Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[steve]

Hi Bud,

Thanks for participating! I would clarify on the questions near the end, about which you were not sure, that they are not worded as affirming certainty. Expressions like, "if God wished," "would probably not wish," "it would be possible for God...," and "more likely" are intended to reflect one's intuitions about probabilities and possibilities, rather than certainties.

While I can answer these propositions with confidence, I can only do so because the ones not affirmed clearly in scripture still speak of what one would assume (if informed by biblical presuppositions) as probabilities. If they expressed certainty, I could not affirm them.

[Michelle]

Homer,

As much as I am loathe to enter this discussion (not because of any of the correspondents, but because I am woefully ill-equipped), I have a few questions I'm hoping you can clear up for me.

This is not what I said or think. I believe that God places a high value on free will. The universalist system is not compatible with free will but is coercive. People are tormented (tortured?) until they say "uncle". Love that is coerced is not love at all. That seems simple to me. Love is a characteristic of God and equally so is free will, which we have, being created in His image.

You say that God places a high value on free will and that love that is coerced is not love at all. I take that to mean that in your understanding God will only accept love that is really love as opposed to coerced repentence, is that correct? When the threat of hell, whether that is cold darkness outside the city gates, or burning bright flames in a pit, is presented as the reason to repent, that also seems like coercion to me. What makes the difference for you?

[Homer]

Michelle,

Good to hear from you! I was wondering where you went.

You wrote:

As much as I am loathe to enter this discussion.....because I am woefully ill-equipped

You give yourself far too little credit. I still recall how you, with one post, caused me to turn 180 degrees from the position I was arguing for, regarding how we must treat those we forgive. I had not been taking the consideration of trust into account. And I have used the example you used then to explain my (present) position to others.

And you asked:

You say that God places a high value on free will and that love that is coerced is not love at all. I take that to mean that in your understanding God will only accept love that is really love as opposed to coerced repentence, is that correct? When the threat of hell, whether that is cold darkness outside the city gates, or burning bright flames in a pit, is presented as the reason to repent, that also seems like coercion to me. What makes the difference for you?

The person in hell, as the universalists say, is suffering a horrible, painful punishment in literal fire. His knowledge of the punishment is apodictic, i.e. absolute certainty (learned that word from the Catholics ). On the other hand, the person who hears the testimony of the scriptures about Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and the coming judgement and consequences of unbelief (hell), knows of this future only by faith. The person is free to believe or not believe and act accordingly.

I have long maintained that both Calvinism and universalism are coercive systems, and of the two it seems to me universalism is the most coercive. According to N. L. Rice, the noted Calvinist apologist of the 19th century, a person is regenerated prior to faith. He likened the regenerated person to a child who, when first hearing music, immediately finds it enjoyable. And so the regenerated person immediately receives the "good news" about Jesus with joy when he hears it. I can not buy the idea that the person in the flames of hell repents of his free will. That seems to be a no-brainer to me.

[Michelle]

Thanks so much, Homer, for expanding and explaining your viewpoint.

This is what I'm gleaning from the discussion (feel free to correct - gently - where I've misunderstood):

You and the Universalist (UR) both agree that after death all will be resurrected and judged and that those who died unrepentant sinners will be consigned to hell, a place of extreme unpleasantness, whatever that might entail. (I'll avoid reading literal meaning into analogies, as well as accusations of Edwardsian gruesomeness. Whatever hell is, It's not delightful.)

Further, you and the UR agree that God places a very high value on man's free will and so will not violate it. So where your first disagreement comes, it seems to me, is not whether God's desire for a man to repent discontinues the moment of his death, but, rather, whether man's free will disappears when he is faced with the certainty of his judgement; when his knowledge is apodeictic (thanks for this word, I love it.)

You make the point that we must take the coming judgement by faith and imply that once this judgement is carried out, the rebellious one would, as a matter of course, bow his knee and confess Christ is Lord. So at the point of judgement, man's free will has disappeared, and so, sadly, his confession is displeasing to God. The UR seems to say instead that man's free will is still intact; that judgement carried out does not guarantee yielding to God immediately, but might, over time, as so often happens this side of death, convince the sinner of God's grace in the face of our rebellion. A man's repentance under this circumstance, according to the UR, is still a free will choice and a delight to heaven.

On the other hand, your own view of hell (while minus the heat, still very unpleasant) does not even include the bowing of knees or confessing tongues. You say that those who are sent there are happy to be where they find themselves, their hearts so hardened that, again, free will is a non-issue; they will not be making any changes in their thinking.

At the end of your response to me you said:

I can not buy the idea that the person in the flames of hell repents of his free will. That seems to be a no-brainer to me.

I have heard dozens of testimonies about people coming to the end of themselves, the end of their rope, the dead end of the road they were on, when they came to themselves and realized that they needed to commit to the Lord. These phrases seem to speak of "hell on earth." I'm sure that you would not disparage the testimony of one who comes to the Lord in this manner. Was God coercing him as well? Is his confession of faith less valid because his options seemed fewer?

[steve7150]

The person in hell, as the universalists say, is suffering a horrible, painful punishment in literal fire.










And you get this info from where? Paidion once mentioned ( i think) the lake of fire is like the refiners fire purifying metal but i'm guessing he was using a symbolic analogy.
The greek word for fire "pur" is where we get the english word to purify , so do you really believe the CU believe it to be a real literal fire after Jesus said to love our enemies like our Heavenly Father does?

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

If we try to go the other way round, and try to harmonize God's omnibenevolence with His gratuitous punishment and destruction of sinners whom He might as easily have continued to bring to repentance, then we seem to be on a fool's errand.

Could you define what you mean by "omnibenevolent"? I do not find this term in the scriptures and as far as I know it is not in any of the creeds. Do you mean from a human point of view, such as you might judge the Father by what a good human father would do? And if "omnibenevolent" is determined from God's point of view, how would you know, seeing that "His ways are not our ways"?

Seems to me if we determine if God is omnibenevolent from our perspective we are forced to say He is not if we believe the accounts from the Old Testament of what He says He has done. And in Matthew 25, The Parable of the Ten Virgins, which Jesus said illustrated the Kingdom of Heaven, was Jesus (the bridegroom) unloving when He would not let the foolish virgins in when they begged Him to? That did not seem to represent love as His highest consideration at that point did it? Perhaps justice sometimes is equally or more important?

We do not say God is not omnipotent when He allows the exercise of power(s) other than and in opposition to His own. Why would we say He is not omnibenevolent (whatever that means to you) if he allows people to pursue a life of hedonism (resisted Hugh Hefner icon ) and encourage others to do so, even though it is harmful to them and others? And if He allows them, by their choice, to remain permanently in that state, is He not omnibenevolent? And further, what if He annihilates them?

Regarding gratuitous punishment and destruction, "gratuitous" is a matter of opinion, not fact. The old finite sin argument is very weak. Long ago I wrote of a little girl, whose family my wife knew well, who was brutally murdered. Not only was the family never the same, but the murder has consequences that are infinite. The children that little girl would have become a mother to were never born. They will not exist forever. The girl was the child of Christians. Perhaps she would have grown up to be another Mother Teresa or a missionary. All the good deeds this little girl that may have affected an unending chain of others do not exist.

And besides that God does not punish sins. Sins are not things, the are a symptom of a rebellious heart. How do you apply your yardstick to that? God punishes sinners.


AN ORIGINAL QUIZ FOR STUDENTS OF THE BIBLE:

I would like to ask jriccitelli and Homer to clarify your positions (others make take the quiz as well, of course). Please indicate which of the following propositions you are accepting and which you are denying, so that your position won't be so confusing:

1) God loves every person (affirm/deny)

He loves some more than others and in different ways. It might, for example, be loving to annihilate sinners who God knows are hopeless.

2) Jesus died to save every person (affirm/deny)

To potentially save every person.

3) God is not in a hurry or under externally imposed time limitations (affirm/deny)

He has, of His own free will, imposed a time limit:

Acts 17:31, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31. because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Why "fix a day" if time to repent never expires? To what purpose?

4) God can do nothing for, and has no interaction with, a person after death (affirm/deny)

He does a lot for those who go to be with Him. And He does something to those who are comdemned. Do you know of a scripture that definitively informs us He does something for them?

Getting late, gotta go. Let me know if you want me to complete this. Seems the game is rigged with these affirm/deny responses you ask for - a bit like begging the question.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

Could you define what you mean by "omnibenevolent"? I do not find this term in the scriptures and as far as I know it is not in any of the creeds.

"Omni" and "benevolence" are familiar words, I should think. Put them together and their meaning is rather plain. I am not familiar with many creeds, but the Bible states that "God is love." If He is only loving to some, but unloving to an equal or larger number, then the statement is meaningless. It does not say, "God has love...for some," but "God is love." The form of the sentence is the same as the statements "God is Spirit," and "God is Light" (all three statements are found in John's writings). These statements describe God's essence, not His policies. If God is love, and God is infinite, then we have the doctrine of omnibenevolence.

You wrote:

Do you mean from a human point of view, such as you might judge the Father by what a good human father would do? And if "omnibenevolent" is determined from God's point of view, how would you know, seeing that "His ways are not our ways"?

Our ways are indeed God's ways, if we are godly. The only people of whom it is said that their ways and their thoughts are not the same as God's ways and thoughts are the wicked and the unrighteous. See the context: Isaiah 55:7-8. By contrast, we have the mind of Christ. We make righteous judgments. You may have forgotten the post I addressed to you less than a week ago, in which I wrote:

If you say we are not in the position to make judgments about what is consistent for God to do, I believe you are mistaken. Making judgments about righteousness is exactly what God has commanded us to do (John 7:24/Luke 12:57). In fact, it is precisely our assignment, as spiritual men:

"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor.6:2)

We sometimes say that man is not capable of making proper judgments about the ways of God. This is the opposite of what the Bible says. Unbelievers are, of course, too ignorant to make such judgments. However, the spiritual and the righteous are much more in a position to trust their instincts about right and wrong.

"For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding...Then you will understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path." (Prov.2:6,9)

"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand all." (Prov.28:5)

"I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" (Jer.31:33)

"He who is spiritual judges all things." (1 Cor.2:15)

You wrote:

Seems to me if we determine if God is omnibenevolent from our perspective we are forced to say He is not if we believe the accounts from the Old Testament of what He says He has done. And in Matthew 25, The Parable of the Ten Virgins, which Jesus said illustrated the Kingdom of Heaven, was Jesus (the bridegroom) unloving when He would not let the foolish virgins in when they begged Him to? That did not seem to represent love as His highest consideration at that point did it? Perhaps justice sometimes is equally or more important?

Since the post in which I addressed this point, three days ago, was addressed to jriccitelli, you may not have read it, so I will repeat a portion of it for your benefit:

There are two sets of verses that come up in this discussion: 1) verses about judgment, and 2) verses about God's universal love for humanity. Now, we have several options:

a) Ignore the verses about judgment;

b) Ignore the verses about universal love;

c) Interpret all the verses in a way that harmonizes judgment with universal love.

It is clear that your approach is (b). Mine is (c). No one here is arguing for (a).

You wrote:

We do not say God is not omnipotent when He allows the exercise of power(s) other than and in opposition to His own. Why would we say He is not omnibenevolent (whatever that means to you) if he allows people to pursue a life of hedonism (resisted Hugh Hefner icon ) and encourage others to do so, even though it is harmful to them and others? And if He allows them, by their choice, to remain permanently in that state, is He not omnibenevolent? And further, what if He annihilates them?

I think we would say it because that's what the Bible says.

You wrote:

Regarding gratuitous punishment and destruction, "gratuitous" is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Gratuitous is neither opinion nor fact. It is an adjective that describes a category of action for which no good purpose exists. If I would mention gratuitous punishment, I am talking about punishment for which no good purpose exists. Destruction for the mere sake of destruction is not good (Prov.19:18; 18:9; 28:24). Destruction for some good result might be good. If we are discussing God's punishments and destroying, we are discussing actions for which a good purpose must exist. We are exploring what that good purpose may be.

The old finite sin argument is very weak. Long ago I wrote of a little girl, whose family my wife knew well, who was brutally murdered. Not only was the family never the same, but the murder has consequences that are infinite. The children that little girl would have become a mother to were never born. They will not exist forever. The girl was the child of Christians. Perhaps she would have grown up to be another Mother Teresa or a missionary. All the good deeds this little girl that may have affected an unending chain of others do not exist.

I addressed this recently. I have not raised the finite sin argument recently, though I think it has merit. But let us look at the case you raise:

Would you not think that, if that murderer were to repent before he dies, he would and should be forgiven, despite all that you have said about him above? Why should he be? Would his repentance on his deathbed cancel and heal all the harm that has been done to others? Of course not. We both believe that God forgives sins that have been incalculably hurtful in their effects (even your own sins, and mine, which we believe to be forgiven, may have done more harm to others than can be calculated). We both believe in, and count on, the grace of God.

I hope that we both believe that, no matter what a man has done, he can be saved, if he repents at the end of his life (actually, I am not positive that you believe this, since you have not affirmed all the affirmations I asked you about). How is the case different, in your mind, after death? If you believe such a man cannot be forgiven upon repentance, even before death, then this is another issue. In that case, you are forming your theology out of personal bitterness, rather than scripture. Many do so. One can easily hear it in many people's objections to any modification of the traditional hell doctrine.

You wrote:

And besides that God does not punish sins. Sins are not things, the are a symptom of a rebellious heart. How do you apply your yardstick to that? God punishes sinners.

It sounds as if you think someone here has ever disputed that God judges sinners. If so, I have not read their posts. Why bring this up? In your opinion, would God rather punish a rebellious heart in a manner that would change it from being a rebellious heart, or in a manner that accomplishes no good whatsoever?

As for your answers to the quiz, in my judgment, you are answering in a way to protect your position, rather than as you would if you were simply seeking to give straightforward responses, and were not concerned about where their logic might lead you. You seem to be aware of where plain, honest answers will lead you logically, so you appear to be avoiding them. I am willing to be proven wrong. You wrote:

1) God loves every person (affirm/deny)

He loves some more than others and in different ways. It might, for example, be loving to annihilate sinners who God knows are hopeless.

Your answer to the first is exactly that of the Calvinist, not of any other theological sentiment. Perhaps this controversy will drive you closer to Calvinism. They are the only people I know who teach that God does not love and desire to save everybody. You have argued against them on this very point for years. Your shift shows at least one thing: you can still change your mind at this age, as I also can.

2) Jesus died to save every person (affirm/deny)

To potentially save every person.

Even allowing that Jesus died "to potentially save" everyone takes us far enough in the right direction. I have been arguing for that potential. You have been arguing against it. One thing, though, is that, if God did not have the desire to save everyone, then the salvation of everyone would not even be potentially possible.

3) God is not in a hurry or under externally imposed time limitations (affirm/deny)

He has, of His own free will, imposed a time limit:

Acts 17:31, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31. because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Why "fix a day" if time to repent never expires? To what purpose?

Days may be fixed for many things. The day of judgment is fixed. The day of our death may be fixed. For all we know, the timing of every significant historical event may have been fixed. What I asked about is whether God is limited in terms of the time available to Him by some external authority or factor beyond His control. Is there someone above God, placing limits on how long He will be permitted to save sinners? There is no clear declaration in scripture to inform us that even the day of judgment represents a limit on His ability to save. You are assuming, without adequate scriptural warrant, that God can do nothing to save a person beyond the day of judgment.

4) God can do nothing for, and has no interaction with, a person after death (affirm/deny)

He does a lot for those who go to be with Him. And He does something to those who are comdemned. Do you know of a scripture that definitively informs us He does something for them?

No I don't. That is not necessary to my reasoning. This proposition is not stating that God does or does not do any particular thing. It is a statement about what God is or is not able to do. What He wants to do (or what He probably would do) is the subject of other propositions in the list. One thing at a time. The issue is whether God "can" (obviously, assuming He wished to do so) do more for a person after death.

[Ian]

Homer,

If death is the cut-off point for repentance. then the stakes are infinitely high in the correct and urgent evangelization of as many people as possible (Hudson Taylor clearly thought this). Because the stakes are so high, you would think that God would arm his most ardent troops with the sharpest sword of truth in that task. But what do we see in reality? Well, look at this video: https://vimeo.com/50792317
God did not see it as imperative to correct this (clearly deeply sincere) evangelical Christian`s misinterpretation of the Bible.
Although a Calvinist might see no problem with this scenario (maybe the scoffers on the street weren`t "elect" anyway), the Arminianist should.

[steve]

What a heartbreaking video! I wanted to cry for that poor man. Just think how much Harold Camping has to answer for!

[Ian]

To be fair to Harold Camping, this from wikipedia:

In March 2012, he stated that his attempt to predict a date was "sinful", and that his critics had been right in pointing to the words of Matthew 24:36: "of that day and hour knoweth no man". He added that he was now searching the Bible "even more fervently...not to find dates, but to be more faithful in [his] understanding."[