Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Hellfire and Cosmic Freedom (or, Does Everyone Go to Heaven?)
Rob Long is in trouble. Those are his words, not mine.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, listen to the latest GLOP podcast, in which Rob fesses up to being a universalist. Universalism, for those who don’t know, is the belief that everyone goes to Heaven. In Rob’s view, the next life is going to be one big happy reunion, and we’re all invited. (Of course he is free to clarify if that’s not quite what he thinks.)
So, this is the point where I confirm all your worst suspicions about academics and their pointy-headed silliness. When I was in graduate school, I took a seminar on the problem of evil (“how could an all-powerful and all-loving God have created a world with evil in it?”). That might sound pretty specific as the topic for a whole class, but it got better (or worse). As it turned out, almost the whole seminar was dedicated to fleshing out contemporary arguments in favor of universalism.
The bottom line is that I spent a whole semester studying modern arguments for the proposition that all human beings will eventually go to heaven. No doubt your tax dollars sponsored it in one way or another. But I digress.
I went into this seminar half looking to be convinced that universalism was reasonable, and consistent with traditional Christianity. Most of the authors we read (Eleonore Stump, Marilyn McCord Adams, John Hick) regard themselves as members of one or another mainline Christian group, and I was somewhat hopeful they would persuade me that I too could happily rest in the view that all will be saved. I was skeptical, just because Jesus in the Gospels really does seem to indicate that damnation is a real thing. But perhaps these very smart people could find some way to explain that?
I expect my reasons for favoring universalism were similar to Rob’s. It’s so unpleasant to think of anyone ending up damned, and why would God allow that if he loves us? Anyway, universalism seems like such a nice, neat answer to the injustices of life. Some people seem clearly to be better positioned to become upright and virtuous, and how is that fair? But if we all end up in the same happy place regardless, it might not matter so much.
Also, I worry quite a bit about myself or my loved ones ending up in Hell. The possibility is just so horrifying; how can I not worry? It’s obviously comforting to let go of that fear on the grounds that hey! Life is an everybody-gets-a-prize sort of activity. Don’t sweat it.
I promise not to put you to sleep with all the pedantic details of my semester studying universalism. I’ll just give you the very big picture, which is that these smart modern thinkers really did convince me … to hate universalism. Hate. By the end of the semester I had concluded that it was an utterly contemptible view, and I have never changed that position. Sadly, that means that I worry about Hell even more now than I did previously. Ah, grad school!
Why is universalism, not just wrong, but actually repugnant? Not because I relish the thought of bad people in Hell. (I’m the sort of softy who can’t help but wonder whether there might be some kind of out even for Judas Iscariot.) Not because I want to be better than anyone else. (As I’ve already admitted, I’m just praying, literally, that I’ll end up with the sheep.) The issue is one that might even interest our atheist crowd: it comes back to the meaning and purpose of freedom.
One way or another, all universalist theories have to undercut the notion that earthly life is morally consequential. If we’re all going to heaven, it must somehow turn out not to be true that some of us culpably choose the wrong path. Even those who seem utterly closed to character rehabilitation, must be rehabilitated, come Hell or high water. (Oh wait! Not Hell, of course.)
For that to work, we’ll have to conclude that the choices we make in this lifetime don’t actually matter very much. And on some fundamental level, that means a very low level of human freedom. We’ll need to presume that we’re neither morally mature (because only “moral children” are prohibited from making choices for themselves), nor genuinely free (because free people can decide to reject the good).
To put the point more simply: universalism is cosmically infantilizing. It offends me for the same sorts of reasons that the nanny state offends me. Is the Kingdom of Heaven the true nanny state? Please. That can’t be right.
Why do we value freedom? Isn’t it primarily because we want the dignity of a morally consequential existence, where our successes and failures really mean something? In that case, does it make sense for a conservative to hold an eschatological view that essentially undercuts all the things that, in the political sphere, are most precious to conservatives?
Rob, I apologize if these reflections cause you any anxiety about Hell. But trust me, in the long run, fear of hellfire is chicken soup for the conservative soul.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I am not saying they’re the same, just not certain (remember, I’m not Catholic!) what the doctrine of a separate location for Purgatory adds if we aren’t 100% sure that Hell is a place we are certain it’s impossible to escape from. (That is, if Hell is not 100% escape-proof, what distinguishes Purgatory from a temporary stay in Hell?)
Heck, some have likened Heaven and Hell to the same refiner’s fire, a fire in which the repentant are glad to burn and purify, while the unrepentant hate it and refuse to cooperate with being refined, as is their right.
Still not following, honestly. Looked up the distinction, and… the problem still remains: we know earthly life is constrained and imperfectible; we know less about the life beyond.
There’s nothing about hoping for salvation of all in distant eternity that’s incompatible with believing earthly utopia is impossible.
What’s the immorality of wanting everyone to repent and be saved, “regardless of how it is to be achieved” (de dicto), while at the same not being so arrogant as to simply presume it will happen?
We cannot demand God commit injustice in achieving any hope, but considering how little we know about the specifics of the life beyond, there’s little reason for us to put specific constraints on how God might permit this hope to be achieved if it came to pass – we in effect hope “regardless of how it is to be achieved” because we don’t know how it would be achieved.
“Universalism, for those who don’t know, is the belief that everyone goes to Heaven.”
This brings to mind an exchange between Ricky Gervais and Jerry Seinfeld on an edition of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee …
Ricky: On the last day, the Russians were advancing, they were 200 yards down the road. He married Eva Braun. They had some cake and champagne. They retired to bed early. In the morning, he poisoned her and shot himself, and the gardener burned the bodies. Now, say what you will about Hitler, but that’s a terrible honeymoon, isn’t it?
Jerry: The funniest part of that joke was ‘say what you will about Hitler’.
There is no immorality in wishing it were so. But it is a grave error to go about teaching something that contradicts the Scriptures.
Well, I don’t care to hijack the thread, but just to clarify the Catholic view a little (although, you shouldn’t consider my take definitive on Catholic doctrine), Pope St. JPII used to pray, “Lord, just get me to Purgatory.” Catholics believe God made us to share in the Divine Life (Heaven), and that in order to be able to stand in sight of God’s Perfection, one must be perfected in the refining fire of Purgatory (unless one dies for the faith, but that’s another thread).
Pope Emeritus Benedict made comments to the effect that, since God is not constrained by time, the purgation process may be instantaneous — we just don’t know.
In order to consign oneself to Hell, one must know what is good and reject it. Lewis writes about these people being soulless husks — lacking all humanity. I’d say the number of people that wicked and irredeemable is small, but not zero (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al).
OTOH, the Bible clearly indicates that salvation may be offered to all, but there’s definitely only a subset who take up the offer.
Is Hell permanent? If the only reason someone is repentant once in Hell is because they’re suffering, then I’d guess yes, it’s permanent. Self-pity is how Dante characterizes the devil in the pit of Hell. Self-pity (self-anything) is the root of much evil.
Matthew 25
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Certainly the position that everyone deserves to go to heaven on their own merits is pure heresy, and contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible and the entire Christian tradition.
But we’re not saved according to justice but rather by God’s mercy, right? We can agree on that?
If so, I think the question becomes: how many people will God choose to pardon? Is there a limit to His mercy? Did Jesus die on the cross for the sins of all, or only for the sins of some?
Matthew 25 continued
I sympathize with that prayer! Assuming I’d ever be fit for heaven, I could not imagine becoming so without a lot of burning first! I am just less clear on the doctrinal utility of separating the divine fire into three disjoint bins. (Positing three separate states might make sense, but whether those states are knowable in advance…)
If someone said, “We are going to define Hell as the state of burning and never repenting, Purgatory as the state of burning while eventually completing full repentance, and Heaven as the state of burning in pure fires of love once perfection is complete,” I would say, “OK.” But I would also wonder, if you’re burning up and it doesn’t feel like the pure bliss of love, how you would know which of the two prior states you’re actually in.
One thing that always strikes me when I read that passage is that it sure sounds like Jesus is teaching judgement according to our works: that righteous people who take care of the poor and needy will go to heaven, while those who don’t, won’t.
So are righteous Jews, Buddhists, and atheists who take care of the poor and needy among the sheep or the goats?
Gee whiz, Ms. Judithann, if we go there we will surely stir up the Reformation again. Because you will get a Lutheran response from me. I will try to answer with a narrow focus on the gates of hell.
Matthew 16:18:
Satan is called “The Accuser” for a reason. He wants us to doubt that sinners such as us can ever be reconciled to our holy G-d.
In Old Testament times, they frequently held court at the city gates. So the gates of hell is the prosecution of the Devil who wants you to doubt. Though he may assail you, you can hold firm to the confession that Peter gave to Jesus: “You are the Christ.”
This is your hope and your salvation. Hold firm.
Satan’s accusation will not hold up, because you will not be judged according to your own righteousness, but, having faith, you will be judged according to the righteousness imparted to you from our Lord Jesus.
God is good.
Scripture also says that God wishes it were so, too:
If that’s what God wishes, and God is omnipotent… are we certain that in the end He will not get what He wants?
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Perhaps a secular classroom taught by an atheist using faulty human authors as blind authorities is a poor place to seek Truth.
What are the odds that Rob actually weighs in on this discussion he inspired? Given his apparent aversion to discussing religion I’m thinking at least 10-to-1 against.
There will be a judgement. Romans 2:
So each is judged accordingly. Jews are to be judged according to the Law of Moses. (This seems to me to be bad news for Jews who are non-observant.) Christians are to be judged according to the Law of Moses, as fulfilled by Jesus. We are assured that it is Christ’s righteousness that will avail for us.
Don’t some consider gambling to be a sin?
Jesus says the kingdom of Heaven is like a banquet to which “many are invited, but few are chosen.” —Matthew 22
In that parable, God’s invitation is indiscriminate, but not all are permitted to remain.
It is not the only time Jesus speaks of dismissing the wicked on the day of Judgment. From the previous chapter, Matthew 7:21:
God is merciful, but He is not only merciful. He is also just.
We Catholics pray for the souls in Purgatory and ask for the prayers of timeless souls not yet reunited with their bodies in the glory of Heaven. Thus, we do believe in a sort of life between Earth and Judgment. We may hope and pray for departed souls, all of which (even saints) are unworthy of God’s love.
But Christ and His apostles were quick to scold and demanded faithful action in this earthly life. It is dangerous to delay conversion, of others or of ourselves. A human being is both body and soul. Earth is for choosing.
That is exactly the tension. God desires us and is powerful, and we are also free. Scripture illustrates both visions of eternal punishment and of universal reconciliation. We cannot ignore either.
We are talking about three separate states. Hell is the eternal state of separation from God and His goodness. Purgatory is the temporary state just prior to full Communion with God in Heaven as your imperfections which persist after death are burned away by the fire of His Perfect Love. Heaven is the eternal state of sharing perfectly in the Divine Life.
Purgatory isn’t so much giving you a chance for full repentance. It’s cleansing away the stain of sin which remains at the time of death. I think there’s a difference.
Continued from #46:
This leaves gentiles who do not claim Christ. Here we may speculate regarding the Judgement, but the Word is not so clear as we might wish. It seems to me that they will be judged according to their consciences. They know right from wrong. When they are asked “Are you holy?,” if they answer “yes” they will be guilty of perjury in addition to their other sins. If they answer “no,” then they have answered right, and the examination of the heart will reveal whether there is humility and repentance that could allow the Just Judge to have mercy.
At least, that is the most generous interpretation that the Word allows. There is another, harsher interpretation that this same Word supports. I prefer the more generous reading.
Of course, my reading is not nearly so generous as that preferred by Ms. Midget Faded Rattlesnake, but I think she is deliberately overlooking the word “eternal” in Matthew 25:46. And, I think Chaplain Kate has gone completely off the rails.
Well, He wanted obedience from Adam and Eve.
Once again we run hard into the issue of freedom of the will.
Chaplain Kate comes from a tradition hundreds of years old that came into being not too long after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, so if off the rails, she is in numerous company.
If everyone goes to Heaven, then Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao will be there.
Yeah, but they’re really bad, they don’t deserve to be there.
So if you’re really bad, you don’t go, but how bad do you have to be? Or, conversely, how good do you have to be?
Are you good enough?
Well, I’m not as bad as Stalin.
What if there was a DVD on which was recorded everything you thought, said, and did your entire life. Would you want the bad things you’ve done uploaded to the Internet?
Didn’t think so. We’ve all done some bad things. Well, a lot of bad things actually.
What is God’s standard? Turns out God’s standard for entrance to heaven is perfection.
It’s like you show up in front of a judge with 1,000,000,000,000 offenses ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. He has no choice but to send you to prison.
But instead he sends his son to prison to pay the penalty for your bad deeds, if you will admit you’ve done bad things and agree to let the son pay the penalty for you.
That is what Christians celebrate at Christmas. The arrival of the One who pays the penalty for us. The One on whose merit we are able to enter Heaven.
The only requirement is you have to accept that free gift of His paying your penalty for you.
Thanks for the references. That verse is particularly clear. If Hell was a pit-stop, destruction wouldn’t be on the menu. In regard to Heaven, Jesus says we will be “glorified”, rather than recreated.
For many are called, but few are chosen.
What about those who never had a chance in their lives to hear about this free gift? Pre-Columbian Native Americans, for instance, who could not possibly have heard about the life, death, and resurrection of God’s son. Is there any hope for salvation for them?
Right. For those unfamiliar, think of it like the pain of your eyes as they adjust to bright sunlight after too long in darkness. The more distorted one’s nature by sin (rejection of grace) and more broken one’s relationship with God, the more painful reconciliation must be.
It must hurt because, again, He is not re-creating us; not starting anew. God will not make another you. He will take you as you are, the product of your free choices, and refine you into a glorious perfection of your individual will and being.
From Malachi 3:
But “destruction” doesn’t seem to fit with eternal punishment. If at some point both soul and body are destroyed, what remains to be punished?
The only hope is that Christ will have mercy. See my quote from Romans 2 (at #46), and also see Luke 12:
Again, both a more-generous and a less-generous interpretation are possible.
Nevertheless, I think the whole body of Scripture tells us that the merciful Judge will need something to work with in order to grant pardon. If not a clear confession of Jesus, then at least humility and repentance for sin.
It is clear that those who think they do not sin will find the Judge to be unmoved.