Dangerous Heresy

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by steve » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:44 pm

It must be said that it is a great assumption to say that if God commands us to do something that is reflective of Him, then He must always act accordingly in all of His dealings. This is not true biblicaly.
It is not an assumption to say that we are to imitate God in our dealing with our enemies. Jesus said it directly. No other meaning could justly be taken from the words I quoted in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. God is our role model. "Be imitators of God, as dear children" (Eph.5:1).
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
We are not told that we should not avange ourselves because God will avenge Himself. We are told not to avenge ourselves because God will avenge us. In other words, the verse is not talking about God's policies toward His enemies, but about His policies toward our enemies. If we wish to learn of God's attitude toward His own enemies, we are told plainly enough, in Romans 5:6-10.

If I were a judge, I would be required to avenge the wrongs done against innocent victims, but, if I am a forgiving sort, I might still forego the luxury of avenging wrongs done to me personally. Christians are told to be sufficiently gracious and merciful (I might even say, sufficiently mature) to be capable of absorbing injuries without retaliating, or even wishing to do so. I have no difficulty believing that God is mature enough to do the same. Some people picture God as being even more peevish than the best of men.

I might tell my children not to fight back against bullies (even as I do not fight back against those who bully me), because I intend to redress the wrongs done to my children in my own (more mature and just) way.

Thus, I might require my children to behave toward their enemies exactly as I behave toward my enemies, and still take on myself the responsibility to personally deal with their tormentors.

The promise that God will avenge wrongs done to His people could hardly imply a threat of eternal torment, since none of my enemies has ever subjected me to eternal torment—only to temporal suffering. To repay them with eternal torment, rather than temporal suffering, in return, would not qualify as "avenging" the wrong. It would be sheer vindictiveness. God's own law places limits upon what can be called just retribution: "an eye for an eye..."
Also, just because God does delight in showing mercy does not means that He always will or must, that would be mercy demanded and hence not mercy.
People who believe in eternal torment often make this point. "God is not required to show mercy." It make it sound as if mercy is something He grudgingly extends to a few, in order that those few might think Him to be "gracious", but that He jealously reserves His right to exclude some, which is His real preference—and don't anyone try pressure Him to put out one modicum more of mercy than He already has conceded!

Perhaps this is a projection of the speaker's own attitude to that of God? It makes me wonder if the person making the point is himself reluctant to show mercy to others, but will do so only when required, and thus projects upon God the same reluctance. Yet my reading of scripture convinces me that God delights in mercy. The fact that mercy is, by definition, undeserved should be its own corrective to this idea. Since no one can require God to show mercy to sinners, how can we account for the fact that God, through Jesus, has in fact extended mercy to sinners? It must be because He wanted to do so! Does this not tell us that God's desire is to show mercy to sinners?

Of course, we must make the distinction between mercy denied in this life (and possibly for some time afterward), on the one hand, and mercy denied eternally, on the other. God may deal very severely with sinners, both in this life and in the next—but for what purpose? If the sinner's retribution is to be eternal, then the severe dealings were ineffective and of no value. They are then unnecessary (since they accomplish nothing—including the interests of strict justice), and no motive, other than God's sheer vindictiveness (a trait nowhere attributed to God in scripture), can be assigned to them. If, on the other hand, sufferings in this life lead some to repentance in this life, while sufferings after this life might lead others to repentance in that life, one would see that "mercy triumphs over judgment" after all.

Only Calvinists can legitimately claim that God wishes to show mercy to some, but reserves the right not to show mercy to others, because He doesn't want all people to be saved. For those of us who are not Calvinists, and actually believe that God loves and desires to save all sinners, the question has never been "Must God show mercy?" but rather, "Must God's desire to show mercy be eternally frustrated?"
The very concept of mercy presupposes a strict judgement that is rightly deserving, possibly even ET. And because scripture makes us aware the some will receive no mercy then we must bow ourselves to God's revelation of Himself, both His goodness and severity. 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'
I hope no one at this forum has ever suggested that God is never severe, or that He will ignore unrepented-of sin. The question under consideration is whether God has, or does not have, sufficient ingenuity to get what He wants for all eternity—even while not neglecting His responsibility to punish our sins.

User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by 21centpilgrim » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:18 pm

I imagine that a non- Calvinist could freely say that God wishes to show mercy on all, but reserves the right to have to show mercy on any because He is also just and will not show mercy to those who neglect so great a salvation.

Perhaps, not convinced that, both sides of the discussion speak from silence when they hold out hope or no hope for people after death, but there is an urgency and weight of the heart in the pleading of men to be reconciled to God that is found in scripture.
James 2:12,13 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Judgement without mercy will be shown to some, what an awesome (older meaning) thought. This brings tears to my eyes and makes to cry out to men to flee from the wrath that is to come and turn to the Lord in whom is great pardon and release.
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by steve » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:25 pm

I find that every advocate of eternal torment is quick to affirm how much the doctrine grieves them. This raises the perplexing question: Do we find this doctrine grievous, while God takes pleasure in it? Or is it that God shares our grief, but has (in His infinite wisdom) concocted a universe which must eternally bring Him grief?

I have never read an advocate of the traditional view who claimed to delight in the doctrine. Why is this? Are we more merciful than God? Do we pity sinners whom God does not pity? And if He pities them, is there some force above Himself coercing Him to do the opposite of what He yearns to do? I have never encountered a good answer to this conundrum.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by Homer » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:29 pm

Steve,

You wrote:
The question under consideration is whether God has, or does not have, sufficient ingenuity to get what He wants for all eternity—even while not neglecting His responsibility to punish our sins.
Your most recent post appears to be a rejection of both EP and CI. You have argued in the past that annihilation is a kind of eternal punishment as opposed to eternal punishing. I thought you "leaned" CI but I never hear you argue for that position, only UR. Are you now a universalist?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by steve » Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:33 pm

I thought this thread was about universalism. I believe I have participated in threads on conditional immortality as well.

User avatar
RICHinCHRIST
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Dangerous Heresy

Post by RICHinCHRIST » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:33 pm

steve wrote:I find that every advocate of eternal torment is quick to affirm how much the doctrine grieves them. This raises the perplexing question: Do we find this doctrine grievous, while God takes pleasure in it? Or is it that God shares our grief, but has (in His infinite wisdom) concocted a universe which must eternally bring Him grief?

I have never read an advocate of the traditional view who claimed to delight in the doctrine. Why is this? Are we more merciful than God? Do we pity sinners whom God does not pity? And if He pities them, is there some force above Himself coercing Him to do the opposite of what He yearns to do? I have never encountered a good answer to this conundrum.
It is this very truth that has lead me away from believing in the traditional view. A year or two after I got saved, I was very adamant about talking to nearly every person I met about the gospel (in hopes to convert them). I lived in Boston at the time, and so I got to meet a lot of people both in my college and on the trains. Many mornings, after I spent time with God, I would listen to a Puritan podcast. It was a man reading devotionals written by Puritans. I downloaded all of the ones about hell and would listen to them over and over before I went out to talk with people. I would listen to them until I could get a glimpse of what eternal torment really meant. It would constantly bring tears to my eyes, and I felt like it encouraged me to have a firmer urgency and concern for the state of lost souls. I was young in the faith, and it was probably not wise to present fire and brimstone theology to every person I met. I even made a video explaining why I became a Christian and what the fate of those who do not repent will be. I sent it to every friend or family member. I'm now trying to repair some of the relationships I had which are damaged because of that video.

I actually believe it was the hours and hours which I devoted to thinking about the eternal fate of the lost that motivated me to later abandon confidence in its ramifications. When one thinks about it long enough, I don't see how any sentimental person could find any joy or peace in such a teaching.

I became so familiar with the ET doctrine that I considered leaving college and not holding a job just so I could pass out tracts to as many people as possible so they could escape such a terrible fate. I think that is the necessary conclusion one must make if this doctrine is true. If it is true, then we all should quit our jobs, start wandering the streets and plead with people to repent to escape hell. It must become the thriving foundation of the gospel message. If the punishment is that great, then it seems that the only logical conclusion is to abandon all other endeavors to focus on getting people out of hell. But, the ironic thing is this: You can tell someone a million times that they will burn in hell forever and they will never come to Christ that way. It logically makes no sense to any thinking person, and it seems self-righteous and cruel to even present such a doctrine to someone.

Where is the fruit of the ET teaching? Has anyone sincerely come to Christ because they feared His threats of neverending torment? I know I came to Christ because of His love and of His mercy to save a sinner like myself, not His threat of eternal fire. It was only until after I came to Christ that I began to see the horrific nature of sin and that it warrants a severe penalty. I have many times trembled before God that I wouldn't fall into the category of those in Matthew 7:21-23. I never thought about those things before coming to Christ. How could we expect anyone to submit to Christ in light of ET teaching if even Christians are afraid to mention it? Does the doctrine of ET draw people to Christ? If the Holy Spirit is drawing people to Christ, and the doctrine of ET draws people away from Christ... you do the math.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”