site banner

Baby Don't Fear the Reaper

shapesinthefog.substack.com

Full text here, go to Substack if you want the pictures and links and such.


The basic case for Universalism, or why hell must be temporary

Let’s talk about where your soul is going after you die.

A heavy way to start the article, eh? Unfortunately, this type of heavy handed language is often used by Christians to imply that non-believers or even Christians with the ‘wrong’ theology will go to hell. Not just go to hell, but go to hell FOREVER!

This frankly insane strategy has been quite successful, especially in Protestant culture. The threat of hellfire and brimstone and being poked by a demon’s trident for eternity is extremely effective at scaring some people into a brittle, false kind of faith.

Especially sensitive, neurotic, and generally imaginative types like myself.

Sadly though, while it may bring some people back to faith and have use on the margins, it tends to drive people away from Christianity more than anything. Almost every Christian apostate I’ve talked to has some story of religious trauma, where their parent or friend or pastor told them if they didn’t live a perfectly saintly life, they were going to hell.

They then obsessed over their eternal fate until they got so neurotic, so afraid, so twisted up inside they had to decide that the whole damn religion was fake. And honestly, I don’t even blame them.

So this article is meant as a quick overview of the idea of eternal hell - where it came from, and whether or not it’s valid. To be clear, this is just my own research to get a basic understanding, I’m not a theologian and I won’t be going extremely into the depths on this one.

I’ll also admit up front that even before I did this research, moral intuition insisted that eternal hell is not a true teaching. I can’t conceive of a good and loving God who creates a universe in which legions and legions of His creations, made in His image, are tortured brutally for all eternity. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

After living as an atheist/buddhist for over ten years, I followed my moral intuition and the voice of God in my heart to Christ and the Orthodox church, so I was conflicted when I first started wondering about the fate of the damned. I was pleasantly surprised to find that many others in the Orthodox and Catholic churches felt the same way, and that the argument against eternal punishment had a long and storied history.

Some basic definitions:

Universalist: Holds that all will ultimately be saved

Infernalist: Holds that some face eternal punishment from God

Shapes in the Fog is a reader-supported publication. Subscribe, or you’ll go to hell forever! (just kidding)

The Bible Said So

If you were raised by a certain type of Christian parent, you’ve probably been threatened with hell.

It’s sadly common in Christian circles: “do X or you’ll go to hell!” The fact that we casually threaten children with eternal torment is a bit crazy, but hey, culture is weird sometimes.

Where does this come from? Well, there are a lot of admonitions in Scripture about how sin leads to punishment in the afterlife:

Matthew 25:45

  • Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

  • And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Thessalonians 1:7

  • They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might…

Revelation 14:10

  • And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

Now, a straightforward reading of the English here would indicate okay, yes, if we are sinners in this life, or at least don’t pass the bar for God, we go to hell forever. To suffer, and be tormented, over and over and over, without ceasing.

Pretty scary stuff.

However, many scholars have argued that these translations are… faulty, to say the least. The argument typically hinges on the translation of the Greek phrase “kolasin aiōnion,” which has often been translated as “eternal punishment,” and the Greek phrase “eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn,” translated as “forever and ever.”

The problem comes in when you realize that the word “aiōnion” has a dual meaning in ancient Greek - it could either mean:

  1. A really long time! Literally “until the end of the age,” which in practice just meant a really long time

  2. Actually forever, infinite, eternal. Will never cease. Trillions and trillions of years go by and it’s still happening

The debate hinges on which of the two time periods these phrases actually refer to. Universalists are not just pulling this out of their rear ends, so to speak. There are uses of aiōnion in the Old Testament that clearly refer to a temporary happening, such as when Moses blessed the “eternal hills” of Joseph’s land in Deuteronomy 33:15, or the “eternal fire” of Sodom in Jude 7.

Another major debate is over the doctrine of “apokatastasis,” or the promised restoration of all things in eternity. Many classical writers, most notably Saint Paul, talked about this concept. Specifically:

Colossians 1:19–20 “through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven”.

1 Timothy 2:4 “God desires all people to be saved.”

2 Peter 3:9 “not wishing any to perish.”

1 Corinthians 15:22–28 “as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ… that God may be all in all.”

I could go on and on. There are all sorts of minor debates over other terms, and theological minutiae. Suffice to say, there is no clear cut, black and white answer as to whether Scripture declares eternal punishment, and the popularity of the infernalist versus universalist position has oscillated back and forth throughout Christian history depending on when and where you look.

The Church Said So

For the Orthodox and Catholic (and some Protestant) believers, we luckily have an institution to interpret Scripture for us: the Church!

Pretty much every infernalist, when backed into a corner and made to doubt their understanding of eternal torment, will immediately turn and say, “well the Church teaches that the damned suffer in hell forever!”

As in the section above, they aren’t necessarily wrong, but they also aren’t completely right.

So, what does the Church actually say? I’ll focus on the Orthodox church here, but ultimately the major decision point was well before the schism of 1054, so this section applies mostly to both Catholic and Orthodox doctrine.

This discussion centers around the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. Imagine a room full of men with long beards, in fancy robes, full of the Holy Spirit, conferring in the heart of Constantinople, at the Hagia Sophia. (Arguably the most beautiful church in the world at the time, though sadly a mosque now.)

So all of these guys get together to discuss some problems in the early church, and figure out what was going on. A side character in this drama, a man by the name of Origen of Alexandria, had caused some problems with interpretations of his teachings a while back, and he was on the list to discuss.

Specifically, Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls before birth, and reincarnation after death, as well as universal reconciliation or the restoration of all things and beings. Even the devil, and fallen angels!

The council ruled definitively that this specific system of Origen’s belief as a whole was condemned. The line that is often trotted out, which I admit looks quite bad, is as follows:

“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration [apokatastasis] will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

The way most universalists combat this objection is that:

  • This was referring to Origen’s overall system, not specifically claiming that the damned are tormented forever or even giving a concrete definition of punishment in the afterlife

  • The ‘restoration’ discussed here is actually referring more to Origen’s belief that humans existed somehow outside the body before birth, and would be ‘restored’ to that state afterward. Not how most universalists use ‘restored’, to mean reconciled to God.

To be absolutely clear on this point: there is no specific Church dogma that definitively declares the damned are punished eternally. In fact, glorified saints such as Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Isaac the Syrian explicitly taught universalism and held universalist positions until they died, and have not been condemned by the Church.

I emphasize this because when you wade into online discussions of universalism versus infernalism, the argument via doctrine is by far the most common problem infernalist argument you see. Sadly many people see this argument then simply take it at face value that their church believes the damned will be tortured forever, not being bothered enough by that teaching to actually check for themselves.

So again, in terms of actual church doctrine, just like with interpretation of Scripture, we have a somewhat murky picture in which neither the universalist or infernalist position clearly wins out.

I’ll add as well that at least in the Orthodox tradition, church doctrine is not strictly binding forever and ever as it is in the Catholic church. The councils are not perfectly infallible. Through consensus and the living tradition of the Church, our dogmas and doctrines can be updated as new information or revelations come out.

So even if there was a strong consensus that infernalism was what a council taught, it could be changed!

Sadly, many ‘Orthobros’ in America have converted from Protestant backgrounds where “sola scriptura,” or a strict black and white, legalistic understanding of the faith, is the default worldview. Even after conversion, this way of seeing the faith is carried over, and they tend to try and use church councils as a bludgeon, with a liberal use of the words “heresy” and “heretic.”

You’d think if they cared so strictly about the rules they would let the bishops decide who was heretical instead of taking it upon themselves, but that’s how it goes on the internet.

Meaninglessness or the Noble Lie

Finally I will give a notable mention to another couple of arguments.

The first goes something like: “life has no meaning if there isn’t eternal punishment.”

Another argument is that the doctrine of eternal hell acts as some sort of “Noble Lie,” where it’s not really true, but the masses just aren’t ready to understand the truth and they will act up if they learn that they’ll eventually go to heaven.

Speaking about universal salvation online, I’ve gotten well over a dozen responses forwarding these lines of belief. They aren’t very compelling to me, so my only guess here is that these people have a misunderstanding of the actual universalist position.

When a universalist argues that God will reconcile all things in the end, they are not saying that hell doesn’t exist. Instead, simply that hell is not eternal.

For instance, if you have somebody really bad like an unrepentant serial killer die and go to hell, they may be there a long, long time. Perhaps hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, subjectively. That still constitutes an extremely strong reason to avoid sin, and work out your salvation! Just because hell isn’t fully, forever eternal, does not mean hell has no value as a deterrent.

Eternity, forever, infinite, etc. are complicated concepts, and it makes sense as to why people wouldn’t really grok it or be able to reason about it well. Heck, I don’t even understand it fully, and there are some tricky arguments about how true Eternity is “outside of time” that make eternal punishment make sense. I don’t want to get into that here.

In conclusion, if you are a Christian of any stripe, even Orthodox or Catholic, and you want to hope for universal salvation, you are well within your rights to do so. No church has explicitly condemned it, and there are very good reasons to believe it. As I owned up to in the beginning of this article, I see it as a requirement to satisfy my own moral intuitions about the goodness of God. How could a loving Father create children in His own image knowing many, or even most, are condemned to eternal torture?

Be warned however that if you decide to hope for universal salvation, you may want to keep it close to your chest. The infernalist position tends to correlate with extremely dogmatic, rigorist, and frankly spiteful believers who are often extremely difficult to have open and productive conversations with. I’d caution you against arguing too much, unless you’re like me, and simply can’t help yourself.

All this being said, I also want to emphasize the fact that not all universalists are going to heaven, and not all infernalists are going to hell. Having the ‘right belief’ does not give us a free pass. We must love one another, and purify our hearts to the best of our ability. As a wise friend cautioned me during this discussion:

Where is the heart? are there tears of longing for light, and love, and holiness, for the capacity to heal others? on either side of the universalist/infernalist debate, there are people whose hearts are longing for God, and people who are just manipulating words with pride and worshipping their minds.

I hope this article has been helpful or at least interesting for you, and may we all move our hearts closer to God.

Shapes in the Fog is a reader-supported publication. Subscribe, or you’ll go to hell forever! (Just kidding)

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can't tell you how much I agree. I came to the same conclusion a few years back, persuaded by similar arguments. I have some notes. First, your section on aiōniois is pretty good, but you could make a stronger case by also mentioning Romans 16:25:

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past

The greek translation of the word "ages" here is aiōniois. A lot of bible "original word" explainers will translate this directly as being eternal, but that can't possibly be right - Paul is clearly speaking about a finite time here.

A few people elsewhere have mentioned that this whole thing stems from a desire to make Christianity conform to our own flawed internal morals. If the charge is laid against me, I can't dismiss it. I have to question the premise instead. My whole morality is informed by Christianity, without it I'd have to build morals out of, what, evolutionary psychology? And from within the moral system of Christianity, I'm seeing a contradiction. God is supposedly a grand orchestrator with a perfect plan that will make everything all right in the end if we will only trust it. Yet if we take the Infernalist teachings of an eternal hell at face value, God is going to fumble and let not only some, but most of His children be lost forever. We're supposed to be fighting for the winning side, but satan is going to get the larger portion of humanity?

Once you look past the authorities and their grand proclamations of Hell being eternal, most of the arguments for how a benevolent God could possibly allow such a thing strike me as weak - even the higher quality arguments proposed by great figures like CS Lewis don't stand up to scrutiny. It ultimately comes down to whose authority you trust, and the original scriptures muddled through the lens of our modern English translations.

I'm afraid I can't say I trust the Catholic or Orthodox churches on this point. I've spent some time looking into the state of Universalism in the early Christian church, a history you touched on in the comments on Origen. My view is mostly informed by this document [WARNING: Long and dry read, I don't expect commenters to read this], which argues that Universalism was a majority or at least commonplace view in the early church. If that's right, then the whole thing reeks of a doctrine endorsed for social engineering purposes. The early Catholic church is ascendant, they're taking more power in the Roman empire, they need to think more about how to keep the peasants in line... oh, hello there Augustine! We don't know enough to say for sure that's what happened, but there's enough things pointing in that direction to construct a narrative.

In the end, however we argue about it, we'll meet God one day and have to accept the truth, whatever it turns out to be. Thank you for posting this. I've really enjoyed your posts on your faith journey and would like to see more.

I can't tell you how much I agree. I came to the same conclusion a few years back, persuaded by similar arguments. I have some notes. First, your section on aiōniois is pretty good, but you could make a stronger case by also mentioning Romans 16:25:

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah I could've gone deeper into the Scriptural arguments, but I felt I had enough to at least question the premise that infernalism had to be right in an absolute sense. I know that it goes far deeper than what I laid out!

Once you look past the authorities and their grand proclamations of Hell being eternal, most of the arguments for how a benevolent God could possibly allow such a thing strike me as weak - even the higher quality arguments proposed by great figures like CS Lewis don't stand up to scrutiny. It ultimately comes down to whose authority you trust, and the original scriptures muddled through the lens of our modern English translations.

Very strongly agree. As I pointed out a couple times, a benevolent God torturing His creations for eternity just makes zero sense to me. The argument is always "but we need free will!" which I actually didn't cover here, to my chagrin, but that feels extremely weak to me as well. So God created us knowing many would choose eternal torment... that's still evil!

which argues that Universalism was a majority or at least commonplace view in the early church. If that's right, then the whole thing reeks of a doctrine endorsed for social engineering purposes.

I mean yeah it's obvious to me at least that the temporal church has been corrupted throughout history and used doctrine as a blunt instrument to force control onto people. I don't think any clear eyed Christian with a good grasp of history can argue any differently.

To me it helps that I'm Orthodox, as the official Orthodox position leaves a lot more room for the temporal church being fallible than the Catholic position does. You wouldn't know it interacting with many Orthobros online, but there is plenty of dissent amongst the Orthodox church about the decisions of the hierarchy. Orthodoxy is, by it's nature, far more democratic and council oriented than Rome, so it feels far more flexible and alive to me, in terms of doctrine.

In the end, however we argue about it, we'll meet God one day and have to accept the truth, whatever it turns out to be. Thank you for posting this. I've really enjoyed your posts on your faith journey and would like to see more.

Hey I really appreciate this sentiment! I have definitely hesitated at some points since a few folks seem to be kind of surprised or even offended I'm posting it here. But I have also gotten enough positive feedback that I feel it makes sense to share here.

I'll second that I also appreciate these posts :)