TeddyAg0422 said:
Both sides have supporters, but there's relatively so few supporting universalism rather than ECT. There are maybe 8 to 10 early fathers supporting universalism (and it's maybe even thought these were more ambiguous on the matter rather than supporting it outright). On the other hand, there are easily at least 30+ fathers that taught ECT, either implicitly or explicitly. ECT has been by far and away the most popular view Hell throughout the entire existence of Christianity.
I know there's also the opinion that the eastern fathers were more open to universalists ideas. While this is true when comparing them to the west, ECT was still the popular view in the east. Out of 30 major eastern fathers, only ~8 supported universalism. In the west, the only argument that could really be made would be for Ambrose, but that doesn't work; Ambrose took a similar view to how Pope Francis did recently where they said they'd like to hope Hell is empty.
I can handle ECT if the belief is people choose hell themselves via free will. Like CS Lewis and the majority of Christian theologians and Christian denominations.
I can not handle ECT hell without free will choice of people created by a loving Father.
And I believe the majority of church fathers who believed in ECT hell would agree with me.
I will also say that I believe ECT hell has less Scriptural suppprt than annihilationism and possibly even Christian Universalism. Lots of eisegeses going on.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full
Medical Disclaimer.