Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve7150]

Will vindictive punishment really help the lost to understand why sin is bad? Will vindictive punishment accomplish any good? I've begun questioning these things since reading George McDonald's sermon "Justice". In that sermon, he eloquently explains why justice is not vindictive in nature, but restorative. If God has been wronged by sinners, is His loss satisfied by destroying them or endlessly torturing them? MacDonald argues no, but rather that true justice means that God gets what He deserves... the willful allegiance of sinners restored to Himself.









Rich,
I don't think punishment has to be necessarily vindictive but can be just and can be part of a restoration process. Sometimes we punish our kids because they deserve it and need it to eventually be shaped into compassionate and productive humans. Certainly vindictive punishment is a different kettle of fish.

[jriccitelli]

Once your 'kids' are grown they are expected to make decisions on their own. And as 'adults' they are responsible, and punishable for their actions. Punishment can be just without being restorative at all.
The odd thing about UR is that Hell must be 'correctional', UR is thus saying God cannot punish justly if it is not to redeem the sinner. I think punishment is logical and necessary for the existence of free wills to live in a society. And it must be followed through on and carried out, as God Himself followed through with the Cross. To say otherwise is an offense to reason and ultimately to God's judgments.

Paidon wrote; "So those precious lost souls whom God loves will be judged and sent to a place of correction. They have been corrupted by their sin, but God's fire and soap can purify them so that they will emerge as refined gold.
They will never be annihilated. That would defeat God's redemptive purpose. All of God's judgments are remedial"

If a person serves out their sentence in hell, then what?
Is it also, that they still have not accepted the blood of Christ? (They wouldn’t be in hell if they had accepted)
If they paid for their sins with their own blood, they would be back to square one.
What is the purpose for Christ’s sacrifice at that point?
If they are now done with their sentence and nothing further to do but wait to accept Jesus, what’s the motivation now? Boredom?
What is the point of all the verses about being ready, watching, having oil in your lamps, warning against falling away and being cut off, etc.?
If you think the refining fire is post mortem in hell, then what are Gods saints going through it for? (Malachi 3:3)
Are we all going to hell first to be refined, or just ‘some’ Christians?
We are not ever going to make ‘ourselves’ righteous through suffering, ‘God’ makes us righteous, in Him.
The fire is the 'testing' of our ‘faith’, we don’t need ‘faith’ post mortem, and certainly not in the LOF.
Faith that Jesus is my Savior in the LOF?

It seems to me most the verse’s that speak of being tested (Or ‘purified’ by fire) was a testing of their sincerity, so what are we being tested on in hell?
Anyways it seems that a person who suffers in hell for their own sins may have something to boast of, and certainly it would ‘not’ be in the Cross.

Speaking of being cut off, in Zechariah 13;

”Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate," Declares the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones.8 "It will come about in all the land," Declares the LORD, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"
(Zechariah 13:7-9)
This is speaking of God preserving a remnant, would you suggest God here is taking His remnant and putting them in hell in order to be tested? Refining is what God does with His people, not sinners.
And what happened to the two parts cut off, are they also going to the refiner’s fire to be purified also?
That doesn't make sense.

"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.3 "He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness.4 "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts.6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:1-6) NASB
God speaks of fire over 500 times in the bible, over a hundred of those verses refer to punishment, these two instances speak of refining fire, these cannot be confused with the fires of Sheol and hell.
Is God going to put the sons of Levi in Hell to purify them?
The fire spoken of here is ‘God’ Himself, ‘He’ will purify them. Is God the fire in hell?
Who are the ones to be consumed? Those are the ones God draws near to for judgment. Yikes!

[steve7150]

And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. (Rev 21:23-26)

I was wondering why the gates would always be open if no one was expected to enter. Indeed, it says the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Who are these kings? If they are God's people and the "judgment and sentencing" has already taken place, then why aren't they already in the City? On the other hand, if they are not God's people, how can they enter if they are roasting in hell forever? Why aren't the gates closed against them?






Good thoughts Paidion, i think Todd brought these verses up awhile ago. It brings forth an image of reconciliation between the folks inside the gates and outside the gates.

[jriccitelli]

The New Jerusalem is on or above the renewed Earth, 'all' the people can go back and forth it seems.
There are no unredeemed in heaven, you can thank God for annihilating them.

[steve7150]

John 3:36
New King James Version (NKJV)
36. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Which brings up another problem with the universalistic paradigm. Wh atever happened to God's wrath? Jesus says God's wrath (#3709 orge, which speaks of anger and revenge) remains on the person.








Rotherham's translates it "but the wrath of God awaits him." Of course the NJKV translation comes from the KJV which translates "sheol" as hell dozens of times even though it means grave.

[steve7150]

The New Jerusalem is on or above the renewed Earth, 'all' the people can go back and forth it seems.
There are no unredeemed in heaven, you can thank God for annihilating them.








Oh i thought God said to love my neighbor as myself and to love my enemy? That's what you meant correct?

[RICHinCHRIST]

Matt you wrote that; "it seems that the dividing issue with UR is whether God's judgment is solely punitive or if it's restorative"
'Judgment' is a 'deserved penalty' that you bring upon yourself. If you sow to the flesh you will reap to the flesh.

Hi JC. It was I who wrote those comments, not Matt. I agree with your comments above. Judgment is a deserved penalty, and if we sow to the flesh we will reap corruption. The interesting thing in that verse, Galatians 6:8, is that it says that we reap death from our actions; it does not say that the death comes from God. A similar point is made in James 1:15, "sin brings forth death". "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). None of these verses say that sin brings God's vindictive punishment. They say that sin, in its natural course, brings forth death. I'm starting to lean toward the understanding that sin is its own punishment, rather than that it accrues a debt which God must torture someone for in order to be giving a just payment. I'm still wrestling with this concept, and I'm not fully convinced yet. Your argument is developed from an understanding of the "penal substitution" theory of the atonement. I wonder if we should see Hell as God 'beating up His enemies' and letting out His anger on them. Perhaps hell is the natural course of events for those who don't know God and who have not received immortality through Christ and the gospel. I'm not saying that hell is not painful. I'm just wondering if it's possible that God will use hell in order to bring about good (in correcting people and bringing them to repentance--rather than it being solely a punitive punishment which He intends to inflict). Perhaps hell and the course of death is unavoidable, and is the natural course of events for the unredeemed. Maybe God can use it for a future redemptive purpose... why not? This would not disqualify God's justice unless we assume God must torture someone in order to appease His own anger. I wonder if God's wrath, as depicted in the Scriptures, is merely anthropomorphic in nature (rather than an emotion or impulse He must gratify through torching human beings until they really see Who they ticked off ).

George MacDonald, as I mentioned earlier, seems to have given a very good explanation of "justice" (in his sermon of the same title). In it, he describes the difference between vindictive punishment and restorative punishment. I forgot the exact example... but I think it was about a watch. This is a loose paraphrase (with me adding my own twist to it), but I just want to give you an idea of this kind of justice he described: Imagine someone stole my car (I believe his example was a watch). If my car was stolen by someone, then that person has committed a crime. If I was also a policeman or judge and found this individual, I could sentence him to prison (let's say for a year; 'grand theft auto'). Now, would my justice be satisfied if I locked him up in a cell, and tortured him by letting him rot in his isolated cell with barely any food and water? Not really. My justice would not be satisfied in such a case (at least my personality would not). What do I want for justice? I want my car back! I want the wrong that was committed against me to be made right again. That is true justice. Forget about what the man did or what he might deserve, instead focus on what damage the wrong has brought. That damage has to be remedied. My justice is not satisfied in his prison sentence, but rather in the righting of the wrong. I would rather see the man rehabilitated so he might see why what he did was wrong, so that when he leaves prison, he doesn't keep stealing people's cars... but instead, that he's a good citizen. If I don't get back what I lost (in this example, my car), then my justice has not been satisfied. People often feel this way when their family members are murdered. When the culprit is caught and given the capital punishment, they say, "we're glad he got what he deserved, but nothing will bring back our loved ones"... really? Would it not be more exemplary of the Spirit of Christ that we see those murderers corrected and brought to Christ? Do we have the right to take them out and send them to hell early (especially if it's ET or CI hell)? Why not be patient and try to see the man reconciled to God? (as you can tell, I'm also beginning to question "capital punishment" as well) But still, the point remains, what they really want is their murdered family member back again... that would be true justice... they are not fully satisfied with a punitive sentence.

Now, I didn't describe it quite as eloquently as MacDonald, but hopefully you see my point. What justice does God receive in just flailing out on sinners and wiping them out in an outburst of wrath? The sinner might receive what he deserves, but what about what God deserves? God has been wronged in this ordeal. These sinners who reject Him are robbing God of His just due in receiving worship from them. They have wronged God. If God is just, then perhaps He might have created a scenario where He gets His justice as well (in reconciling all people to Himself). I don't see why this would be a bad scenario, or an impossible one for God to have ordained. In fact, I think it would make sense of many questions we have about life, or God's sovereignty, or about why terrible things happen seemingly without God's intervention. Perhaps God has a greater eternal purpose and plan He desires to work that is beyond just torturing people and watching them wail, scream, and rot till they no longer exist (if they do cease to exist).

2; Unbelievers under go 'punishment' this is Gods judgment.
The punishment could have been avoided by, becoming a 'christian', some people, for there 'own' reasons, do not 'want' to become His, and may never change there mind. Gods will is that they freely choose.

I agree with this statement. However, many people, I'm sure, are quite ignorant of their evil lifestyles (and exactly what their sin is accomplishing, both for themselves, others, and even God). I'm not saying they have an excuse, but I am saying that human life in a fallen world is complicated. Many people have not even heard a good explanation of the gospel, and many have not seen the Church represent God in an accurate way (For a thousand years there was only corrupt Romanism in the church!). I think many people might fit the category for "those who have never heard"; perhaps even some who heard some things about Jesus (but were poorly informed).

Also, I think back to the apostle Paul. Saul didn't seem to be one who would have become a Christian. Obviously, I cannot say for sure, since it's possible that God foreknew that Paul would be convinced some other way (even if it wasn't through the Damascus Road experience). But I think it's possible that God sovereignly interfered in Paul's life, and changed the course of his future knowing that he would have died rejecting Christ and persecuting Christians. If this is the case, it would seem unfair that Paul, a powerful example of an evil man, was given eternal salvation without his own free will involved (while others, who have not had quite a revelation, will be lost forever). Could God not give a Damascus Road Experience to all people? He surely could, if He wanted to. Well, why doesn't He? Either God loves all people or He does not. This has been a thought of mine for some time now. I think I may have to choose between either Calvinism or Universalism. I don't see how classical Arminianism answers many of the questions about God's intervention in sinner's lives. I think God could give some better clues to people if He really wanted to (I may feel this way due to the Calvinistic way I look at my own conversion, which strongly influenced me to lean toward Calvinism in my first two years as a Christian). For some reason, He chooses to hide Himself (in His infinite wisdom). Either God loves all people, or He does not. If He really does love all people, I don't see why it's impossible that He might give more chances to people who have died unregenerate. Their lives were polluted by sin from birth, they were deceived by the devil (who influenced them and swayed them... and even "worked in them" Eph 2:2), and they had a worldly culture which seemed more than natural to them due to their upbringing, their own personal weaknesses, and foolish choices that they made. Also, sin is really due to stupidity. It's a lack of understanding. I can't help but relate it to mental retardation. Do you think Jesus would annihilate mentally retarded people? To be honest, without spiritual enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, finite lives of sinners (who live at most 110 years) are mentally retarded spiritually in light of eternity and God's perspective (1 Cor 2:14). Perhaps God's love doesn't stop for someone after they die. I know that when I see a mentally retarded person, it brings a sensitivity to my heart. Does God not feel infinitely more for sinners who He sent His Son for (Rom 5:8)? This is a question of whether God loves all people or if He does not. I'm beginning to see this more and more. If He does not love all people, or if there is some reason in His infinite wisdom that He has chosen to not save all people, then I could see why ET or CI might be true in light of a Calvinistic theology. But if God really loves all people, and desires to save them (which I think is quite clear in the Bible), then why would God's love, patience, or mercy for sinners stop at their death?

Matt you stated; "It seems that there is no benefit from merely inflicting punishment vindictively. What joy could God have in such a punishment, or what purpose could He see it accomplishing?"
I thought this was Todds statement again; You do accept that 'it is unjust to simply let a person commit a crime without any penalty or restitution', right. We only have two options for sin, accept Christs payment for sin before sentencing, or pay it off ourselves later. To pay it off ourself in hell is to reject Christ and His blood, and thus "there is no more sacrifice for sin".
Some people may wish to pay off their own debt if given a chance, and in the case of some who have lived somewhat righteously this may be their choice, this means they can choose to reject the cross and pay for their own sins.

Evangelical universalists are very cross-centered, and do not believe that someone gets saved apart from Christ's atonement. I understand your perspective, though. I think this also comes down to whether the atonement is a penal substitution or not. If sin is its own punishment, and brings about its own course of events (even into the afterlife)... I do not see why God cannot use those circumstances, and hell itself, to correct people and bring them to repentance in the next life... that is, as long as God is not boiling over with vindictive hatred, with an electric chair ready for each sinner and has kept count of how long they deserve to fry). If God the Father is more like Jesus, not counting transgressions, not tallying up His offenses, then I don't think His love would stop for them the moment they pass on and realize that they lived their life for a lie and were too foolish to respond to His patient testing. God is holy, yes. But He is also love.... we must continue to fear Him, but let us not be quick to assume He stops to love, for He is love. Perhaps His dealings with sinners in hell is a further expression of His holy love.

[jeremiah]

i like your perspective rich,

i think it was the parable of the sheep and "goats", the possible mistranslation, that softened my mind to the possiblility of the Fire that purifies. but one of the main reasons i remain on the fence on this is...

you wrote,"...None of these verses say that sin brings God's vindictive punishment. They say that sin, in its natural course, brings forth death..."

yes but neither do they unequivocally say, in its natural course either.

anyway im on the fence still. your comments are always a blessing

grace and peace

[steve7150]

you wrote,"...None of these verses say that sin brings God's vindictive punishment. They say that sin, in its natural course, brings forth death..."

yes but neither do they unequivocally say, in its natural course either.

anyway im on the fence still. your comments are always a blessing.









I think "in it's natural course" is a logical deduction but then again God created the laws of nature anyway.

[jeremiah]

"I think "in it's natural course" is a logical deduction but then again God created the laws of nature anyway."

i agree that its a logical deduction. but there seems nothing illogical to deduce "the wages of sin is death,but the gift of God is eternal life," as maybe alluding to utter destruction aswell...but anyway that's why im on the fence still.

grace and peace
jeremiah