Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Homer]

Hi Brenden,

I again find myself essentially in agreement with what you say.

The universalists attack me as though I am a Jonathan Edwards hell-fire guy but I have plainly indicated I am unsure of exactly what the fate of the lost will be. It seems to me a good scriptural case can be made both CI and for a continuing existence, separated from God (outer darkness and the lake of fire are both mentioned; I take both figuratively). The universalists like to set up their strawman to attack: the great majority of people suffering unending agony in hell. Ironically, they claim it to be as literal as Jonathan Edwards, but it "corrects" people so they are satisfied with it. As you may know time once was that ultra-universalism (no hell) was popular but most universalists came to realize the utility of warning about hell. Even Origen saw the danger in universalism.

I have long maintained that the scriptures plainly inform us of future happiness for those who accept the gospel and an unhappy ending for those who reject it, with little said of those who never hear. Consider Jesus' words:

Mark 16:16
New King James Version (NKJV)

16. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

"Does not believe" is aorist active in the Greek, implying an opportunity to accept the gospel and rejection of the message. Jesus' statement does not address those who never hear. And they will never enjoy in this life that "peace that passes understanding".

Paul seems to state a principle in 2 Corinthians. The context is about giving but it may well apply to those who never hear the gospel and thus be in harmony with what Paul says in Romans 2:

2 Corinthians 8:12
New King James Version (NKJV)

12. For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.

The only problem with this idea is that Paul seems to say in Romans 3 that no one is righteous, all need "the sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood".

My only interest in this matter is univeralism. I am convinced it is a false and dangerous doctrine. But however it turns out God's glory and goodness will not be diminished one whit.

Homer

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

No, God would not be better. For either He would "take in" unrepentant sinners, or else all sinners would choose to repent as soon as they were facing the judge. The former implies that God would be worse; the latter assumption is implausible.

I am very surprised. You have maintained God does not punitively punish, He only lovingly puts folks in fire to "correct" their attitude. It would seem you would be overjoyed if they bowed the knee on judgement day and confessed Jesus as Lord. Why is it implausible? Do you think they will be any different than John in Revelation 1:17? You can't say its too late, you say they will have forever (oops, that aionios word, time might run out!) and now you say its too soon!

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

I think perhaps the rub for some people (and I can only hazard a guess as I cannot read hearts) is a need to dope out all the particulars. People being as varied as they are, some feel the need to have things hammered out; to have all things settled and decided. When a conundrum or anomaly presents itself, there is an innate need to get it all figured out. I don't see anything wrong in this approach as, indeed, it is by this process that people grow in life, emotionally as well as spiritually. However, not all feel so inclined. There some who are comfortable keeping ideas in abeyance for the time being. Consider Peter's question to Jesus, “Lord, what will become of this man?” Jesus' response of “Of what matter is that to you? You continue following me”, is a reminder that in the final analysis our own walk with God is of prime importance.

Having said that, I can surely appreciate forums like this one, and I can also relish the fact that I can now feel able to extend the hand of fellowship to anyone professing faith in Christ without regard to their particular theological views; something I could not have done when I was a true believing JW.

Regards, Brenden.

[backwoodsman]

Do I have the right to bite the head off the banana slugs* in my garden?

Sure you do, Steve! We'll wait right here for the pictures.
(didn't know you kept livestock..)

[Homer]

Steve wrote:

Universal Reconciliation takes the Arminian emphasis further, and says, "What God wants to do (i.e., save everyone), He also has the right to do." Nobody has the power to deprive God of His right to show mercy. If He had not already the right to show infinite mercy to as many as He wished, certainly He obtained that right when Jesus died to redeem the whole world.

Is there something wrong with my thinking here?

Seems to me there is something wrong with your thinking. If God has established conditions whereby He will grant mercy, and made those conditions known, then I would think His character would not allow Him to violate those conditions. And He has declared conditions:

Matthew 18:21-35
New King James Version (NKJV)

21. Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22. Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

Peter thinks he is being very generous; Jesus tells Peter not to bother counting.

23. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24. And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.

The king obviously represents God. And the debt owed to the king represents our debt of sin. An amount inconceivable to Jesus' audience; equivalent to somewhere between 60 - 100 million days' wages. An amount impossible to pay, just as our debt of sin is impossible to pay.

25. But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26. The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27. Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

The king's demand that payment be made is an expression of anger. Selling every last possession of the servant couldn't begin to pay the monstrous debt. But the prostrated, begging servant receives mercy! His debt is forgiven, not even a payment of any kind required. Pure grace, freely granted, just as we receive through faith.

28. “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29. So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30. And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done.

But the ungrateful servant had not learned to show mercy.

32. Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34. And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

And here we see that the merciless servant is thrown into a place of torment until he should pay all his debt. The magnitude of his debt makes it obvious the punishment will be endless. Obviously a warning of the final judgement. The merciless receives no mercy, and Jesus' concluding statement makes it plain this too will be our fate if we are without mercy:

35. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy". If everyone, as universalism requires, will receive mercy, then Jesus' teaching on the subject is meaningless.

[brody196]

Hi Homer,

I find myself in agreement with you on this issue. Jesus' parable in Matthew 18 paints a serious picture. I'm not sure how one could argue UR out of it....

[steve]

(didn't know you kept livestock..)

You know, Dan, that we kept goats on the homestead. Since moving to town, I have had to resort to smaller species. These banana slugs practically take care of themselves!

[steve]

Homer,

You made the same points from Matthew 18 in a previous thread. I answered them there, as well.

There is, first of all, no indication that the dungeon, into which the unforgiving servant is cast by the king, should be identified with hell, or any postmortem experience. I have always seen it as something taking place in this lifetime. I may be wrong, but nothing in the parable would tell me that I am. If it is describing a this-world situation, the "torturers" might be demons. In describing the punishment of the man, the parable does not mention a place, but a group of torturers. If this is in hell, there is no telling whom they might be. Any suggestions?

Second, once a debt has been forgiven, the books are cleared. There is no more indebtedness. There is no possibility of the original debt being reimposed by the king, unless his word is worthless, and he arbitrarily reimposes debts that have been expunged. In such a case, no forgiven person can be certain that the king will not un-forgive him on the basis of some previously unstated stipulation. The servant is not said to have had the original debt reimposed upon him. If the king can resurrect old debts that have been cancelled, he is capricious and unreliable.

Third, there was a new debt placed upon the forgiven servant, and that was to forgive others who were indebted to him. This duty is stated plainly in verse 33: "Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?" The word "should" refers to the new obligation or indebtedness. The king did not say, "Should you not pay the original debt that I have forgiven?"

Fourth, the wording of the parable is very much against the idea that this punishment is eternal (whether postmortem, as you suppose, or in this life, as I do). The qualification, "until he pays" weighs against this suggestion. The king could have said, "Throw this man into prison, and throw away the key! He is going to rot there!" Instead the king is very reasonable: "Throw him into prison until he has paid what he owes." This sounds like a very just sentence—for the simple reason that it fits the crime, and is not necessarily permanent.

What does the man owe after having been forgiven of his first debt? What he owes his king is that he himself will have compassion on his fellow servants—as is plainly stated. The man, presumedly, then, will be freed from prison upon his meeting such conditions. He will remain in the hands of "tormentors" until he forgives those who owe him. This is all that the parable states.

If Jesus had intended to teach an irreversible judgment here, He should have (and easily could have) omitted any duration clause (beginning with the word "until"). If this story is about hell (which I doubt) then it teaches the possibility of getting out of hell eventually, once one has met the stated, necessary conditions.

An unnecessary addendum:
Even if you were right in saying the man now owes again the original debt, you go too far in saying he could never pay it off. This is not stated or implied. The original debt was indeed enormous. We can not imagine any creditor extending such a loan to any but a man of great means. God is not a banker who gives out sub-prime mortgages to insolvent customers, and then punishes them forever for their failure to repay. If the servant was a poor man, then the king was guilty of breaking Christ's commands in lending to the poor and demanding repayment. The very fact that such a debt was ever contracted would mean that the man was viewed as a good risk, and plausibly capable of repaying it. He must be envisaged, at least, as a resourceful man, capable of making a lot of money.

Thus the parable does not represent the man as one who could never, in all eternity, repay the debt. No matter how great a debt, eternity would not be required to repay it—even at a penny a year (I think, in your considerations, you commonly underestimate eternity). So far as the parable reveals, the man might be in a position to repay the debt entirely, given sufficient time (he claimed that he could do so, in verse 26). We are not told that the man had no rich relatives or friends who could bail him out. None of those things are mentioned—but would have to be included in the story, if "until he has paid all that he owes" could be hoped to convey the idea of "eternally." The reason for omitting all consideration of these matters is because, in the parable, the man was no longer strapped with a crushing debt at all, but with a new one that he might pay at any time, if only he would not remain obstinate.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

There is, first of all, no indication that the dungeon, into which the unforgiving servant is cast by the king, should be identified with hell, or any postmortem experience. I have always seen it as something taking place in this lifetime.

You sound like Todd and his and his pre-mortem punishment, "no-heller" position. Jeremias commented regarding the man being turned over to torturers "The non-Jewish practice in legal proceedings, regarded by the jews as inhumane, is drawn to intensify the freightfulness of the punishment". Where in this life do you find unforgiving people suffering anything that could be likened to torture? Some I have known seem to be rather proud and pleased with their stubbornness.

Second, once a debt has been forgiven, the books are cleared. There is no more indebtedness. There is no possibility of the original debt being reimposed by the king, unless his word is worthless, and he arbitrarily reimposes debts that have been expunged. In such a case, no forgiven person can be certain that the king will not un-forgive him on the basis of some previously unstated stipulation. The servant is not said to have had the original debt reimposed upon him.

Jesus is making a comparison of how God will treat us with how a king handles an unpayable debt. You are confounding the king and God. You say there is no possibility of the king imposing the original debt. What other debt could the man have owed an earthly king? He had just gone out from the king's presence; he had no time to incur a new debt. We do not owe a forgiving heart to the government.

If the king can resurrect old debts that have been cancelled, he is capricious and unreliable.

Philip Schaff comments: "...the debt was actually and absolutely forgiven; yet forgiven, of course, as always, on certain moral conditions,the violation of which implies the forfeiture of the benefit. Forgiveness is inseparable from union with Christ. If we forsake Him we lapse into a state of nature, which is a state of wrath; yea our case becomes much worse than it was before conversion and our guilt increases in proportion to the mercies received".

Fourth, the wording of the parable is very much against the idea that this punishment is eternal (whether postmortem, as you suppose, or in this life, as I do). The qualification, "until he pays" weighs against this suggestion. The king could have said, "Throw this man into prison, and throw away the key! He is going to rot there!" Instead the king is very reasonable: "Throw him into prison until he has paid what he owes." This sounds like a very just sentence—for the simple reason that it fits the crime, and is not necessarily permanent.

The whole point of the inconceivable debt is that it is impossible to pay, just as our debt of sin is unpayable. We can not atone for our sins or discharge our moral debt to God.

If this story is about hell (which I doubt) then it teaches the possibility of getting out of hell eventually, once one has met the stated, necessary conditions.

No, the point is that the man could not possibly pay the debt. We can not pay the debt for even one sin.

If the servant was a poor man, then the king was guilty of breaking Christ's commands in lending to the poor and demanding repayment. The very fact that such a debt was ever contracted would mean that the man was viewed as a good risk, and plausibly capable of repaying it. He must be envisaged, at least, as a resourceful man, capable of making a lot of money.

Where do you find any indication of the king loaning the man anything? The servant had defrauded his master of revenue due to him. Jesus has made the debt an inconceivable amount to drive home a point which you make moot:

Thus the parable does not represent the man as one who could never, in all eternity, repay the debt. No matter how great a debt, eternity would not be required to repay it—even at a penny a year (I think, in your considerations, you commonly underestimate eternity). So far as the parable reveals, the man might be in a position to repay the debt entirely, given sufficient time (he claimed that he could do so, in verse 26). We are not told that the man had no rich relatives or friends who could bail him out. None of those things are mentioned—but would have to be included in the story, if "until he has paid all that he owes" could be hoped to convey the idea of "eternally." The reason for omitting all consideration of these matters is because, in the parable, the man was no longer strapped with a crushing debt at all, but with a new one that he might pay at any time, if only he would not remain obstinate.

I can scarcely believe you would think and teach this! You have imbibed too much "tentmaker tea". Jesus' warning trivialized and explained away! If we do not forgive after we have been forgiven we will encounter some unpleasentness during this life.

[jriccitelli]

Steve, I can’t believe you are defending UR this way, I listen to you daily, but this response sounds like it is coming from ‘someone else’ not you.

For example the details you are pouring into the parable of the certain king in Matthew 18;
If you want to go down that road maybe the slave had stolen a bunch of credit cards, and ran up the bill, we don’t know.
Maybe the slave was set free on parole? That seems more the case.
The ‘principle’ seems to be simply that the slave had a ‘huge’ bill that he couldn’t pay off. We all have a debt of sin we cannot pay off ourselves, and if we did it would be our sacrifice not His, and thus a rejection of his offer of Himself.

I wrote this before I saw Homers response, I too am shocked to the ‘this life’ response.
(The future of the slave and the duration are both misnomers, I think the argument is coming from a CI perspective not ET. I certainly do not hold to ET. And nothing implies the slave is restored after his punishment)

Rich wrote; “Wrath is an emotion, but love is a characteristic of God's selfless nature. You can't feel loving, but you can feel angry”
Your thinking is also generally really admirable, that’s why I think you are trying to hard to make UR work with statements like this. Of course you can 'feel love' as much as you can feel wrath.
Wrath and anger are synonymous, they are characteristic of Gods aversion to sin. Jesus 'felt' Gods 'emotion' on the Cross, in our place.
(No matter what theory of Christ’s death you hold to, you should agree that ‘He was ‘pierced’ through for ‘our’ transgressions, He was ‘crushed’ for ‘our’ iniquities; The ‘chastening’ for our well-being fell ‘upon’ Him”)

Rich said; "Punishment with no corrective end doesn't seem to accomplish anything"
Except, it can be said Jesus is the stumbling block here;
Jesus' punishment was not correctional, Jesus was not being 'corrected' on the Cross.
His pain and torture was both 'felt' and a 'demonstration' of God's wrath, love and payment.
The Cross is meant to have an effect on ‘others’, this is 'the effect' God expects from punishment of one person whether or not it corrects the person being punished. It is for those who will look upon it, and believe.
God’s wrath on Jesus was not out of control or unjust, it was Gods Holy righteous anger on sin, Jesus took it in our place.

I don’t know how many, but many of us 'refrained' from a sin because of the example our fathers made ‘on another’ sibling who went before us and got caught. Certainly the punishment of one person will cause 'consideration' and effect on other members of the human race.
Like I said, I think ‘many millions’ of people would commit crimes if it were not for the penalties they would have to pay if they were caught.
Punishment is a deterrent to others; that is why I pay my taxes and try to drive the speed limit, I have seen others punished. (I have been put in jail for driving too fast also, so, it’s been twenty years now since I’ve had a speeding ticket. But believe me, it has not changed my ‘desire’ to go fast)
Punishment is a ‘warning’ to others; if God does not back up His warnings they are meaningless empty words.
Gods Words are not empty, God demonstrates His willingness to fulfil His promise of wrath with fury and full effect, with blazing lights God executed His own chosen people with sword, bow and fire, this was done for our example.

"Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play."8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall"
(1 Corinthians 10:6-12)