Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

[d taylor]

Hell or the actual place, the lake of fire will be the destination for anyone who did not receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

They can not stay among the people who did receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

So God checks the Book of Life when their name is not found in the book, so they are sent to a place prepared for satan.

Will they experience torment, well they die in their sin meaning (i believe) they remain a sinner for ever, that may be their torment. Will they experience what satan experiences not sure but i would not think so but still remaining a sinner for eternity is not a rosy eternal life.

Where as believers will be cleansed and freed from the bondage of sin. Some believers now may be not as bound by sin as much other believers and are living a more sin free life now. But not fully freed from the weight of sin.

 

[zippy2006]

I am glad you are formally posting arguments for Universalism, because you have obviously been tending in that direction for some time.

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)

I actually think all three of her premises are false. (1) and (2) are both false because God cannot instantiate contradictions. (3) is false because a just God would not want to avoid H in all circumstances.

The falsity of (1) and (2) have to do with free will, which Chevy touched on with his reductio. Even an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot force free beings to choose in a particular way. Thus (1) and (2) entail the non-existence of free will.

(3) is just the assumption that Hell is unjust or incompatible with a good God.

To be fair, what you have quoted isn't really an argument so much as an assertion. An argument would require transparent reasoning. The OP doesn't give us any reason to believe 1-3.

I haven't read much of the essay, but she does respond to Chevy and I regarding (1). Apparently her point isn't that God could force them into Heaven:

"Premiss (1) is true because an omnipotent creator could altogether refrain from making any persons or could annihilate created persons any time He chose; either way, He could falsify [H]."
​

That obviously provides (1) with a very different flavor...

I would encourage you to paraphrase her argument and give some indication of why she thinks 1-3 are true.

 

[public hermit]

The OP doesn't give us any reason to believe 1-3.

The reason to believe 1-3 is G. If you believe G, which many theists will gladly allow for, then 1-3 should be compelling.

 

[DavidPT]

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

1 and 2 are irrelevant since God gave man free will. It is then a question of argument 3. What would a good God do with those that opposed Him their entire life? Would He consign them to hell forever, thus ECT? Or would He instead destroy them for forever, as if they had never existed and will no longer exist in any sense?

Some might argue that there is a 3rd option, Universalism. That is not an option, though. When they get cast into the LOF it is called the 2nd death. In order for Universalism to be a valid option, there has to be a resurrection from the 2nd death. There are no more resurrections of any kind once everyone that are to be cast into the LOF are cast in.

The timeline would look like this, meaning in regards to those who end up getting cast into the LOF.

First they are born, then they die at some point. The fact they are dead and that God has to judge and sentence them at some point, He then has to raise them from the dead, bodily in this case. Now they are standing in front of God fully bodily alive again. They are then judged and sentenced to the 2nd death, meaning they are cast into the LOF.

Death requires a resurrection if one is to live again. And this would include the 2nd death, except there is no resurrection following the 2nd death, thus impossible to live again. When they lived again following the first death in order to be judged and sentenced, that wasn't something they could do on their own. God had to raise them from the dead. Who is going to raise them from the 2nd death in order for Universalism to be an option? God certainly isn't. There is not one single Scripture in all of the Bible where it indicates there is yet another resurrection following the 2nd death.

 

[public hermit]

1 and 2 are irrelevant since God gave man free will. It is then a question of argument 3. What would a good God do with those that opposed Him their entire life? Would He consign them to hell forever, thus ECT? Or would He instead destroy them for forever, as if they had never existed and will no longer exist in any sense?

Some might argue that there is a 3rd option, Universalism. That is not an option, though. When they get cast into the LOF it is called the 2nd death. In order for Universalism to be a valid option, there has to be a resurrection from the 2nd death. There are no more resurrections of any kind once everyone that are to be cast into the LOF are cast in.

The timeline would look like this, meaning in regards to those who end up getting cast into the LOF.

First they are born, then they die at some point. The fact they are dead and that God has to judge and sentence them at some point, He then has to raise them from the dead, bodily in this case. Now they are standing in front of God fully bodily alive again. They are then judged and sentenced to the 2nd death, meaning they are cast into the LOF.

Death requires a resurrection if one is to live again. And this would include the 2nd death, except there is no resurrection following the 2nd death, thus impossible to live again. When they lived again following the first death in order to be judged and sentenced, that wasn't something they could do on their own. God had to raise them from the dead. Who is going to raise them from the 2nd death in order for Universalism to be an option? God certainly isn't. There is not one single Scripture in all of the Bible where it indicates there is yet another resurrection following the 2nd death.

That's new to me. There would have to be a second resurrection in order for UR to be true, on account of the second death. I can see why you say that but will have to mull it over a bit.

 

[TedT]

I know this is a common argument, but how does the freedom to sin contribute to true love? We don't need the freedom to not love in order to be able to love.

Because there can be no true love without a free will and a free will must also be able to hate.

I definitely disagree, but also understand what you are saying.

Disagree???

What ...

can a person be coerced to love ie not by their FREE will?

OR
a free will can still be restricted from choosing sin??

ImCo with emphasis:
A free will cannot be coerced to choose any option nor be constrained from choosing any option in the choice offered OR IT IS NOT FREE!!!

 

[TedT]

Hate is a fallen trait acquired from Satan.
even lacking hate, human love is incapable of pleasing God. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

BECAUSE only sinners are sown into mankind!! Matt 13:36-39 and Romans 3:10... as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one;

 

[public hermit]

Disagree???

What ...

can a person be coerced to love ie not by their FREE will?

OR
a free will can still be restricted from choosing sin??

ImCo with emphasis:
A free will cannot be coerced to choose any option nor be constrained from choosing any option in the choice offered OR IT IS NOT FREE!!!

If I am free to love or not, which according to the libertarian view of freedom I must be to truly love, then in order to truly love I must also be in the position to choose not to love. I am saying most of us love people who we could not choose to not love, even if we wish we could. In other words, the ability to choose other than love is not needed for love.

So, yes, the freedom to sin explains why there is moral evil, but it doesn't explain why the ability to not love is of such great value since true love does not depend on it. The only thing true love needs is love, nothing is added to love by being able not to love, i.e. sin.

 

[DavidPT]

That's new to me. There would have to be a second resurrection in order for UR to be true, on account of the second death. I can see why you say that but will have to mull it over a bit.

Think about it for a moment. First they are initially dead, then they are fully alive again. After they are fully alive again they are then dead again, meaning the 2nd death. Why would it be called the 2nd death unless one actually dies, right? And if they die yet again, meaning the 2nd death, how can they possibly live a third time unless they are resurrected first?

 

[public hermit]

Think about it for a moment. First they are initially dead, then they are fully alive again. After they are fully alive again they are then dead again, meaning the 2nd death. Why would it be called the 2nd death if no one actually dies, right? And if they die yet again, meaning the 2nd death, how can they possibly live a third time unless they are resurrected first?

So, are you saying they're annihilated?

 

[DavidPT]

So, are you saying they're annihilated?

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?

 

[public hermit]

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?

If those were the only two options, I'd say annihilation. ECT seems pointless. Sure, sustaining being, in and of itself, is good. But to sustain being for the sake of keeping it from all good, forever, seems over the top.

 

[lismore]

Interesting! Can those in heaven be corrupted? Perhaps they can. That is a fascinating take because I think most assume our struggles are over once there. But maybe we are still susceptible to sin?

I believe that may be part of why the bible places so much emphasis on repentance. If unrepentant people are permitted access to heaven then it will turn into hell.

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

God Bless

 

[public hermit]

I believe that may be part of why the bible places so much emphasis on repentance. If unrepentant people are permitted access to heaven then it will turn into hell.

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

God Bless

I can see why you say this. And, perhaps that is how it is. My reservation is that the closer we get to pure goodness, beauty, and truth the harder it will be to look away. 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? See, this is why I never get anywhere, I always end up back where I started.

 

[Sparagmos]

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

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

 

[Halbhh]

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

btw, how would #3 ever follow? #3 would seem to suppose that there is no such thing as a refusal to repent/rejection of God for example or that free will doesn't exist. But those do exist. There are some that refuse to repent. We are told in scripture that some become vessels of destruction, and they are not removed ahead of time.

Ah! This will be much more clear than my wording above!! --

24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 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.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
Matthew 13 NIV

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

 

[public hermit]

btw, how would #3 ever follow? #3 would seem to suppose that there is no such thing as a refusal to repent/rejection of God for example or that free will doesn't exist. But those do exist.

I think I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that be #1, power? God can be good and want salvation, but for a world where human freedom is the ability to do otherwise, God is limited in ability, i.e. can't save the unwilling. Or, am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[zippy2006]

The reason to believe 1-3 is G. If you believe G, which many theists will gladly allow for, then 1-3 should be compelling.

Theists have believed G for thousands of years while rejecting 1-3.

 

[public hermit]

Theists have believed G for thousands of years while rejecting 1-3.

Which is odd.

 

[zippy2006]

Which is odd.

Not really. What's odd is that someone would hold that G proves 1-3.

4. P
5. P -> Q
6. Q​

Saying that G is the reason to believe 1-3 is like saying (4) is the reason to believe (5). That's just an elementary failure of logic. A conditional is never justified by the mere statement of its antecedent. Rather, both the conditional and its antecedent are premises of an argument, and both need to be defended.

On your reasoning we should just skip (1-3) and say, "G, therefore ~H." That's instructive because it highlights the fact that the OP is an assertion, not an argument. It's just the bare assertion that, "God wouldn't send anyone to Hell!"

...And that's instructive because Universalism reflects the Zeitgeist, and in many cases it is held on the basis of Zeitgeist-sentiment rather than any kind of argument.