My point is simply that, from the universalist's point of view, the traditionalist's image of God is indeed a monstrous mischaracterization—and in any analogy of children to their human fathers, we would expect the children to be incensed at such slanders being made against their good fathers. On the other hand, if God is, in fact, like the traditionalists represent Him, then I don't see how those who know this would be angry at those who mistakenly think He is even more loving than He is—unless it is possible to over-estimate the love of a God who would send His son to save a world of rebels.If the anger were coming from the other side, I would not find it so surprising, since one might reasonably be expected to be indignant when his father, whom he knows to be virtuous, is accused of being a monster. But why a person who sees his father as a severe judge would be angry at those who make the mistake of thinking him to be kind and generous, I cannot fathom.
I do not understand the underlined part of #6. It appears you are saying that the traditionalists have depicted God as a monster and do not see Him as loving and virtuous. I suspect much of the anger shown by traditionalists is because they think the Universalists see themselves as taking a much loftier position and having a much higher view of God, and being morally superior.
However, in your remarks above, you have suggested a solution to my perplexity. It seems the angry traditionalist is not jealous over the glory of God, but, according to what you have told me, he is angry over his hurt pride because of his perception that someone thinks themselves morally superior to himself. Yet (while pride may exist among universalists as well as anyone else), I do not see this as a righteous judgment to make about someone who simply argues that Jesus is the best available example of the love of God, and that the traditional doctrine of hell is not consistent with the character of Jesus as exhibited toward those who hated Him. Call this a philosophical argument, if you will, but it sounds to me like an argument based on the scriptural record of the incarnate Word, whom to see is to see God. How is this less a scriptural approach than another?
I have seen one post after another at this forum echoing the claim that the universalist position is supported only by philosophical arguments, and not scripture. Yet, if you read all the threads, there are at least as many relevant passages of scripture provided by the universalists as there are by the traditionalists. Actually, the Bible contains a lot more verses that seem directly to affirm universal restoration than there are that directly affirm eternal torment. One web page alone (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html) purports to give 100 scriptural proofs of universalism. While some of them may strain the interpretation a bit, there are still plenty there that require some interpretive ingenuity to make them not appear to teach that doctrine. Compare that with the five or six total verses that seem to teach eternal torment). I agree with many that the case for annihilation may be stronger still than that for universalism, but the traditional view strikes me as by far the very weakest of them all, if we wish only to consider the volume of scriptural testimony.
I certainly don't claim to occupy higher moral ground than you, Homer, but I still am straining to understand the mentality of a Christian who would begrudge Adolph Hitler a little log cabin in the corner of "heaven"—if the man were given another chance to repent, and took it, so that Jesus might ultimately receive all that He paid for. Heck, I'm not sure that I would be so very far on the other side of the tracks from that cabin myself.
In any case, the objection would seem to arise from motives that I cannot imagine that you possess, Homer. Knowing you, I would not think that you would find anything enviable about the lot of a man who spent a life of rebellion and sin, and, as a result, forfeited his opportunity to reign with Christ forever. I have done enough sinning to know that its gratifications are shallow and fleeting. The man who trades away the glory of God for such tawdry fare has only my pity—not my envy. For God's sake, let Jesus at least salvage something for Himself out of the wastrel, if He wants to.
I don't know if you have ever had a son go astray or not, Homer, but I can say from experience that a father's love for the prodigal is as great before the son returns as it is after his repentance. From what Jesus said, it would seem that one sheep wandering off to its ultimate doom is not considered an acceptable loss to the Good Shepherd. Universalism would suggest that God has inexhaustible resources and options open to Him to get what He is determined to have.
Objections to eternal torment on the basis of its injustice may be philosophical in nature (as all discussions of justice are, by definition), but in this case, at least, it is philosophy informed by scripture ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"). If Bertrand Russell, and other unbelievers have raised this objection, it is only because they are pensioners (more than they realize) upon the Christian revelation of justice that has informed the very civilization in which they have been reared and educated. Brutal and disproportionate punishments were seldom criticized in barbaric pagan societies untouched by the biblical revelation.
But it is not only unbelievers who raise the objection. Even most of the traditionalist writers begin their books by giving assurances that they find the view they are about to defend abhorrent. Recognition that eternal torment is disproportionate punishment for any imaginable crime seems to be the instinct of virtually all Christians—many of whom suppress this intuition in order to stand by a view that they think the scriptures require them to defend. We are sometimes put-off from our protests with suggestions that "God's ways are not our ways..." Yet that same passage informs us that His ways are higher than ours, not lower! If, in God's value system, "mercy triumphs over judgment," then that system would be the "highest" that most extolls the mercy of God.
That God's view of justice can be understood by human beings is everywhere assumed, and often affirmed, in scripture:
"My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding; yes, if you cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding...then you will understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path" (Prov.2:1-3,9).
Since the doctrine of eternal torment does not have a compelling case in its favor, why should Christians not trust their intuitions against it? What can it mean to say "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor.2:16), if we can be so mistaken about the very nature of justice? Are we not going to judge angels? "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand all"(Prov.28:5).
God's judgments of Sodom and Gomorra, and the flood, may strike us initially as hard to justify, until we remember that no one was killed in those judgments who was not already born (like everybody else) with a death sentence hanging over their heads. God has said that the soul that sins must die, and He is the one who has the prerogative to decide when that sentence is executed in the case of every individual. No matter whom God may kill, and in what manner, He is never unjust in doing so. That is not the same as eternally tormenting people after death—many of whom knew little other than misery in their lifetimes, and very few of whom had any idea what was eternally at stake while living their lives. Such an outcome would be harder to reconcile with the biblical picture of God and of justice. If even those who defend the doctrine routinely profess revulsion for it, we might wonder on what grounds it can be said to be a divine truth.
