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
Jesus says, “Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” People may encounter Christ and love Him without recognizing Him, as we all do at times. Though loving our neighbors is not the full extent of our call to holiness, it is a crucial aspect.
Thus, if a soul meets Christ after a death and for the first time knows Him by name, that soul might yet be amenable to Christ’s love (and Heaven) because of his earthly choices. All will meet Christ.
But what about babies who die before earthly living? Well, of course, I don’t know everything! But we hope for them too. Indeed, I believe Heaven will reflect Earth’s endless variety of love, including the love of “young” and innocent souls. Some praise God with their minds. Some praise Him with simple affection.
Incidentally, that quote of Jesus comes from Matthew 25, which is an excellent bookmark for any discussion of Judgment.
Put your science fiction hat on.
G-d is the only time lord. He is the Lord of Time. Time is His; He made it when He created the universe.
The Judgement is the end of time. So, whatever the disposition of the Judgement, it is eternal. There are only two places to go after the Judgement. Either to the place where G-d is, or the place that He prepared to contain Satan and the rebellion. There are no other choices. Eternal means eternal. When we have passed beyond time, then we will all be like time lords; we will be able to see everything from beginning to end, all at once, the way our creator sees us now.
I think I understand the distinction you’re making. Nonetheless, our incomplete knowledge still makes me wonder how this plays out in practice.
For example, looking at my own life, I would say it is vanishingly unlikely that I have never genuinely repented in the least of any wickedness, never honestly begged God’s forgiveness, never, ever mended my ways in the slightest. Clearly, I am (still very) inadequately transformed by Grace, but how inadequately? So inadequately that I’m still destined for Hell, or will the suffering I face in the life to come be Purgatorial instead?
I cannot presume my own salvation. But I have little warrant for believing that every experience of repentance I’ve had so far is a false one. All I know is that I’m not yet fit for heaven. Are the partially repentant destined for Hell? Do we even know? Etc.
The impression of “chance” that we get here is in reality due to incomplete knowledge. I’ve heard some Bayesians posit that all impressions of chance are due to incomplete knowledge. At the very least, it is hard to tell whether the distinction between incomplete knowledge and “true randomness” is one we’re capable of making.
By the way, though I wish I could cite passages chapter-and-verse off the top of my head, that was never my skill. It might seem that I’m that well learned only thanks to the wonder of the internet.
If you can remember even a small phrase from a Biblical passage, simply type “usccb” plus what few words you remember and you will have a decent shot at finding the verse you’re looking for.
USCCB stands for US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I type that to access the American Catholic translation of the Bible. If you prefer a different translation, type that instead (ex: “King James”) and then the bit of verse you remember.
Hm… destroyed as in no longer recognizably human? Total corruption of God’s creation? It’s self-imposed, not God’s doing. The “him” who destroys is Satan, isn’t it?
That state of being is punishment, don’t you think?
Ha! Yes, I agree that there is some reasonable confusion caused by the Bible’s use of both definite and indefinite references to Hell and Heaven. If only the faithful “live forever”, then doesn’t that mean the damned cease to exist? Or are the damned like the one of Jesus speaks when He says, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you“? Jesus speaks of both destruction and “eternal” punishment.
And yes, I agree with Bubba’s basic explanation (what little we mortal beings can muster). God is not infinite, but rather eternal. Eternal means beyond time, whereas infinite means endless time. Faithful souls may be infinite, with definite beginnings but no ends.
Undoubtedly, there’s a lot we will never understand… even in Heaven.
There’s a great line in the movie The Mothman Prophecies.
We mortals can understand much, but not everything.
There are long longstanding arguments about this passage. (We’ve addressed before in other threads, at least partially.) Like in the footnotes here:
Whether this “ceaseless controversy” is due solely to the stubbornness of enough Christians from earliest times insisting on “avoiding the obivous” is perhaps less clear to me than it is to you.
Not that people aren’t tempted to avoid the obvious, of course, but if that is so obviously the case here, then many men better than I have been.
So how do you know you are saved? This is actually a subject that contributed to ending a wedding engagement. There was no meeting of the minds, and I could not be comfortable raising children with his picture of the character of God.
The next question is “what do you think hell is?” Is it a pit of fire and suffering where people are tormented for eternity? Or are you tortured just as long as you deserve? What does that say about God’s character? Can you love a God that says “Love me, or I’ll kill you” or “Love me, or I’ll torture you for all eternity” or “Love me, or I’ll torture you, but only for as long as you deserve”?
What does it take to be saved?
There are many people who believe that everyone in hell chooses to be there: they are not sent there by God, they go there because they prefer hell to heaven. The story of one of the Catholic saints-I can’t remember which one-describes this. During a conversation she was having with God, she took issue with the fact that there were people in hell. She asked God if He would allow her to forcibly drag one person from hell into heaven, and He allowed it. So she went into hell, and forcibly dragged a man who was there into heaven, but the whole time the man was in heaven, he just screamed and begged God to allow him to return to hell. “No torture is worse than being immersed in love when everything within me is hate”, was his explanation for why he preferred hell to heaven. God allowed him to return to hell.
*agreeing head nod
I think there are people that do not want to be in heaven and are not “safe” to be there, because they are not trustworthy and they do not have a teachable spirit; but moreover, they cannot love a God of infinite gentleness and mercy. They turn away from God, who cries like He did for Israel “How can I give you up? How can I let you go?” But He does, because in His love He would not force someone to love Him against their will.
It’s worth noting in discussions like these, relying heavily on scripture, that Christians believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, rather than dictated. Translations too are inspired.
Thus, it is fitting (to an extent) that not all translations agree because God communicates to each people differently. His Word is unchanging, but His manner of communicating varies… as Jesus offered different parables to different persons, depending on the need of each.
Vocabulary involves many elements: literal meaning, figurative meaning, sometimes dual meanings, relations to other words, musical qualities (beauty), historical context, etc. Any translation must prefer some of these over others for each passage. Thus, translations depend as much on faith and philosophy as upon mathematical procedures.
Not all translations are equally valid, of course. Some are just Babel. ;)
I have not studied Christianity, but for whatever it is worth, even if God does send people to hell, I doubt if it’s because they don’t love Him: it seems to me that God is far more likely to send people to hell for not loving other people than for not loving Him. When Jesus says, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”, maybe that means that God doesn’t like sycophants. I have encountered people who do not treat others well, but try very hard to be nice to God, as if God needs them to be nice to Him. I have also encountered people who are very angry with God, but try their best to treat others well. It seems to me that the first group is in far more danger of going to hell than the second; that is my opinion, but there are passages of Scripture that might support my opinion.
“Faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love.” In that passage, Scripture flat out tells us that love is more important than faith.
There are many people who are angry with God, but since when does being angry with someone mean that you don’t love them? Just because we don’t always feel as though we love God doesn’t mean that we don’t :) And God knows that. I believe that how we treat other people is more important that feelings.
Judithann, that story is in keeping with the accounts of exorcists (echoed in Christ’s own exorcisms in the Bible). The demonic are pained to be in the presence of Christ.
On another note, I read a book by Sister Maria Simma, who received visitations from souls of Purgatory (and impostors). She told of a young man who wasted his life on sin and selfishness. But one day there was a fire in the village, and he sacrificed his life to save others. The point is: God eagerly desires each of us to accept salvation, so He provides oppotunities for acts of faith.
The debate over faith-vs-works is a red herring placed by Satan. They are two sides of the same coin. As Jesus says, a good tree produces good fruit. It is not the acts which save, but a faithful person will act the part. One’s actions reflect one’s thoughtful choices.
If one is disabled from acting on one’s will, then that is a disorder our just Lord considers.
Judithann, does a mother care that her children love each other or does she care that they love her? Both, of course. And they are not the same.
Also, love can be expressed or denied in so many ways. A son might do anything his mother asks and greet her always with a smile, yet never call her or contact her when they are apart. If he comes only when she calls, is her love burdened by his lack of eagerness?
We love God largely by loving each other and performing His good works on earth. But we need to honor our relationship with Him directly as well.
It is possible to be distracted by love of His creations (materialism) and by that manner lose the spirit by which those creations are appreciated and ordered.
Scott Peck was a liberal, and I disagreed with him about almost everything, but I found his books very interesting in spite of all that. He also participated in excorcisms, and in one his books he describes a woman who could not stand singing. He suspected that this woman was possessed, so he and a few other people started singing a very gentle song. She couldn’t stand it; she started swearing and screaming at them, and just being really hateful.
Where the hell is KC Mulville right now? I miss that guy.
Strong work.
The reason that love is greater than hope and faith is that the latter are conditions of human beings in exile from Heaven. Here in the midst of sin, we must hope and keep faith. But in Heaven we will know. We won’t need to trust or believe. We will see.
Faith and hope are really aspects of love, that only emerge in a fallen world. Likewise, God is abundantly merciful… but what need is there of mercy in Heaven without sin?
Aaron, I agree with everything you say, but :) I have a theory that many people avoid religion and may even turn to atheism because they think that they are supposed to have lovey dovey feelings about God all the time; some people try not to think about God or may even deny His existence because they cannot come to terms with their anger towards God.
Once, I prayed to God and asked Him to help me be more at peace in my relationship with Him, and the minute those thoughts occurred to me, another though which I do not believe was mine came into my mind: “I don’t care how you feel about Me, I just want you to obey Me” I really believe that was God speaking to me, and He was totally fine with little old me being angry with Him-didn’t bother Him at all. Does that mean I am right to be angry with Him? No. It just means that God is so good and so merciful; He doesn’t need us to always feel nicey nice feelings about Him. Many problems could be avoided if more people understood this.
I would submit that going by the biblical descriptions we have of heaven, there are people who won’t want to be there.
Makes a lot of sense to me. In general I think our society overemphasizes the importance of feelings and emotions. Another example would be marriage, some people expect to have lovey-dovey feelings about their spouse all the time and if they don’t, well, must be time to file for divorce.
Going by the Biblical descriptions of hell, I find it hard to believe anyone would willingly choose that over heaven if those are the only two options.
As an atheist, if I get to heaven and see Oskar Schindler bumping elbows with Ted Bundy, I’m gonna be pissed. God better offer do-overs. Why bother living as Saint Francis of Assisi when living as Aleister Crowley will get you to the same destination? Not that I’ve followed the path of the former, but it’s the principle of the thing.
Will also be annoying if there are good people in hell. Having imps rip out my eyes will be intolerable if I have to simultaneously endure the tortured shrieks of Buddhists, “I know I should’ve listened to my Baptist neighbors! Erghh, my entrails! They had such nice barbecues! Aaaiiieeuck!” Then again, it would be fun to tease them about it. “Doesn’t look like you’ll be reborn as an antelope after all.” And to the newbies, “Welcome to Nirvana. Sorry to inform you there is more flaying than is hinted at in the brochure.” (Now you know why I’m going to hell.)
If there’s no hell, heavy metal has sold me a bill of goods and I’ll be buried in studded leather for no good reason.
Taking the OP seriously, I don’t object to the idea of a temporary hell. Finite punishment for a finite crime. A hundred-billion years of torment starts to seem excessive even for Hitler. The corollary that isn’t usually acknowledged is that no life, however good, is deserving of eternal reward. The practical implications are beyond me. I’ve failed to imagine a sensible plan for an afterlife, though I enjoy the exercise.
Perhaps Mormons have found an acceptable middle-ground with their concept of a tiered heaven. There’s nothing to say it’s more plausible, but it does satisfy the opponents of universalism by having eternal consequences for actions taken in life while also reassuring the universalists that God won’t condemn anyone to eternal torture (other than a select few who are sent to outer darkness).
Humans didn’t create ants. Ants are not subject to rewards and punishments meted out by humans.
I bet Satan also let him wear eyeliner and his Bring Me the Horizon t-shirt.
Of course, if God had really wanted to torture the guy…
Vicryl will be bummed if there’s no eyeliner in Heaven.