What if you’re wrong about hell?

[Saint Steven]

To many believers it does unfortunately seem to be so.

Yes. I was surprised to see them own the scam, and even justify it. Hello? - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

The grace of God is what draws people into the Christian religion, and my experience is that people who are not baptized into our faith respond most favorably to discussions of the loving nature of God. And God is infinitely loving, as it says in the Gospel.

How can you write that and then turn around and claim he puts his children in an eternal BBQ with no hope of escape? Even those countless billions who have never so much as heard the name of Jesus. How is that "infinitely loving"?

 

[FineLinen]

Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error, indeed, as a heresy, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (although I do believe that Emperor Justinian acted arbitrarily in anathematizing Origen for his belief in apokatastasis, when St. Gregory Nyssa also believed in it, and Origen was as widely respected for his piety in the third century, if not more so, than St. Gregory Nyssa in the fourth (whose importance unlike that of Origen, who was individually and uniquely vital in the Church of Alexandria, was that of one of several pro-Nicene Christians known as the Cappadocians, including his older brother St. Basil the Great, and his older brother’s best friend, St. Gregory Nazianzus, neither of whom expressed a belief in apokatastasis).

The last denomination where a belief in apokatasis was common was the Church of the East, where we see it reflected in the writings of the Assyrian monk St. Isaac the Syrian and lastly in The Book of the Bee by the Assyrian Metropolitan bishop, His Eminence Mar Solomon Bassorah, dating from 1222 AD. Since that time, the Church of the East has rejected Apokatastasis.

It should also be stressed that Apokatasis as believed in in antiquity, and Universalism as believed today, by, for example, members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, are not the same thing. Indeed, the idea of Apokatastasis as viewed in antiquity is, I think, best summarized by this quote from The Book of the Bee:



That said, I do reject this as an error, in line with the overwhelming consensus of the early Church; I believe that CS Lewis instead properly expressed the truth of the matter when he said “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.” That is to say, scripture indicates there are people who are so filled with hate that loving God would be impossible for them, and so, tragically, they are binded by their boundless capacity for self-destructive hated.

The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism: The Early Church

The History of Universalism (Part Two) | Christian Universalist Association

https://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred/dp/1631741195

 

[Saint Steven]

...if we dwell on the horrors of damnation, catechumens and interested persons might recoil thinking that God desires this and is in some way responsible for it...

God is not responsible for hell? How could you claim such a thing?
- Who created hell?
- Who puts people there?
- Who sustains it for all eternity?
- Who fuels the unquenchable fire to assure it never stops burning?
- Who decided that there would be no hope of escape?
- Who is responsible for hell? The victims?

 

[Saint Steven]

...sinners alone who refuse the salvific grace offered by our Lord are responsible...

Yes. There's the answer to my question. Blame the victims. "...sinners alone... are responsible" - The Liturgist

 

[Saint Steven]

...alternative, deterministic forms of soteriology, which my research indicates were unknown in the early church...

What if you are wrong about that as well? You have heard of Origen?

 

[Saint Steven]

Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error...

Rejected by Damnationists. That's some shocking news.
They were so intolerant as to abuse their authority by not allowing other views of the final judgment. And you are just fine with that?

 

[The Liturgist]

What if you are wrong about that as well? You have heard of Origen?

Origen did not adhere to Calvinism or any intentional model of soteriological determinism (for reasons I explained by quoting The Book of the Bee, Apokatastasis is not Universalism per se, although still an error; it is not monergistic to the same extent as Universalism in that it incorporates, addresses, and responds to free will).

 

[Saint Steven]

Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error, indeed, as a heresy, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (although I do believe that Emperor Justinian acted arbitrarily in anathematizing Origen for his belief in apokatastasis, when St. Gregory Nyssa also believed in it, and Origen was as widely respected for his piety in the third century, if not more so, than St. Gregory Nyssa in the fourth (whose importance unlike that of Origen, who was individually and uniquely vital in the Church of Alexandria, was that of one of several pro-Nicene Christians known as the Cappadocians, including his older brother St. Basil the Great, and his older brother’s best friend, St. Gregory Nazianzus, neither of whom expressed a belief in apokatastasis).

How can you write this when you claimed in a previous post that it was "unknown in the early church"? How could Apokatastasis be "rejected as a theological error" if it was unknown?

The Liturgist said: ↑
...alternative, deterministic forms of soteriology, which my research indicates were unknown in the early church...

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes. There's the answer to my question. Blame the victims. "...sinners alone... are responsible" - The Liturgist

They are not victims. If they were forced to love God against their will, then they would be victims.

Paradise is a state of union with the infinite love of God, which is so intense as to be a consuming fire. Thus, for those who hate God, it is a torture, but not one that God desires. Hell should not be understood as God punishing people for refusing to love him, but rather as the natural state that exists when people hate God, and thus set themselves in opposition to everything that is good.

However, in granting free will, the one thing God cannot logically do, the sole rational constraint on omnipotence, is to force us to love him (because love that is forced is not really genuine love; love must be voluntary and come from within to have real meaning).

 

[Saint Steven]

This is a valid criticism of some aspects of Reformed theology which reject Free Will, but I would say that embracing Universalism is not the correct response to this error.

What would you say is the "correct response" then? (sweep it under the carpet?)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Are you claiming that God predestined people for an eternity in hell? That they will be tormented forever with no hope of escape? That is a terrible thing to accuse God of. Sounds more like an angry volcano god to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can you write this when you claimed in a previous post that it was "unknown in the early church"? How could Apokatastasis be "rejected as a theological error" if it was unknown?

The Liturgist said: ↑
...alternative, deterministic forms of soteriology, which my research indicates were unknown in the early church...

I was not referring to apokatastasis as having been unknown, but rather, to Calvinist soteriology.

 

[FineLinen]

Origen did not adhere to Calvinism or any intentional model of soteriological determinism (for reasons I explained by quoting The Book of the Bee, Apokatastasis is not Universalism per se, although still an error; it is not monergistic to the same extent as Universalism in that it incorporates, addresses, and responds to free will).

The Restitution of all things has nothing to do with "free will"! It begins in God and ends in God with zero input by broken mankind!

 

[Saint Steven]

Origen did not adhere to Calvinism or any intentional model of soteriological determinism (for reasons I explained by quoting The Book of the Bee, Apokatastasis is not Universalism per se, although still an error; it is not monergistic to the same extent as Universalism in that it incorporates, addresses, and responds to free will).

All three views of the final judgment have biblical support.
But it seems that you claim that only YOUR doctrinal opinion is NOT in error.

 

[Saint Steven]

They are not victims. If they were forced to love God against their will, then they would be victims.

Reminds me of a song. "Let's do the twist"

 

[The Liturgist]

What would you say is the "correct response" then? (sweep it under the carpet?)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Are you claiming that God predestined people for an eternity in hell? That they will be tormented forever with no hope of escape? That is a terrible thing to accuse God of. Sounds more like an angry volcano god to me.

I would say the correct response is to acknowledge free will and the self-evident truth that a genuine love for God needs must be voluntary and devoid of coercion, and that conversely, people who hate God align themselves with evil by the very nature of such an act, and this evil is what torments them in the hereafter. However, voluntary love of God is not possible unless people are given the choice to love or not to love (and it would be actively cruel of God to force us into the pretense of loving Him where such love was not genuine, whereas his granting of free will is a kindness, even for those who make the unfortunate decision to hate God, because whatever suffering they endure as a result of their misotheism is less than what would be experienced as the result of being compelled to participate in a relationship devoid of genuine, voluntary love.

 

[Saint Steven]

I would say the correct response is to acknowledge free will and the self-evident truth that a genuine love for God needs must be voluntary and devoid of coercion...

How is the threat of hell "voluntary and devoid of coercion"?

 

[The Liturgist]

All three views of the final judgment have biblical support.
But it seems that you claim that only YOUR doctrinal opinion is NOT in error.

It is not my doctrinal opinion, but the doctrinal opinion of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the largest Protestant denominations including the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, some Presbyterians, some Baptists, Moravians, some Congregationalists, and the various Evangelical churches, and the Roman Catholic Church, based on their interpretation of sacred scripture and the Apostolic kerygma.

If you want to bring up Biblical support however, the Universalist position you are advocating is completely unsupported, being contradicted in the Gospel, rejected by every major denomination, and also contrary to the Christian Forums statement of faith.

So in neither case am I simply stating a personal opinion.

 

[FineLinen]

I believe that CS Lewis instead properly expressed the truth of the matter when he said “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.”

C.S. Lewis also said > > >

"In the Christian story, God descends to re-ascend. He comes down...down to the very roots and sea-bed of the Nature He has created. But He goes down to come up again and bring the whole ruined world up with Him."

 

[The Liturgist]

How is the threat of hell "voluntary and devoid of coercion"?

It is not a threat. To hate God is to love wickedness, and Hellfire is the natural outcome of wickedness. “The wages of sin are death.”