If the Lord Gave Us Free Will, Then Hell Is a Thing

 

I know that some people don’t believe in Hell. I want to give those folks an opportunity to change my mind, so my short essay today will be to argue for the certainty of everlasting hellfire and damnation being a possible fate for any person.

I begin with the stipulation that man has free will. The Lord made man in His image, which means that we, like the Lord, can choose our actions.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”26

The Lord is not merely pretending at this, like a parent who knows that no matter what willful stubbornness a child may display, the whole family will be showing up for Aunt Martha’s jubilee on time, dressed to the nines, with smiles pasted on.

We really do have free will, so we can really choose God, or we can choose not-God. The Lord is kind and merciful, slow to anger and rich in compassion, so I’ve been told, and He really, really wants us to choose Him so the opportunities are many, but for each person there comes a moment of final judgment.

As my Catechism says,

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven–through a purification594 or immediately,595— or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

In other words, at the moment of our deaths, the Lord will allow us to see our lives clearly and understand them and the just judgement that He renders will either be for us to live with Him forever in Heaven, for many of us after we are made perfect through a purification (we call it Purgatory — pray for those souls), for others who are already ready to live immediately in the fullness of the Lord, or, to live without Him forever in the state of Hell.

Hell is not other people, but rather the absence of the Lord, so it really is a choice that we men are capable of making.

One might argue against this point by saying that, well, like a loving parent, who knows that the child will be happier if he is made to attend Aunt Martha’s party well dressed and pleasantly behaved, God, who is so much more loving than any parent can be, would want our happiness and would not allow us to choose Hell, so it can’t really be a thing. His mercy is infinite!

I disagree. I believe in mercy, but I also believe the Lord’s justice is without end, and I know there are really depths in the human soul that are capable of great evil. Some people choose Hell, of this I am sure.

And the Lord who loves us all with a boundless, infinite love, gives it to them. Of that, I am also sure.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 136 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, if one is agnostic, one also is an atheist.

    No, atheism is a statement of faith: Faith that God does not exists.  Agnosticism is merely saying “I don’t know.”

    • #91
  2. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    To be an atheist does not mean one believes there is no God; it simply means one is not yet convinced that there is one.

    So, really, every agnostic is an atheist and almost every atheist is an agnostic.

    So, it is a definitional disagreement which, with a quick Google, I need to concede.  The Google search for “atheism” delivers:

    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    So disbelief is an act of faith, so that would fit my argument but since is says “or lack of belief” which is not an active state, that would fit  your usage.  So I concede your point based on this definition.

    I can’t say I like it, though. I have always used atheism as the absolute believer that there is no God and agnosticism as the “I don’t know” position.

    • #92
  3. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    But, on the face of it, tormenting even the worst human being for a hundred million billion trillion years, and that being only the tiniest hint of a beginning of an infinite journey, for any sin committed in an infinitesimally brief life simply isn’t reconcilable with either justice or mercy. At least, not to me.

    Conversely, I think we could also say that no amount of finite good deeds could ever earn an infinite reward. Would you agree?

    Earn? Not in any meaningful sense, no. But a loving god might choose to bless his subjects with endless happiness. There’s nothing in that that’s incompatible with a just, loving, and merciful god.

    I think one could make a strong case that rewarding the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao with endless happiness would be a miscarriage of justice.

    • #93
  4. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Django (View Comment):
    That was how one author attempted to reconcile God’s seeming foreknowledge with free will. That sounded like nonsense to me when I read it the first time, and it still does. But, maybe it’s just over my head. 

    It’s over all of our heads, of that I’m sure.  Infinity is beyond the comprehension of finite minds.

    But it sure is fun to speculate about!

    • #94
  5. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    But if someone says, “I don’t know if God exists or not,” it’s hard to see how that person could be considered a theist, a believer.

    I don’t think it’s that hard. Just to take one example, many seem to hunger for a belief in God while also nonetheless doubting if that God is really there — doubting to the point where agnosticism seems the most honest label. Even theists may have their moments of doubting whether God is really there.

    These labels seem to refer to habit more than anything else. Some have a habit of believing God exists, some have a habit of believing God doesn’t exist, and some haven’t developed a habit either way. Some even develop a habit of worshiping a God despite serious doubts as to whether He’s there.

    Some atheists, when pressed, will say they can be classified as agnostics in the sense that they can’t prove God isn’t there. But they think “atheist” is nonetheless the more intuitive description of their beliefs. There just aren’t hard-and-fast rules for how people choose to classify themselves in these things.

    • #95
  6. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    But, on the face of it, tormenting even the worst human being for a hundred million billion trillion years, and that being only the tiniest hint of a beginning of an infinite journey, for any sin committed in an infinitesimally brief life simply isn’t reconcilable with either justice or mercy. At least, not to me.

    Conversely, I think we could also say that no amount of finite good deeds could ever earn an infinite reward. Would you agree?

    Earn? Not in any meaningful sense, no. But a loving god might choose to bless his subjects with endless happiness. There’s nothing in that that’s incompatible with a just, loving, and merciful god.

    I think one could make a strong case that rewarding the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao with endless happiness would be a miscarriage of justice.

    Perhaps, though that wasn’t the point of the post and not one that I felt like addressing.

    But, since you brought it up:

    I have no problem with horrible people receiving infinite happiness after death. I have no problem with everyone receiving infinite happiness after death. It would be best if no one expected things to work that way, because we’d like the prospect of an eternal reward to be held out as an incentive for good behavior, but I don’t feel any personal need to see bad people punished in the hereafter. I would just like them removed from this world promptly.

    • #96
  7. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I still think you may be oversimplifying the issue. If predestination simply means foreknowledge, nothing more, then couldn’t the statement from the Catechism quoted above:

    1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;

    Be rewritten as “God has foreknowledge that no one will go to hell,” suggesting an empty Hell?

    No. God doesn’t “predestine” anyone to go to hell, we do it to ourselves through our free choices. He just knows about it in advance. At least, that’s how I read it.

    That is how I read the statement as well.  My point was that if:

    1. God does not predestine anyone to go to Hell
    2. God does have foreknowledge that some people will damn themselves through their own free choice

    Then it seems to me to follow that “predestination” cannot simply mean “have foreknowledge of.”  If they meant the same thing, #1 would contradict #2.

     

    • #97
  8. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    He just knows about it in advance.

    God does not exist “in advance” or “before” or “after.”

    We exist in time.

    He just IS.

    So pre-, post, etc. are meaningless.

    He knew you were going to write this. When he formed you in your mother’s womb. And what you are thinking of having for dinner. And the number of hairs on each of our heads.

    And in passing: Friedkin released The Devil & Father Amorth earlier this year. Interesting, but not much for spectacle. Amorth’s books are worth reading.

    And a note for those lecturing on the quality of God’s justice:

    19†You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20†But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21† Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

    –Romans 9:19-21

    • #98
  9. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I still think you may be oversimplifying the issue. If predestination simply means foreknowledge, nothing more, then couldn’t the statement from the Catechism quoted above:

    1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;

    Be rewritten as “God has foreknowledge that no one will go to hell,” suggesting an empty Hell?

    No. God doesn’t “predestine” anyone to go to hell, we do it to ourselves through our free choices. He just knows about it in advance. At least, that’s how I read it.

    That is how I read the statement as well. My point was that if:

    1. God does not predestine anyone to go to Hell
    2. God does have foreknowledge that some people will damn themselves through their own free choice

    Then it seems to me to follow that “predestination” cannot simply mean “have foreknowledge of.” If they meant the same thing, #1 would contradict #2.

     

    It *is* fun, isn’t it, to speculate about stuff like this?

    I confess that I’ve thought a lot about it over the years, and I can’t come up with anything logically convincing to reconcile free will and G-d’s foreknowledge — except to invoke undefinable mysterious shifts in temporal perspective. I’ve never found the “divine mystery” explanations to be satisfying, but I don’t think there’s a better one. (That’s often the case, when trying to mix physics and metaphysics. I recommend people not do it.)

     

    • #99
  10. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    From my dictionary:

    Atheist (From a, without + theos, God): a person who believes that there is no God.

    (Emphasis mine.) They then follow it with a discussion of the differences between Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Freethinker, Infidel, etc. This is what the word means. If you are being lazy or sloppy about word use, then you might use it to mean agnostic, but the second half of agnostic comes from a very different root:

    Agnostic (From a, without + gignoskein, to know): a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God, or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

    The agnostic says, “We can’t know (while in this life), we can only believe one way or another or admit that we don’t know enough to believe either way.”

    The atheist says, “I know there is no God!” or sometimes, more humbly, “I believe there is no God.”

    I don’t care if someone is atheist, agnostic-leaning atheist, agnostic-leaning theist, or theist, but I want people to be honest with themselves and not make up new definitions for old words. By the way, Democratic Party members are not liberals. Liberals have not given up on civil rights. It’s just that people have tried to redefine the term.

    • #100
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Arahant (View Comment):
    Democratic Party members are not liberals. Liberals have not given up on civil rights. It’s just that people have tried to redefine the term.

    Indeed, they’re the most illiberal people around.

    • #101
  12. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Arahant (View Comment):

    From my dictionary:

    Atheist (From a, without + theos, God): a person who believes that there is no God.

    (Emphasis mine.) They then follow it with a discussion of the differences between Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Freethinker, Infidel, etc. This is what the word means. If you are being lazy or sloppy about word use, then you might use it to mean agnostic, but the second half of agnostic comes from a very different root:

    Agnostic (From a, without + gignoskein, to know): a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God, or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

    The agnostic says, “We can’t know (while in this life), we can only believe one way or another or admit that we don’t know enough to believe either way.”

    The atheist says, “I know there is no God!” or sometimes, more humbly, “I believe there is no God.”

    I don’t care if someone is atheist, agnostic-leaning atheist, agnostic-leaning theist, or theist, but I want people to be honest with themselves and not make up new definitions for old words. By the way, Democratic Party members are not liberals. Liberals have not given up on civil rights. It’s just that people have tried to redefine the term.

    This is also common usage — which matters, where words are concerned. I think everyone understands that there is a continuum from “believer” to “agnostic” to “atheist.”

     

    • #102
  13. AchillesLastand Member
    AchillesLastand
    @

    A little Augustine:

    Augustine argued that there are four states, which are derived from the Scripture, that correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.

    To put this in a simpler order:

    Pre-Fall — able to sin, able not to sin

    Post-Fall —  not able not to sin

    Regenerate* — able not to sin

    Glorified** — unable to sin

    *Regenerate: that is, “born again” and freed, in a limited sense, from sin

    ** Glorified: that is, totally freed from sin and death at the resurrection

    • #103
  14. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    A little Augustine:

    Augustine argued that there are four states, which are derived from the Scripture, that correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.

    To put this in a simpler order:

    Pre-Fall — able to sin, able not to sin

    Post-Fall — not able not to sin

    Regenerate* — able not to sin

    Glorified** — unable to sin

    *Regenerate: that is, “born again” and freed, in a limited sense, from sin

    ** Glorified: that is, totally freed from sin and death at the resurrection

    I don’t see the difference between (a) and (c).  Doesn’t “able not to sin” imply also “able to sin?”

    • #104
  15. AchillesLastand Member
    AchillesLastand
    @

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    I don’t see the difference between (a) and (c). Doesn’t “able not to sin” imply also “able to sin?”

    No.

    Well, yes, (c) is able to sin, but the point is that now (c) can choose not to sin.

    (a) is true “free will,” or as Milton Freedman would say, “free to choose” — either to sin, OR to NOT sin.

    (c) is a partial “reprieve” from the bondage to sin, that is, no longer in total, blind bondage to sin, and can, with some effort, choose NOT to sin.

    Subtle? Not really once you think about it.

    • #105
  16. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    I don’t see the difference between (a) and (c). Doesn’t “able not to sin” imply also “able to sin?”

    No.

    Well, yes, (c) is able to sin, but the point is that now (c) can choose not to sin.

    (a) is true “free will,” or as Milton Freedman would say, “free to choose” — either to sin, OR to NOT sin.

    (c) is a partial “reprieve” from the bondage to sin, that is, no longer in total, blind bondage to sin, and can, with some effort, choose NOT to sin.

    Subtle? Not really once you think about it.

    So (c) is more likely to sin than (a)?

    • #106
  17. AchillesLastand Member
    AchillesLastand
    @

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So (c) is more likely to sin than (a)?

    Yes.

    Before “the Fall,” that is, before Adam & Eve, who had free reign of the Garden of Eden, broke God’s only prohibition: NOT to eat from from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. At this point, there was no “tendency” to sin — yet.

    When Adam & Eve were seduced by Satan’s slanders of God and His character, and ate of the forbidden fruit, “their eyes were opened” to the knowledge of “good & evil,” that is, sin.

    Sin became the very air that humankind breathed.

    Without going through the whole Bible, let me just summarize that God created a people for himself by making a covenant with Abram (Abraham), from whom came the nation of Israel.

    EDIT: Two centuries later, Two thousand years later, Jesus instituted and new covenant.

    The Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant has provisions for sin — that is, ways to atone for sin and re-establish a right relationship with God.

    The covenant instituted by Jesus also has provisions for sin, and ways to atone for sin and re-establish a right relationship with God.

    In both cases, a right relationship with God is the goal. This relationship is what allows someone to move to (c) and be freed, to some degree, from the bondage to sin caused by the Fall. Unfortunately, we are still immersed in a fallen (ie, from the Fall), corrupted, and sinful world — so sin is still a constant temptation.

    I hope this helps…

    • #107
  18. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):
    Two centuries later, Jesus instituted and new covenant.

    Long centuries.

    • #108
  19. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):
    Two centuries later

    ???

    • #109
  20. AchillesLastand Member
    AchillesLastand
    @

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Long centuries.

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    ???

    Sorry – two THOUSAND years – ugh! Blogging and cooking dinner do not mix that well…

    • #110
  21. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Long centuries.

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    ???

    Sorry – two THOUSAND years – ugh! Blogging and cooking dinner do not mix that well…

    So long as dinner stays off the keyboard it’s all good.

    • #111
  22. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Long centuries.

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    ???

    Sorry – two THOUSAND years – ugh! Blogging and cooking dinner do not mix that well…

    So long as dinner stays off the keyboard it’s all good.

    And as long as you cook enough for everyone here!

    • #112
  23. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Arahant (View Comment):

    From my dictionary:

    Atheist (From a, without + theos, God): a person who believes that there is no God.

    (Emphasis mine.) They then follow it with a discussion of the differences between Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Freethinker, Infidel, etc. This is what the word means. If you are being lazy or sloppy about word use, then you might use it to mean agnostic, but the second half of agnostic comes from a very different root:

    Agnostic (From a, without + gignoskein, to know): a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God, or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

    The agnostic says, “We can’t know (while in this life), we can only believe one way or another or admit that we don’t know enough to believe either way.”

    The atheist says, “I know there is no God!” or sometimes, more humbly, “I believe there is no God.”

    I don’t care if someone is atheist, agnostic-leaning atheist, agnostic-leaning theist, or theist, but I want people to be honest with themselves and not make up new definitions for old words. By the way, Democratic Party members are not liberals. Liberals have not given up on civil rights. It’s just that people have tried to redefine the term.

    I like your dictionary.  And your follow-up commentary.

    • #113
  24. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Clavius (View Comment):
    I like your dictionary.

    We’re conservatives. We should be prescriptivists, not descriptivists when it comes to dictionaries.

    • #114
  25. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    Arahant (View Comment):
    We should be prescriptivists, not descriptivists when it comes to dictionaries.

    One of my favorite parts of the 18th and 19th century is the profusion of dictionaries. 

    • #115
  26. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    A little Augustine:

    Augustine argued that there are four states, which are derived from the Scripture, that correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.

    To put this in a simpler order:

    Pre-Fall — able to sin, able not to sin

    Post-Fall — not able not to sin

    Regenerate* — able not to sin

    Glorified** — unable to sin

    *Regenerate: that is, “born again” and freed, in a limited sense, from sin

    ** Glorified: that is, totally freed from sin and death at the resurrection

    So, if I understand this right:

    [a] Pre-Fall — able to sin, able not to sin

    That’s free will: the ability to choose to sin or not to sin.

    [b] Post-Fall — not able not to sin

    That’s not free will: we no longer have the ability to choose not to sin.

    [c] Regenerate* — able not to sin

    Free will again: the ability to choose to sin or not to sin.

    [d] Glorified** — unable to sin

    Back to not having free will.

    Going back to the original hell-and-damnation topic, it’s hard to see how there’s justice in inflicting punishment on people who lack the free will to avoid sin. That would mean only the [a] group (and I assume they’re all dead now) and the [c] group (and I’m thinking those are the ones who are “saved” in the traditional protestant sense?) are facing that kind of judgment.

    Is that right?

    • #116
  27. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    In

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):
    Unable not to sin… the second the state of the natural man after the Fall

    Thank you for clarifying this. Augustine seems to find gradations of sin irrelevant, and be concerned with binary states: sinful/sinless.

    Apropos of nothing, when I took physical chemistry, each exam had 100 points possible. The mean score was a B+, and the mean ranged between 18 and 24 points or so. I don’t think anybody got a perfect score my year. Everybody lived by partial credit.

    The curve was actually not bell shaped, but bimodal. The mean was between the peaks and the upper peak around 40% or a bit lower.

    Years later, I realized why this bizarre grading scheme existed: they were giving us opportunities to succeed in a way easily distinguished from  average success. Or looking for talent.

     

    • #117
  28. AchillesLastand Member
    AchillesLastand
    @

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Back to not having free will.

    That would be a cynical way of looking at being in a state of being completely free of sin, no longer tempted by sin, and so focused on the love of God and the splendor of His being, that all you want to do is please Him.

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Going back to the original hell-and-damnation topic, it’s hard to see how there’s justice in inflicting punishment on people who lack the free will to avoid sin. That would mean only the [a] group (and I assume they’re all dead now) and the [c] group (and I’m thinking those are the ones who are “saved” in the traditional protestant sense?) are facing that kind of judgment.

    Is that right?

    I think you are hung up on “sin = go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.”

    If the only humans in heaven are the humans who have never sinned, then Jesus would be pretty much alone, since as far as I know, he was the only man to ever live a sinless life.

    The question is: what do I about my sin? how do I get right with God? how do I spent eternity with God, instead of without God.

    As sinful as humankind is, it is a miracle that anyone is saved at all, but God, in his mercy, deigns to save some. 

    So, “the [c] group (and I’m thinking those are the ones who are “saved” in the traditional protestant sense?) are” NOT facing that kind of judgment.

    • #118
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    AchillesLastand (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Back to not having free will.

    That would be a cynical way of looking at being in a state of being completely free of sin, no longer tempted by sin, and so focused on the love of God and the splendor of His being, that all you want to do is please Him.

    Is the point that, while they could sin — that is, they have the free will to choose sin — they would nonetheless never choose to sin? I’ll buy that, if that’s the argument.

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Going back to the original hell-and-damnation topic, it’s hard to see how there’s justice in inflicting punishment on people who lack the free will to avoid sin. That would mean only the [a] group (and I assume they’re all dead now) and the [c] group (and I’m thinking those are the ones who are “saved” in the traditional protestant sense?) are facing that kind of judgment.

    Is that right?

    I think you are hung up on “sin = go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.”

    If the only humans in heaven are the humans who have never sinned, then Jesus would be pretty much alone, since as far as I know, he was the only man to ever live a sinless life.

    The question is: what do I about my sin? how do I get right with God? how do I spent eternity with God, instead of without God.

    As sinful as humankind is, it is a miracle that anyone is saved at all, but God, in his mercy, deigns to save some.

    So, “the [c] group (and I’m thinking those are the ones who are “saved” in the traditional protestant sense?) are” NOT facing that kind of judgment.

    Okay. But I’m trying to relate this back to the original post. It seems that, if the [c] group is not facing the possibility of damnation, and if the [a] group is extinct, and if the [b] and [d] groups lack free will….

    Then who is at risk of being punished because they freely chose to behave badly?

    • #119
  30. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):
    I like your dictionary.

    We’re conservatives. We should be prescriptivists, not descriptivists when it comes to dictionaries.

    Indeed

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.