Discussing Hell and Eternal Damnation

[Get2choppaaa]

For any of this? Not even the part where I quoted from the Gospel of John?
"Those who believe are not condemned but those who do not believe are condemned already."


The consequence of Adam's sin is the curse of death. We are covenantally guilty in Adam. That's Romans 5. Are you saying that God curses us for sin that we are not guilty of?


That is your overreactionary rationalization drawn from what I said. I never said that.


Cite the passage please.

The Orthodox perspective is that only Adam and Eve are guilty of their sins.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin.

We have to suffer the consequences of their banishment from Eden, but not the guilt.

 

[analyst_green]

For any of this? Not even the part where I quoted from the Gospel of John?
"Those who believe are not condemned but those who do not believe are condemned already."

This chapter is a discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus the Pharisee. In this context, Christ refers to those who know He is God but refuse to believe. The Pharisees saw Him, witnessed the miracles, and were aware of the prophecies He fulfilled, yet still they rejected Him out of pride. He is not addressing those who have no knowledge of the Gospel.

The consequence of Adam's sin is the curse of death. We are covenantally guilty in Adam. That's Romans 5. Are you saying that God curses us for sin that we are not guilty of?

Is a child born with birth defects of an alcoholic mother guilty due to her sin? No, but the child has inherited the consequences of that sin. It's simple cause and effect. We are condemned to live in a fallen world. But we cannot be guilty of a sin we have not committed. And God hasn't "cursed" us because he gave us His only Son so we can have eternal life.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin.

I recognize that but it raises the question of why God is punishing you for a sin that you are not guilty of, both with banishment from Eden and death itself. What do you make of Orthodox Christians who do affirm that we are guilty in Adam?

This chapter is a discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus the Pharisee. In this context, Christ refers to those who know He is God but refuse to believe. The Pharisees saw Him, witnessed the miracles, and were aware of the prophecies He fulfilled, yet still they rejected Him out of pride. He is not addressing those who have no knowledge of the Gospel.

Based on this, could you say that never hearing of Jesus is one way to get into Heaven. And hearing of Him and believing in Him is another way?

What do you make of Romans 1 where Paul's point is that everyone is without excuse because God's attributes and power have been clearly seen, even evident within man, since the creation?

Is a child born with birth defects of an alcoholic mother guilty due to her sin? No, but the child has inherited the consequences of that sin. It's simple cause and effect. We are condemned to live in a fallen world.

Why are we condemned to live in a fallen world if we are born guiltless? I understand your line of reasoning but it is not taking into account that death itself is a curse for sin.

But we cannot be guilty of a sin we have not committed.

Again, I have to point you to Romans 5. "By the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners. So through the obedience of One, the many will be made righteous."

When Adam sinned, we sinned, because we are in him. When Christ obeyed, we obeyed, if we are in Him.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I recognize that but it raises the question of why God is punishing you for a sin that you are not guilty of, both with banishment from Eden and death itself. What do you make of Orthodox Christians who do affirm that we are guilty in Adam?

We don't affirm that. It's not an Orthodox view. If someone who was Orthodox affirmed that, then they would be holding an incorrect theological position.

The Orthodox view is that because Adam and Eve sinned, all of mankind has to endure the consequences of being banished from Eden. We are not however guilty for their sins.

So we don't inherit their guilt.

After the fall of man, we have the consequences of the fall, but now have free will and a blank slate to live our life accordingly.

My sins are my own. If I am an adulterer, or a murderer or whatever I'll be judged for that vs one of my kids having to also be judged for that.

This is also why we believe that Mary was an ever-virgin, who lived a sinless life...which is why God chose her to carry the God-Man Jesus Christ.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

The consequence of Adam's sin is the curse of death. We are covenantally guilty in Adam. That's Romans 5. Are you saying that God curses us for sin that we are not guilty of?

Mortal != Hellbound from conception

We inherit the consequences of the original sin, notably the whole concupiscence thing, and the fact that our bodies are slowly but surely rotting and the worms will one day feast upon them. But guilt? I mean no disrespect, but what exactly do you understand by the word "guilt"? How does one become guilty of something without doing it?

My simp father Adam ate of the fruit, but I am pretty sure I did not. I don't think I was there, perhaps I simply forgot. Please inform me if you ever look closely at a piece of iconography depicting the garden of Eden, and notice in the background a moustached brown man who looks like he browses obscure Christian forums.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Mortal != Hellbound from conception

We inherit the consequences of the original sin, notably the whole concupiscence thing, and the fact that our bodies are slowly but surely rotting and the worms will one day feast upon them. But guilt? I mean no disrespect, but what exactly do you understand by the word "guilt"? How does one become guilty of something without doing it?

My simp father Adam ate of the fruit, but I am pretty sure I did not. I don't think I was there, perhaps I simply forgot. Please inform me if you ever look closely at a piece of iconography depicting the garden of Eden, and notice in the background a moustached brown man who looks like he browses obscure Christian forums.

Do not call Adam a Simp. Adam and Eve are both considered Biblical Saints. Also, No idea what youre talking about in the second sentence.... but lets have some reverence.

Are you going to start calling Abraham a drunk because of the story about him overindulging and being seen naked by his children?

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Do not call Adam a Simp. Adam and Eve are both considered Biblical Saints. Also, No idea what youre talking about in the second sentence.... but lets have some reverence.

Are you going to start calling Abraham a drunk because of the story about him overindulging and being seen naked by his children?

You're right. I apologize.

 

[analyst_green]

Based on this, could you say that never hearing of Jesus is one way to get into Heaven. And hearing of Him and believing in Him is another way?

What do you make of Romans 1 where Paul's point is that everyone is without excuse because God's attributes and power have been clearly seen, even evident within man, since the creation?

Ultimately there's only one way to attain the Kingdom of Heaven and that's through God's grace, through Christ. We know God gave us a path through the Bible and the Holy Orthodox faith and our only option is to follow it. As for the rest, we really don't know. We can only evangelize so much, for others their salvation is purely God's concern.

I think Romans 1 explains a lot about why there were virtually no atheists throughout the vast majority of human history. Atheism is really stupid and I'm guessing that will separate one's soul from God more than following most other religions. Muslims have a flawed conception of the one true God in Allah. And Taoism came close to understanding Christ in many ways. So these people have seen God's glory, that's why they tried to come up with something to explain it. But without divine revelation, the fullness of the truth cannot be grasped, only fragments of it.

 

[JCSteel]

Contrition is important in seeking a relationship with God. We can only expect to experience it for our own sins, not for Adam's. In so far as all sin as he did, and would have done the same in his place in the Garden, we share the same guilt.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1035)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 139:8&version=KJV

God is omnipresent.

 

[staddlelateen]

Universalism, the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved, holds appeal as it challenges the concept of an infinitely loving God inflicting eternal punishment for finite sins. Its arguments typically follow:

• God's Love and Mercy: How could a loving God condemn anyone to eternal suffering for finite earthly transgressions? Justice wouldn't demand an infinite punishment for a finite sin.
• Human Analogy: If you, as a parent, can't imagine subjecting your child to eternal torment, how could a loving God do so to his children?

These arguments question whether eternal damnation aligns with a God of infinite love and mercy. Let's explore how Catholic theology, specifically Thomist philosophy, addresses this question.

As it related to the first objection, Catholics, informed by Thomism, understand God as entirely independent, while we are utterly dependent on Him. Therefore, we owe God everything, while He owes us nothing. Justice dictates that God is not obligated to offer salvation.

Despite not owing us salvation, God grants it through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This unearned gift can be lost through our free will, specifically by disobeying the two commandments:

• Love God above all else.
• Love your neighbor as yourself.

Instead of dwelling on the possibility of losing the gift, we should focus on its magnificence and the love that prompted it. We cannot "earn" salvation; it is bestowed upon us by grace. However, our free will allows us to choose whether to accept this grace. Those who end up in hell do so by actively rejecting God's grace via their own free will.

As it relates to the second objection, our understanding of God is limited. We can only grasp it through imperfect comparisons and analogies, such as the relationship between parents and children. These analogies are not perfect representations of God, as He transcends our human understanding. While we might not imagine a situation where we would abandon our children to suffer eternally, it doesn't mean that God, with His infinite knowledge and wisdom, could not foresee such a possibility. We must be careful not to impose our human limitations on God's capabilities.

Remember that modern society often promotes a warped sense of equality. We are not equals with God. We are His servants, created to love and serve Him. Thankfully, God's infinite mercy makes salvation possible for everyone through the straightforward path of accepting Jesus Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. This is in contrast to Gnosticism (and many eastern "religions"), which believes that salvation requires hidden and esoteric knowledge.

If you are interested more on this topic, Michael Lofton debated a Universalist Catholic on the question of Hell

 

[Blade Runner]

Note also that it is hard to say that humans are "guilty" for Adam's sin, since Christ is human. So you would have to then claim Christ isn't really human, or say he is also "guilty" or was guilty, which makes no sense. Just like "justice" the words that we humans use, and think we know what they mean, are not applicable in the larger context of God. That's why substitution is nonsense, because it makes "justice" greater than God - as I've pointed out - making "justice" the actual god.

God's banishment from Eden is a mercy in the larger picture, because we would be unable to repent if we were disobedient and "immortal", as the demons are. Of course, all we are doing here is trying to understand why we die, and inherit corruption, and the answer is that if we are to have free will and prove our love (willingly), this must be the case for the type of creature that we are. Since that type of creature is something that has (more) godly attributes, and it must since the Logos is eternal and the perfect human person, we are thus differentiated from the created spirits otherwise. That's why the rebellious ones hate us so much.

 

[staddlelateen]

Universalism, the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved, holds appeal as it challenges the concept of an infinitely loving God inflicting eternal punishment for finite sins. Its arguments typically follow:

• God's Love and Mercy: How could a loving God condemn anyone to eternal suffering for finite earthly transgressions? Justice wouldn't demand an infinite punishment for a finite sin.
• Human Analogy: If you, as a parent, can't imagine subjecting your child to eternal torment, how could a loving God do so to his children?

These arguments question whether eternal damnation aligns with a God of infinite love and mercy. Let's explore how Catholic theology, specifically Thomist philosophy, addresses this question.

As it related to the first objection, Catholics, informed by Thomism, understand God as entirely independent, while we are utterly dependent on Him. Therefore, we owe God everything, while He owes us nothing. Justice dictates that God is not obligated to offer salvation.

Despite not owing us salvation, God grants it through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This unearned gift can be lost through our free will, specifically by disobeying the two commandments:

• Love God above all else.
• Love your neighbor as yourself.

Instead of dwelling on the possibility of losing the gift, we should focus on its magnificence and the love that prompted it. We cannot "earn" salvation; it is bestowed upon us by grace. However, our free will allows us to choose whether to accept this grace. Those who end up in hell do so by actively rejecting God's grace via their own free will.

As it relates to the second objection, our understanding of God is limited. We can only grasp it through imperfect comparisons and analogies, such as the relationship between parents and children. These analogies are not perfect representations of God, as He transcends our human understanding. While we might not imagine a situation where we would abandon our children to suffer eternally, it doesn't mean that God, with His infinite knowledge and wisdom, could not foresee such a possibility. We must be careful not to impose our human limitations on God's capabilities.

Remember that modern society often promotes a warped sense of equality. We are not equals with God. We are His servants, created to love and serve Him. Thankfully, God's infinite mercy makes salvation possible for everyone through the straightforward path of accepting Jesus Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. This is in contrast to Gnosticism (and many eastern "religions"), which believes that salvation requires hidden and esoteric knowledge.

If you are interested more on this topic, Michael Lofton debated a Universalist Catholic on the question of Hell

I should clarify a few points here as well. The Catholic Church has never dogmatically defined hell, so it's still open to interpretation. Apart from Universalism and the traditional view of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), there is also the Annihilationism (active extinguishment of the immortal soul by God) or its variation of conditional immortality (the soul's passive extinguishment when separated from God) . This viewpoint addresses the issues raised above by claiming that the punishment of sin is temporary and once that sin is punished, the soul is either annihilated or extinguished. This viewpoint is a minority in the Catholic world, but has more traction with Protestants and the Orthodox.

You're right. I apologize.

Unfortunately, this is one of my primary concerns with Pelagianism. Adopting the Pelagian position requires one to say that the act of disobeying God was actually a good thing. Don't take my position, however, to be strictly Augustinian, but it seems clear to me that we cannot become good through sheer force of will, but that divine grace is necessary for our salvation.

Edit: I know that Adam and Eve also have a feast day in the Catholic Church. This was more so a non-sequitur because I was pondering the nature of grace while thinking about the issue of hell.

 

[Elipe]

Something else I'd like to add to this discussion is that my observation of modern man is that he is often the architect of his own suffering. It is not that he does not know how to mitigate his own suffering; rather, it is that he sets his sights on hellish, inverted goals which further his own suffering not inadvertently, but rather purposefully and willfully.

Look at the modern leftist millennial. Everything they champion impoverishes them and multiplies their misery. Everything they champion is a driver of everything about life that they complain about. They champion immigration, but complain about lower wages. They champion the endless expansion of 'big' systems, where things like insurance are handled by corporations or government entities. Then they complain about insurance stiffing them when they need it, and that health care costs so much money now. They champion the expansion of credit and easy monetary policies, then they complain that cars and houses are too expensive to afford. They champion sexual liberation and easy access to abortion, then they complain that their lives feel empty just revolving around sex and careerism.

Everything the modern leftist complains about is rooted in something he champions. In other words, the modern leftist has helped created his own hell, and he cannot imagine living in anything but that hell which he has co-created!

I believe this gives us a glimpse into why people end up in hell. It's literally what they want, even as it makes them wail and gnash their teeth. It also drives home the point that the godless would rather endure the burning flames of hell than spend an eternity with God.

Oh sure, they say, "I wouldn't like boiling in a lake of fire for all eternity, that sounds painful. Nobody would."

But then again, does anybody like high house prices, expensive health care, debt slavery, and depression? Yet, propose any actual fix to those things that doesn't involve more micromanagement by the state or corporate machine, and they fly into a sputtering rage. I mean things like ending feminism. Feminism is one of the root causes of many of our social ills which those people complain about, but they hold it so beloved that they can't possibly imagine a society without it and consider such an imagination to be unthinkably evil.

It's not that they want to boil, it's that they don't want to end up in heaven. Not the real heaven; they always imagine some kind of inverted heaven which is more like a personal fantasy. I think in the spiritual state those people are in, they would actually be utterly disgusted by heaven. No sex? No cussing? No virtue signaling? No feminism? No homosexuality? No trannies? And the main activity up there is singing praises to God? For those people, that would be their idea of hell!

You can make those people physically ill just by describing a normally functioning idyllic white ethnostate. It's a lot closer to heaven than what we have, but it's still not heaven. And it makes them physically ill to imagine such a society, whereas the stench of our current beclowned society makes them smile, like a child sniffing his own flatulence.

In conclusion, I believe modern man's desire to architect his own suffering in the material realm is a reflection, blurry though it may be, of the same but perhaps greater tendency in the spiritual dimension. He grits his teeth in the face of suffering because the suffering is a product of the inversion he seeks. The only way out is to seek spiritual realignment - realignment to the will of God in and by Jesus Christ.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Note also that it is hard to say that humans are "guilty" for Adam's sin, since Christ is human. So you would have to then claim Christ isn't really human, or say he is also "guilty" or was guilty, which makes no sense.

Christ is the New Covenant head. This is why Paul refers to Him as the Last Adam. He is not under Adam covenantally, which is why He bears no guilt/fallen nature.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Christ is the New Covenant head. This is why Paul refers to Him as the Last Adam. He is not in Adam covenantally, which is why He bears no guilt/fallen nature.

That doesn't really change the logic of shared/collective guilt. So for those who believe we inherit guilt also....Christ was both God and Man... So wouldn't by the logic that all mankind inherits guilt, he be partially guilty too?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That doesn't really change the logic of shared/collective guilt. So for those who believe we inherit guilt also....Christ was both God and Man... So wouldn't by the logic that all mankind inherits guilt, he be partially guilty too?

God is not imputing guilt to Christ because He is not under Adam's broken covenant, He is the head of the New Covenant, you and I are not.

You've asked me a question. But you still haven't answered my question of why God punishes mankind with banishment from Eden and death if they are not born guilty in Adam.

 

[staddlelateen]

You've asked me a question. But you still haven't answered my question of why God punishes mankind with banishment from Eden and death if they are not born guilty in Adam.

I'm also interested in the answer to this question. It's an interesting question because, generally, Pelagianism has seen a resurgence in popularity (including in the Catholic Church) because it better accords with theistic evolution and the belief that death did not come into the world through sin but is a natural aspect of life.

Additionally, it helps bolster the claim that the story of Adam and Eve is not strictly historical but metaphorical, and it also allows modernists to regulate Jesus to a "spiritual advisor" or as a "role model" among other such role models (no unlike what the Gnostics believed). In fact, Pelagianism seems very similar to Gnosticism as Pelagian wrote about how Adam and Eve transitioned from "naivety" to "maturity" after eating the apple.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

God is not imputing guilt to Christ because He is not under Adam's broken covenant, He is the head of the New Covenant, you and I are not.

You've asked me a question. But you still haven't answered my question of why God punishes mankind with banishment from Eden and death if they are not born guilty in Adam.

Before Adam and Eve chose to reject Eden, there was no procreation/child birth...and they were innocent.

I'm not sure I'm following how mankind is punished by being able to exist and having free will.
So would it be accurate to say that existence is punishment?

As I've said, we bear the consequences of their actions...but not the responsibility to bear guilt or atone for it.

I'm not sure I can answer your question as I am sure there are more that are theologically more adept than I to answer... But I'm not sure I accept the phrasing or premise.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'm not sure I'm following how mankind is punished by being able to exist and having free will.

The punishment of disobeying God in the Garden is death, banishment from Eden, unfruitful labor, pain in childbirth, etc. These things were not so prior to the Fall, but all of mankind has suffered them since the Fall.

As I've said, we bear the consequences of their actions...but not the responsibility to bear guilt or atone for it.

I understand what your position is, but I'm asking why. Why does mankind suffer the curses of the Fall if man is born innocent of the Fall?