An Objection against Universalism
The idea is that a world in which everyone is saved would be a toy world, in which there is no drama, no real risk, and therefore no real victory. But if hell is a possibility, then suddenly our choices acquire enormous significance, and the battlefield of life becomes as real as it gets.
Here is a bad reply: Jesus says that “If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.” (Mt 18:12-13) But what if by leaving the 99 sheep to go search for the lost one Jesus will cause these 99 to be eaten by wolves? Will Jesus exchange one sheep for 99? Not likely.
My reply is first to note that the world contains enough suffering to imbue our actions with sufficient importance. Even if no one actually goes to hell, one can make his life pretty miserable before at some point coming to his senses. The drama is real even without damnation. The road to heaven can be very circuitous and hard even if going to hell is always prevented. God’s glory is promoted by creating beautiful and unique finite reflections of His infinite perfection. Damnation is a destruction of identity, of form; there are no real people in hell, just burned-up ashes, tormented and full of insane hatred. But God is a master craftsman, in whose hands we are clay. He doesn’t make mistakes and throw poorly made humans out into the fire. Secondly, I am quite certain that hell exists. And that it is the worst thing in the world. But it is precisely the horror of it which serves as an incentive not to fall into hell. It’s true that some criminals are not deterred even by capital punishment. But hell is infinitely worse than any earthly torture. Hence no amount of irrationality or obstinacy can prevent a person from righting his ways as a consequence of feeling the hellfire.
I have written that “repenting entails rejecting a part of yourself, an evil part but one you still love, because otherwise you would not have done according to it.” But what if every part of you is corrupt? You can’t reject everything, lest you disappear. Further, in this case you are probably shameless in evil. Well, it seems to me that it is precisely the job of God not to permit such a thing. God is our savior not just in the sense that He forgives sins, but also because He builds us up (often through secondary causes, of course) and does not destroy His handiwork.
Again it may be objected that as devils are sacrificed for the sake of humans, so some men are sacrificed for the sake of the elect. And I again reply that God is far more cunning than any devil and is able to save all of us, though our glory is still going to be unequal.
See also: Thoughts on Punishments, Part II
May 9th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Dmitry,
You mentioned the concept of “hell” and I am very curious about this concept.
Please help me with the apostle Paul’s handling of this concept. I ran a concordance check on the word “hell” and this word is never used in any of his writings. What concerns me is that it seems that this is such an important issue that Paul should warn his readers, primarily Gentiles, who might not read writings to Jews, so they would have more of an incentive to live good lives to avoid hell.
Jesus commissioned Paul to carry the gospel to Gentiles, so why would he fail to mention even once this place called hell?
Don
May 9th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Don, you are right, according to my search, Paul does not mention hell at all, and this term is mentioned only twice after the Gospels: Jas 3:6 and 2 Pet 2:4. Running search for “fire” yields Heb 10:26-28, 2 Pet 3:7, and Jude 1:22-23. “Punishment” is relevantly mentioned only in Jude 1:6-8. I am not sure why that is. But one of my professors is an expert on Paul, and I’ll be sure to ask him.
See also Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch. 12, “Hell” for a defense of this idea.