A QUESTION or two TO UNIVERSALISTS

[steve]

Harry Blamires, a pupil of C.S. Lewis, though technically advocating the eternal consciousness view of hell, seems to confirm Suzana's point, in his book, Knowing the Truth About Heaven and Hell:

Are we wicked for feeling that [the Nazi leaders who escaped punishment after the war by committing suicide] certainly ought to have paid a price? After all, this feeling does not necessarily have anything to do with the impulse to get revenge for injury that we have suffered personally. We need not have been directly harmed by the war. We need not have had relatives among those tortured and killed by the Gestapo to feel convinced that a price should be paid...

If we have any love at all for our battered, bleeding neighbor, we shall insist that those who willfully struck her down should get to know and to feel exactly what they have done. That is, or ought to be, the nature of punishment. The suffering is a consequence or a by-product of learning what you have done, in short effacing the truth. That is why we said that justice, love, and truth demand punishment...

A Hitler, a Himmler, an Eichmann, or a Stalin can only die once. At their death there may be a sense of satisfaction that the world has been cleansed of their presence. But there is no conviction that they have faced a true reckoning of what they have done to others. Justice and truth demand that they should...

Blamires' mentor, C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Problem of Pain, also spoke to this concern:

the evil man must not be left perfectly satisfied with his own evil, that it must be made to appear to him what it rightly appears to others—evil…Picture to yourself a man who has risen to wealth or power by a continued course of treachery and cruelty, by exploiting for purely selfish ends the noble motions of his victims, laughing the while at their simplicity; who, having thus attained success, uses it for the gratification of lust and hatred and finally parts with the last rag of honour among thieves by betraying his own accomplices and jeering at their last moments of bewildered disillusionment. Suppose, further, that he does all this, not (as we like to imagine) tormented by remorse or even misgiving, but eating like a schoolboy and sleeping like a healthy infant—a jolly, ruddy-cheeked man, without a care in the world, unshakably confident to the very end that he alone has found the answer to the riddle of life, that God and man are fools whom he has got the better of, that his way of life is utterly successful, satisfactory, unassailable. We must be careful at this point. The least indulgence of the passion for revenge is very deadly sin. Christian charity counsels us to make every effort for the conversion of such a man: to prefer his conversion, at the peril of our own lives, perhaps of our own souls, to his punishment; to prefer it infinitely. But that is not the question. Supposing he will not be converted, what destiny in the eternal world can you regard as proper for him? Can you really desire that such a man, remaining what he is (and he must be able to do that if he has free will) should be confirmed forever in his present happiness—should continue, for all eternity, to be perfectly convinced that the laugh is on his side? And if you cannot regard this as tolerable, is it only your wickedness—only spite—that prevents you from doing so? Or do you find that conflict between Justice and Mercy, which has sometimes seemed to you such an outmoded piece of theology, now actually at work in your own mind, and feeling very much as “it came to you from above, not from below? You are moved not by a desire for the wretched creature’s pain as such, but by a truly ethical demand that, soon or late, the right should be asserted, the flag planted in this horribly rebellious soul, even if no fuller and better conquest is to follow. In a sense, it is better for the creature itself, even if it never becomes good, that it should know itself a failure, a mistake. Even mercy can hardly wish to such a man his eternal, contented continuance in such ghastly illusion. Thomas Aquinas said of suffering, as Aristotle had said of shame, that it was a thing not good in itself; but a thing which might have a certain goodness in particular circumstances. That is to say, if evil is present, pain at recognition of the evil, being a kind of knowledge, is relatively good; for the alternative is that the soul should be ignorant of the evil, or ignorant that the evil is contrary to its nature, ‘either of which’, says the philosopher, ‘is manifestly bad’.’ And I think, though we tremble, we agree.
The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good.

[Todd]

Suzanna and Steve,

I understand what you are saying (or quoting), and you may have a point, but I would think that the number of men who are truly evil like that would be very few. It seems to me that most people are just trying their best without intentionally doing others harm. While they may not profess Christianity, they are still subject to Christ's Spirit who works in the hearts of all men (all things have been made subject to Christ). Certainly God has a provided a way for these in the after-life to be reconciled to Him, IMO.

Todd

[mdh]

Steve,

While I can understand why someone on this side of the final judgment and living in a mortal body might feel the evil person needed to come to realize how wrong he was and feel some of the remorse and pain he caused others, I am struggling with understanding why someone who had experienced the healing power of God, who had been raised incorruptible, who had seen how God had used the pain and struggles of this life to mold him into the Christ-like person we expect to be in the resurrection, how that person would still feel the need for the evil person to know they were wrong. For the evil person to be resurrected, punished, given no opportunity to repent/be corrected, and then to be finally extinguished. That is what we are talking about, is that right? We are trying to understand the conditional immortality view that the wicked are raised to life to be shown that they are wrong, punished for a period of time deemed proper for the wrongs they have done, and then "put out of their misery".

Now if you told me that the view held that these wicked persons would be granted the right to repent, be corrected and reconciled to the people they had wronged, I could understand that. And only if they refused to repent, then be annihilated, that I could also understand. (I might argue that it is hard to imagine someone who had been shown the truth refusing to repent given a long period of correction and exposure to the loving judgments of our Creator!)

What I do not understand is why God, or any righteous person, who had an eternity of blessed life to look forward to, would want to see those who had done (H)him wrong punished with no corrective purpose. This makes no sense to me.

Now I admit my view is limited, and when I am raised to life and all things are made known to me, this view may seem just. But as of now, I do not understand it.

Blessings,
Mike

[steve]

Mike and Todd,

I appreciate your sentiments, and share them, in large part. Mike, I suppose the belief in annihilation would not of necessity exclude the option of post-mortem repentance and restoration. There could still be annihilation of those who refused to repent. You and Todd and I can hardly imagine people being that wicked, because it is so contrary to the way we ourselves are motivated, but even if most unbelievers are of a mind that they would repent after death, this does not mean that there are no individuals whose hatred and rebellion are total and unchangeable. I can not imagine such people, because I imagine (but have no way of knowing) that even monsters like Hitler and Stalin were probably, in some measure, confused and insecure little boys in grown-up bodies, who chose cruelty and power as a means of insulating themselves from the things they feared. On the other hand, this idea could be total psychobabble. There are some little boys who seem gratuitously nasty and evil, almost from infancy. We tend to generously assume that all men must have in them a bit of that humanity that we know to be in ourselves. This assumption cannot be proven or disproved until the final judgment. God will certainly know.

[Paidion]

I fully agree with you, Mike. In addition, I would like to point out the following:

It seems that in desiring punishment for those who have committed great sins, people want to see the offenders punished, not just so that they will realize how wrong their actions have been and how much they have hurt others, as Suzana has pointed out, but they desire the offenders' punished for a reason which goes beyond that.

I know Christian people who want to see even a Christian offender punished, a Christian who sinned many years ago and has repented (had a change of mind and heart) and has turned from his sin and been delivered by the power of God through the grace of Christ. They do not simply want the offender to see how much he has hurt another, for the offender has been fully aware of that for years, but they want something more. What is this "something more"?

They hold a forensic view of punishment. If you have committed sin A, you ought to receive punishment B. For what purpose? No purpose other than the fact that you have committed sin A, and sin A should always be followed by punishment B. This was C.S. Lewis's view of punishment. He believed wrongdoing should be punished only because the wrongdoer "deserves the punishment ". But what is meant by saying the wrongdoer "deserves the punishment"? Nothing more that saying that he committed a particular sin which should be followed by a fitting punishment.

The "pickaxe murderess" is a classic example. She discovered her lover alseep in bed with another woman, and she killed them both with a pickaxe. She became a disciple of Christ in prison. Her whole countenance changed. In a video, I saw her prior to her conversion. She looked ugly, dead, and repulsive. After she submitted to Christ, she looked alive and beautiful. She knew she would probably be put to death (there was capital punishment in that state) but she said that in the time she had left, she just wanted praise Jesus and thank Him for delivering her from sin. A psychiatrist said she was no longer psychologically capable of killing again. Nevertheless, she was sentenced to death, and a great crowd gathered, jeering and calling for her death, a crowd who delighted to watch her die.

Unhappily, many of us hold the view that God holds to this forensic view of punishment --- that He believes sin "deserves" to be punished, and that He will carry out that punishment for all who sinned by tormenting them forever --- except that He has provided "a way out" for us by sending Christ to die in their place. If we "accept the substitutionary death on our behalf", then God will be blinded to our sin when He looks upon us, but see only Christ's righteousness. So Christ took the sinners' punishment for them, so that sinners can get off scott free. (I can use the expression "scott free" with impunity since I have Scotch ancestors). Thus God took great delight in seeing His Son tortured to death ("It pleased the Lord to bruise Him) because it "satisfied" His great sense of "perfect justice". (For the true view of God's justice, read the chapter entitled "Justice" in George MacDonald's UNSPOKEN SERMONS series three).

In my opinion, the main purpose of punishment is to correct the unrepentant offender. Certainly understanding the seriousness of his sin would be an integral part of that correction. I believe that is the way God sees punishment, and we ought to see it the same way.

There is also the aspect of deterrence in punishment. The deterrence factor should also be integrated into any good theory of punishment as well.

As I see it in the New Testament, the purpose of Christ's death was not to satisfy the justice of a perfect God, but to deliver us from sin --- to change our characters through regeneration. As Peter put it, Christ died "that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."
God is not interested in doing something about our past sin, but about dealing with our "present live sins" as George MacDonald put it. MacDonald also wrote:

"No one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him. If hell be needful to save him, hell will blaze, and the worm will writhe and bite, until he takes refuge in the will of the Father. 'Salvation from hell' is salvation as conceived by such to whom hell and not evil is the terror...

"Not for anything he has committed do they threaten a man with the outer darkness. Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them need he dread remaining unforgiven. The sin he dwells in, the sin he will not come out of, is the sole ruin of a man. His present, live sins --- those pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, and clings to; the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are they for which he is even now condemned..."

Chapter 1 "Salvation from Sin" of The Hope of the Gospel by George MacDonald

[mdh]

Steve,

Mike and Todd,

I appreciate your sentiments, and share them, in large part. Mike, I suppose the belief in annihilation would not of necessity exclude the option of post-mortem repentance and restoration. There could still be annihilation of those who refused to repent. You and Todd and I can hardly imagine people being that wicked, because it is so contrary to the way we ourselves are motivated, but even if most unbelievers are of a mind that they would repent after death, this does not mean that there are no individuals whose hatred and rebellion are total and unchangeable. I can not imagine such people, because I imagine (but have no way of knowing) that even monsters like Hitler and Stalin were probably, in some measure, confused and insecure little boys in grown-up bodies, who chose cruelty and power as a means of insulating themselves from the things they feared. On the other hand, this idea could be total psychobabble. There are some little boys who seem gratuitously nasty and evil, almost from infancy. We tend to generously assume that all men must have in them a bit of that humanity that we know to be in ourselves. This assumption cannot be proven or disproved until the final judgment. God will certainly know.

There is nothing in your above quote I disagree with. Especially your final sentence about not being able to prove/disprove these things until all becomes clear at the final judgment.

My "philosophy" in reaching my current belief system is simple. I use the term philosophy intentionally, realizing that our brother Homer finds most all arguments of people like me to be wishful thinking and philosophical in nature.

I have considered the various views on the final state of the lost and read the arguments on both sides. You and I have personally discussed some of these arguments in the past. You may remember when we first met I was very passionate (perhaps even angry) when the subject of eternal torment came up. I suspect you have noticed more recently that I am more at peace over this issue, and willing to wait for final resolution on "the last day".

Anyway, I have come to peace based on my following assumptions:

1) God, when He was creating the universe, chose the best possible of all the plans from which He had to choose. He did not choose plan B. He had plan A, the best of all possible creations. It may not always look like it, but the dust hasn't settled, the final card hasn't been played. The end is not in doubt, although the end is not (from our perspectives) visible with our limited understanding and vision.

2) A plan where all people are reconciled with God and each other in the end is a better plan than one where some are not reconciled and/or some have had to be eliminated.

3) God is able to bring about Plan A to its glorious conclusions.

Now I fully acknowledge my limited ability to understand all that goes into God's determining what is the best possible plan, and that my judgment is fallible and prone to misreading the available data based on my preconceived notions. (I suspect this is true of all of us).

Anyway, it helps me go to sleep at night!

Blessings, my friend.
Mike

[Suzana]

...For the evil person to be resurrected, punished, given no opportunity to repent/be corrected, and then to be finally extinguished. That is what we are talking about, is that right? We are trying to understand the conditional immortality view that the wicked are raised to life to be shown that they are wrong, punished for a period of time deemed proper for the wrongs they have done, and then "put out of their misery".

Hi guys,

About the discussion of the previous few (excellent) posts (while I was sleeping), I just wish to clarify my own stance – in this particular musing, I was actually not envisaging any other additional punishment meted out, apart from final annihilation –

“I don’t agree it would be pointless to have them raised just to be annihilated;”

I understand there are differing views within the CI belief – that there may or may not be a suitable period of punishment before extinction.

As I’ve stated before, I personally can’t see the value of this non-corrective punishment. I do however still feel (maybe just intuitively) that (if CI is the true view) there should be an official day in court, rather than merely letting the dead remain dead. I don’t know why it would be necessary, & we may not even care at that point, but it may be required by God’s system of justice.

I think I agree with what Glenn Peoples said:

“Edward Fudge says (in person) that his take on annihilationism allows for the possibility of the lost being punished to whatever extent justice requires before they are no more - but his view doesn't require it. It just leaves open that possibility.

I don't believe this will happen. In fact I think it introduces considerable confusion over what the punishment for sin really is. The punishment is death, or loss of life. So no amount of other kinds of unpleasantness will do anything at all as far as justice is concerned. If the annihilationist case draws so much strength (and it does) from the biblical proclamation that the wages of sin is death, we really undermine that strength by suggesting that the lost might receive the wages of sin before they are finally destroyed. This just caves into the traditionalist notion that the wages of sin is extended suffering.

However, I realise my understanding is fallible & probably won’t know what will happen in the end until it happens. I hope universal reconciliation is what eventuates. (So far only Paidion seems to be fully convinced he has a correct understanding regarding the end plan).
But regarding eternal torment, I know God is sovereign and can do as He pleases, I just think this view seriously maligns God’s revealed character.

[Jim]

Why not adopted the EO view of hell? Everyone is raised, those who hate God will be tormented within because of His great love for them leading, while those who love God will rejoice and praise God.

[Suzana]

Why not adopted the EO view of hell? Everyone is raised, those who hate God will be tormented within because of His great love for them leading, while those who love God will rejoice and praise God.

I'm feeling a bit dim this morning. What does EO stand for?

[SteveF]

I'm feeling a bit dim this morning. What does EO stand for?

I don't know what it stands for either Suzana. I'm interested to find out.