The Danger of Universalism

[Homer]

Hi Mike,

You wrote:

My personal view is that we reap in this lifetime AND in the age to come.

Do you have this opinion from experience/observation or some positive statement in scripture?

And:

Then in your view that this is speaking of post mortem judgment they should have trillions of years to spare

Not quite. The parable is about this life with application to how we live this life and what will happen if we do not heed his warning. I suspect they may not have a job :

John 9:4 (New King James Version)

4. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.

And:

Perhaps you are too confident of your opinion?

And perhaps you are correct. We tend to get that way when we do our homework, and sometimes when we don't!

And:

Sorry for going all over the place in my response. I am tired, but I enjoy the give and take.

No problem. You present your view well, and I have enjoyed our discussion as well. It is profitable to test our views. I have come to the place in this long discussion where I can see CI may well be true but the Universalist arguments haven't impressed me much, although it would be nice from my limited (human) view if true. Part of the problem with this subject (and open-theism) is that we see things from our perspective, which is necessarily limited.

God bless, Homer

[Paidion]

Jesus, in His deliberate choice of the number and denomination of the amount of debt owed to the King has described a monstrous debt, beyond conception to those who heard Him, and impossible to repay. The parallel in our lives is the montrous debt of sin we likewise can not pay.

There are numerous passages that speak of judgment for believers. Luke 12:43-48, 1 Cor 3:10-15 come to mind. Neither of these judgments are "eternal" and would appear (to me) to be intended to correct, rather than just "punish".

And if the parable is speaking of a brother in word only, then 1 Cor. 5:5 shows the judgment for this type of person, to be delivered to Satan, is so that the person might be saved.

In any case, my view is that the judgment spoken of in the Mt. 18 parable is intended to bring the person to the point of a changed heart. Which is what the Father's desire is according to verse 35 (ie: forgiveness with compassion).

I realize that judgment is without mercy to those who show no mercy (James 2:13). Yet I believe that God shows mercy, or severity (Romans 11), according to what we need. But as in the severity shown Israel in Romans 11, the goal is to bring to repentance so that they could be regrafted into the Olive tree.

Homer and Mike represent two different views of punishment. These theories are applied, not only to Christian and spiritual matters, but to the ways in which criminals, or even our children, are punished. The view we take is reflected in our attitudes toward people in many different areas of life. Both C.S. Lewis and his mentor George MacDonald stood on opposite sides of the fence in their views of punishment. The two theories are:

1. The retributive view of punishment.
This is the view that people ought to be punished because "they deserve to be punished". To say that they "deserve to be punished" is tantamount to saying they have broken a rule or law, and that certain punishments are assigned which are commensurate with the infraction of the rule or law. The concept is that the offender must "pay" for having broken the rule. To cause him to do so somehow provides "satisfaction" to those whom the offender has injured.

This is the main view ensconsed in our legal system. The criminal must "pay his debt to society" and provide "satisfactions" to his victims.

This view carries over into theology where sinners have a "debt of sin" which God requires them to "pay" (although it can never be paid) in hell, and so that's why hell must be eternal. However, Christ has "paid this debt" for us, and God's sense of legal justice is "satisfied" by Christ's payment.

2. The reformatory theory of punishment.
In this view, no one is ever really "satisfied" when a criminal "pays his debt to society" through imprisonment. Such punishment may give the victim a temporary elation by buttressing his sense of vengeance, but he is never "satisfied" by the punishment of the offender, and thus the punishment serves no lasting positive purpose.

According to this view, if the offender still has a propensity for doing wrong, he must be corrected or reformed. He may need counselling or the type of punishment that will lead to a permanent change, if not in his character, at least in his behaviour.

3. Deterrence
Most theories of punishment are compound and incorporate deterrence into their systems rather than holding to a simple theory such as the retributive theory or the reformatory theory.

The theory of punishment which we hold also seems to determine our soteriology. If we hold the retributive theory, then Christ's sacrifice is a legal transaction to appease the wrath of God and provide satisfaction to His sense of justice. Christ died in our place to save us from having to pay a debt which we can never repay, and thus we can avoid everlasting punishment. In this view, we have a kind of legal righteousness through Christ which is positional rather than actual.

If we hold to the reformative theory, then Christ's sacrifice was for the purpose of delivering us from sin ("salvation" means "deliverance"), a process in which we are being transformed into the image of Christ. God is interested in changing our character until at the coming of Christ, the finishing touches are placed upon us, and we will have become the perfected children of God for whose manifestation creation is groaning.

I think the bulk of NT teaching about salvation upholds the truth of Christ delivering us from sin. However, we can find Scripture in Romans which those holding the retributive theory see as portraying Christ's sacrifice as a legal transaction, and our righteousness as positional. Those holding the reformatory theory see these scriptures in a different light.

[mdh]

Hello again, Homer!

Hi Mike,

You wrote:

My personal view is that we reap in this lifetime AND in the age to come.

Do you have this opinion from experience/observation or some positive statement in scripture?

Both experience (my own ) and scripture. Romans 1 speaks of the judgment in this life of those who knew God but refused
to acknowledge Him as God. John 3 teaches us that thos who do not trust in Christ are already condemned, in that they prefer
darkness to light.

Then in your view that this is speaking of post mortem judgment they should have trillions of years to spare

Not quite. The parable is about this life with application to how we live this life and what will happen if we do not heed his warning. I suspect they may not have a job :

Perhaps I misunderstood you. In your dialogue with Steve on this subject you said:

Certainly we can agree that an unforgiving person can repent and be forgiven in this life. And if this is something Jesus had in mind in this parable, it is strange that He would not simply say so, which leads to the conclusion, in my mind at least, that the story is a warning regarding the final judgement, as Jeremias concludes.

Which led to my conclusion you felt that the judgment reference in the parable was to post-mortem. Sorry if I misunderstood.

And:

I have come to the place in this long discussion where I can see CI may well be true but the Universalist arguments haven't impressed me much, although it would be nice from my limited (human) view if true. Part of the problem with this subject (and open-theism) is that we see things from our perspective, which is necessarily limited.

I am aware that the universalist arguments do not impress you. Don't give up!


Blessings!
Mike

[Homer]

Hi Mike,

You wrote:

Then in your view that this is speaking of post mortem judgment they should have trillions of years to spare

My response:

Not quite. The parable is about this life with application to how we live this life and what will happen if we do not heed his warning. I suspect they may not have a job

And you responded:

Which led to my conclusion you felt that the judgment reference in the parable was to post-mortem. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I can see your confusion. To be clearer, I should have written:

The parable is about this life with application to how we live this life, and what will happen to each of us in the age to come, if we do not heed his warning.

The reference to them not having a job was in regard to the age to come.

And you wrote:

Which led to my conclusion you felt that the judgment reference in the parable was to post-mortem.

That is my belief.

Hope this clears up the confusion!

God bless, Homer