The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"We all deserve Hell" ?

Theology Philosophical
#21

Hi rsipper,

I posted a question similar to this a few weeks ago (Problem of Hell vs Problem of Heaven).

At least from a common-sense view, it doesn’t seem like we deserve Hell (though sometimes Calvinists say that our common sense isn’t to be trusted in these matters, for God’s ways aren’t our ways). Still, that wouldn’t be a sufficient argument for universalism, but it might be a sufficient argument against Calvinism.

Isn’t it possible (or fair) for Hell to be true if Arminianism is T; that is, if we have the freedom to choose/reject God rather than a punishment that is imposed on us (this might be an Arminian soteriology blended with the thought of C.S. Lewis highlighted in “The Great Divorce”, where there is no deadline for salvation, but unfortunately people still reject God in the afterlife despite God’s reaching out to them)?

Also, though we may not deserve Hell, perhaps annihilationism is T and God punishes the reprobate simply by putting them out of existence.

What if God were to grant us long lives, and even extend our lives into the afterlife, but not infinitely long?

Of course, I want universalism to be T, but I think we have to be careful to let sentiment carry us too far (though I think sentiment/emotion is one way God reveals T). However, I think you’re right and many times people who argue for Hell or ECT aren’t trusting their emotions at all, but are sort of stoically adhering to a systematic theology. I think we have to look at the intermediate options b4 claiming that universalism is T. However, if this is a successful argument against Calvinism, then we are a few steps closer to showing universalism to be T at least :smiley:

#22

Oh, and I’m Rachel, by the way. Nice to meet you all!

#23

Hi [tag]Prince Myshkin[/tag],

I wondered if you’ve read the article by Dr Talbott (who actually commented on this thread above. :wink: ) that I linked to … (and I’ll link to again here:willamette.edu/~ttalbott/Impunity.pdf)…and wonder what you think of his argument? It’s best to be familiar with his philosophy when discussing Christian universalism from a philosophical standpoint, I think. I find his line of reasoning very persuasive by the way, but am curious about your opinion.

And very nice to meet you, Rachel! :smiley:

All the best,

Steve

#24

Yes, I am in the process of reading the paper you linked to and it’s exactly what I’m looking for. Thanks!

#25

Nice to meet you too, Rachel! It’s always nice to see another gal around here :smiley: (New boys are always welcome too, of course!) :wink:

Tom, thanks. :slight_smile:

#26

Hi Rachel,

Welcome to this forum. As some of the posts in this thread already illustrate, you won’t find much disagreement here concerning the following:

Indeed, I first began challenging such arguments and arguing with other Christian philosophers about them way back in 1990! But as I see it, perhaps the best argument along the lines that you and I both reject is an essay by Raymond VanArragon–not to be confused with Aragorn (a. k. a. Strider), whom I mention in order to earn some extra points!–perhaps the best argument along these lines is VanArragon’s essay entitled “Is it Possible to Freely Reject God Forever?” (See Joel Buenting (ed.), The Problem of Hell: A Philosophical Anthology, Chapter 2.) I call this the best article along these lines not because I find it persuasive–I don’t–but because it does an excellent job of clarifying some of the relevant issues. It also addresses some of your concerns.

Anyway, I certainly agree with you that the idea of someone freely choosing eternal misery for oneself is sufficiently incoherent to strike one dumb. So why do I regard, e.g., Lewis’ free will theodicy of hell as a step in the right direction? For several reasons. First, it takes a giant step away from the demonic idea of an eternal torture chamber. Second, it rejects the equally demonic idea that God restricts his love and mercy to a chosen few. And finally, it is an attempt, however unsuccessful in the end, to maintain that God’s essential nature is indeed perfect love. So once its fundamental incoherence is demonstrated, no option seems left for a Christian except Christian universalism!

Thanks for introducing this thread and for your contributions to it.

-Tom

#27

Hi Steve,

I am familiar with the paper on impunity, as well the Craig/Talbott exchange on this pt.

I am on the fence, not being able to side completely with Craig or Talbott. I think Talbott shows that, assuming God disillusions us more and more as to the “benefits” of sin/selfishness in the afterlife, the less attractive sin or rejection of God would seem, so that, after eons of the afterlife, it would be very unlikely that there would still be hardened rebels, let alone people who had rejected God due to misinformation or false conjectures.

However, I don’t know if Talbott has shown that rejection of God is logically impossible. I think Talbott underestimates the draw of pride. For instance, (assuming Satan is real - but it I think it still serves as a hypothetical), Satan is the 2nd greatest theologian in the world next to God. Yet, Satan rejects God. We can’t say that Lucifer is misinformed, and it would be difficult to say that Satan was/is unfree. So, why did Satan reject God? Either (or both) b/c he was jealous of God’s preference for human beings by dying for them as Jesus and/or Satan, being caught up in his own vanity/pride, didn’t want to acknowledge God as “above” him.

Now, perhaps pride is something that God can cure us of, but it might mean the abridgement of our freedom. Kierkegaard wrote about “demonic” despair, which has no motive whatsoever, only the unwillingness to bend the knee to God, to sort of stand as an example of how God has been unfair and botched things. Sartre theorized along similar lines, there can only be one God, for many, this is intolerable b/c we all have to desire to be God. Of course, many find surrender to God a joy, and I think if we grant that God has the afterlife to continue to reveal Godself to us, then more confused people might find that preferable to demonic pride, but I don’t know if Talbott has proved that it is impossible to reject God. I think about Lewis’ Great Divorce, where the eons in the afterlife actually solidify one’s earthly choices, so, though in essence the damned have the ability to accept God at any time, they won’t b/c of the momentum of their sin. (Though perhaps Talbott is right and this “momentum of sin” will be disllusioned away, but can God achieve such disillusionment w/o abridging our freedom?)

Of course, one can still be universalist and give up such as strong notion of freedom; God may have to limit our freedom to secure UR. Anyway, to answer your ?, I find both Craig and Talbott persuasive and have a hard time knowing who makes the better argument.

#28

I have a real-life illustration.
I was attending a small AoG bible college in Santa Cruz, California, in the early 70’s. I had a girlfriend, also a student there, who wanted to break off our relationship, because I was deeply troubled at the time and she wanted to move on with her life. I was very mad, every muscle in my body was tensed to the max, there was rage in my heart, and the beginnings of real hatred.
In the middle of the argument, I got called off to another building for a moment. The rage grew as I walked back to continue the argument.
In less than 5 seconds, though, in the middle of the campus as I was storming along to renew that attack, my heart was changed, completely. From rage to love and acceptance. I was happy to let go, happy to wish her well, and just plain happy. it’s hard for me to convey the immediacy of the change. It was like THAT (he said as he tried to snap his fingers :smiley: )
My will was overridden, or more succinctly, changed - a gift I was not wanting, until I received it - and then I could see what a miserable creature I had been.
The gift came from Above, I have no doubt. My girlfriend was a true friend of God, and was praying mightily while I was gone that few minutes.

I don’t think it will take eons for Christ to reconcile the rebels. It will be a gift of fresh air that blows away the smoke and detritus of the Orc’s den people have chosen, and enable them to understand what they were, and who in love they will be. They will look at their old pride and weep at the stupidity of it.

Evil will be overcome with good.

$.02

#29

Hello Prince!

I’ve always wanted to meet a prince, even if some perceive him to be an idiot! So let me issue a belated welcome to this forum.

What struck me most about your excellent and balanced posts above is the extent to which your theological journey seems remarkably parallel to my own. During my high school and college days, I became a vigorous and sometimes rather nasty polemicist against Calvinism; and even though your own approach seems far less polemical than mine was back then, our underlying thinking seems remarkable parallel, as I said. But as a matter of historical fact, it was not any philosophical argument against the Arminian view, but a host of biblically based arguments for the ultimate triumph of God’s sovereign love, that eventually led me to Christian universalism.

Anyway, I have developed over the past decade or so an altogether unique philosophical argument, I think it fair to say, against the Arminian understanding of hell. For as surprising as it may at first appear, a free will theodicy of hell ultimately requires, I argue, that God interfere with human freedom in morally inappropriate ways. I set forth the details of this argument in a chapter entitled “Predestination unto Glory” in the forthcoming second edition of The Inescapable Love of God. But I also give an ever so brief summary of the argument in section 4.2 of my entry on heaven and hell for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which entry is available at the following URL:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/heave … eWilTheHel

I would, of course, welcome any comment you might have on this argument.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread.

-Tom

#30

Hello Dr Talbott!

I’m so excited (and honored) to have you participating in this discussion being a long time fan of yours and your work. :smiley: (And feeling awfully awkward and shy, to tell the truth… :blush: ) Thanks for the link and the preview which I like very much. I just wanted to make one point to the Prince and then I’ll step aside…

Prince,

I just wanted to point out that I don’t think it’s wise to lean very heavily on the Miltonian Satan as an example of a being without illusions who nevertheless continues to rebel. :wink: In fact I think the Augustinian idea of “The Fall” of both Angels and humans is untenable. I’ll quote John Hick here (as I have elsewhere):

I think Satan and demons (if they exist) must have developed in a similar “context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception” as humans. It’s also part of the reason I think the Irenaen view of Adam and the Fall is much more helpful than Augustine’s.

All the best,

Steve

#31

Hi Steve,

You and I do seem to be on the same page. As you probably already know, here is what I have written in response to Craig’s appeal to Milton’s Satan:

And here is a footnote that I added to the above:

Thanks for your comment.

-Tom

#32

Sounds like we need a new thread on the nature of Satan; that would be very interesting! Although there might already be one; I’m new to the forum and just getting my feet wet. There is a lot to read here, not to mention all the books I want to read that I’ve found linked in other threads. I feel a bit like I’ve jumped in to a culture in which I don’t quite know the language… but I’m learning. Thank you all for your amazing insight into an issue I have been wondering about!

#33

Great idea Rachel! :smiley: I think there are threads where this is touched on, but not a dedicated thread…at least since I’ve been here. There would be much to discuss including the changing nature of Satan (and angels) in Jewish thought, ideas about “The Fall” of angels, and what demons are and do they exist?

I think so, Tom. I’m very intrigued by your thoughts on the unrepentant, self-deceived being allowed by God to experience the consequences of their “freedom” and desire for separation from God… in the “outer-darkness” if need be. As one who sees George MacDonald as a spiritual mentor, this is fully in line with what he taught. His short story “The Gray Wolf” which we discussed on this thread:evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=4868… portrays this in a wonderfully imaginative way, I think. :smiley:

#34

Thought I’d bump this thread up as [tag]Prince Myshkin[/tag] may not have seen Dr Talbott’s responses to him…

#35

Hey Steve, could you explain to someone as technologically challenged as I what it means to “bump this thread up”? Thanks.

-Tom

#36

Sure, Tom. :smiley:

It just means that as new threads are started or people respond to different topics, a thread will start falling to the bottom of the page and might be forgotten or overlooked when people are clicking on “View active topics”. If someone “bumps up the thread” they are responding with the intent to get it back to the top and back “on the radar” so to speak. Things have been pretty active lately here, so this thread had dropped way down the page…

#37

Ah yes, that makes perfectly good sense. So I guess that, if this thread had fallen again (which it hasn’t), then my present post would have bumped it up again! Sorry to be so dense.

-Tom

#38

No worries, Tom. :smiley:

This was all new to me a few months ago. I even learned how to “tag” someone from Cindy, (like I did the Prince above) so they get a message alerting them to a thread they might be interested in or where their expertise is desired. It’s been a learning experience… :wink:

#39

Most “tormentists” argue that we deserve eternal torture because we have sinned against an infinite being.

Their reasoning is:

  1. The punishment for a sin increases with its severity
  2. Sins against great beings are worse than sins against lesser beings
  3. God is infinitely great
  4. Everyone knows that God exists (Roman 2) yet spurns His moral law
  5. Thus everyone commits an infinite sin
  6. Hence everyone deserves an infinite punishment

What are your thoughts on that?

Not being an inerrantist, I reject 4) and consider it extremely dubious that all Pagans living in the jungle are aware there is an infinite Being out there.

Chris Date takes a different route and argues that annihilation is an infinite punishment because the consequences (lost of existence) last forever.

#40

Hi Tom,

Well, I am surprised: it wasn’t until I got a little into your thread that I realized that you are actually Thomas Talbott, for initially I thought you were a user who enjoyed your work and chose that alias. :smiley: Cindy recommended that I read your book, The Inescapable of God and I am finding it very helpful.

Thanks for referring me to your argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia. I think that it is a very reassuring idea, that pain is an expression of God’s mercy and a primary means of God’s reconciling us to Him. This would mean, I take it, that, in the case of a hardened rejector of God, that eventually, even in the afterlife, God would make the pain of rejection unbearable to the point that the person has to capitulate, not primarily to punitively punish them, but rather to get them back into the fold. I gather that you are arguing that nobody could infinitely resist or fight this pain.

Obviously, this conception wouldn’t work if there is some kind of deadline for acceptance, but that aside, I think it makes even a Hitler’s or Satan’s infinite rejection of God less likely. Are you arguing that God’s mercy shown as pain would make infinite rejection impossible? It does suggest to me, as Craig I think pointed out somewhere, a “recantation under torture”, though you don’t have to ascribe to horrendous pain to achieve the salvation (and eternal Hell is horrible, so God would probably be justified to inflict almost any type of temporary pain to get people from that eternal pain).

What do you think of Lewis’ Great Divorce, if I understand it, he seems to be arguing that for many of us, our earthly choices sort of solidify our eternal destiny, though contingently (as in the door to Heaven is always open)? So some just keep rejecting. Also, it seems that their pain is increasing, but they still don’t accept (though some in the story do).

Anyway, thanks for your kind remarks. I admire William Lane Craig and his erudition (e.g. his work on the historicity of the resurrection and existence of God) , but find his recent comments re universalism to be almost thoughtless, for in one podcast, he dismissed it with one prooftext and that it was among Origen’s teachings ]that were anathematized. Yet, in a recent interview with a Calvinist, Craig said that Paul’s teaching of God’s “universal salvific will” was obvious, which would be bread-and-butter for an Arminian or a Molinist (Craig?), but that concession does make universalism possible. It would be great if you and Craig could have an actual debate (or have you?), for I feel this is the one area in his work that falls short, certainly exegetically, though his Free Will Defense is not entirely implausible, though I think you are lowering the plausibility of it again with this argument. Inescapable has been a great read so far.