A recurring theme here has been the injustice of a temporary offense receiving eternal punishment. Here's the summary of an exhaustive study of the Bible's original languages:
"The Bible, in fact, does not speak of judgment and condemnation, death and destruction, hades and Gehenna, or any of these serious consequences of sin, as unending. It may refer to them as not having the end in view, but none of these fearful works of God can keep Him from achieving His will (1Tim.2:4); reconciling all through the blood of Christ’s cross (Col.1:20, and becoming All in all (1 Cor.15:28)."
Dean Hough
I thought maybe some others here might find this interesting?
I did say at some point that for me the subject of "hell" was a no-go area. As far as debates about it, I have been there and got the T-shirt.
But I am nothing if not indecisive.
Just as a pre-fix to anything said, Pure Land Buddhism is explicitly Universalist. Its terms are not immediately transferable to mainstream Christian terms - certainly not in respect of what constitutes a "person" - but Universalist it is as far as we can use the same words.
Most of what follows will be cut and paste from other debates.....(I'm seeking to express myself in general Christian terms)
Cut and paste 1.
Freud came to this conclusion about human beings, that.......it is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestation of their aggressiveness. ("Civilization and Its Discontents")
The main argument against Universalism seems to revolve around "free will". For me, the key comes with the words of St Augustine...."You made us for thee, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee". Within Time, duration, Divinity will always be seeking the "salvation" of all. And each will remain "restless" until they become aware of the infinite Love of Reality-as-is. "Eternity" , as duration, IS a long time! My hope and trust is that all will eventually find such "rest" (though I understand it more as "infinite creativity" than "rest"!)
It seems to me that if "acceptance" of God's love is required, and a time limit set to such acceptance, then "hell" as eternal suffering can be a conclusion. Yet if we think more in terms of becoming aware of a Love that is eternally "given", and set no limits in time, then the Universalist conclusion seems a genuine hope.
Cut and paste 2
I see no reason why the consequence of our choices should - or need be - eternal for them to have significance, or to give meaning to "good" and "evil". And I always find it difficult to understand why, if "free will" is so important, it should be given for just one short sharp ambiguous life and then taken from us to suffer its apparent misuse forever. I also agree with Thomas Talbott that, given that God wills for us the very thing we really want, the idea of any human being making a fully informed choice against such a will is finally incoherent. And if not fully informed, the "free will defence" of such a doctrine is inherently flawed.( See Talbotts book "The Inescapble Love of God")
Fundamentally I concur with the view of Nicolas Berdyaev, who said that the idea of an eternal hell is "incomprehensible, inadmissable and revolting. It is impossible to be reoconciled to the thought that God could have created the world and man if He forsaw hell, that He could have predetermined it for the sake of justice, or that He tolerates it as a special diabolical realm of being side by side with Hid own Kingdom. From the divine point of view it means that creation is a failure. The idea.......is unthinkable and, indeed, incompatible with faith in God. A God who deliberately allows the existence of eternal torments is not God at all but is more like the devil............the idea of an eternal hell is one of the most hideous and contemptible products of the triumphant herdmind....."
I could quote more from Berdyaev, but I think the point has been made...
Many Christians respond by saying "I'll accept the word of Jesus, not the words of Berdyaev". So be it. I'm no expert of NT Greek, and quite frankly I find all the constant arguments - both here and elsewhere - about an infallible Bible V an infallible Qu'ran, and the bickering about contradictions - existent or not depending upon which side we are on - boring, pointless and void of anything but attempts to cling to "belief" at the expense of grace.
But William Barclay, who translated the entire NT into English and wrote commentaries on every book of the NT, was a Universalist, as declared in his autobiographical book "Testament of Faith." In it he spoke of the words of Jesus concerning the rejected going away to
eternal punishment. He states that the Greek word for punishment is
kolasis, which is not originally an ethical word at all. "It originally meant the pruning of tress to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature
kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is
aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be
aionios. The simplest way to put it is that
aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God........Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give."
So William Barclay.
For further clarification, there is a good book by Thomas Talbott, "The Inescapeable Love of God", in which he claims that many of the Early Church Fathers taught the idea of Apocatastasis (try saying that with your false teeth in) - the ultimate reconciliation of all things in Christ - and that of the six man theological colleges of the Early Church, four taught Universalism. The doctrine was eventually declared heretical by Justinian, an emperor - not even a Pope - around the sixth century.
Anyway, perhaps enough.
As far as I'm concerned, others can - obviously - believe in the doctrine should they so wish. So be it.
All the best
