The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: a Transcendental Approach

1 The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: A Transcendental Approach By Daniel L. Broadstock BA (Hons), B.Ed A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2017 2 Abstract In this thesis I have applied a Kantian methodology to present a new approach to the problem of Hell. I have engaged with two leading perspectives in this debate, the ‘liberal doctrine of Hell’ and the doctrine of Universalism, and pursued dialogue with leading theologians of each view; Jerry Walls and Jurgen Moltmann respectively. The liberal model of Hell is a modern attempt to revitalise the doctrine by recasting its nature and purpose. Rather than an instrument for the punishment of sin, the liberal model interprets Hell as God’s response to human freedom. This theory holds that God has constituted human beings with free volition of the will and desires a free relationship with them. As it is possible to resist this invitation, he has also created Hell as a place of eternal separation for those who reject him. While the invitation of grace is never withdrawn, some will remain there forever. Universalism is the view that all human beings will be saved. I have sketched a general outline of these views, illustrating them with reference to arguments proposed by key thinkers in their respective fields. I conclude that they constitute an antinomy; an a priori dilemma abstract from experience and therefore unresolvable by philosophical reasoning. I suggest that the problem of Hell can be resolved by employing a theological adaptation of Kant’s transcendental idealism: eternal separation and universal salvation can both be true, if understood as compatible manifestations of different levels of reality and perception. 3 4 5 Acknowledgements I would like to express gratitude firstly to my supervisor, Dr. Sandy Yule. He has supported me with patient encouragement and gentle wisdom, leading my thinking in new and profitable directions. My thanks are also due to my parents, who taught me first about God’s love. They have supported and encouraged this project, whilst sensitively avoiding indelicate questions about its subject and the imminence of its deadline. I am grateful for the support of MCD University, and for the use of its excellent library. I owe thanks above all to God, who breathes life to reason. 6 Table of Contents Introduction 7 1. The Traditional View: Augustine and Arminius 23 2. Kant: Transcendental Idealism and the Postulates of Pure Practical Reason 33 3. The Liberal Doctrine of Hell: Jerry Walls 50 4. Universalism: Jurgen Moltmann 72 5. A Transcendental Approach to the Problem of Hell 92 Conclusion 121 Selected Bibliography 123 7 INTRODUCTION ‘Capricious’, ‘mean minded’, ‘utterly monstrous’. These are the words used by comedian Stephen Fry to describe God in an interview in February, 2015. Asked what he would say if he were confronted by God at his death, Fry replied, ‘I’d say, bone cancer in children? How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that's not our fault? It’s not right. It's utterly, utterly evil.’1 The philosophical term for this view is ‘anti-theism’ or ‘protest atheism’.2 Anti-theism is an expression of disbelief in God that goes beyond atheism. Where the atheist claims that there is inadequate evidence to justify belief in God, the anti-theist charges theism with moral abhorrence. Fry is suggesting that, even were he to discover that he was mistaken and that God existed and loved him, he would want nothing to do with him. He believes that the moral conditions by which God governs the world renders him unworthy of worship. For all the popular interest that interview generated, it was a modern restatement of an ancient criticism. Perhaps the most famous statement of anti-theism occurs in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. In the chapter named ‘Mutiny’ Ivan Karamazov passes judgement upon God. Like Fry, Ivan focuses his moral disgust upon the suffering of children. Ivan describes an atrocity practiced by Ottoman janissaries who would befriend children only to slaughter them before their mothers.3 For Ivan, no Christian theodicy can rationalize the existence of such evils; ‘Without it, they say, man would not be able to survive upon earth, for he would not know good from evil. Why recognize that devilish good-and-evil, when it costs so much? I mean, the entire universe of knowledge is not worth the tears of that little 1 Telegraph Reporter, "Stephen Fry's 'God Is Evil' Interview Shortlisted for Religious Award," The Telegraph, accessed 04/01/2016, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12200734/Stephen-Frys-God-is- evil-interview-shortlisted-for-religious-award.html. 2 Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 146. 3 Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. David McDuff (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), 312. 8 child addressed to “dear Father God”.’4 For Ivan, neither the damnation of wrongdoers in Hell nor even the coming of God in glory could atone for the suffering of a child. Neither the punishment of the sinner nor the reconciliation of perpetrator and victim can atone. The promise of future justice is not enough for him: I don’t want harmony. Out of a love for mankind I do not want it. I want rather to be left with sufferings that are unavenged. Let me rather remain with my unavenged sufferings and unassuaged indignation, even though I am not right. And in any case, harmony has been overestimated in value, we don’t have the money to pay so much to get in. And so I hasten to return my entry ticket.5 ‘That’s rebellion,’ says his brother Aloysha. Ivan does not want salvation, because to be saved is to consent. He is a conscientious objector: he would rather go to prison than acknowledge the authority of the court. In this, Ivan represents the paradigm of damnation suggested by the liberal doctrine of Hell: Hell is not the place to which God banishes human beings. Rather, Hell is the place from which human beings banish God. * The doctrine of Hell relies upon the conviction that humans can and will be held morally responsible for their actions. This in turn rests upon assumed frameworks of divine and human agency: God’s freedom to judge, and the genuine moral responsibility of human beings. Christian theologians have suggested varied interpretations of this agency, ranging from libertarian freedom expressed by both God and humanity, to absolute divine sovereignty, and any number of compatibilist models in between. Meanwhile, the popularity of any one interpretation of Hell has waxed and waned as our understanding of freedom and moral responsibility have contested and evolved. While the doctrine remains alive and well amongst a broad cross-section of theologians and believers, the concept itself has come under increasing attack on moral, theological and philosophical grounds from theists and atheists alike.6 A prominent view now held by those who defend the doctrine consists of a free will theodicy. In this view, for which 4 Ibid., 316. 5 Ibid., 320. 6 Jonathon L. Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3-23. 9 I use the term ‘The liberal doctrine of Hell’7, Hell is understood as God’s response to human freedom. It is merely the provision made for those who wish to be separate from God. While God desires the salvation of all, he will not compel the compliance of any human being to ensure this outcome. Instead, he sustains them in Hell, where they may enjoy the illusory satisfaction of self-worship. This is not a punishment, and the invitation to repentance and salvation is never withdrawn. But however long God pursues the damned, some will resist him forever. This view is a relatively modern response to an ancient dilemma. Given the relative youth of this view, it is timely to assess the current state of this debate, the arguments and chief premises of its protagonists, and the primary theological and philosophical traditions upon which it draws. Methodology The overall aim of this project will be to assess the claims of the liberal doctrine of Hell in the context of its dialogue with Universalism, and to suggest a possible solution to the controversy. I will sketch out the various theological claims and assumptions that animate these competing views, and assess the force of the arguments which they present. In order to illuminate the contours of this debate I will take Jerry Walls and Jurgen Moltmann as my primary dialogue partners, both of whom are prominent exponents of Liberalism and Universalism respectively.8 Wall’s relevant work, 'Hell: The Logic of Damnation' is, in my judgment, the most sustained and rigorous defense of the liberal doctrine of Hell to date.9 It incorporates a broad and representative range of arguments deployed by other theologians in this field. As a Universalist, Jurgen Moltmann constructs his soteriological framework upon interpretations of human freedom which differ sharply from Walls, and as such he will serve as a theological counterpoint to the libertarian defense of Hell. My investigation of the debate itself will be confined largely to my evaluation of these 7 John Kronen and Eric Reitan, God's Final Victory: A Comparative Case for Universalism, Blomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011), 127. 8 In this thesis, the term ‘liberal’ or ‘liberalism’ will refer narrowly to the Liberal doctrine of Hell, except where otherwise indicated.

Load more