, 2021

Sabertooth said:
I thought that you were comparing God's unknowable standard to a human who was obligated to human standards. And criticizing Him accordingly.

A forever burning hell is God not taking responsibility for how he created us. A botched creation swept under the carpet. Who would dare to blame God for such careless behavior? (with malice and forethought)

Accusations of unspeakable evil laid at God's doorstep, with the rationale that his ways are beyond our understanding. How fitting, if the claims are true. Certainly beyond my understanding. How could it be so? Completely unfathomable. Revolting, actually.

DavidPT · Aug 7, 2021

TedT said:
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.

Whatever the tree of life is, Genesis 3 proves it is connected with living for ever. Anyone cast into the LOF are obviously not going to have access to the tree of life. How is it then that some believe ECT is the correct interpretation? One has to first be able to live for ever in order to be consciously tormented for ever.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Obviously, what I have underlined is not something one is able to do before they die the first death, nor is it something one can do once they are cast into the LOF. IMO, this alone debunks ECT.

zippy2006 · Aug 7, 2021

Hmm said:
The 'H' premise in the OP is that hell is forever, not that it doesn't exist or that people can't be sent there:

Adams is just arguing against Christian Hell, which is eternal by definition. If you are talking about something that is temporary then you're not talking about Hell. In her paper, even before giving the formal proposition 'H', Adams says things like, "My own view is that hell poses the principal problem of evil for Christians." No one is confused about the fact that that word means a place of eternal damnation. Her definition tracks that obvious fact.

If you redefine 'hell' then there is a chance that the Orthodox (and the Catholics and the Reformers) would have no problem with someone rejecting it. If Adams had redefined Hell then no one would have read her paper, as it wouldn't have had any relation to actual Christian beliefs. For this reason she was right to use the true definition of Hell.

bling · Aug 7, 2021

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

I am giving you a late entry here.

This gets into more then just this one subject, so lots of words would be needed.

First off: Marilyn McCord Adams makes a bad assumption:

God can be all powerful and still not be able to do the impossible. God cannot “make” another Christ, since Christ has always existed. Christ is perfect as a non-created being, but humans can only be made “very good”, by God’s standard.

Without getting into a long dissertation, humans start out lacking Godly type Love, yet can have some extremely wonderful child for parent type Love.

Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burden them, to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

God is doing or allowing everything that happens to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective (Love), those who reach the point that they will never fulfill their earthly objective take on the lesser objective of helping others that still can fulfill their objective, which might even include them giving up their free will and also includes their going to hell (which could be eventual annihilation).

As far as Saul/Paul goes, he is definitely one of a kind and would take a huge intervention by God/Christ to have even the opportunity to consider Christianity to be true. For Saul/Paul the hurdle was huge (his position, his prestige, his honor, his pride, his confession, all he thought he loved, his feeling of being righteous and put himself at risk of death). He could have easily reasoned: I had heat stroke, fell off my horse, got blinded by the sun and had a bad dream. It was still Paul’s choice.

Halbhh · Aug 7, 2021

public hermit said:
It might. What do you take from it? Annihilation? I'm not judging, just asking.

The parable in post #76? I didn't put a link I see. Christ tells us this one in Matthew 13 NIV (and He tells more about it starting at verse 36 too, but especially helpful here was the part about how the wheat needs to grow to maturity, and the weeds cannot be pulled meanwhile), and while for me it helps on these questions, I wanted to get your thoughts.

Hmm · Aug 7, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Adams is just arguing against Christian Hell, which is eternal by definition.

It is more accurate to say by translation rather than definition - translation of the Greek words aion and aionios into something like eternal/ everlasting when they also carry the meaning of age/eon depending on the context.

zippy2006 said:
No one is confused about the fact that that word means a place of eternal damnation.

Apart from everyone who has read these mistranslations starting with Augustine who worked off of Latin manuscripts that contained these mistranslations IOW practically everyone in the English speaking world. Universalism was very commonplace and possibly even the mainstream view (no one one knows for sure) in the early church when only Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were used.

com7fy8 · Aug 7, 2021

public hermit said:
(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.

There is

"the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2.

This evil spirit of Satan is working in people now. And we can see how people are in this evil world, because of Satan's cruel and evil spirit. Plus, this spirit is so anti-God, that it had Satan try to change Heaven from how good it is. And it had humans do what they did to Jesus Himself who is God's own Son.

So, beings of the spirit of evil are not going to want Heaven. And there won't be this nice creation for selfish people to keep using and destroying in their seeking for pleasures and control; because God will resurrect this earth into His Heavenly glory > according to what I read in Romans 8:20-21. And we in Jesus will be on the new earth.

So, those of Satan's spirit will have to go elsewhere. And they are conscious, already, and tormented already by their nasty and cruel filth . . . of fear and unforgiveness, among other things; they already have in them what will be in hell. So, instead of complaining about hell, it is wise to trust in Jesus and become strong in love which makes us immune to anti-love stuff > for example >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18)

So, if anyone objects to hell, get with Jesus so you have His almighty immunity against the torment of fear. This immunity, of course, is in Jesus Christ's almighty love which has people being humble and caring for any and all people, plus "forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (see Ephesians 4:31-32) So, included in being on the way to Heaven is becoming all-loving and so generously forgiving in sharing with Jesus.

By the way, Hebrews 2:14-15 does say this, about Jesus >

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So, people with Satan are in slavery to "fear of death". Already, then, they are suffering the built-in torment of being with Satan; yet, ones of these complain about torment, while they themselves do not get rid of Satan and his messy filth . . . which also includes abusive arguing, abusive anger, conceit, and unforgiveness which also torment people in Satan's kingdom.

And they refuse the Great Physician who can easily and breezily and beautifully cure us of that stuff.

Fire can do us good.

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29)

God Himself is fire almighty, easily able to burn Satan and his nasty stuff away from us. He can drive out fear and worry and dominating and demanding lusts for foolish pleasure seeking, and He is able to turn us into loving and caring people, instead.

Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

Dragonsworn

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Member since Job 38:7

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Member since Job 38:7

Dragonsworn

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

You can call me Steve

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Member since Job 38:7

Member since Job 38:7

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Regular Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Similar threads