Is There Harm in teaching Universalism?

[Guest]

Hi Bob,

I do not presume any view is correct until proven. My priori assumption is that God is always just. CU presumes God's justice is always remedial. CU presumes since God is loving, eternal seperation/annihillation would be inconsistant with His loving character as the view interprets it. If such a view of God's character is correct, CU rejects such a God as unworthy of our worship. This imo, is the priori assumption of CU.

So do you presume that God is omnipotent? Do you presume that He is omniscient? Do you presume that He is good and holy? Based on what? Proof? Can you prove any of these things? No, the best you (or I) can do is offer evidence. You (and I) presume these (and many other) things about God based on what is revealed about Him in scripture. The a priori assumption of CU is simply that what is revealed about God in scripture is true: That He is perfect in His love. That He created mankind to have relationship with. That He desires to save all. That He is capable of accomplishing what He desires.

Lets face it, if there are three positions about how God ultimately deals with sinners (ET, CI, CU), and one of them is right, then two are going to be wrong. Whichever viewpoint you take, you are adopting a set of presumptions (or rather, a set of presumptions, based upon your interpretation of scripture, has led you to a viewpoint). So if CU is right (perish the thought!) then the ETs and CIs have, to use your terms, "rejected God as unworthy". I would prefer to say, underestimated the extent of His mercy and power.

In reality, of course, no one here is trying to reject God but rather to follow Him as best we know how.

As I spoke about this with Paidion, I do not think imo, God will judge someone for what they do not know, but by what they did know. Frankly, I do not burden myself any longer over those who have never heard the Gospel.

Ok, I'm going to harp on this because I see it as a glaring inconsistency. Please give me a straightforward answer (not just "I don't burden myself with it"): What, according to your system of belief, happens to those who die having never heard or understood the Gospel? How does your system of belief answer this question?

If one believes that salvation is based on accepting or rejecting Christ, and if one takes your statement at face value and follows it to its logical conclusion, the implication seems to be that people stand a better chance if they don't hear the Gospel. Please show me how this is not the logical conclusion of your assertion.

I have tried to draw CU's out in explaining their view of "proportional
justice". I hear the same old weak reply; "let the punshment fit the crime".
I know CU's believe it to be grossly unjust of God to punish for all eternity
sins commited temporally. So CU's do have a position on what they view as "proportional justice".

Actually, CUs have a range of views regarding the proportionality of God's justice, just as ETs (I love these acronyms!) have a range of views regarding the nature of the endless torment. My own view is that grace and mercy make justice (in the crime and punishment sense of the word) very disproportionate. We may be worlds apart on this, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to effectively communicate my view, but I'll try.

True Justice is much more than simple "tit for tat". God gave Moses "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" as a means of limiting the escalation of retribution. Man's attempts at justice are always crude and flawed in comparison to God's justice. Forgiveness, particularly, throws a monkey wrench into our crude sense of justice. When we read of Jesus, an innocent man, hanging on the cross and praying "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.", it messes with our sense of justice. When we hear about how the Amish reacted so gracefully towards the family of the gunman who killed five schoolgirls, it challenges us. To some it appears as complete foolishness.

Biblical justice is much more than crime and punishment. It is also concerned, for example, with resisting oppression and freeing the oppressed. The books of the Old Testament prophets are filled with warnings and exhortations to Israel to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan and the alien In this light, Biblical justice is particularly concerned with showing partiality to the most vulnerable.

Biblical justice seeks shalom: Peace. Not just peace in the sense of an absence of hostilities, but also a positive presence of harmony and wholeness in relationships; to God, to one-another, to ourselves, to our surroundings. I believe God's ultimate intent for mankind is shalom. Jesus has become our shalom.

Maybe another way to say this is that Biblical justice (which is a reflection of God's justice) is about righting what is wrong; of restoring things to their proper place of order. This is all much more comprehensive than the narrow "crime and punishment" paradigm that you had brought up.

So then, I do not have a problem at all in seeing God's holistic justice towards man appearing disproportionate in favor of compassion, mercy and grace.

The bigger challenge is in reconciling the "God of wrath" in the OT to the "God of grace" in the NT. This question is much bigger than just CU vs CI vs ET. Maybe part of the challenge is in how we understand God's wrath. I like the way Merrill Tenney, one of the original translators of the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version, describes wrath:

The word does not mean a sudden gust of passion or a burst of temper. Rather, it is the settled displeasure of God against sin. It is the divine allergy to moral evil, the reaction of righteousness to unrigheousness. God is neither easily angered nor vindictive. But by his very nature he is unalterably committed to opposing and judging all disobedience.

God is opposed to sin because sin is contrary to justice in every sense. How did He deal with it? The cross; which strikes us as an even greater injustice, but only if we lose sight of the goal of justice, which is shalom.

When we read of God "pouring out His wrath" in the Old Testament (for example in the Flood or at Sodom and Gomorrah) what we don't really know is the extent of wickedness and injustice that precipitated His action. God has told us that He is long-suffering and slow to anger, so I suspect the Antediluvians and the Sodomites must have acted in a pretty heinous fashion for an extended period of time.

On the other hand, if one is less inclined to take these early OT stories as literal, then it is possible that events which occurred were ascribed as being the result of God's wrath by those who witnessed or heard of them. This is sort of the equivalent of something bad happening to a person and others responding by saying, "You must have done something to make God angry."

If we go even farther and view these early OT stories again not as literal historical accounts but instead as cultural myths, then it could also be understood that the wrathful actions of God were included in the stories to make a point (ie, behave yourself!).

Whatever the case may be, the punishment was physical death, not eternal torment. The difference between the two is, obviously, enormous.

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

Topic: Is There Harm in Teaching Universalism?
Yes, there is....

I'm making two posts: Summary of my arguments on the thread and: Specific replies.

Preliminary.
Universalism teaches that everyone will eventually be with God in eternity---that it does not ULTIMATELY matter in this life how bad or evil anyone is---they will be with God at "some time(?)" after they die, regardless. To this a universalist would certainly say, "But it DOES matter! If someone doesn't become a Christian before they die, they will be sent to hell for 'corrective punishment'! And they will miss the greatness of what all it means to be a Christian in this life!" (I have more on that below)....

Summary of what I've posited on the thread.
Human nature being what it is: People use all sorts of 'defense mechanisms', to put it in psychological terms. They use these to cope with life's problems ineffectively. Defense mechanisms just don't work! Stated in another way, "Denial is not a river in Egypt!" (check the map, it's true)!

The defense mechanisms of procrastination (linked to avoidance) and denial have been the main arguments I've presented on this thread. That an unbelieving person who knew universalist teachings could decide that, though he or she knew they would go to hell for not becoming a Christian in their lifetime, they could "pay the piper" later (procrastination/avoidance). This wouldn't be a denial of what they would have to go through, per se. But it would be, in my view, a denial of the truth, in that I do not believe it is true anyone will come out of hell if they go there nor "wind up being okay in the long run"....

Actually, this person may not know the truth; that universalism is false, imo. But believing in universalism, he or she would think they would eventually be with God, no matter how much wrong or even evil they do in life. The universalist argument that sometimes comes along about now is, "The main thing is to live for Jesus" is side-tracking the issue. A diversion defense mechanism, if you will; shifting away from the topic at hand, imo.

Of course, Christians of every stripe think it's real important that we and everyone else lives for Jesus. However, that doesn't address the question of the destiny of those who never become Christans. Nor does it contribute to the universalism debate.

My position on this thread has been universalism is a very, very dangerous and harmful doctrine. But let's leave the debate aside for a moment. Regardless of which 'position' of the final destiny of all is, believers or not; I don't think I really need to say (again) that there are millions of people out there who know the Gospel and, whatever they think about hell, how bad it may be, how long could it be, and so on---the point is---they haven't become Christians. They know the Gospel truth but deny (don't deal with) just how serious the reality of it is: They are in sin and have all kinds of distorted thinking about God, themselves, and others.

Back to the debate.
I haven't been refuted on what I've posited: Anyone who believes universalism is true and has reasons not to become a Christian. According to universalist teachings they can "pay the piper later" and be with God no matter what they do (procrastination, by reason of antinominaism). "But the important thing is to live for God!" doesn't address the fact that universalism TEACHES THE EXCUSE that everyone will be saved regardless. If universalists don't wish to address this point, they are in denial and are not swimming in a river in northern Africa,

1 Cor 2:4But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (NASB).

"A natural man" in an amount of individuals which only God knows, have rejected the Gospel before they died. Many undoubtedly thought "I might become a Christian later" only to die before then or, otherwise, put it off till it was too late. Any number of rationalizations can be taken to procrastinate. Universalism offers a very convenient reason to put off believing: You can pay the price for an ungodly life after you die---and still be with God forever: AFTER THAT. This provides a "double out procrastination ". First, no need to become a Christian during my lifetime. Second, it will all be taken care after I die. "Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die! And get to be with God anyway!"

To be continued.....

[_Rick_C]

Continued....

Topic: Is There Harm in Teaching Universalism?
My last post summarized, though not in every aspect and detail, my position regarding the thread's question.

In reply.

Re: Do I think universalism has a "missing fear factor"?
Yes, absolutely: This has been my main argument in the thread (see my last post and below).

I base my views from what I understand the Bible teaches: God, in the Bible, is not presented as some kind of "sadist"--not even remotely, imo. I have no personal desire for "Vengence"...."is Mine, says the Lord." I don't look forward to Judgment Day as many will not be saved. For their sakes, I'm not anticipating that Day with anything other than a sense of urgency: What I can do to lead people to the Lord?

Re: "Universalism omits fear"
My last post covered why I think universalist doctrine "omits fear". Note, I didn't say "omits all fear" (which wasn't my point).
A person who believes in universalism has been given reasons from universalist doctrine to put a delay on the consequences of their sinful life: "No need to fear or worry about anything much now. I don't have to become a Christian since everything will be taken care of later." This kind of rationalization should be easy to understand. I mean, people do it all the time. And when it comes to the eternal destiny of their souls...I'm sure we all know people who are making that the last priority in life. It's the One Issue that lies beneath every other life-problem. And for many, it's best being put off till later:
"I try not to think about it."

This, my main argument, has been essentially unanswered on the thread.
(bold, to highlight; underlined (above) summarizes my position).
I'd like to see a cogent observation/reply/rebuttal on this, if possible....

Re: The case for annihilationism.
To reiterate: Topic: Is There Harm in Teaching Universalism?
I haven't presented a case for annihilationism or "advertized" it here. I've been answering the thread's question (the topic) from my non-universalist perspective. But I do want to get back to the Conditional Immortality thread to discuss/debate its relative merits some time.

Steve,
Thanks for your concerns about my meds.
I think my mind is just fine, not to debate that, tho,

An aside.
Someone mentioned that most Christian forums do not allow universalism to be discussed or debated. I've seen it "described" on other forums, similar to Steve's lectures. Well, anyway, I'm glad for the opportunity to be a non-universalist debater on the web! Thanks for that, Steve. BBL.

On that note, Have a Good Lord's Day,
Rick

[Guest]

I admire Abraham Lincoln and have studied the debates on his faith.

It has been argued that much of his public faith hid the inner doubts he had.

Steve Gregg acknowledged the idea that non-Christians could have trouble with the doctrine that gave God a view of justice that was much harsher that He taught in the Bible. Abraham Lincoln appears to have been in that very position.

He kept an arms length from baptism (though it is argued that he had been secretly baptized in the 1850's in Illinois, or that he had planned to be baptized two days after his death on Easter.)


In Allen Guelzo’s book is ABRAHAM LINCOLN: REDEEMER PRESIDENT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999

Professor Guelzo sees young Abraham Lincoln rejecting almost every attitude and belief associated with his much disliked ultra-calvinistic father, Thomas Lincoln. Abraham would not accept a Christian God as unmerciful and harsh as his father believed in. (He couldn't accept that a good and loving God could allow eternal suffering) Nonetheless, Lincoln took the Christian religion seriously. He wanted to be a Christian but did not find that Providence (or God) has given him the grace to convert (p. 155).


The Religion of Abraham Lincoln

Many may know that Abraham Lincoln was one of our most deeply religious Presidents. Very few know how well he knew the scriptures--even better than some of the most prominent clergy of his day. Almost no one knows that he believed in the doctrine of universal salvation.

Here are a few excerpts taken from “The Almost Chosen People” by William J. Wolf (Doubleday & Company Inc, 1959).

"One of Lincoln’s associates, Mentor Graham, tells of Lincoln: 'He took the passage, ‘As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,’ and followed up with the proposition that whatever the breach or injury of Adam’s transgressions to the human race was, which no doubt was very great, was made just and right by the atonement of Christ.'" (page 47)

"...Lincoln wrote an essay about 1833 on predestinated universal salvation in criticism of the orthodox doctrine of endless punishment. It is also consistent with the evidence that in 1850, Lincoln, through the reading of his pastor's The Christian's Defense and his own wrestling with the problem, became convinced intellectually of the validity of the biblical revelation. Lincoln's conviction that God would restore the whole of creation as the outcome of Christ's atonement would have been in itself a bar to membership in the Springfield church he attended." (pages 103-104)

"Another associate, Isaac Cogdal, tells of a discussion on religion in Lincoln’s office in 1859: 'Lincoln expressed himself in about these words: He did not nor could not believe in the endless punishment of any one of the human race. He understood punishment for sin to be a Bible doctrine; that the punishment was parental in its object, aim, and design, and intended for the good of the offender; hence it must cease when justice is satisfied. He added that all that was lost by the transgression of Adam was made good by the atonement: all that was lost by the fall was made good by the sacrifice.'" (page 104)

"The second statement was one dictated by Jonathan Harnett of Pleasant Plains, describing a theological discussion in 1858 in Lincoln's office. 'Lincoln covered more ground in a few words than he could in a week, and closed with the restitution of all things to God, as the doctrine taught in the scriptures, and if anyone was left in doubt in regard to his belief in the atonement of Christ and the final salvation of all men, he removed those doubts in a few questions he answered and propounded to others. After expressing himself, some one or two took exceptions to his position, and he asked a few questions that cornered his interrogators and left no room to doubt or question his soundness on the atonement of Christ, and salvation finally of all men. He did not pretend to know just when that event would be consummated, but that it would be the ultimate result, that Christ must reign supreme, high over all. The Saviour of all; and the supreme Ruler, he could not be with one out of the fold; all must come in, with his understanding of the doctrine taught in the scriptures.'" (pages 105-106)


"The Creed of Abraham Lincoln in His Own Words:"


"I believe in God, the Almighty Ruler of Nations, our great and good and merciful Maker, our Father in heaven, who notes the fall of a sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our heads.
I believe in His eternal truth and justice.
I recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history that those nations only are blest whose God is the Lord.
I believe that it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon.
I believe that it is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence of the Almighty Father equally in our triumphs and in those sorrows which we may justly fear are a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our reformation.
I believe that the Bible is the best gift which God has ever given to men. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.
I believe the will of God prevails. Without Him all human reliance is vain. Without the assistance of His divine Being, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail.
Being a humble instrument in the hands of our Heavenly Father, I desire that all my works and acts may be according to His will; and that it may be so, I give thanks to the Almighty, and seek His aid.
I have a solemn oath registered in heaven to finish the work I am in, in full view of my responsibility to my God, with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right as God gives me to see the right. Commending those who love me to His care, as I hope in their prayers they will comend me, I look through the help of God to a joyous meeting with many loved ones gone before."

I have to stick this on at the end. It is from Lincoln's second inaugural address and is one of my favorite American writings and I stared at it for 20 minutes when I saw it carved in the wall inside the Lincoln Memorial.

"...Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.

The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of "God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another draw with the sword, as was said 3000 years ago, so still must it be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." [March 4, 1865]

[Guest]

I have a question for Danny:

It seems that Rick's main concern about teaching universalism is that it gives people an excuse to live an ungodly lifestyle; that unbelievers would find no reason to repent, and believers would slip back into a life of sin. I've read your story; it's all dramatic and everything. Now you are an adherent of the universal reconciliation doctrine. Why aren't you in a rock band somewhere, living it up and contemplating an affair with, or marriage to, Heather Locklear? I've read about your ministry to the inmates. What's up with that? Why aren't you using your excuse to procrastinate?

[Guest]

Well, it never occurred to me before!

[_Rick_C]

My main concern is universalist doctrine, in itself, provides "the excuse" NOT to become a Christian. It's right there in the belief system.

If universalism is true, it wouldn't matter ultimately. "Ultimately," as in everyone will be with God regardless, eventually. If universalism is false as I maintain; and people don't become Christians because universalism has given them "another way out"; it will be too late for them. Non-universalism says, "There is no other way but through salvation today," (before you die).

Rick

[Guest]

Thank you, Eddie, for "Lincoln's Creed". I saved it for meditating upon it further from time to time.

A person who believes in universalism has been given reasons from universalist doctrine to put a delay on the consequences of their sinful life: "No need to fear or worry about anything much now. I don't have to become a Christian since everything will be taken care of later."

Rick, how long are you going to beat that strawman? I have many friends who are believers in the universal reconciliation of all people to God. Not one of them lives a wicked life nor attempts to assure others that they may do so, and that "everything will be taken care of later". If you know any such believers in UR, why not tell us about them?

I have outlined a few scriptures. In an earlier post, I even listed 20 different offenses from the OT by which a person could recieve the death penalty.
I want to know if these were "proportional" to the CU understanding of God's justice and fairness. If so how and in what way? Remember the ancients didn't have a concept of eternity as Danny asserted. All the life they had was the only life they knew. Was God "fair". In what way was the Flood *remedial* or *restorative*? (NO epic myth cop outs either please)

Bob, if we believe in the resurrection of all, some to a resurrection of life, and the remainder to a resurrection of judgment, then surely we can see that the 20 different capital offenses you mentioned, the destruction all of earth's people but 8 in the Worldwide Floor, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., although resulting in death, was a temporary punishment. For all of those people who died will be raised again. So remediation can still be the lot of every one of those people.

That they suffered death is a quite different matter than their suffering eternal torture, or even annihilation. As Origen put it, all rational beings have been created in order to exist. So their non-existence would defeat that purpose. Also their existence in an eternal state of torment would defeat God's loving purposes for all.

[_Rick_C]

Paidion,

If universalism is false, and you and your universalist friends teach universalism to unbelievers; you are potentially contributing to their souls being lost forever. That is, if they believe you and decide they would rather not become Christians.

Perhaps this point is the irreconciliable difference between universalists and non-universalists. Yes, I think probably so....

Rick

[Guest]

Danny,

Quote: "So do you presume that God is omnipotent? Do you presume that He is omniscient? Do you presume that He is good and holy? Based on what? Proof? Can you prove any of these things? No, the best you (or I) can do is offer evidence. You (and I) presume these (and many other) things about God based on what is revealed about Him in scripture. The a priori assumption of CU is simply that what is revealed about God in scripture is true: That He is perfect in His love. That He created mankind to have relationship with. That He desires to save all. That He is capable of accomplishing what He desires. "

I could have saved you some time posting by stating better my position:
I'll say it this way; I do not adopt as truth any doctrinal viewpoint
until all the 'best evidence" in support/against it, is considered. As you say, and I agree, we should follow where the evidence leads.

I am reasonably confident that all who are participating in this debate have a desire to know truth. But is our desire to know truth objective or subjective? How much does our own subjectivity or sensitivities "cloud" or detract from our objectivity? When we survey the so called "hard sayings" in Scripture, all of us at some level, are being presumptive in our estimations of God's character. For example, I presume God exists. But what evidence do I have that He exisits apart from my own subjectivity or desire that He exisits? I believe God is Holy, (what does that mean?), Just, Kind, Passionate,...and Loving! The scripture indeed informs us of all
these character qualities we discover in God, and in a flawed fallen way, we find them in ourselves as Image bearers. We can all agree and affirm at some level, these basic qualities. Then we have a Man named Jesus of Nazareth, whom the NT called the Son of God, the true Image and proto-type of what God intends His elect will eventually be like! The elect are His 'sheep'. His sheep will be the eventual beneficiaries of all that God has promissed since the beginning.

I take the Bible as a whole. One book of many books. What is God like and what does He want from me and for me ? What does He desire for the rest of His Image bearers? Where do I fit in to this story? What will be the final outcome of history when all is finally consumated? Is there any continuity of thought between the two testaments? Like any good novel, the bible reveals a beginning, middle and end to the story. If I had to pick one thought that is consistantly present throughout the bible it would be the thought of 'seperation'. God seperates. He seperates light from dark,
good from evil, elect from non-elect, sheep from goats, and wheat from weeds. IMO, the evidence is sufficient to conclude God does make distinctions between what is holy and common, noble or innoble according to His pleasure and purposes.

Now on to your next point;

Quote: :Ok, I'm going to harp on this because I see it as a glaring inconsistency. Please give me a straightforward answer (not just "I don't burden myself with it"): What, according to your system of belief, happens to those who die having never heard or understood the Gospel? How does your system of belief answer this question"?

I do not know how you see my answer as inconsistant. In the absence of omniscient knowlage, I do not know the*all* who will be saved, except those who are in Christ in the 'Christian' era. I do not 'know' if you are ultimately saved, for example. God knows. I believe a person will be judged on the basis of what Light He has recieved from God, no more and no less. Romans 1-2. So this is why I said I do not concern myself about those who have never heard the Gospel in this sense. God will judge them on the basis of what Light they have recieved, not upon what they don't know. IMO, to be qualified as an 'un-believer' in the Christian era one would have to pre-suppose a person 'heard the gospel' at some level
and rejected it. You do see a distinction between ignorance and un-belief, don't you? The reality is that it is God who seeks the lost, not the other way around. LK 15. Coins, Sheep and 'wayward kids' do not know they are lost. But God is the one who places the value upon that which was lost to Him. What value has He placed upon the 'wicked'? Not all people are characterized in the bible as God's "children". This is a whole different class category wherein CU apparently makes no distinctions between who are God's children and merely the offspring of the 'godless'. The testimony of John's Gospel clearly distinguishes those who are and are not the children of God in the Christian era.

Now on to your comment on "proportional justice";

Quote: " True Justice is much more than simple "tit for tat". God gave Moses "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" as a means of limiting the escalation of retribution. Man's attempts at justice are always crude and flawed in comparison to God's justice. Forgiveness, particularly, throws a monkey wrench into our crude sense of justice. When we read of Jesus, an innocent man, hanging on the cross and praying "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.", it messes with our sense of justice".

I agree in part, with your assesment. An aspect of True Justice as exercised by God in its ultimate 'penal' form, is for the specific removal of evil from the community of faith. The Flood account bears witness to this fact. There was nothing remedial about it. This aspect of God's justice has been my primary focus in this debate. I am not refering to man's sense of justice. I do not exclude the other applications of justice,ie, 'doing right'.
With man, we expect inconsistancy. In God we do not expect such inconsistancies. He is Holy. Out of this idea of His holiness, all of His attributes are communicated, understood or at least apprehended. The essence of what it means to be 'holy', is once again seen in the thought of being 'seperate', or set apart. You would agree that it is God alone who is Holy and defines what is holy or set apart for His use and purposes?
How God excersised His judicial wrath does seem harsh to our modern sensitivities. I am not denying this. But it's one thing to agree with the apparent 'harshness' or brutality we find in some cases in the Word, and quite another to stand in judgement of them and make a 'doctrine' out of it by teaching God's justice is always remedial and always restorative.
That is simply a lie.

I'll have to pause for now.

Until then, God bless.
Bob