Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[Hmm]

In one of the stranger attempts to make the eternal torment of the damned more palatable, Aquinas argues that the delight of the blessed in heaven will be amplified by their watching the torment of the damned.

Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.

Summa Theologiae/Supplement to the Third Part/Question 94 - Wikisource, the free online library

en.m.wikisource.org

You just can't make this stuff up.

Aquinas is another theological giant that somehow acquiesced, but in those days you could be burned if you didn't. Sad.

Aren't we glad we live in more enlightened times? Oh, wait...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That must have been a terrifying experience and I hope you're okay.

I am, mostly. I'll readily admit that I have some emotional baggage from that experience (along with some that I also gained from a few other experiences in my life).

I appreciate your concern and empathy.

 

[JulieB67]

I put down Conditional Immortality. I see nothing at all in Scripture that says that everyone lives forever by default, end of. Damnationism partakes a bit too freely in the despicable "God can't..." and "what that really means..." techniques to defend what is in the end is the barbarous idea that God designed the universe in such a way that most of His creation will be "tormented" (because you can't say "tortured") forever. Universalism goes aground where our Lord speaks of God's ability to destroy both body and soul in hell, although both Universalists and Damnationists see that as an idle threat and that God would never actually do such a thing.

These are pretty much my beliefs as well.

It's hard to see what the fear of an eternal hell is supposed to accomplish. It can't generate love for God.

Even though I believe the wicked will perish in the LOF, I don't see how ECT accomplishes anything. Especially when we read verses that state he has no delight in that the wicked should perish and that he's long suffering. But that's also one of the reasons I don't believe in UR because he is so long suffering wanting all to come to repentance/change of heart/mind.

I grew up terrified

I did too. It wasn't until I started studying on my own away from the church that I saw ECT was not true. I believe if someone doesn't want to spend the eternity with our Father, he will grant that. I don't think he will force them into repentance. I think he wants our genuine love freely. But I certainly don't believe he will torture someone for an eternity if they don't return that love.

 

[public hermit]

Aren't we glad we live in more enlightened times? Oh, wait...

I think in many ways we do. I doubt I will be burned at the stake for my posts here. But then again, some might wish I could be burned,; although, happily not most.
Pace this old thread:

Burning heretics

On this day (October 27) in 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva for spreading heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity. Michael Servetus - Wikipedia I cannot make sense of executing others for heretical beliefs. But, for better or worse, Christians have done just that. It...

www.christianforums.com

 

[public hermit]

These are pretty much my beliefs as well.

Even though I believe the wicked will perish in the LOF, I don't see how ECT accomplishes anything. Especially when we read verses that state he has no delight in that the wicked should perish and that he's long suffering. But that's also one of the reasons I don't believe in UR because he is so long suffering wanting all to come to repentance/change of heart/mind.

I did too. It wasn't until I started studying on my own away from the church that I saw ECT was not true. I believe if someone doesn't want to spend the eternity with our Father, he will grant that. I don't think he will force them into repentance. I think he wants our genuine love freely. But I certainly don't believe he will torture someone for an eternity if they don't return that love.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and voting (I assume you did).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Aren't we glad we live in more enlightened times? Oh, wait...

Of for sure! That's why I read all kinds of folks, like Langdon Gilkey and Wittgenstein, among a host of others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think in many ways we do. I doubt I will be burned at the stake for my posts here. But then again, some might wish I could be burned,; although, happily not most.
Pace this old thread:

Burning heretics

On this day (October 27) in 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva for spreading heretical beliefs concerning the Trinity. Michael Servetus - Wikipedia I cannot make sense of executing others for heretical beliefs. But, for better or worse, Christians have done just that. It...

www.christianforums.com

No one's going to burn anyone at the stake. Not if I can help it.

And ... I can help it!

 

[Hmm]

think in many ways we do. I doubt I will be burned at the stake for my posts here

That's true. I was being too cynical there!

But then again, some might wish I could be burned,; although, happily not most.

I hope so too but with the recent dramatic fuel price rises in Europe because of the Ukrainian war, which I think is bigger than in the US, I would suggest delaying any proposed Yule-tide visits to log-burner owning French friends to next year.

 

[Hmm]

But it still took me some time to realize that my exclusionaey faith in the God who only extended grace to some was inhibiting my own faith and love

Great point. We become like whatever it is we worship and if we worship a god who is limited in his grace, love and forgiveness, well... too bad for us.

 

[public hermit]

Great point. We become like whatever it is we worship and if we worship a god who is limited in his grace, love and forgiveness, well... too bad for us.

It's not us and them; it's just us. I always saw people as those loved by God and created in the divine image, but there was always this question. Are they with us or no? Now I see that each person is so valued by God that no matter their faults they will become what God created them to be. I can see them for what they will be and that affects how I react to them. It's strange because I always believed God loved everyone but now I'm convinced and, oddly, it makes a difference.

DBH makes a great argument that we are not discreet individuals but essentially interrelated, interdependent. Christ didn't just take on an instance of humanity; he took on humanity. The union with God and one another for which we are created was accomplished and finished in him and his work, the rest is simply working out the details.

Imagine only one person were in hell (experiencing hell), still rejecting the ultimate good for which we are all created. Wouldn't all of us be watching and waiting on pins and needles, unable to do anything else, until that one person saw the good and God's love for what it is? How could we be content and happy until that one lost sheep came home? Truly there is more rejoicing in heaven when that last sinner repents. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Hmm]

I could see a version of UR being supportable, but not the "hell no" variety that is common today.

There is no "hell no" variety of UR other than in your mind. Univeralists posit a "hell" (but they don't use the actual word "hell" because this is derived from the Norse word "hel". Scripture instead talks about Gehenna, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus none of which mean "Hel" as a place of eternal punishment).

So UR talks about "hell", if you like, as a place of "pruning" or "corrective punishment" which is its true meaning and which is in keeping with the image of God in Christ. As opposed to a place of eternal torture which is not consistent with Jesus. Yet you know this but keep using the Norse word... What's your stumbling block here (he asks with the incredulity of an innocent five-year-old)?

 

[Hmm]

Imagine only one person were in hell still rejecting the ultimate good for which we are all created. Wouldn't all of us be watching and waiting on pins and needles, unable to do anything else, until that one person saw the good and God's love for what it is? How could we be content and happy until that one lost sheep came home? Truly there is more rejoicing in heaven when that last sinner repents. How could it be otherwise?

Homer could do it. The whole world anxiously watches the Moon landing while a teenage love-stricken Homer Simpson lolls about on a floor cushion listening to "Yummy Yummy Yummy (I've got love in my tummy)"

 

[Der Alte]

There is no "hell no" variety of UR other than in your mind. Univeralists posit a "hell" (but they don't use the actual word "hell" because this is derived from the Norse word "hel". Scripture instead talks about Gehenna, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus none of which mean "Hel" as a place of eternal punishment).
So UR talks about "hell", if you like, as a place of "pruning" or "corrective punishment" which is its true meaning and which is in keeping with the image of God in Christ. As opposed to a place of eternal torture which is not consistent with Jesus. Yet you know this but keep using the Norse word... What's your stumbling block here (he asks with the incredulity of an innocent five-year-old)?

Totally false narrative. In the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia and the 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica, Jewish scholars equate the place of fiery eternal punishment, which they called both "Gehinnom" and "Sheol" written in the 225 BC LXX and the NT as Gehenna and hades, with hell. That there was a Norse word similar to this is totally irrelevant to anything.
The word "kolasis" does not now and has never meant prune! See my post at this link.

What Is Hell?

*Permission to post in full* Hell is real, hell is eternal, and the Bible is full of proof that it exists and that people are in it. In a past article, Are There Souls in Hell Right Now? I talked about the error of then-Fr. (now Bishop) Robert Barron and Hans Urs von Balthasar in positing the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Hmm]

In the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia and the 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica

Were the "Encyclopedia Judaica" splitters from the "Jewish Encyclopedia" like Python's Judean People's Front were from the People's Front of Judea?

 

[Fervent]

There is no "hell no" variety of UR other than in your mind. Univeralists posit a "hell" (but they don't use the actual word "hell" because this is derived from the Norse word "hel". Scripture instead talks about Gehenna, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus none of which mean "Hel" as a place of eternal punishment).

So UR talks about "hell", if you like, as a place of "pruning" or "corrective punishment" which is its true meaning and which is in keeping with the image of God in Christ. As opposed to a place of eternal torture which is not consistent with Jesus. Yet you know this but keep using the Norse word... What's your stumbling block here (he asks with the incredulity of an innocent five-year-old)?

Simply because the name is derived from Norse doesn't mean the concept is also Norse, just as when we say God we are not talking about Wodan/Odin but the God of Israel

And as to your denial of a "hell no" variety, I'm not the one who came up with that but modern universalists. There is a marked difference between modern universalism and what was found in the patristic period because a modern universalist insists everyone goes to heaven whole, while the ancients held the conflict to be between being and non-being and that every wicked will would enter a state of non-being while everything that made them human would return to God. So it was not a promise of salvation to all, but a statement that final state would be every good thing preserved.

 

[Der Alte]

Were the "Encyclopedia Judaica" splitters from the "Jewish Encyclopedia" like Python's Judean People's Front were from the People's Front of Judea?

And a partridge in a pear tree. "Holy batmobile, Batman, did you see that?"

 

[Hmm]

while the ancients held the conflict to be between being and non-being and that every wicked will would enter a state of non-being while everything that made them human would return to God. So it was not a promise of salvation to all, but a statement that final state would be every good thing preserved.

Let's try to break that down a bit... so if I understand you, you're saying that if I died tonight (and don't worry I won't, I can't afford to) my "wicked will" will "enter a state of non-being". So I will be refined by God the Refiner Fire and my dross burnt up (the standard universalist view). And at the same time, to paraphrase you, "everything that makes me human will return to God". Again, that sounds universalisticallytastic to me.

So I don't see any difference between "the ancients" and the contemporary universalist message and that's probably because there isn't any.

 

[Fervent]

Let's try to break that down a bit... so if I understand you, you're saying that if I died tonight (and don't worry I won't, I can't afford to) my "wicked will" will "enter a state of non-being". So I will be refined by God the Refiner Fire and my dross burnt up (the standard universalist view). And at the same time, to paraphrase you, "everything that makes me human will return to God". Again, that sounds universalisticallytastic to me.

So I don't see any difference between "the ancients" and the contemporary universalist message and that's probably because there isn't any.

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that those who are wicked will have their wills enter a state of non-being, stripped of their humanity which returns to Christ. The distinction is that modern universalism believes every individual will eventually be saved, whereas in patristic universalism those who reject Christ enter a state of non-being and are stripped of what makes them human(or even alive) and that is restored. There is, to some degree, a hope that all will turn to Christ but the reality that all will be restored even if some will themselves into non-being. It is more akin to conditional immortality than modern UR, with the main difference being that patristic universalists focused on God's restoring rathe than the fate of the wicked.

 

[Hmm]

What I said is that those who are wicked will have their wills enter a state of non-being, stripped of their humanity which returns to Christ.

But what does this mean!!! Let's assume that I am wicked. I know, I know, it's hard to believe, but let's just pretend. So when I die my will enters a state of non-being. Okay... but then "my humanity" returns to Christ... What does this mean!!!

You'd leave me not knowing whether I was saved or lost but certainly knowing that I was confused. Please don't leave me this way Fervent.

The distinction is that modern universalism believes every individual will eventually be saved, whereas in patristic universalism those who reject Christ enter a state of non-being and are stripped of what makes them human(or even alive) and that is restored.

This seems to be a repetition of your first point.

There is, to some degree, a hope that all will turn to Christ but the reality that all will be restored even if some will themselves into non-being.

I assume it's because of typos but this doesn't make sense.

 

[public hermit]

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that those who are wicked will have their wills enter a state of non-being, stripped of their humanity which returns to Christ. The distinction is that modern universalism believes every individual will eventually be saved, whereas in patristic universalism those who reject Christ enter a state of non-being and are stripped of what makes them human(or even alive) and that is restored. There is, to some degree, a hope that all will turn to Christ but the reality that all will be restored even if some will themselves into non-being. It is more akin to conditional immortality than modern UR, with the main difference being that patristic universalists focused on God's restoring rathe than the fate of the wicked.

Do you have a source for this?