A few questions on universal salvation

[Scott Pierson]

I was reading the book "On the Soul and the Resurrection"( by Saint Gregory of Nyssa) today and it brought up a problem that I have been struggling with ever since accepting Orthodox Christianity. That is the topic of hell and the never ending nature of suffering it seems to entail. It troubles me a lot and keeps me up at night .. the idea that there is a line ,once crossed that would wipe out any hope whatsoever for time without end. I'm a fairly traditional Orthodox or at least I try to be. I'm not a fan of the modernism and lack of respect for Orthodox dogma that is so prevalent now a days, but I do have trouble accepting the idea that Hell has no therapeutic or pedagogical character whatsoever and that people made in Gods image will forever be without hope to change for the better . Even if a only a small number of people suffer eternally its such a horrible thought. What if one of those people is your mother or child ?

Is it acceptable for an Orthodox Christian to accept the idea of Universal Salvation as taught by the likes of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and others ? It would only make sense that hell would have a therapeutic and teaching effect if Hell is nothing other then the unrighteous experiencing the Presence and Energies of Christ. If the presence of Christ torments them by making real to them their sin against love and burning their conscious so to speak ( as St Isaac the Syrian wrote about and as discussed in the river of fire article I’ve seen referenced on this blog) then couldn’t that same pain and suffering help make them receptive to a change of heart (metanoia) ? And when you couple that with the prayers of the Church and Saints, the will of God that all may be saved, and the Divine Image within us that can never be destroyed. Wouldn’t it make sense that there is still hope ? I understand the importance of free will and that Christ would never force himself on one who WANTED*** to reject him but does Universal Salvation necessarily destroy free will .. couldn’t the two be reconciled ?

I've also read that word Aionon which is often translated as "Eternal" in English bibles ( Eternal fire. etc) in actuality means Aion or Age Enduring and does not necessarily ( in fact rarely ever does in any Greek literature from the period) mean Eternal or Endless Time. And that"Aionon" is actually used in the Bible in places where "eternal" would make no sense. I assume that would apply to the Athanasian Creed when it uses the word "aionon" as well. I've also read that the majority of early Christians did not believe in eternal torment that early Alexandrian and Antiochian "schools" rejected the doctrine of eternal suffering and that the idea infliltrated the Church via pagan born ( or Manichean) converts to the faith in the Latin church ( Tertullian, Blessed Augustin, etc...)

I'm fairly new to the faith and admittedly far from being a true God bearing theologian or anything other then a uneducated sinner really, so i understand that I may very well be wrong for thinking these things. I’m probably not spiritually equipped to handle the question that well but I feel I have to because it really bothers me.

Any comments or helpful suggestions ?

*** One would of course have to be in a perfectly logical / rational state free from any psychological or spiritual disturbances to reject God in true knowledge of what that really entails and who God is etc. And if you don’t have that knowledge I don’t see how you could really reject God in any ultimate sense one would only be rejecting the false God of ones own imagination if you didn’t really a clear and lucid grasp of things. Is it possible that God allows us to accept or reject him in the perfect knowledge of Him at some point ( like the Angels some of whom accepted Him and some of whom rejected in full knowledge of Him) ? This is pure speculation of course.

Scott ( Seraphim)
A sinner who is really lost on this issue.

[Olga]

My understanding is that the adjective aeonios or aionios, (this is the masculine form, feminine would be aeonia, neuter aeonion) from the Greeknoun aeon or aeonas, meaning century, age or otherwise a great length of time, does indeed mean "eternal". I am happy to be corrected on this.

[Scott Pierson]

I've seen it translated as both. I would assume most of the "universalists" would have understood it mean Aion Enduring.. or refrenceing a long (indeterminate?) period of time. St Gregory of Nyssa appears to consider it to mean age enduring.

"But what is the benefit of this good hope, I asked, for the person who considers how great an evil it is to endure even one long year of pain? If that unendurable pain is extended the length of this whole age, what consolation may a person gain from the hope for afterwards, if his punishment last as long as the age?..... The gospel says that the debtor is handed over "to the torturer until", it says " he pays back all that he owes.' This simple means by the torment he pays the necessary obligation, the debt of participation in distress which he incurred during his life... Hence those released from evil will be in the divine nature, so that, as the apostle says, 'God will be all in all'. St Gregory of Nyssa "on the Soul and the Resurrection"

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott Pierson wrote:


I was reading the book "On the Soul and the Resurrection"( by Saint Gregory of Nyssa) today and it brought up a problem that I have been struggling with ever since accepting Orthodox Christianity. That is the topic of hell and the never ending nature of suffering it seems to entail. It troubles me a lot and keeps me up at night .. the idea that there is a line ,once crossed that would wipe out any hope whatsoever for time without end. I'm a fairly traditional Orthodox or at least I try to be. I'm not a fan of the modernism and lack of respect for Orthodox dogma that is so prevalent now a days, but I do have trouble accepting the idea that Hell has no therapeutic or pedagogical character whatsoever and that people made in Gods image will forever be without hope to change for the better . Even if a only a small number of people suffer eternally its such a horrible thought. What if one of those people is your mother or child ?

Is it acceptable for an Orthodox Christian to accept the idea of Universal Salvation as taught by the likes of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and others ? It would only make sense that hell would have a therapeutic and teaching effect if Hell is nothing other then the unrighteous experiencing the Presence and Energies of Christ. If the presence of Christ torments them by making real to them their sin against love and burning their conscious so to speak ( as St Isaac the Syrian wrote about and as discussed in the river of fire article I’ve seen referenced on this blog) then couldn’t that same pain and suffering help make them receptive to a change of heart (metanoia) ? And when you couple that with the prayers of the Church and Saints, the will of God that all may be saved, and the Divine Image within us that can never be destroyed. Wouldn’t it make sense that there is still hope ? I understand the importance of free will and that Christ would never force himself on one who WANTED*** to reject him but does Universal Salvation necessarily destroy free will .. couldn’t the two be reconciled ?

Maybe it's more helpful to know that many Fathers wrote about how hell is not a separate space apart from Christ's grace but precisely Christ's grace as experienced by those who reject this. If I remember correctly St Symeon the New Theologian even writes that the idea of hell as a separate space is blasphemous since it implies that at the End the light of Christ will not conquer death. What St Symeon seems to be reacting against most strongly is anything which could imply that ultimately the light of Christ is not sovereign over sin & death.

How does this relate to your questions? I'm not sure that it's correct to think of hell as being potentially therapeutic. Again we're not talking about hell as a separate space from Christ but rather as a state that reflects the free rejection of Christ by man. So hell is precisely the state we are in from our willing rejection of Christ.

Here I think it's very important to see the role of willing. We're not just talking about sin in general which of course always separates us from Christ in some way. Sin for the Christian and even for the man who follows the inner natural law becomes a terrible burden that he seeks to be free of even though he cannot completely attain this before death. Hell though, real final hell is to love this sin, to take the burden of it for freedom and to freely reject Christ. These two even though they go back in forth within us in trying to claim our loyalty are not at all the same- for one is sin despite what we will while the other is sin very much according to our will.

Hierotheos Vlachos is the one person I have read who addresses most clearly your question I think but within the larger context referred to above. Basically he says that the prayers we have for the departed can be effective because these correspond to what the person desired in their life. This to me is very important for it explains how someone after death can move closer to Christ but according to what they desire like a man wanting to move towards Light. For the man who hates Light though what can we do?

There are indeed accounts of some being prayed out of hell now. Does this really mean that our prayers can act against the will of those we pray for? This is very hard to accept and indeed I think this means our prayers still act according to the will of the person we pray for.







I've also read that word Aionon which is often translated as "Eternal" in English bibles ( Eternal fire. etc) in actuality means Aion or Age Enduring and does not necessarily ( in fact rarely ever does in any Greek literature from the period) mean Eternal or Endless Time. And that"Aionon" is actually used in the Bible in places where "eternal" would make no sense. I assume that would apply to the Athanasian Creed when it uses the word "aionon" as well. I've also read that the majority of early Christians did not believe in eternal torment that early Alexandrian and Antiochian "schools" rejected the doctrine of eternal suffering and that the idea infliltrated the Church via pagan born ( or Manichean) converts to the faith in the Latin church ( Tertullian, Blessed Augustin, etc...)

The Tradition of the Church is indeed clear about the fact of eternal suffering. I really don't think it's correct to think of this as a pagan idea. Again there is much in this which is very difficult for us to understand but eternal suffering like suffering itself is the result of man's free rejection of God from the beginning. The mystery of eternal suffering is the mystery of God's respect of man's free will. In any case whatever it means I'm not sure it means eternal suffering despite what the person wants.

Ultimately will there be those who always reject Christ's sovereignty over sin and death? I guess this is what the question really comes down to. So for us the most important question should be- what do I most desire, the Light of Christ or my sin?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply Fr Raphael.

I guess the question is "will there be people who reject Christ for ever"... Couldnt it be possible or even probable that all people (of their own free will) , will not reject Christ forever? Maybe St Gregory of Nyssa being a a God illumined Saint was privy to a preview of the future and saw that all would accept Christ ? I cant say for sure of course.

I love Metropolitan Hierotheos, he is one of my favorite authors but his view that St Gregory of Nyssa didnt teach hell as being theraputic doesnt make much sense to me after having actually read St Gregorys works or at least translations... I think he is in the minoraty in makeing that claim even people opposed to the view in the past said that the parts of his writting supporting universal salvation were really put in by latter origenist redactors or whatnot but I've never really heard any one else saying that the said texts didnt really support the view. The idea that those views where added to Saint Gregorys works are not accepted by most scholars today either.

The teaching of the Church that hell is not a "place" but rather the effect of Gods love on sinners has helped me out a lot and seems infinitly better then the western view... But if it really burns their concious to see that they sinned against and rejected God doesnt that just prove that they still have a concious and they know what they did was wrong... couldnt that possible lead to accepting Christ and rejecting their error via the grace of God?

I understand that people are free to reject God and go on rejecting God but the possibility doesnt mean it WILL be a reality.

It seems that the idea of Universal Salvation was actualy the predominate view of Christians for some time. Even Blessed Augustin who is opposed to the idea admited that it seemed the whole Christian world rejected eternal torment. I can find refrences if you want after lunch.

The various words translated as eternal or for ever and ever in the Bible also seem to have some ambiguity ( though they can of course in certain instance s be understood as eternal) so i dont see them as a silver bullet against universal salvation that some think they are. See this article for example (its not perfect but its the best i can find on short notice i have to get back from luch) http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

Thank you for the responses. Please pray for me. I will keep pondering this issue untill my brain explosdes lol. If eternal punishment is truely the teaching of the Church then I do want to try to believe in it but I'm not convenced ... of either view totally at this point. Maybe its just best to say I have no idea.

[Father David Moser]

In response to the idea of hell being "therapeutic" I'd like to advance an idea for consideration. This is something that I wrote in a different context and I submit it here for consideration:


___________________
> The more I research this topic, the more I keep runing into two ideas that
both seem to be widely held by Orthodox teachers:

1. Repentance is not possible after death.

2. A person's ultimate fate is not fixed until the Last Judgement.<

According to St John of Damascus, the thing tha makes it possible for us to
"change" (ie repent) is that we have a "dual nature" - physical and
spiritual. Since physcial things are my nature "changeable" as long as we
have a physical nature, we too are changeable - that is capable of
repentance. At death the soul is separated from the body (an "unnatural
act" according to our created purpose - and therefore quite traumatic for
both soul and body) separating our physical nature from our spiritual
nature. The soul, bereft of its physicality no longer has the capacity to
repent and therefore experiences the full effect of its spiritual condition
(the body acts as a buffer for the soul as does the soul for the body - but
this no longer is possible after they are separated). But glory be to God
Who is merciful and Who does not desire that any man should perish, He has
arranged it so that our physical "death" is not the final issue. Death, in
fact, is the means by which the kernal of sinfulness, acquired in the fall,
is finally exposed and therefore able to be purged from the person (since it
rests in the nexus of the soul and body). The good news is that there is a
final resurrection from the grave wherein the soul and body are reunited
providing one final opportunity for repentance and salvation. (How can we be
judged as only a soul - that is only half a person. We will be judged in
our wholeness - as a complete being of soul and body and that is possible
only *after* the Resurrrection.) In the resurrection, the simple fact that
the soul has seen its own naked sinfulness unbuffered by the physical
senses, it is now possible for the person to be motivated more than ever
before to repent. Will all repent? Will all be saved? We don't know. It
is certainly possible that there will be those who are so affected by their
own sinfulness that they may turn against God more solidly during this time
and thus not repent, but be consumed by hatred - but we don't really know.

Why then do we in the Church pray for those who have departed, asking God to
forgive their sins and ease their sufferings? It is because in the Church
we are all united in Christ - united not only to our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, but also ontologically united to one another. Thus we "bear the
burden" of repentance for those who are no longer able to repent. We mourn
for their sins with our bodies, we do the good works that they are no longer
able to do in their name, we say the prayers that they are no longer able to
utter. In this manner, because we are connected, we who are yet alive in
the world can aid the repentance of those who have passed on before. Just
as the sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons, so also the
repentance of the sons has a beneficial effect on the fathers.

How and why does all this work? What are the mechanisms of grace by which
these things can occur? Again, we don't know. We take all this on faith -
faith in God, faith in the revelation that has been given to our forefathers
and to the saints, faith in the sanctity of the Holy Traditions that have
been passed down to us by our Holy Mother Church.
______

Now this obviously touches on some "controversial" issues about life after death, however, everything is supported in the tradition of the Church as far as I can discover except the final opportunity for repentance at the general resurrection before the final judgement. It makes sense to me (but then so do a lot of other wacky things) and I have solicited opinions of other clergy (including hierarchs) who are wiser and more learned than I but have not yet been told that this is wrong (only that it is unique).

The reason that I advance this thought in this context is that all too often, especially in the west, we confuse the ideas of the "particular judgement" after death and the final judgement at the end of all things. These are clearly two separate events in the teaching of the Church (however you choose to envision it) and the experience of hades after the particular judgement seems to me to fulfill that "therapeutic" role (otherwise why is it even there, why pray for the departed?) just as the great judgement fulfills the "final" and "eternal" position.

As I said before, this is only my crazy idea and not (to my knowledge) fully supported or discussed in the teaching of the Church, but at the same time it is not excluded either. So, comments? thoughts?

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I love Metropolitan Hierotheos, he is one of my favorite authors but his view that St Gregory of Nyssa didnt teach hell as being theraputic doesnt make much sense to me after having actually read St Gregorys works or at least translations... I think he is in the minoraty in makeing that claim even people opposed to the view in the past said that the parts of his writting supporting universal salvation were really put in by latter origenist redactors or whatnot but I've never really heard any one else saying that the said texts didnt really support the view. The idea that those views where added to Saint Gregorys works are not accepted by most scholars today either.

About St Gregory's views on the restoration of all things Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos writes:


In many of his texts St Gregory speaks of man's freedom of choice, which is not abolished by God, and also about the perpetuity of of Hell. Both of these positions of his remove every notion of restoration of all things as affirmed by Origen.

I think the crucial points in this are man's freedom of choice, God's eternal respect for this & the fact that this ends up with a free acceptance or rejection of Christ. Origen's system on the other hand focuses on the sovereignty of Christ and that He will be all in all; but ultimately he does not take into full account free will. Also in one of his articles online Matthew Steenberg (our moderator) points out that Origen leaves God's justice out of His vision of the final restoration. Surely again this points to how important free will is since our punishment (the result of God's justice) is only a consequence of the misuse of free will. In other words in all of this we keep coming back to free will and that if all things are resolved without their free assent to this then in a way we are not even talking about salvation anymore.

I understand what you are saying about the therapeutic value of hell & this way of reading St Gregory. The point of this I guess is to explain how all things are resolved and how Christ will be all in all. But does St Gregory really mean there will be none left at this point to reject Christ? There is an important point in this about how in Christ there is a therapeutic value of suffering. But this doesn't contradict the fact within God's providence all ulitmately must be free to accept or reject this.

I think Fr David's point is worth hearing. Whatever the mechanics of this are, being able to pray for the departed now, does imply the ability of souls to move in regards to Christ. We even hear accounts of souls being prayed out of hell, although this doesn't mean the final Hell (I notice Fr David uses the word hades which others also use to describe a possibly temporary state of separation from Christ before the Second Coming). So I think the Tradition does witness to the soul being able to change its state after death.

The danger in all of this apart from trying to understand incomprehensible things is that it is all too easy to be motivated in this by a desire that there not be such consequences- possibly very grave consequences- for the unrepented rejection of Christ. Whatever the 'gnashing of teeth' means though, be it literally eternal or not, we had better have it firmly in mind that Christ means a state that would be just as dreadful as this. And if hell is therapeutic it probably won't exactly be like a visit to the doctor where he nicely discusses our condition while handing us a lolly-pop.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

"The danger in all of this apart from trying to understand incomprehensible things is that it is all too easy to be motivated in this by a desire that there not be such consequences- possibly very grave consequences- for the unrepented rejection of Christ."

That does really make sense. I wonder at times if my views on this issue might be motivated more out of fear for others (especially a friend I had who died of a heroin overdose not too long ago.. who to the best of my knowledge wasnt a big fan of Christ or Christianity) then logic. I pray for him every day but its one of those things that nag at you. I bear some of the responsibility for his death.. I introduced him to the drug.

"The good news is that there is a final resurrection from the grave wherein the soul and body are reunited providing one final opportunity for repentance and salvation. (How can we be judged as only a soul - that is only half a person. We will be judged in our wholeness - as a complete being of soul and body and that is possible only *after* the Resurrection.) "

When one is reunited with the body wouldnt they then have the power to change as long as they still possed the resurrection body? Why is there a one time accept or reject .. couldnt someone reject him for 10,000 years and then change (they have a body because they where given one back at the resurrection) ?

How did the Angels change without a physical body. It appears that the demons at one time were blessed servants of God and then they left God and rebelled .. Wouldnt that be change ?

Thank you for your replies Fr David Moser, and Fr Raphael they really give me something to think about.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If we have the ability to change, shouldn't we also have the ability to NOT change? We will not be forced to change our minds.

[Scott Pierson]

"shouldn't we also have the ability to NOT change?"

I would say yes. It just bothers me to think that people would lose any ability to change.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"shouldn't we also have the ability to NOT change?"

I would say yes. It just bothers me to think that people would lose any ability to change.

I think in God's judgement He takes this fully into account. The problem though is that we reject what He offers us.

Maybe the thing to look at more carefully is how freely God offers us what He does. There is absolutely no compulsion at all in this. But this is so different from us who almost always have strings attached to what we offer. The whole give & take (this interesting phrase reveals a lot- Christians offer & receive) between us & others is not really free until we grow into offering of ourselves as Christ does to us.

Eternal damnation may be connected to losing the ability to change. But this is only the end result of rejecting God's free gift to us. In other words the state of the damned is freely chosen separation from God. It's total & freely chosen isolation from God because there is nothing left that I want to focus on except my will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Scott,



Is it acceptable for an Orthodox Christian to accept the idea of Universal Salvation taught by the likes of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and others ?

I have come to the conclusion that entire notion of universal salvation AKA apokatastasis is not really at odds at all with the reality of eternal hell fire, one reaping what one sows. The desire for all to be saved is the result of virtue, blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. The extension of mercy toward others seems to come very often from those that are rather hard on themselves, fathers that are seemingly ruthless towards themselves are most merciful towards others. God is love and does not desire the death of sinners, it is in that light that the Cappadocian Father Gregory of Nyssa writes. You might want to read of God's justice, punishment and the free will of man addressed by Saint John Chrysostom's commentary on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. God's wrath and punishment are seen as perfectly loving, just, merciful and corrective in this life.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_four_discourses_03_discourse3.htm#C2

You may also want to read Parable of the Wedding Feast and the Explanation of the Gospel of St. Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact. In this we come to understand that the bride, the Church and that the way to follow the bridegroom Christ, the way and the Truth into the feast is narrow. St. Gregory of Nyssa and so many other fathers embraced that narrow way which is merciful and forgiving. Surely for the Church fathers Christ's yolk is easy and His burden is light.

http://www.chrysostompress.org/explanation/pentecost_14?CPSESSION=897fc5e35f613...

"Who is he that is wearing filthy garments? It is he who is not clothed with compassion, goodness, and brotherly love."

"The Lord then says to His servants, the angels of punishment, Bind his hands and feet, that is, the soul's powers of action. For in this present age is the time to act and to do, but in the age to come all of the soul's powers of action are bound, and a man cannot then do any good thing to outweigh his sins."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Scott Pierson]

Is suffering itself an evil? What about hatred of God, rejecting God, and selfishness. If these things continue throughout eternity then evil would in a certain sense be eternal wouldnt it? I understand that Hell doesnt exist from Gods perspective but the fact remains that certain evils are implyed by the suffering and the hearts of the people who reject God... Rejecting God itself is an evil which appears to be ( possible at least) eternal.

Based on what you know of God would He create a world in which He knew evil ( the rejection of Him and human suffering) would be Eternal? Its a hard question for me to answer. Maybe I shouldnt assume to guess the mind of God and these questions are best left unpondered and left to Gods mercy. But Its hard for me to get past these nagging questions. I dont like to admite this but I think I may have a problem trusting God to do what is best for those who reject Him. Forgive me.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott Pierson wrote


Based on what you know of God would He create a world in which He knew evil ( the rejection of Him and human suffering) would be Eternal?

The first question to ask is why would God create a world in which He knew there would be a Fall, evil & death.

This I think gives clues as to how to answer these other questions.

One thing we can see from this is the priority of God's creating and human freedom. For us these have to be our sacred starting points. Otherwise our questions are based on assumptions which deny what is most crucial to God's creation in the first place.

God's creation- human freedom. From this has come evil. Deny this and we deny the means of salvation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Scott,


With the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we can see that God allows evil in the world so that greatest good prevails in Christ. So yes, God created a world in which he knew some would reject him. God chose to reveal His boundless love in Christ, in that way the adversary is conquered, humility. There is no greater humility and love than that of the Holy Trinity, Christ the Son of God crucified to save mankind.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

God didn't create man to be evil for He is good and loves. Man turns away from God, so did and does Lucifer who was not created evil. He used his free will and became the evil one. Even in the garden of Eden only one commandment was given to obey, to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It seems to me that if that commandment was never given full free will, choosing obedience or disobedience would not exist, we would not be human beings as God created us to be.

St John of Damascus mentions. "So, He assumed all that He might sanctify all. He was put to the test and He conquered that He might gain for us the victory and to give to our nature the power to conquer the Adversary, so that through the very assaults by which the nature had been conquered of old it might conquer its former victor.


Now, the Evil One attacked from the outside, just as he had with Adam, and not through thoughts- for it was not through thoughts that he attacked Adam, but through the serpent. The Lord, however, repelled the attack and it vanished like smoke, so that by being conquered the passions which had assailed Him might be easy for us to conquer and the new Adam thus be restored by the old."

We can see from St John of Damascus's comments that our knowledge of God and His merciful love for mankind is revealed profoundly in Christ our Lord and Savior. Without the revelation of Christ we could not worship and give thanks as we do now, there would not have come a time for a more "intimate communion" as Matthew Steenberg had mentioned in another thread a while ago.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Scott Pierson]

Its hard to accept that evil could be eternal or at least never ending. I guess human free will could continue doing evil for all eternity but the fact that something is possible doesnt make it probable there is techniqually a possibilty that if you throw a bassball at a wall all the atoms will miss eachother and the ball willl fly through the wall. And when you take into consideration Inifinte time coupled with the Divine Image in man, the natural "lovability" of God, Gods genius at organizing events to work on our hard heart, Gods will that all should be saved and various other factors I would think the probabilty of eternal evil ( choosing to reject God, hardness of heart , human suffering, selfishness, hatred all of which are implied by Hell) is really low. I have no trouble accepting the existence of evil pain, etc if of finite duration as tool of education and growth but if it has no positive effect whatsoever then thats really a horrible thought. I guess its just the lack of free will (or ability to use free will) to turn from evil after a certain point that really sounds odd to me. If God loves free will so much why doesnt he insure that they are cabaple of using it in hell if you say he allows them to use their free will to forsake free will then the continuation of free will must not really be that important so you might as well allow it to come to end in paradise rather then hell.

I also wonder why God doesnt simple remove whatever it is that allows people to feel pain if they are going to be in hell forever and hell has no theraputic value? Why is their pain feeling so important if its not punishment as is often pointed out.

Why is the free will to choose evil so important God seems to get by just fine without it? I've heard it said that it would be impossible to love wthout it but then God still loves and he cant choose evil. Or that it would make you a robot but thats not true their are millions of good actions one could do so you have free will to choose among them and of course God isnt a robot. All this would be more understandble if not of everlasting duration.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Scott, you wrote:


... the natural "lovability" of God...

I'm very curious as to what this is!

INXC, Matthew

[Scott Pierson]

lol "lovability" is a word I made up I guess the word "loveable" would make more sense. I was trying to say that God is all that we could possible want. His love twoards us is naturally attractive to our human nature, etc.

I'm not implying that I even believe what I'm saying on some of the things I've posted here. I'm very conflicted and I find playing "devils advoacte" against a view I think might possible true ( never ending hell) helps me think the issue over. The responses i've recieved have been very helpful.. Thank you...

[Fabio Lins]

Hi!

This is a question that has been troubling me in the last weeks. The "problem" I see in eternal Hell is that human will is not strong enough to endure everlasting sufferings. It would come to a point in which the person would start hating the very cause of their sufferings i.e. sin itself and repent. That is human nature as we know it.

On the other hand, I cannot avoid to see in the NT that God's forgiveness is 1) not unconditional, and 2) has limits even in this life (e.g. the parable of the Virgins, His attitude towards the Samaritan woman demanding humiliation from her that shows that denying healing would be the "standard" attitude toward the non-humbled samaritans, even those who asked for it, His stating that *there is* an unforgivable sin that is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, His acceptance of Judas desire to betray Him, the hardening of Pharao's heart, the destruction of Sodoma and Gomorra, the very destruction of Jerusalem, etc, etc). From all this, it seems clear to my clouded heart - and I may be wrong in this - that there is a line that human will may cross, a point of no return. It is as if will itself becomes ultimately corrupted forever hating God. The scary thing is that there are parables that say that *most* people *will* be damned and only a very few will be saved ("many are invited, but few are chosen") , that is, that most of us, even many who live seemly "saintly" lives ("not all who cry Lord, Lord...") will have crossed this line. Reading from the fathers, specially the desert fathers, we then get the impression that only the ones who lived extremely ascetic lives will be saved and those who did not live it just because of circumstances beyond their human forces (e.g. the good thief). It is really desperating at times.

At the same time, the idea of universal salvation equals atheism in terms of behaviorial consequences. If *all* will be saved, even only if after a short period of suffering when compared to the Eternity of bliss after repentence, why should one not engange in as many bodily pleasures right now, right here? Those who sink into sin now would be the ones who would get the best of both worlds, enjoying the pleasures of this and the next world.

Of course, that is a lot of "legalistically" thinking in all this. When God forgives St. Peter's denial His *only* question is "do you love me?" It seems to me that this is the true meaning of salvation. St. Peter and Judas are used as parallels in the biblical texts. Parallelism is a common literary tool used there. Judas loved money and Peter loved Christ. Both faltered and betrayed Him, each in their own way. The difference that led Judas to death (in fact to suicide, that is, self-killing and not being smited by God and this is important) and St. Peter to salvation is *only* that St. Peter loved Christ. I wonder if this 'point of no return' has to do, less to not be willing not to suffer but to not love. We do see people who are not able to love. We do see that it *is* the majority of people. Most are moved by interests, passions, fear, but no love. Very, very few do love.

Still, the question remains: is it possible that given eternity, would anyone not be able to love? It brings us to the "Typist Monkey" hypothesis. A monkey randomly typing comes up with words such as "is", "dad" and occasionaly even more difficult ones like "optical" etc. The hypothesis states that given an ever-lasting monkey, randomly typing on an ever-lasting typewriter would eventually write "Hamlet".

If that is the case, how come an everlasting soul, in everlasting suffering, not at any point feel any love? Is it really so that not only we may loose our potential to love, but that most of us *will* loose it?

In Christ,
Fabio Lins

[Terry McGee]

There seems to be a distinction that is often missed between being reconciled through the sacrifice of Christ and the sanctification of the soul through obedience to the Holy Spirit. It has been presumed that the former is dependent on the later. It is my contention that it is not. Being reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Christ does not excuse one from the responsibility of shedding earthly desires and drawing close to God by the renewing of the mind. One can be justified by faith and still not be sanctified by the renewing of the mind. They are separate issues.