Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

[public hermit]

Here is a link to one thread that is full of posts against hell based on personal opinion not clear scripture. There are many more I just did a search on "hell" See search feature just above "New Threads" top right of the "Unorthodox Christian Forum" main page.
Questions About Hell

Do you ever consider the opposite of your entrenched position, at least to give it a fair hearing? It seems to me, someone who is confident of their position is not afraid of putting other positions in the best light in order to see how they hold up. Have you done that? I'm sure you might have. It just seems your dogmatism is not just unassailable, but inviolable, which smacks of epistemic arrogance, but I don't want to be unfair. What parts of UR do you find appealing, if any?

 

[Hmm]

Here is a link to one thread that is full of posts against hell based on personal opinion not clear scripture. There are many more I just did a search on "hell" See search feature just above "New Threads" top right of the "Unorthodox Christian Forum" main page.
Questions About Hell

So? What is your point?

 

[ozso]

Interestingly, the term "realm of the dead" occurs in the chapter that I think you are referencing from Solomon.

Ecclesiastes 9:5?

 

[ozso]

I don't recall using the term "appeal to authority?

THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF UNIVERSALISM - BEWARE!

The Saint Steve Highlights of Christ Triumphant

The Ghastly Eternal Torment Dogma

The fatal flaw of Universalism

the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?

Hell

John 1:1--Was the word God or a god?

Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

What are your thoughts on Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit?

That's a few out of several. Some of those also contain what I consider to be unfriendly remarks.

but has he written a peer reviewed theological, linguistic book on the topic?

Have you? You seem to set peer review as the standard for qualification. You even bring it up in your signature. So I'd be interested in seeing any peer reviewed articles and or books you've written.

Just having a PhD does not automatically make one an authority on this particular topic.

True. Here are his credentials: https://ssu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Brad-Jersak-CV.pdf

Churlish? Please show me where anything I posted is "rude in a mean-spirited and surly way." I state what I believe and I quote scholastically recognized sources to support those beliefs.

I consider post #269 to be the latest example of what I'll change to say is simply not sounding very nice.

 

[Hmm]

True. Here are his credentials: https://ssu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Brad-Jersak-CV.pdf

I just Googled Brad Jersak and he seems like a very good writer. I'd like to share some of the results of this, you might say, scholarly research:

A short quote:

”If my faith depends on fear of punishment, what will happen to my faith when perfect love (Jesus) comes to cast it out? (1 John 4: 18)"

And a short story:

"Imagine there is a fabulously wealthy king who looks out the window of his castle one day and, in the distance, sees a beautiful Cinderella-type peasant living in the slums. His heart is ravished and he thinks, “This is the perfect bride for my son, the prince.” Unlike other kings—wicked worldly kings—he cannot just abduct her and make her a slave-concubine of his son. He must genuinely invite her to take the hand of his son voluntarily. So, along with his entourage and his son, they make their way out of the palace into the squalor beyond the moat, searching hut to hut and through the markets until they find her. The offer is made: “Young lady,” says the king, “this is my beloved son, the prince of this kingdom and heir to all that is mine. I humbly beseech you to come out of your life of poverty and oppression and to join my son in holy matrimony, enjoying all of the benefits that come with a princess’ life.” The offer seems to be too good to be true. All she needs to do is consent to the proposal. But there’s a hitch. The king continues, “There is a deadline. If you don’t say yes by such-and-such a date, we will arrest you, put you in our dungeon, where torturers will fillet you alive for endless ages, supernaturally keeping you alive such that your torment is never-ending. Moreover, after the deadline, your decision is irrevocable. No repentance is possible. The dishonor of your rejection is too great to warrant any second chance. The consequences of refusal are without mercy and utterly irreversible.” As the king, the prince and their cohort leave, the prince turns and says, “Oh yes, please hurry. And always know that I will love you forever and for always … but only until the deadline.” Is this our gospel? If it were, would it truly be a gospel that preserves the love of God, the freewill of humanity and the mutual consent inherent in and necessary to God’s invitation? I don’t buy it any more.”

 

[ozso]

Deliberate misrepresentation of of anything I posted. I said nothing about people being "concerned about their loved ones going to an eternal hell!"

It seems quite likely that the people you're calling bleeding hearts, includes those who are concerned about their loved ones going to an eternal hell. Perhaps you didn't think it though enough.

 

[Der Alte]

I just Googled Brad Jersak and he seems like a very good writer. I'd like to share some of the results of this, you might say, scholarly research:
A short quote:
”If my faith depends on fear of punishment, what will happen to my faith when perfect love (Jesus) comes to cast it out? (1 John 4: 18)"
And a short story:
"Imagine there is a fabulously wealthy king who looks out the window of his castle one day and, in the distance, sees a beautiful Cinderella-type peasant living in the slums. His heart is ravished and he thinks, “This is the perfect bride for my son, the prince.” Unlike other kings—wicked worldly kings—he cannot just abduct her and make her a slave-concubine of his son. He must genuinely invite her to take the hand of his son voluntarily. So, along with his entourage and his son, they make their way out of the palace into the squalor beyond the moat, searching hut to hut and through the markets until they find her. The offer is made: “Young lady,” says the king, “this is my beloved son, the prince of this kingdom and heir to all that is mine. I humbly beseech you to come out of your life of poverty and oppression and to join my son in holy matrimony, enjoying all of the benefits that come with a princess’ life.” The offer seems to be too good to be true. All she needs to do is consent to the proposal. But there’s a hitch. The king continues, “There is a deadline. If you don’t say yes by such-and-such a date, we will arrest you, put you in our dungeon, where torturers will fillet you alive for endless ages, supernaturally keeping you alive such that your torment is never-ending. Moreover, after the deadline, your decision is irrevocable. No repentance is possible. The dishonor of your rejection is too great to warrant any second chance. The consequences of refusal are without mercy and utterly irreversible.” As the king, the prince and their cohort leave, the prince turns and says, “Oh yes, please hurry. And always know that I will love you forever and for always … but only until the deadline.” Is this our gospel? If it were, would it truly be a gospel that preserves the love of God, the freewill of humanity and the mutual consent inherent in and necessary to God’s invitation? I don’t buy it any more.”

One can make up a fairy tale as a counter argument for almost anything. What did Jesus say about "eternal punishment?"
I would appreciate it if anyone in the "Hell no!" crowd would show me a verse, 2 or more would be better, where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally says that everyone will be saved no matter what, the righteous and unrighteous alike even after death?
Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6. A fate worse than death.
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24 A fate worse than death.
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12 A fate worse than death.​

…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” certainly does not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

…..Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If that Jewish teaching was wrong, why didn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity," which would only encourage and reinforce their beliefs in “hell”?

 

[Der Alte]

It seems quite likely that the people you're calling bleeding hearts, includes those who are concerned about their loved ones going to an eternal hell. Perhaps you didn't think it though enough.

"It seems quite likely" is considerably different than the unequivocal accusation I was responding to. "I feel very sorry for someone who thinks anyone who is concerned about their loved ones going to an eternal hell is a 'bleeding heart'. I'm so glad I don't think like you."

 

[Lazarus Short]

I would appreciate it if anyone in the "Hell no!" crowd would show me a verse, 2 or more would be better, where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally says that everyone will be saved no matter what, the righteous and unrighteous alike even after death?

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32, KJV

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
First Corinthians 15:28, KJV

I could go on, but why? You will surely respond that there is some fault in my citations, and I await with bated breath to hear what you have to say...

 

[Hmm]

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
First Corinthians 15:28, KJV

If only you had said 1 Corinthians the passage would not have lost all its meaning as it has done now /s

 

[Lazarus Short]

If you had only said 1 Corinthians the passage would not have lost all its meaning as it has done now /s

Are you now Der Alte's sock puppet? Hmm...

 

[Hmm]

Are you now Der Alte's sock puppet? Hmm...

I was just giving him a hand

 

[Der Alte]

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32, KJV
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
First Corinthians 15:28, KJV
I could go on, but why? You will surely respond that there is some fault in my citations, and I await with bated breath to hear what you have to say...

If only you had said 1 Corinthians the passage would not have lost all its meaning as it has done now /s

"...that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32
"...that God may be all in all." First Corinthians 15:28, KJV
If it was a done deal Paul would not have used the subjunctive mood the mood of possibility and pontentiality he would have used the active indicative mood "that He shall have mercy" "God shall be all in all."
In these verses Paul does not appear to be saying that everyone will be saved, the righteous and the unrighteous, no matter what, even after death.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
(10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
(20) idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
(21) and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17
(17) If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.​

 

[Hmm]

If it was a done deal Paul would not have used the subjunctive mood the mood of possibility and pontentiality he would have used the active indicative mood "that He shall have mercy" "God shall be all in all."

No he wouldn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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 don't know that I want to share here what I think, PH. But I will say that I've seen various atheists cite this very same form of argumentation on this forum and in books I've read, to which I have typically given them the ol' Pascalian heave-ho!

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy reading sister Marilyn's essay! I am familiar with her and I do like some of the ways she's approached and questioned the general Argument from Evil which, according to her in other literature I've read, is one of her main philosophical focal points.

I'm going to print out this essay you've nicely provided and give it a read through some time in the next week. I'm sure it'll be interesting.

Thanks, PH! You're always giving us something substantive to work with and to think about. I appreciate that, bro!

 

[public hermit]

don't know that I want to share here what I think, PH. But I will say that I've seen various atheists cite this very same form of argumentation on this forum and in books I've read, to which I have typically given them the ol' Pascalian heave-ho

That makes sense. She says it's based on J.L. Mackie's (atheist) logical problem of evil, except instead of arguing against the existence of an omni-God, she's arguing an omni-God is incommensurate with ECT.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy reading sister Marilyn's essay! I am familiar with her and I do like some of the ways she's approached and questioned the general Argument from Evil which, according to her in other literature I've read, is one of her main philosophical focal points.

Agreed. I just finished a re-read of her Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Seminal. I really appreciates how she focuses in on the good of the individual, instead of the more abstract approach of other analytical philosophers, e.g Mackie and Plantinga.

But the best is her last line in the book:
"If along the way I have said something to offend almost everybody, I can take satisfaction that my effort has succeeded in its aporetic aims!" Lol Rock Star cred.

 

[Der Alte]

No he wouldn't.

Since you very likely don't know an Aorist from an anthill your unsupported opinion is about as meaningful as the bloviation of Dr. Fauci.
In Rom 9:15 Paul used the active indicative mood of the same word "mercy." When he meant that mercy would definitely be shown, as I said.

Romans 9:15
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy [ἐλεέω ] on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.​

 

[ozso]

"It seems quite likely" is considerably different than the unequivocal accusation I was responding to. "I feel very sorry for someone who thinks anyone who is concerned about their loved ones going to an eternal hell is a 'bleeding heart'. I'm so glad I don't think like you."

The point is what you said sounded callous.

 

[ozso]

Since you very likely don't know an Aorist from an anthill your unsupported opinion is about as meaningful as the bloviation of Dr. Fauci.

Another good example of churlishness.

 

[Der Alte]

Another good example of churlishness.

I feel quite sure that Hmm is quite capable of responding to my posts on his own.