Self-inflicted punishment

@RandalRauser

Christians sometimes defend the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment by saying that hell is self-imposed (rather than divinely-imposed) torment. But it is doubtful that this qualification helps much. 

It's true that that in itself is an insufficient justification. The criterion of self-affliction is too facile to stand on its own, although it can be a morally relevant factor.

If a person was engaging in egregious self-harm, wouldn't you restrain them, forcibly if necessary? Hell on this view is surely the ultimate form of self-harm. And we are to suppose nobody intervenes for eternity? 

The problem here is that Rauser is recasting the issue as if we were dealing with innocent victims of mental illness. People who engage in self-harm through no fault of their own. He uses the morally neutral language of "person" rather than the "wicked". Rauser's outlook is amoral. 

If, however, a terrorist was about to accidentally step on a cobra or a serial killer was about to accidentally step into quick sand, I wouldn't intervene to save them from self-inflicted harm. Hell is about retributive punishment, not misfortune. 

Hell: against universalism

An excerpt from Hell: against universalism by Ioanna-Maria Patsalidou.

Modern Catholicism on hell

Here's a good example of how post-Vatican II theology struggles to make the transition from traditional Catholic exclusivism to modern Catholic inclusivism. How to straddle two diametrically opposed positions. This is euphemistically dubbed the development of doctrine. 

https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/

The Devil's Redemption

Given longstanding Christian opposition to universalism, how has it gained so many adherents in recent times?

The change was a long time coming. As I show in my book, from the time of Origen onward there were individual Christian thinkers who held to some version of Origenist universalism. In Orthodox Christianity, however, universalism was never affirmed as an official or public teaching of the church. One might call it instead a tolerated private opinion. I found that Orthodox attitudes toward Origen through the centuries were double-sided and ambivalent (as my own attitude is), acknowledging Origen’s undoubted contributions to Christian theology and spirituality but finding fault with his speculative excesses. Western esotericists, who were outside of traditional churches or hovering about its fringes, maintained a robust universalism from around 1700 up to the mid-1900s.

Yet until that point, few official church teachers in Protestant Germany, Britain, or North America publicly affirmed universal salvation—even though privately some may have been universalists. Something changed in the 1950s, and I believe it was Barth’s affirmation of universal election that allowed universalism to come out of the shadows. From the 1950s through the 1970s, universalism was most closely associated with modernist Protestantism. Prior to Vatican II, one finds some private musings on the possibility of salvation for all among certain Catholic intellectuals, even though no official Catholic spokespersons affirm universalism.

The next step in the process occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, as Catholics discussed “the unchurched” and evangelicals debated “the unevangelized.” A book from the Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope?, initiated a turn toward “hopeful universalism” among Catholics, leading into more overt affirmations of universalism later on. Similarly, the tentative suggestions by the British evangelical John Stott regarding conditionalism or annihilationism triggered intra-evangelical debates over the final scope of salvation.

Even though we tend to shy away from the term heresy these days, it is correct to describe universalism as heretical?

Universalism isn’t just a theological mistake. It’s also a symptom of deeper problems. In a culture characterized by moralistic therapeutic deism, universalism fits the age we inhabit. As I argue in the book, universalism is the opiate of the theologians. It’s the way we would want the world to be. Some imagine that a more loving and less judgmental church would be better positioned to win new adherents. Yet perfect love appeared in history—and he was crucified.

Universalism seems, then, to be fundamentally out of sync with the New Testament narrative of God’s loving initiative in Christ provoking some to faith and others to offense and even hatred. Because of its incongruence with the gospel narrative, universalism is, to my mind, not the first step off the path of orthodoxy, but perhaps—in Kevin DeYoung’s words—“the last rung for evangelicals falling off the ladder.”

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/march-web-only/michael-mcclymond-devils-redemption-universalism.html

Is hell empty?

According to Bishop Barron:

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/what-the-hell/363/

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/is-hell-crowded-or-empty-a-catholic-perspective/405/

This isn't official Catholic teaching as of yet. And it may not become official Catholic teaching. In general, when Rome changes course, there's a softening up process. But this has been in the works for some time:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-population-of-hell

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8

 Von Balthasar was John-Paul II's favorite theologian, which is why he made him a cardinal. To my knowledge, hopeful universalism is gaining ground in Catholic circles, although it's largely underground at this time.

Even if it's not official teaching, it's no longer treated as heresy. Catholic prelates in good standing can openly promote it. It's now an acceptable option in Catholic theology. 

We need to stop and consider what a radical departure from traditional Catholic theology this represents. In a nutshell, traditional Catholic theology follows this basic narrative: due to original sin, humans are born damned. Born in a state of mortal sin. Infant baptism changes your condition from a state of mortal sin to a state of grace. However, you can, at any time, relapse to a damnable state of mortal sin. Therefore, a lifelong maintenance program of absolution and communion is required to keep you in a state of grace. Even that's not a sure thing. It just raises the odds that you're still in state of grace. Then, on your deathbed, you receive last rites to make it more likely that you will die in a state of grace. But there's no assurance of salvation this side of the grave.

Universalism can't be grafted onto that framework. Rather, universalism represents a drastic paradigm-shift. If universalism is true, then the sacramental system is superfluous. Salvation is independent of baptism, absolution, communion, and last rites. The sacrificial system doesn't even make salvation more likely if everyone is heavenbound regardless. 

In addition, in traditional Catholic theology, valid sacraments require a valid priesthood. On top of that is the cult of the saints, with the intercession of Mary as paramount. 

But if universalism is true, then the priesthood is superfluous. So at one stroke, universalism nullifies the rationale for the Catholic sacramental and sacerdotal system. That's an immense relict of a defunct paradigm. And the cult of the saints suffers the same fate. 

In addition, this takes the sting out of denunciations against abortion. If universalism is true, then everyone who performs an abortion or facilitates an abortion is going to heaven. 

Consider all the nonconformists who were tortured for "soul-murder". Yet now there's no such thing. Sorry about that! Don't take it personally! 

Finally, consider Bishop Barron's statement that:

Therefore, if there are any people in Hell (and the church has never obliged us to believe that any human is in that state)...

Catholic doctrine is that Hell exists, but yet the Church has never claimed to know if any human being is actually in Hell.

This invites complete theological skepticism. The church of Rome, throughout the centuries, has assiduously cultivated belief in damnation. It milked the fear of hell as a powerful disincentive to motivate Catholics to throw themselves at the mercy of Mother Church, because there was no salvation outside the Church. Saving grace was confined to the sacraments. 

To say this was never official teaching, and is probably false, means the Catholic church constantly fostered a false impression. It said and did things that were bound to deceive the faithful. It did nothing to correct that misconception until beginning in the late 20C. How can you trust anything the Catholic church says? 

And this isn't a theological quibble. The afterlife is central to the nature of religion. This life is brief, wracked by suffering and injustice. Religion is fundamentally about taking the long-range view. What happens to you when you die? Do you pass into oblivion? Will you be punished? Will there be a reversal of fortunes? Will things get better or worse? Will you be reunited with your loved ones? 

If, indeed, the church of Rome has never taken an official position on this position, then Catholicism is derelict. This is the most important issue is all of religion. If the Catholic church refuses to take a stand one way or the other, but plays coy and plays it safe by remaining noncommittal, then it doesn't even claim to know the answer to the one question that any religion worth its salt must be competent to answer. Why would any rational person look to Rome if it can't give a straight answer to that question? 

When the One True Church® makes a hard left turn

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/329671

HT: David Gadbois

Hopeful Universalism, and then some

Currently, the debate over "hopeful universalism" seems simplistic. The only issue considered is this:

[HU] All Christians should at least hope that universalism is true.

Universalism here means the view that all people will eventually be reconciled to God, some only after serving some time in a purgatorial, rehabilitative hell. Call this UR, universal reconciliation.

The idea is that [HU] is the moral high ground, Christians who don't hope for UR are morally deficient. It's the proper thing to do. Moreover, if one believes that the Bible teaches that there is a hell and some people will be in it forever, these people should at least hope that they've misunderstood the Bible on this matter.

But on this assumption, shouldn't those who push the above claim push other states of affairs to hope for?

For example, the above ad hominem (not in a fallacious sense) argument against traditionalists without the hope in UR can be applied to other areas, like:

• Hope that no human who has or will ever exist spends any time in hell? Universalist Robin Parry writes,

  "Historically all Christian universalists have had a doctrine of hell and that remains the case for most Christian universalists today, including Bell. The Christian debate does not concern whether hell will be a reality (all agree that it will) but, rather, what the nature of that reality will be. Will it be eternal conscious torment? Will it be annihilation? Or will it be a state from which people can be redeemed? Most universalists believe that hell is not simply retributive punishment but a painful yet corrective/educative state from which people will eventually exit (some, myself included, think it has a retributive dimension, while others do not)."

  But shouldn't we at least hope that no human will have to spend any time in this "painful" place? Surely it would be better for them to go straight into heaven. Shouldn't universalists hope they're wrong even about their own conception of hell?
• Hope that pluralism (all roads lead to heaven) is true? Since it would be more probable that more people would go straight to heaven without spending any time in hell if pluralism were true, shouldn't we hope for it? Hope we've misread the exclusivist passages?
• Hope that the OT reports of harem warfare are myths, and thus hope that inerrancy is false? Shouldn't we at least hope we've read those passages wrong and Israel never killed thousands of men, women, children, and animals?
• Hope that the story of the flood is a myth? Same reasons as above.
• Hope that the story of the sin of Achan is false? Achan sinned, and his family and livestock were burned and stoned. Shouldn't we hope this didn't happen? Hope we have misunderstood the text at least?
• Hope that the story of Samson is false? Hope we've misread about an all-knowing God giving Samson his strength to bring down the Philistine temple and kill many more in his death than in his life?
• Hope that Old Earth Creationism, with all the millions of years of animal death, is false? Doesn't YEC have millions less cases of animal and human death and suffering? Isn't this better? If a loving God could have avoided millions of cases of death and suffering, wouldn't he? YEC would be one way to achieve this.

These are just some examples. Shouldn't those who push [HU] also push the above? Aren't those who at least hope that the above isn't the case more pious or moral than those who don't? Aren't the same reasons for why all Christians should at least hope for UR applicable to the above?

Really Hopeful Universalism vs. Not-So-Hopeful Universalism

A few corners of the Blogosphere are discussing the topic of "hopeful universalism." This recent discussion took off because of James K. A. Smith's post on the subject.

In its most basic form, the idea behind hopeful universalism is that we should hope that all men will be saved. We may hope that if a man doesn't repent now, he will have a chance to repent in the after life, after being subjected to the pains of hell for a time. It is suggested that all Christians should at least hope for this. If you do not, an eyebrow or two is raised in your direction and questions about your moral character are posed.

Even the claim by hopeless universalists that Scripture positively teaches that there is a hell and that there will be some people in hell for an endless duration and so hoping that all will be saved is irrational, doesn't cut it. Hopeless universalists find this odd. They tell stories like this: Suppose you received a news report from a very trustworthy source that a dirty bomb was detonated in a city and some people died. Suppose you believe this source. Given this, it would be irrational to hope that everyone lived. If you believed that not everyone lived, and so you didn't hope for it, would you be immoral?

But the hopeful retort that while you may believe this, you should hope that you're wrong. After all, can you say with epistemic certainty that the Bible teaches this? Perhaps you've misunderstood things. So you can believe that not all will be in heaven, but you should hope that your belief is wrong, hope that you've misunderstood things. On this view, it seems we should likewise hope that every news report is false. So, when we watched the events unfold on 9-11, we should have all hoped that some lived. After all, we didn't have epistemic certainty about the matter. Perhaps we misunderstood things, there is that chance. The hopeless find this an odd way to live they prefer to be realists. This approach to life has the making for a very unsavory epistemic position to have to live in.

But let's answer this objection on its own terms. Almost all hopeful universalists that I am aware of believe that all will be saved, but some only after some time in a remedial, restorative hell. They all claim that their hope is that all those who go to hell will be saved out of it. But this seems like the taxi cab fallacy (arbitrarily getting out of the taxi when you don't went to go any further). I think all hopeful universalists, if they want a hearing from the hopeless, should hope that there does not exist a human who has spent any time in hell. All humans go to heaven immediately after they die.

Every hopeful universalist argument employed against the hopeless can be applied by the really hopeful against hopeful universalism lite, and then some. Not only can the really hopeful claim that it is more moral and loving to hope that none spend any time in hell, they may also raise an eyebrow or two at the moral character of the not-so-hopeful. The really hopeful will ask things like this: "Hell is horrible, and I cannot imagine a loving God sending any of his children there. Indeed, what of my child? If I knew my own child were going to spend some time in hell and I could do something about it, I would. Well then, since God is our loving father, he should do the same. And, we know that God can do so. He may need to intervene and bypass the free will for a moment, but that is worth it, you see. After all, if you knew your own child would use her free will to seriously harm herself, even if temporarily, would you, as a loving father, take action to stop this?"

But the really hopeful universalist can go further with this mirroring. For instance, if the not-so-hopeful claim that the Bible does indeed teach about the existence of hell and that some people will spend some time in it, the uber hopeful universalist will just ask, "Really, and you're sure about this? You know it with epistemic certainty?" Moreover, they will claim that the Bible seems to support their view. They may point to passages like 2 Peter 3 (a favorite passage of hopeful universalism lite). They will point that God desires none should perish, and so that is why he is delaying his return, so that all might be saved from what is to come after his return. So God wants none to see the judgment that awaits after his return. The passage says nothing about an endless hell, just a Day of Judgment. Indeed, in the Bible, salvation from judgment always applies to the here and now, and what all men are saved from is what begins at Jesus return.

Or take Romans 5. This speaks about all men, claim both groups of universalists. The really hopeful universalist points out that this means that all men are saved from "the judgment that follows" the transgression. Since all men are in Christ, then all men reign in life and are saved from the judgment to come. The really hopeful find it incredible that Paul could think some people united to Christ and thus destined to reign in life after his act of law keeping, would nevertheless spend some time not reigning in life at the Day of the Lord. The one act of the Lord resulted in "justification" for all people, and Paul would find it incredible that those justified would be in hell on the day of Judgment. Thus some really hopeful universalists claim, not without warrant, that they are dogmatic really hopeful universalists, insisting that a truly loving God would send exactly zero of his children to hell for any time at all.

Some who hold to hopeful universalism lite still claim that some horrendous people will need to spend some time in hell. But dogmatic really hopefuls respond that if we take seriously the notion of Jesus' death for all men, they claim justice has been fully satisfied for even these people. They claim that there is now no condemnation for them. They point out the arrogance in thinking that Hitler needs to spend some time in hell for what he did so that he could really appreciate the harm he did, when those who claim this don't think they will also need to spend some time in hell for all their impure thoughts and genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in the form of hating them (which Jesus said is murder). If Hitler is caused by God to believe in Him before he dies, surely he will evidence remorse for his crimes once in heaven, admitting how horrible he was. So there's really no need for hell if we take the universalism texts seriously.

So with all this talk of hopeful universalism, let's make sure the hopeful universalist is really following his own strictures and living under the hope that there has never been a human who has spent any time at all in hell. In fact, one would like to see more universalists becoming dogmatic really hopeful universalists. Until then, the hopeless universalist will continue to think universalists—hopeful and dogmatic—don't have the nerve to take their position to its logical conclusion.