Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve]

Homer and jriccitelli,

You both express astonishment that I could write what I have written. Why? Is there some defect in my thinking? Why should I not analyze this passage as objectively and as reasonably as any other passage? Is it just because you have (for some reason) seen the parable as crucial to the defense of your respective hell positions, and you are offended to hear that not everyone will make the same unfounded assumptions about the parable as you are choosing to make?

By the way, it takes more than bare assertions of a contrary opinion to convince me of something of which I have not previously been persuaded. I will listen to, and respond to, evidence and arguments against my view. Mere expressions of astonishment, unsupported declarations, and quotes of the opinions of other commentators have never really moved me, in the absence of actual exegetical analysis.

I do not see how Homer would think these comments of mine show some affinity with the no-heller position, or how jriccitelli would see these comments as a defense of universal reconciliation. If you read my last post (the one that you both apparently find astonishing), you should have seen that I make no points about hell at all from Matthew 18, since I do not find any reference to hell in that particular parable. Can you defend the fact that you do see hell there? It is not mentioned.

To say that I see no reference to hell in this passage is no more a denial of hell, in general (nor even a statement about it), than my saying that I do not see the second coming of Christ in Matthew 10:23 is a denial of (or a statement about) the doctrine of the second coming of Christ. It seems that anyone taking the trouble to read what I posted would see this without difficulty—unless the reader has so much emotionally at stake in his own view of the passage that he is incapable of giving a rational assessment to an alternative view.

I am not sure what there is in my analysis of Matthew 18 that would lead jriccitelli to regard it as a defense of (or pertinent to) the doctrine of universal reconciliation. The latter doctrine deals with postmortem, post-judgment destinies, whereas I plainly declared that I find no discussion of such in Matthew 18.

It is strange to hear the suggestion that the purpose of the parable is to emphasize the severity of punishment. In the context of Peter's question, the parable is given to show the appropriateness and the duty of Christians, who have received great mercy, to extend the same mercy to our fellow men. The mention of punishment seems to be a corollary to the main point, and one about which very little detail is provided. If one has no agenda, one way or another, about proving a particular point about hell, he would likely see a very different main point of the parable.

Homer also seems to think that the point of the large amount of the original debt is to emphasize the impossibility of its repayment. While it may be that such a large debt could hardly be repaid, I do not at all think that this is the point intended. This would probably be the case if the point of the parable was to underscore the hopelessness of a sinner to justify himself before God by his own works (a topic close to the heart of Paul, but barely on the radar in the teachings of Jesus).

Instead, I think the enormity of the first servant's debt is intended to provide a stark contrast with the relative insignificance of the other servant's debt. The idea is:. For the Christian, who has been forgiven a great burden of debt, to neglect to forgive the relatively trivial offenses of others against himself is both absurd and criminal.

I invited those who see hell in this passages to supply me with a plausible identity of the "tormentors." Are we to imagine infernal creatures in charge of hell, who go about poking the inhabitants with pitchforks to see if they are "done" yet? Is there anything in scripture to encourage such an image of the lake of fire? I challenge my friends, who find my points so astonishing, to provide something resembling a biblical answer to this question.

Since the mid-70s (decades before I ever heard of evangelical universalism), my suspicion has been that the parable of the unforgiving servant tells us something about how people come under the torment and control of demons. That is something that happens in this life. Those who neglect to show mercy give place to the devil (see 2 Cor.2:7-10; Eph.4:26-27; cf., 1 Sam.18:8-10). This is not the only possible interpretation of the "tormentors," but it is the only one that makes sense to me.

This is what I have taught about this parable for over thirty years. I may be mistaken, but if I am, it has had nothing to do with any sympathy toward universal reconciliation doctrine—since I had not even heard of the doctrine twenty years ago, and have only given serious attention to its arguments for the last few years.

It seems that we are destined to disagree with each other on these matters. However, I can not imagine why I should even bother to participate in the dialogue if those with whom I am discussing the matter will not even read my posts, or will not take them seriously enough to make germane responses.

[steve]

By the way, while it may sound to you that I defend universal reconciliation, if you check out my actual posts, I believe you will see that all I do is defend that doctrine against invalid arguments. That is, I do the same thing for this doctrine as I would do for any doctrine, whether it is mine or not. I do not like irrational, or exegetically irresponsible, arguments. If a fellow millennialist were to post a logically or exegetically invalid argument against dispensationalism, I think you would find me jumping in to correct the flawed argument. I do not have a dog in the fight, when it comes to hell, since I do not feel any danger of going there myself. When I stand up for universal reconciliation, it is because I see its opponents neglecting biblical exegesis or else misrepresenting the character of God. If no one did either of those things here (and if no one addressed any questions to me on the topic), you would probably find no posts from me on this subject.

[Paidion]

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.

I would be overjoyed indeed, if every sinner "bowed the knee on judgement day and confessed Jesus as Lord". But it is implausible.

Why is it implausible?

Because every lost person who will be raised in the second resurrection will continue to have libertarian free will. Their wills won't be miraculously changed merely because they have been raised from the dead. In this present life, when a wonderful gift is offered people, some will accept it, while others reject it.

Do you think they will be any different than John in Revelation 1:17?

John was a single individual who was already a disciple of Christ. We are talking here about those who will not have been disciples. Many of them will not submit or "bow the knee" at that time, some because of their pride, being unwilling to admit they were wrong.

You can't say its too late, ...

I won't say it's too late; it's never too late!

you say they will have forever (oops, that aionios word, time might run out!)

A beautiful titbit of parenthetical sarcasm!

...and now you say its too soon!

Of course it's too soon. Many of them will be rebels. None of them will have been corrected at that time. (You really hate the idea of correction, don't you? You'd rather see them wiped out of existence. Would you feel the same way about the matter if you should find yourself among them?)

[Paidion]

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.

True, God didn't correct Jesus, but neither did God punish Him.

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.

The concept of penal substitution was absent from the early church, and even from the early medieval church. The Greek Orthodox Church to this day doesn't subscribe to it. The idea that God was so angry at sinners that He took His wrath out on His innocent Son and was satisfied thereby, is abhorrent. If one of your sons did something evil, would punishing another of your sons, one who was innocent, give you any satisfaction? Or is God so much different from us that the two situations cannot be compared? I don't think so. After all, man was created in His image, not in His physical image surely. What else is left, except our having a similar mind to that of God?

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.

Punishment may be a deterrent for some people (perhaps you are one of those). However, in general, punishment is not a deterrent. Studies of the criminal justice system provide clear evidence of this. One would think that if punishment were a deterrent, then capital punishment for murder would be a very powerful deterrent. Yet, in general, it seems to have the opposite effect. One example — in Paul Redekop's book Changing Paradigms, he points out in chapter two, that Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and has maintained this policy. He indicated that this decision was made in part because of the absence of evidence for its ability to deter. At the same time, the use of the death penalty in the various states in the U.S.A. was almost eliminated. But Redekop wrote that since then, "The number of executions has increased dramatically from none in 1976 to 45 by 1996, to a post-1976 total of 1097 by September 2007." So if capital punishment were a deterrent, we would expect homicide rates to have decreased in United States during this time, and to have increased in Canada. However, the exact opposite has occurred!

[TheEditor]

Greeetings,

I have no "dog in the fight" either, but could it be that the 'jailers' (tormentors) in the parable, are merely used as an accretion to flesh out the parable, and mean nothing at all? Much as the oil, lamps, wick and person to whom the 5 unwise virgins were urged to go purchase their oil from, are mere ornaments to make the parablle more interesting? if the point is that we are to be forgiving toward our brothers because of the great forgivness we are shown?

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

This is a reasonable suggestion. It isn't the one I most incline toward, but it is plausible.

[jriccitelli]

…It seems that we are destined to disagree with each other on these matters. However, I can not imagine why I should even bother to participate in the dialogue if those with whom I am discussing the matter will not even read my posts, or will not take them seriously enough to make germane responses.

It is reading your post that caused my response, and it is ‘because’ I take your posts seriously that I responded. In fact, awhile ago, I thought I agreed with you on these matters. You can fault me for not listening to all your lectures on the issue, but I can’t be faulted for having never heard this take on Matt 18. I will remain responsible for my own view on the parable, and I will listen to your lecture on Matt. 18 and consider your take on it.

I think my answers are germane and central to the issue (I think parole is just as feasible as demonic torturers, in fact parole has been around since very ‘ancient’ times when armies took prisoners and released them as ‘slaves’ with restrictions). Where else have I not been germane?
The issue is Barclay and his view of UR, I have only responded to views of UR and second chances. It is a privilege to have you answer and talk to me, I am willing to stand in a long line for the privilege because I admire your knowledge. ‘But’ I have not heard enough challenges and objections to UR on grounds such as the Urgency of the Gospel, the plausibility of Destruction and CI, the Atonement, and the dangers of not taking the punishments and death in scripture as warnings and examples of future death and punishment, with quite possibly ‘eternal’ and irreversible consequences.
I am not coming out of a cloud somewhere everything I’ve said is pretty straight forward evangelical.

"…By the way, while it may sound to you that I defend universal reconciliation, if you check out my actual posts, I believe you will see that all I do is defend that doctrine against invalid arguments. That is, I do the same thing for this doctrine as I would do for any doctrine"

Steve I ‘thought’ you were rather neutral on this issue, as you said you were ‘sympathetic’ towards these issues, as I am sympathetic towards a second chance also.
If you were neutral on these views that would be one thing but you are taking the side for UR rather convincingly.
I didn’t want to sound patronizing, but again I really admire and love your ministry, and I think I agree with you on ‘most’ every doctrine I have heard you speak on. You are good at defending both sides of an issue, if it is beneficial. Yet on this issue I have to say it seems you have been rather dogmatically opposed to anything that criticises UR and have not challenged some of the other very invalid arguments in favour of UR and EU mentioned in this thread.

Your ministry seems to attract a lot of attention over the ET doctrine, and indeed since I have been opposed to the ‘eternal’ torment doctrine also, I was attracted to your ministry. That is why this issue is so important, I think a lot of minds are being changed over the ET doctrine, but instead of considering other issues they seem to be sliding right into UR. And since this idea seems to be so attractive to Universalism these ideas fall in right behind.
I know universalism has been challenged on this forum, and some great arguments have been made, but from what I have read lately ‘alot’ is going unchallenged except by a few.
I have tried not to repeat anything already hashed out previously on this forum, but if the same invalid arguments are repeated and built upon to support UR I can not remain silent.

It could be said that ‘whatever’ is said biblically has an effect spiritually.
And your ministry stands at the cross roads for a lot of people
“The thing with apologetics is that it causes one person to leave one form of thinking and go to another, sometimes without thinking”

Steve, It goes to show that you let a comment like Paidons;
“…The idea that God was so angry at sinners that He took His wrath out on His innocent Son and was satisfied thereby, is abhorrent” ..., Slip right by you. Noted Paidon is a 'little' extreme, but 'lovable', yet still what’s up?

[jriccitelli]

So as much as I want to address other doctrine like the atonement, Paidon’s remarks are difficult to ignore.

Capital punishment is not my idea, it is from Exodus 21, and earlier in Genesis chap. 2.
Never the less only a ‘very small’ number of offenders are put to death in countries that have legal Capital punishment, therefore almost making null the whole notion.
I don’t know the statistics but roughly 10,000 people are convicted of murder ‘each’ year in our country, yet in here we have put to death less than 50 persons a year.
Only 1300 death penalties since 1976! How many murders have there been since 1976? I know it must be more than 400,000, 1300 is 'nothing' compared to that. Should nothing be done? Do people only murder because 'there is' a death penalty? Should we not incarcerate either. Murder went up as well ‘all’ crime, violent 'and' none violent went up ‘ten fold’ into the 1990s from 1976!
If 100 % of convictions rather than .001% were put to death there would be a little more consideration on the part of offenders. Remember the biblical mandate held that not only were most of the Ten commandments punishable by death but other sins as well.
And what is being over looked is that murder is only a ‘very’ small percentage of crime that is committed daily, and certainly a miniscule fraction of all sin that is committed daily, without even computing in the sins Jesus points out in the sermon on the mount.

God is not at all primarily focused on murder, because all sin leads to death eventually.
How do you get people to stop committing adultery? God had a Law for that. How do you get people to stop gossiping, lying, etc.? God is as 'serious' about all sin as he is murder. Anyways I would much rather respond to scripture than statistics, but the use of punishment is an issue here...

[Homer]

Hi Steve,.

You wrote:

Homer and jriccitelli,

Mere expressions of astonishment, unsupported declarations, and quotes of the opinions of other commentators have never really moved me, in the absence of actual exegetical analysis.

I thought my explanation (exegesis) of the parable was sufficient to make the point I was making, that is, that God's mercy is promised only to the merciful. The parable is not a difficult one to understand. The universalist can't admit the obvious import and the Baptist/Calvinist will deny the servant was ever saved.

I do not see how Homer would think these comments of mine show some affinity with the no-heller position, or how jriccitelli would see these comments as a defense of universal reconciliation.

It struck me as a very odd position that you would see Jesus' threat as being limied to consequences in this life. You know that is the "no-heller" position. You mentioned in the past that you were interested in reading Hosea Ballou; perhaps he has made an impression on you like that of Tom Talbott.

If you read my last post (the one that you both apparently find astonishing), you should have seen that I make no points about hell at all from Matthew 18, since I do not find any reference to hell in that particular parable. Can you defend the fact that you do see hell there? It is not mentioned.

My interest is not in the particulars about hell. I am confident God will do what is right in any case. My interest is in refuting the false doctrine of the universalists. What I do see clearly pictured by Jesus is the irrevocable state of the wicked servant. The same conclusion is reached by Jeremias, Edersheim, Alford, D.A. Carson, Chrysostom, Schaff, Lange, and Trench, and many others I am sure.

It is strange to hear the suggestion that the purpose of the parable is to emphasize the severity of punishment. In the context of Peter's question, the parable is given to show the appropriateness and the duty of Christians, who have received great mercy, to extend the same mercy to our fellow men. The mention of punishment seems to be a corollary to the main point, and one about which very little detail is provided. If one has no agenda, one way or another, about proving a particular point about hell, he would likely see a very different main point of the parable.

Not just an appropriate duty, but mandatory. There is nothing Jesus taught more plainly than that we must be forgiving or God will not forgive us. Jesus began the parable with "the kingdom of heaven is like" and concluded it with "this is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from the heart". They will be turned over to the basanistes (jailers who torture) until they repay the debt which is not possible, unless you believe in purgatory. The threat could support either EP or CI. Jesus gave the warning and I would not dare trivialize it. It is an essential point of the parable, not just "window dressing".

Homer also seems to think that the point of the large amount of the original debt is to emphasize the impossibility of its repayment. While it may be that such a large debt could hardly be repaid, I do not at all think that this is the point intended. This would probably be the case if the point of the parable was to underscore the hopelessness of a sinner to justify himself before God by his own works (a topic close to the heart of Paul, but barely on the radar in the teachings of Jesus).

This sounds like something Bob George would say: Jesus never taught grace. Is that what you believe? True, the gospel writers never used the word charis when writing Jesus' words for us but IMO He clearly taught the concept, and more clearly than Paul did. We see the idea marvelously demonstrated in the parable we are discussing and also in the parable of the publican and Pharisee at prayer in the temple.

Instead, I think the enormity of the first servant's debt is intended to provide a stark contrast with the relative insignificance of the other servant's debt. The idea is:. For the Christian, who has been forgiven a great burden of debt, to neglect to forgive the relatively trivial offenses of others against himself is both absurd and criminal.

Agreed

I invited those who see hell in this passages to supply me with a plausible identity of the "tormentors." Are we to imagine infernal creatures in charge of hell, who go about poking the inhabitants with pitchforks to see if they are "done" yet? Is there anything in scripture to encourage such an image of the lake of fire? I challenge my friends, who find my points so astonishing, to provide something resembling a biblical answer to this question.

Why go beyond Jesus' words? They are the basanistes. They are symbols of what will happen to us if we do not heed the warning. All we need to know is that a terrible, irrevocable end awaits those who do not heed the warning. And Jesus did not appear to be embarrased to say that His Father would do it.

Since the mid-70s (decades before I ever heard of evangelical universalism), my suspicion has been that the parable of the unforgiving servant tells us something about how people come under the torment and control of demons. That is something that happens in this life. Those who neglect to show mercy give place to the devil (see 2 Cor.2:7-10; Eph.4:26-27; cf., 1 Sam.18:8-10). This is not the only possible interpretation of the "tormentors," but it is the only one that makes sense to me.

Could this be a relic of your baptist upbringing? It seems like an attempt to evade the obvious. The parable is very difficult for those who hold to eternal security, as it is for the universalist.

It seems that we are destined to disagree with each other on these matters. However, I can not imagine why I should even bother to participate in the dialogue if those with whom I am discussing the matter will not even read my posts, or will not take them seriously enough to make germane responses.

I do read your posts. Do you read mine? I posted comment about one category of your universalist proof-texts from the Old Testament but have seen no response. I hope you will consider this post germane.

JR wrote:

Yet on this issue I have to say it seems you have been rather dogmatically opposed to anything that criticises UR and have not challenged some of the other very invalid arguments in favour of UR and EU mentioned in this thread.

I have noticed this also. It is so obvious that anyone following this forum would be convinced you are a universalist. Anything for Calvinism or against universalism and you come out with "both guns blazing" yet have little comment on some rather unsupportable stuff.

By the way, in regard to concern about universalism being simply a sort of "private" discussion here among believers it is not so. If you google a certain topic you can find posts on this forum; I have had it happen more than once.

[Paidion]

Remember the biblical mandate held that not only were most of the Ten commandments punishable by death but other sins as well.

Don't you mean the Mosaic mandate? Did Jesus ever uphold the death penalty? No, rather he shamed those who were about to impose it, and then told the "criminal", that he didn't condemn her, and to go and sin no more. As for the Mosaic law, Jesus never said it was God's law, nor did He even ascribe it to Moses. Rather He said, "It was said to you or old time ...., BUT I tell you...." and then proceeded to tell them something quite different.

Do you really believe that 100% of those convicted of murder ought to receive the death penalty? Would you still believe that if you were one of the ones waiting on death row, when in fact you hadn't killed anyone? Even with the few who have been put to death, DNA evidence has later proved that some of them were innocent. Not even one innocent person should ever be put to death, and the only way to ensure that is to eliminate the death penalty as Canada has done. I personally know one person convicted of murder and sentenced to life, who was in prison for 21 years, and is now out on bail because of a court case which cast a great deal of doubt on his conviction. The case is so complex, that the judge is taking two years to analyse it. This "criminal" expects to receive millions of dollars from the Canadian government in compensation for taking 21 years out of his life. Did you ever follow the David Milgaard case? An innocent person can be easily convicted, especially if there are false witnesses. You can read a brief account of the case in Wikipedia:

David Milgaard

As for Steve letting such a comment as mine "slip by", the comment:
“…The idea that God was so angry at sinners that He took His wrath out on His innocent Son and was satisfied thereby, is abhorrent”

I have expressed my feeling toward ascribing to God such an act. I have tried to help you see that you would not do the same toward your own son. so that you might question how you can ascribe to God an action that you would personally find repugnant if you yourself did the same to your own son. My primary devotion is to God, who is LOVE personified. This theology is abhorrent to me because it greatly downgrades the character of God, and makes Him worse than ourselves.

I don't think Steve let the comment "slip by" at all. I just think he had no reason to negate it. I have no evidence that Steve believes that God did such a thing to His Son. Nor do I have any evidence that Steve believes in penal substitution. Maybe a thorough examination of the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ is needed. I invite you to examine my position as expressed in the first chapter of a book which I began to write:

The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ