Universalism vs. the Concept of Hell Nicolas Renowitzky April 26, 2018 To the modern man, the idea of the existence of a deity or deities seems unnecessary, foolish, and archaic since as intelligent, rational beings, humans are able to explain away the wonders of the universe with science and reasoning. In this day and age, however, the concept of an eternal, fiery hell filled with torturing imps and ghouls is beyond folly- it is offensive to reason and a downright abominable thing to believe. Surely, it is argued, that if an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and morally perfect being existed, it would find the idea of an eternal hell detestable as well. As this sentiment becomes more and more popular due to the influence that modern culture and the mainstream media has, there is an increasing number of people, both atheist and theist, arguing that if the Christian God were real, everyone would experience salvation due to the fact that the existence of hell couldn’t be compatible with His loving and morally perfect character; this is known as Christian Universalism. Though universalism might seem to make a great deal of sense, it will be argued here that the existence of an eternal hell in which the damned will reside in is not only compatible with the existence of the Christian God, but also necessary, and more sensible than universalism. Before getting into the compatibility, sensibility, and necessity of hell with the existence of the Christian God, certain things must be cleared up. Due to the fact that there is no “uniform” Christian theology of hell, a doctrine of hell must be established before continuing and comparing it to universalism. Besides universalism, the most popular beliefs of hell in Christianity are: traditionalism, isolationism, and annihilationism. The traditional view of hell holds that hell is a place of literal fire and burning sulfur ruled by Satan, where people are intentionally tortured by spiritual beings and/or suffer from a combination of heat, separation from God’s presence, and extreme physical, spiritual, and emotional torment. The isolationist perspective of hell holds that hell is instead a place of darkness and isolation in which the damned are separated from the presence of God, and that their unbearable pain comes from their eternal spiritual and emotional distress. The annihilationist view holds that the body and soul of the wicked are erased from existence immediately after their initial death or after the Resurrection. So which of these should we choose? In order to prevent the direction of this exposition from delving too deeply into biblical exegesis, we’ll stick to a purely philosophical, theological, and rational approach as much as possible in order to decide which soteriological belief is the one that is most likely to be true if the Christian God were real . Conveniently enough, we can be almost certain that out of the 3 soteriological beliefs mentioned in the previous paragraph, annihilationism is the least likely to be true, not only because the amount of people that believe in it is significantly less than the amount of people that believe in the other two views of hell, but also for theological and philosophical reasons. For example, annihilationists often argue that the Bible does not teach about the immortality of the soul and, like Judaism, cite Old Testament passages about the destruction of the wicked as proof, but the fact that the immortality of the soul has been in the doctrines of the earliest Christian branches (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) for the past two millennia. What this means is that in order to formulate their views on hell, much like universalists, annihilationists sacrifice other doctrines for this purpose, which is one of the reasons that the likelihood of these soteriological views as being correct is low. It is understandable why a theist would want annihilationism to be true, as the act of God killing a damned soul is a more attractive alternative soteriological idea than the eternal suffering both traditionalism and modified traditionalism propose. So which soteriological belief makes the most sense between the traditional view and the isolationist view of hell? Ironically enough, the traditional idea of hell is not based on the Bible, but rather on Dante’s Divine Comedy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Satan rules over hell nor that his demons will torment the damned for all eternity- in fact, in Matthew 25:41, Jesus says that Satan will perish in hell alongside the wicked. Also, speaking from common sense, how can hell be both dark and fiery since fire is a source of light? It is more likely that Jesus speaks of the fire as a metaphor for how unbearably painful it is to be separated by God. So, seeing as how the traditional view of hell is as skewed as the universalist and annihilationist view and is highly unlikely to be consistent with the Christian God , we can continue onward with the isolationist view, which is actually taught in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and is also taught in some Evangelical circles. Now, why would the isolationist soteriological perspective be more compatible with the Christian God than with universalism? Let’s take a closer look at both and compare them. It’s been stated here that universalism, the belief that eternal salvation is for everyone, is incompatible with an all-loving, omnipotent God, but how can this be? Wouldn’t it be far more “loving” for God to save everyone than to save some and condemn others? One of the arguments that universalism makes is that since L: “God is love,” He could never send anyone to hell. At first, this argument seems coherent, but one of the counterarguments made against universalism, which is also biblically-based, is that since J:“God is just,” He could never give the unrepentant wicked the same treatment as the saints. L seems to be incompatible with J at first glance, given the arguments that universalists and isolationists made, but it is possible for L and J to be consistent with each other. L is compatible with J when one takes into account the Pentateuch, in which the story of God’s chosen people is written. For example: God saves His people from brutal slavery in Egypt because they cried out to Him and He had compassion for them, which is compatible with L, but also sentences them to a death without seeing the Promised Land due to the grievous sin of idolatry committed against Him while Moses was on Mount Sinai , which is compatible with J. What can be concluded from this example besides the fact that J and L are compatible with each other? God rewards the righteous and God punishes the wicked, and this is witnessed all throughout the Bible, not just in the Pentateuch; Jesus, who is God, showed love to those who had faith in Him, and told the self-righteous Pharisees who would eventually kill Him that they would not enter the kingdom of Heaven. So, the point being made here is that if God is a consistent God, there is no reason for why He would all of a sudden change his reward and punishment system after one’s death. However, it could be argued that J*: if God is truly just, he wouldn’t punish someone for all eternity when the crimes they committed and the lives they lived were temporal, but an assumption that is being made as well as an enormous theological and metaphysical issue with that argument. The big metaphysical/theological problem with J* is that God punishes someone with hell. Perhaps the existence of hell isn’t a punishment, but rather a necessity. If one were to take Plantinga’s definition of omnipotence, in which omnipotence has its limits when it comes to logical & causal laws as well as free will, then it could be said that God is unable to force people into worshipping Him.1 What does this have to do with heaven and hell? Universalists assume that God is able to make it so that people go to heaven, but perhaps people are the ones who decide whether or not they want to go to heaven in the way that they live their lives and in what they worship. For example- what if a person who worships Satan and despises the Christian God and/or the idea of the Christian God and could not stand it if He had to spend all eternity with Him? It would be impossible for God to force the Satanist to worship Him, which is something that people in heaven do. If God forced the Satanist to go to heaven against his will, it would be a sort of “divine rape,” since God is forcing the Satanist to love Him against his will. So, if God has limited omnipotence and the only places that exist in eternity are the place 1 Rowe, William L. God and the problem of evil. Blackwell, 2007. 91-118 where angels and saints worship God all day every day and the place where God’s presence is absent which is reserved for Satan and his demons, it would make sense that the Satanist would be more compatible with hell than with heaven. So, when one considers the fact that idea that God annihilating people’s souls or allowing demons and literal fire to torment the wicked for eternity is incompatible with the Christian God, but rather withholds His presence from them, it makes sense that isolationism is the soteriological view that is the most likely one to be true. When one considers the consistency of God’s reward and punishment system before one’s death, it doesn’t make any sense for why God would change and just drop all punishment and anger against those who hate Him just because they died. When one considers the limit of omnipotence in regards to humanity’s free will, it doesn’t make sense why God would force people to worship Him when it wouldn’t be their will. These are the reasons for why the isolationist view of hell is clearly more likely to be compatible with the Christian God, especially when compared to the Christian universalist view of hell.
