Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Homer]

Steve,

I am busy now helping someone with research who is teaching on another subject. Thanks for the list of scriptures; Lord willing I will reply to each of them soon.

Homer

[steve]

There is no reason for God to tell us anything about postmortem repentance—for the simple reason that God has never wished to hold that out as an option to people. Whether He will allow postmortem repentance or not is not among the subjects that God would wish for people to be considering, when weighing their options. The Bible is not written to tell us about heaven nor who will get there (despite the contrary assumption, apparently, of almost all Christians). There is almost nothing in the Bible at all about either heaven or hell. The people of God are not encouraged to focus on these things, but on the kingdom of God and our participation in it. That's now. That's relevant to life. The scriptures do not spend much ink talking about impractical matters of idle curiosity, but on those things which pertain to our assignment here (see Deut.29:29). The believer is to concentrate on doing the will of God, and trust God with the matters of the afterlife—a subject about which almost nothing is told us.

Since God has told us almost nothing about the afterlife, it is no surprise that He would not have written a chapter on postmortem repentance, even if such is a real possibility. What God has told us about is Himself (see Jer.9:23-24). On this subject, we have hundreds of pages of biblical text. It is on this matter—the character of God—that the fate of those who die in unbelief rests. There are certainly three or four times as many texts about Gods intention to reconcile all things to Himself than can be marshaled by those wishing to support the idea of a God that hates deceased sinners enough to torment them needlessly and purposelessly for eternity. What God may do, specifically, in the matter of judging the lost is not in my domain. I do care about what kind of God we represent Him as in our own thoughts and in our presentations to the world.

If God really loves all people, sent Christ to die for all people, has defeated and undone the works of the devil, is unchanging in His character (both before and after we die), then for us to represent Him as an evil God—much more like Hitler, or the devil, than like Jesus Christ—can be little else than blasphemous slander. The only thing that can be said for "erring on the side of severity" in our thinking about God is that doing so may influence people who have no genuine love for God to pretend to convert, for the sake of saving their own skin from unthinkable evil that God has chosen to bring upon those who offend Him and do not have the good fortune of having been saved before dying. If this is seen as an advantage of the view, you can have it. To me, that is a detriment to real salvation of sinners and transmogrifies the picture that the scriptures give of God into an unrecognizable substitute.

On the other hand, if we should accidentally err on the side of God's infinite mercy and abounding grace, we will at least have presented God in the most glorious light possible (is it possible to glorify Him too much?)and will have the support of the whole of scripture on our side. If I am found to have elevated God's love and grace too much, I can not imagine Him finding this objectionable! I could hardly exceed the New Testament in doing so, and glorifying God is always safer than insulting Him. On the basis os such scriptures as I presented in the former post, I should hardly fear standing before God and saying, "I only said what your word declared to be true over and over again. I assumed you said what you meant."

On the other hand, if I were wrongly to present to the lost the monstrous God of the Medieval Christianity (the one who created the eternal torture chamber for those enemies that He pretended to love during their brief lifetimes, but who pulls off the mask and reveals His true hatred toward them after they die), and were found to be wrong, I could not even claim that I had any solid scripture that I was following. I could only plead, "But God, despite all that you said about your love for sinners, the Church said you were a vindictive evil God (not in those exact words, of course, but by clear implication nonetheless)." I would expect for God to say to me, "Didn't you notice Jesus?" I fear that I would stand without excuse—a guilty slanderer against His character, despite the overwhelming testimony of scripture and of Christ.

Francis Chan, in his book defending the traditional view of hell, has repeatedly said, "We can not afford to be wrong on this subject." In this I agree wholeheartedly with him. We and our hearers get only one chance to know God and please Him in this life, and our misrepresentation of Him to the masses for whom Christ died is not an option. It is the greatest indignity to God, and may prove to rank among the worst possible crimes a Christian can commit.

[Homer]

Steve, I can scarcely believe you write these things:

If God really loves all people, sent Christ to die for all people, has defeated and undone the works of the devil, is unchanging in His character (both before and after we die), then for us to represent Him as an evil God—much more like Hitler, or the devil, than like Jesus Christ—can be little else than blasphemous slander.

If the traditional view is true, you have judged God as being evil.

The only thing that can be said for "erring on the side of severity" in our thinking about God is that doing so may influence people who have no genuine love for God to pretend to convert, for the sake of saving their own skin from unthinkable evil that God has chosen to bring upon those who offend Him and do not have the good fortune of having been saved before dying.

And of course those in hell will have no incentive for a pretend conversion. Incredible.

On the other hand, if we should accidentally err on the side of God's infinite mercy and abounding grace, we will at least have presented God in the most glorious light possible (is it possible to glorify Him too much?)and will have the support of the whole of scripture on our side. If I am found to have elevated God's love and grace too much, I can not imagine Him finding this objectionable! I could hardly exceed the New Testament in doing so, and glorifying God is always safer than insulting Him.

Again, if universalism is not true, you have just insulted Him. Your idea of what He must be to be is the measuring stick by which God will come up short in your eyes.

I should hardly fear standing before God and saying, "I only said what your word declared to be true over and over again. I assumed you said what you meant."

You assumed He said what your opinion has lead you to believe, which is contrary to the belief of the majority of Christians throughout church history.

On the other hand, if I were wrongly to present to the lost the monstrous God of the Medieval Christianity (the one who created the eternal torture chamber for those enemies that He pretended to love during their brief lifetimes, but who pulls off the mask and reveals His true hatred toward them after they die), and were found to be wrong, I could not even claim that I had any solid scripture that I was following.

The Medieval Christianity? Have you not read Justin Martyr, circa 150AD? Even when it was pointed out right here on this forum? Did He believe in a monstrous God? Poor ignorant Justin, and Irenaeus. Where did they get those ideas! And so soon after the apostles.

It is the greatest indignity to God, and may prove to rank among the worst possible crimes a Christian can commit.

At least you think (maybe you do, you keep a disclaimer handy) that traditional Christians will have a chance to repent in the hell you imagine. At least those of us who believe there is a final judgement but are unsure of annihilation or the traditional view may have a chance.

Brother, I pray you will be a little more cautious in what you say. I certainly would not want to say some of what you have written.

[psimmond]

Steve said...

The Bible is not written to tell us about heaven nor who will get there (despite the contrary assumption, apparently, of almost all Christians).

The Bible wasn't written to tell us about heaven nor who will get there, but it does tell us who will get there and how.

Steve, one thing I've always loved about listening to your talks or reading your articles is your fairness. In an earlier reply on this thread you said "if somebody were to raise an illogical argument against the traditional view, I think you would find that I would take that person to task as well." However, your 1488 post seems a bit unbalanced.

I've read your post several times and it sure seems you are saying that the traditional view--which says that those who reject Christ will spend eternity in a place of suffering--makes God out to be evil or monstrous, a God who only pretends to love everyone. Is this really what you believe?

You've said that for at least 30 years of your adult ministry you were committed to the traditional view. Did you believe then that God was just pretending to love everyone, that He was evil, or that He tormented deceased sinners needlessly and purposelessly for eternity because He hated them?

I hope I've misunderstood your reply and that you weren't saying these things about the traditional view that is accepted by millions of Bible-believing Christians.

(I'm a bit concerned that you might think you're being ganged up on with my reply coming directly after Homer's. That's not my intent. I guess I'm just feeling a bit shocked by what you said because it seems out of character and I'm hoping you will clarify.)

[steve7150]

The only thing that can be said for "erring on the side of severity" in our thinking about God is that doing so may influence people who have no genuine love for God to pretend to convert, for the sake of saving their own skin from unthinkable evil that God has chosen to bring upon those who offend Him and do not have the good fortune of having been saved before dying.

And of course those in hell will have no incentive for a pretend conversion. Incredible.




One immediate significant difference that jumps out to me is that the "god of this age" who "blinds the minds of unbelievers" (2nd Cor 4.4) will have first been thrown into the lake of fire before the great white throne judgment day. Therefore unbelievers will have no other God to deceive them away from Christ. Additionally the curses God put on the earth because of Adam's sin be gone, so with curses and blindness gone we may find unbelievers to be surprisingly willing to be repentent, particularly since Paul said "every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess Christ as Lord." I have heard the greek word for "confess" excludes coersion. Lastly i want to point out that God seems to be very big on symbolism and the judgment throne is white which to me suggests a good outcome as opposed to a blackthrone judgment which may have symbolized a negative outcome.

[psimmond]

steve7150, I see what you're saying and you could be right. If you're right, it seems the story would go like this...

God creates a world in which there is a universal curse and on top of that a powerful being who blinds all men. He rewards those who defy the odds and come to believe in him despite these obstacles. Everyone else is given another chance but this time God makes it easy by removing the obstacles. Presumably, those who pass this second dumbed-down test will receive a lesser position in God's kingdom.

It's possible, but based on what I've read in the Bible, it doesn't seem probable.

BTW, I also believe the outcome from God's judgment will be good, but we have to be careful that we don't try to define good as an outcome that I find agreeable.

[Roberto]

IF Christ died for every human person, wouldn't there have to be post mortem salvation for those that died before His death? For instance, presumably Christ died for all the rebellious enemies of God (Pharaoh, for instance) prior to His arrival on the planet. For that death to be applied to anybody pre Incarnation, wouldn't repentance be necessary?

[jriccitelli]

One immediate significant difference that jumps out to me is that;
This was not Satan’s test, it was ours.
People sin, and this world does not seem to have much more purpose for people than for God to test them. Satan was simply a test, to see if we would fall for a lie, rather than listen to God. If someone fails the test, they failed the test. If you missed the test, does God have a makeup test? Maybe? But nothing in scripture would imply a second test.

I think the ‘White’ Throne speaks of Gods ‘Holy’ Judgments.

It is a Judgment throne, what would a judgment throne be without judgments? What then is the point?
If I paid the sin debt of every single crook and criminal of all history, released them all, would they all love me, what lesson would I have taught them?
What lesson would that be to those who really loved me, and believed me, and denied themselves to keep my laws?
I think way to much is read into Romans 14:11, Isaiah certainly has an attitude of a judgment, and Paul uses this as an argument to warn people of an impending ‘judgement’
“For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God… so then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:10-12)
I can't believe this 'account' amounts to nothing, if the judgment renders it all meaningless, you might as well not have had a judgment.

[Roberto]

If universalism, IS true, Homer, is it possible that the traditional view insults Him? Did the persection of heretics by the church (apparently Augustine and Calvin approved of such) insult God? Surely it is possible for the church in its' traditions to insult God.

[steve7150]

It is a Judgment throne, what would a judgment throne be without judgments? What then is the point?
If I paid the sin debt of every single crook and criminal of all history, released them all, would they all love me, what lesson would I have taught them?
What lesson would that be to those who really loved me, and believed me, and denied themselves to keep my laws?




Of course there are judgments, of course we reap what we sow. No one said there are not judgments. The point of the judgments however is not what the traditional church has taught, which is eternal torment but that through God's judgments He reconciles man to Himself and in the process accomplishes His will.
I have no idea what his judgments might be only that they will be just.