“For the Church,” avers Christos Yannaras, “sin is not a legal but an existential fact. It is not simply a transgression, but an active refusal on man’s part to be what he truly is: the image and ‘glory,’ or manifestation, of God.”1 Sin cannot be properly understood through the conceptual lens of the violation of a legal code, for the Father of Jesus Christ is not a moral despot. He is interested neither in rewarding the virtuous nor punishing the wicked, as demonstrated by the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate Son on the cross. “For I did not come to judge the world,” declares the Savior ..read more

Absolute predestination! This is the topic I have been leading up to from the beginning of this series. It has just taken me longer to reach it than I anticipated. But here we are—finally. I deem predestination to be the crucial test for the coherence of Matthews Grant’s account of divine causality and dual sources. As you know, I have been a supporter of double agency for two decades and have read many different treatments—it’s the only explanation of divine and creaturely agency that makes sense to me—but no one I have read has attempted what Grant has—namely, to articulate a philosophicall ..read more

How likely is it that philosophers who espouse libertarian free will will find the Thomist construal of double agency convincing, despite the brilliance of my previous articles?1 Probably as likely as hitting four of a kind on the river. In the dual sources account, God remains the transcendent and necessary cause of human actions. Even if a person phenomenologically judges that his or her actions fulfill the criteria of libertarian freedom, the fact remains that it could be a delusion generated by our simulation code. Libertarians will not accept a philosophical account that does not guarante ..read more

by Thomas Talbott, Ph.D. In an article entitled “The God of Love,”1 Professor Eleonore Stump argues that universalism, understood as “the thesis that God unilaterally brings it about that all human beings are brought to heaven,” is “not only not a consequence of God’s love; it is not so much as compatible with God’s love.” A lot here depends, of course, on what it might mean to say that “God unilaterally [my emphasis] brings it about that all human beings are brought to heaven.” For even as someone who believes in the metaphysical necessity of universalism, that is not a claim I would likely ..read more

Universalists do not, as a rule, deny Gehenna. Thomas Talbott is case in point. He believes that it is possible for human beings to reject God. Those who die in their rejection will find themselves in a post-mortem condition of suffering. We can describe this condition in various ways, but the one constant is suffering. To obdurately rebuff the mercy of God is to bring upon oneself judgment, privation, and misery. So far, Talbott stands in agreement with one of the foremost exponents of the choice model of hell, Jerry Walls. But Talbott then goes on to argue that perditional suffering will in ..read more

I actually enjoyed reading Fr James Dominic Rooney’s Facebook defense of Dr Eleonore Stump in response to my article “Predestined to Glory.”1 I found it clearly written and coherent. I also believe that he attempted a good faith response. For these two reasons, both Rooney and my readers deserve a rejoinder. Preliminaries First off, two points I wish to quickly address: 1) Rooney writes: Now, obviously, Stump rejects the possibility of theological determinism—as do I—and so Kimel’s objection fails to engage with the position. It is not plausibly the case that theological determinism is necess ..read more

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14-15) “Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’” (Matt 22:13) Unquenchable fire, outer darkness—two very different images, yet when held together in creative tension, they may hold the key to understanding the redemptive possibilities of Gehenna. Why is it, asks Thomas Talbott, th ..read more

God does not coerce! Without question, this is the most popular, and perhaps most powerful, objection raised against the universalist hope, at least in those circles where the retributive construal of damnation does not hold sway. God has given human beings the faculty of free will, the exercise of which requires genuine independence and autonomy. The roots of this position go back to the early centuries of the Church. As St John Chrysostom declares: Beloved, God being loving towards man and beneficent, does and contrives all things in order that we may shine in virtue, and as desiring that ..read more

by Thomas Talbott, Ph.D. In an article entitled “The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism,” recently published in Church Life Journal (18 October 2022), James Dominic Rooney argues that universalism is a serious heresy that Christians should clearly reject. He begins his article by men­tion­ing the controversy over whether the Second Council of Constantinople (more generally known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church in 553) really did condemn univer­sal­ism along with other doctrines, such as the pre-existence of the soul. But con­cern­ing that controversy, he suggests that ..read more

by Tom Belt, TE (theologian extraordinaire) Many thanks to Fr Adian for the invitation to share my views on the controversial subject of “free will.” I’m grateful for Fr Aidan’s friendship, the encouraging conversations we have, and his kindness in allowing me to win our first two chess matches. I’m not a professional philosopher, but I think it safe to say that there is nothing about the question of free will which is not contro­versial. And I’ll just state up front that I’m a liber­tarian. I’m also a universalist. For some these two beliefs make for strange brew, but I can’t here offer anyt ..read more