Lk. 14:23 and the Spanish Inquisition

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

I am very much aware of the Universalist's use of the father image as an argument for their position - that God is the father, at least in a sense, of every human and will not give up until he saves every last one, a great many of which will be converted in hell. This has always seemed to me to be a forced conversion.

Recently I was thinking again, as I occasionally do, about an incident that happened with one of our sons almost 50 years ago. We had moved to a home that was about three city blocks south of a large irrigation canal, about six feet deep, with steep dirt banks. There were numerous canals such as this in the area, none of them fenced, and virtually every irrigation season we would hear of child drowning in one of them. I decided I should not mention the canal at all for fear that, as boys do, he would be tempted to head for it sooner or later. I decided to teach him to never go far enough from home that he would reach the canal if he headed that direction. But he began going too far from home in his play, fortunately going east. Each time I caught him I punished him, mildly at first, but I let him know that each incident would result in escalating punishment. I feel sorrow today for how I punished him (no blood shed), but console myself that we have our son. He is alive and a good man!

My point in saying this is that the good human father will force the child to do what is necessary to avoid great harm. If the Universalist's application of the father/child motif is valid, why would not the father "compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" during this life, rather than convert them later after much suffering in hell? Surely He wants them to repent NOW. And surely He is not powerless to make it happen.

It would seem to me some combination of Calvinism/Universalism would be even more compelling to those so inclined than Universalism alone.

[Paidion]

My point in saying this is that the good human father will force the child to do what is necessary to avoid great harm. If the Universalist's application of the father/child motif is valid, why would not the father "compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" during this life, rather than convert them later after much suffering in hell?

I see no evidence of the Father compelling ANYONE in this life, neither those who, presently, are his children, nor those who are not. As I see it, the Father does not use compulsion but rather persuasion or influence. He created man in his own image, and possibly the most prominent aspect of that image is free will. God does not interfere with free will, though He may strongly influence people to choose righteousness and eschew evil.

Surely He wants them to repent NOW. And surely He is not powerless to make it happen.

True on both counts. So what is the implication of these two true statements? I think it implies that He is unwilling to interfere with free will. Otherwise, He WOULD make it happen.

A similar argument is made concerning the age-old problem of suffering. God does little to prevent human suffering. Because He is LOVE, surely He doesn't WANT them to suffer. And surely He isn't powerless to prevent their suffering. So why does He seldom prevent human suffering? As you know, atheists use the problem of human suffering in their attempt to prove that God doesn't exist.

It is true that some who believe in universal salvation, are Calvinistic in their thinking. They state that God has ordained or pre-destined all to salvation. This is not at all my understanding. To me Calvinism doesn't make sense. I think the desire of Arminianists to recognize human free will is commendable. But I think they fail to do so in their belief that God knows in advance what everyone is going to choose. For that would mean that the future is fixed, and that everyone must simply play out the established script. I know you believe that the future being already determined does not conflict with free will, but that makes no sense to me.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote:

True on both counts. So what is the implication of these two true statements? I think it implies that He is unwilling to interfere with free will. Otherwise, He WOULD make it happen.

A similar argument is made concerning the age-old problem of suffering. God does little to prevent human suffering. Because He is LOVE, surely He doesn't WANT them to suffer. And surely He isn't powerless to prevent their suffering. So why does He seldom prevent human suffering? As you know, atheists use the problem of human suffering in their attempt to prove that God doesn't exist.

And this is just my point. What you say invalidates the Universalist's argument comparing God the Father and human fathers because any good human father will override the will of a child whose behavior places the child in peril.

In his book Steve quotes Barclay:

If God was no more than a King or a Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is father - He is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home.

It seems the only counter argument against the idea that a human father would not allow his child to go to hell is to maintain that God the Father values free will more than saving all mankind who the Universalists insist (in at least one sense) are all God's children. And if this is so there is no reason to believe He will not allow them the final say in the matter.

[Paidion]

And this is just my point. What you say invalidates the Universalist's argument comparing God the Father and human fathers because any good human father will override the will of a child whose behavior places the child in peril.

So why do YOU think God allows people to go their own way, and end up in hell or annihilation rather than override their free will? Is a good human father better than He whose essence if LOVE?

The writer to the Hebrews COMPARES God's correction of his people to that of a good human father:

And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. (Heb 12:5-8 ESV)

Could the answer to the problem be that there is a distinct difference between those who resist God, and a child who may fall into an irrigation canal? The former are adults but the latter are children. It is generally believed among Christians, that until a child is able responsibly to choose for himself, he will not go to hell or be annihilated if he dies.

Also, human parents don't force their children when they begin to mature, but allow them to choose for themselves even when those parents know that their choice may lead to suffering. Hopefully these sons and daughters will learn from experience. I think it is much the same with God's relationship with man. The following quote from 2 Peter indicates that the writer seems to have believed that the reason God does not act, or postpones his action, is to patiently wait for all to come to repentance (or their own free will). That seems to indicate that God has a lot of consideration for free will:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:1-4. 8,9)

[dizerner]

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Doesn't this verse imply then, that the Lord's slowness prevents them from perishing. This equates the Day of the Lord coming, were it to come presently, with their perishing, rather than with more patience. I think Homer has a solid point that Universalism is far more persuasive than annihilationism or eventual reconciliation, if we want to base a doctrine on human emotion, rather than God's Word; I think we should then just make God completely loving and forgiving to everyone. People try to say Christ painted that picture, but I have to wonder if they even read the NT seriously then, for he certainly did not.

Scripture is clear, that there is a place where you can find no repentance. I encourage any UR or ER proponent to seriously meditate on some of the verses indicating a real finality of spiritual state.

For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

And indeed, this may very well be the state of hell: seeking but never finding. Listen to one man's testimony on experiencing hell, which stays very close to the Biblical account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0wG9BaQGKQ