Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choosing Eternal Separation: Reply to Gwiazda

  • Reply
  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, in this journal, Jeremy Gwiazda has offered a critique of our separationist view of hell. His objection relies on two key assumptions, and we show in our reply that both assumptions can be denied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. To calculate the probability that Jones remains in hell over n number of choices, we take .999 to the nth power (on the assumption that we assign the same probability that Jones remains in hell for each choice). The larger the value of n is, the lower the probability that Jones remains.

  2. For more on the idea of tracing the responsibility for some determined choice or act to formative choices and actions in the past, see Kane (1996), 39–40.

  3. Pawl and Timpe (2009), 408 make a similar claim about the residents in heaven, such that their choice not to sin and to remain in bliss is determined by the character they formed in their earthly lives, and yet, they act freely and responsibly in heaven.

  4. The probability is 1 because such choices are determined by Jones’ freely formed character, yet the choice is nevertheless a free choice (see references in Footnotes 2 and 3). For a distinct defense of a similar claim, see Swinburne (1983).

References

  • Davis, S. T. (1990). Universalism, hell, and the fate of the ignorant. Modern Theology, 6, 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwiazda, J. (2011). On making the same choice eternally: a reply to Davis. Sophia, 50, 693–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawl, T., & Timpe, K. (2009). Incompatibilism, sin, and free will in heaven. Faith and Philosophy, 26, 396–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (1983). A Theodicy of Heaven and Hell. In A. Freddoso (Ed.), The existence and nature of God (pp. 37–54). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College, 850 Columbia Avenue, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Eric T. Yang & Stephen T. Davis

Authors
  1. Eric T. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen T. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric T. Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, E.T., Davis, S.T. Choosing Eternal Separation: Reply to Gwiazda. SOPHIA 54, 217–219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-014-0427-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-014-0427-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation