Universal
Reconciliation Vs. Eternal Torment
A Debate Between Robin Phillips
& Douglas Wilson
(January 4, 2000 to March 11th
2001)
Robin:
Thanks Douglas for agreeing to discuss with me the question
of eternal punishment vs. universal reconciliation. To begin I think we ought
to focus on the finished work of Christ which, as you once wrote, should be the
basis of our theology about last things. There are generally three views about
the work of Christ. The first is the Calvinist position, that all for whom
Christ died will be saved, but Christ did not die for all. The second is the
Armenian position, that all for whom Christ died will not be saved, though
Christ died for all. The third is the universalist position, that all for whom
Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for all. Which of these positions do
you believe is the correct one?
Douglas:
My position is the first. Your description of this position is accurate
as far as it goes, but it does require an additional qualification. I would
describe my position as being that of postmillennial
Calvinism. This holds that only those for whom Christ
died will be saved, and that Christ did not die for each and every individual
(Calvinism), but at the same time He did die for the world (postmillennialism).
This means that from the vantage point of the last day, the overwhelming
majority of the human race will be saved.
Robin:
So
when scripture says that Christ died for the world (Jn. 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 6:33;
6:51; 12:47; 2 Cor. 5:19, 1 Jn. 2:2), how would you define the word 'world'? A
majority of mankind?
Wilson:
Yes, I would define it as the overwhelming majority of mankind. I
believe the number of those in heaven will far exceed the number of those in
hell. This definition of world is well within the available definitions of
kosmos, as contextually defined.
Robin:
I
agree that that is one available definition for the Greek word 'world', just as
another could be the whole of humanity. When the word is applied to those for
whom Christ died, I believe the sense of how its used makes the latter, more
literal definition, the most plausible. This becomes necessary when we realize
that Christ has actually saved "all men" (Jn. 12:32, Rom. 3:23-24,
5:12, 18-19, 11:32, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 4:10, etc.) and hence He must have
died for all of them. Also, how can you explain that not once is Christ's work
ever qualified to suggest that there are some (it makes no difference how few)
that He did not die for? I also believe we run into moral difficulties if we
say Christ only died for some but overlooked others.
Douglas:
I agree that if universal salvation is true, then Christ would have died for all men; however, that is the point being debated. For this reason we must take into account any passages which might specify that certain individuals are not saved.
I believe that we must take all the passages of Scripture at face value. The Bible teaches that the world will be saved, and so we must believe this. The Bible also teaches that not every person will be saved. We must believe this also. The way I reconcile this is through an affirmation of the traditional view of Hell, along with affirming a postmillennial vision for the salvation of the overwhelming majority of the human race.
There is only a moral problem if Christ’s salvation were something that He owed us rather than an act of free grace.
Robin
Yes, we must take into account any passages which
might specify that certain individuals are not saved, but for the same reason
that you say this is necessary, it is equally necessary to consider the
scriptures I referred to which might specify that everyone will eventually be
saved. Along this line, I would particularly draw your attention to Paul's
statements about Christ as the second Adam since the parallel between all who
die in Adam and all who shall be made alive in Christ is such as to rule out
any quantitative difference between the scope of the first Adam and that of the
second. As the original sin that the first Adam introduced is universal, so the
redemption introduced by the second Adam is likewise universal, according to
the parallel used by Paul in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22. Yet "we do
not yet see all things put under Him" (Heb 2:8), for although all men were
redeemed judicially in the once and for all act of Christ dying on Calvary,
salvation is something that must be appropriated by each person individually
through repentance and faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9-10, James 5:20). Thus,
although I agree with you that scripture specifies that certain individuals are
not saved (Heb. 10:26), this does not mean that they never will be saved. On
the contrary, we are told that "The Lord is...not willing that any should
perish but that ALL should come to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:9, Ezek. 33:11).
We have every basis for expecting God's will to be fulfilled in this regard
since Scripture declares that the salvation of believers is simply the
"firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18), preceding the final
harvest of all. Hence, Paul emphasizes that Christ is the Savior
"especially" (but not exclusively) "of those who believe."
(1 Tim. 4:10)
Douglas:
I quite agree that the work of each of the two Adams is global. Just as
the disobedience of the first Adam reached to all his descendants so the work
of the second Adam includes all His descendants. Otherwise the parallel between
the two does not make sense.
Peter says that the Lord is longsuffering towards us, not willing that
any should perish. The realm of discourse is bounded by that phrase, towards
us. He is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any {of us} should perish.
If it were the case that ultimate salvation will come to each and every
person, then how can this be reconciled with the language of Scripture in
multiple places? These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a
tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever (2 Pet. 2:17).
The universal passages are accounted for by a strong postmillennial vision
for the future. And at the same time, the passages which promise eternal death
can be taken at face value as well.
Robin:
When
you say Adam's descendants are 'global', do you mean by this that his
descendants include each and every individual who has ever lived?
I
2 Peter 3:0 (and don't forget Ezekiel 33:11 & 1 Tim. 2:3-4) only holds true
for those 'of us' who are elect, then as far as the rest are concerned does the
converse apply, that is, does God will for them never to repent and does He
delight in their eternal separation from Him?
I
agree that the passage you refer to from 2 Peter does indeed speak of God's
judgment upon the wicked. My only disagreement would be with your belief that
this judgment is of an everlasting nature. The word which is translated
'forever' in 2 Peter 2:17 is an addition of the A.V. that does not appear in
the original Greek text. Hence, the modern translations have rightfully left this
word out. There are other verses that speak of judgment and use the word
AIONIOS, translated everlasting. However, the Hebrew equivalent of this word is
OLAM and is frequently applied it the Old Testament to things that were
temporal and, in some cases, had already ceased to exist before the word was
used of it. The same holds true for the Greek word for eternal and forever
which, although sometimes applied to things that are endless (such as God), is
elsewhere applied to things that are only age-lasting and of which it would be
utter nonsense to consider endless in a literal sense. My point is that the
duration of AIONIOS must be determined by the context in which it appears. In
the case of the judgment passages, particularly those in the gospels, there are
compelling contextual grounds to show that the judgment is of a finite and
temporal quality.
If
my interpretation of the universal passages is wrong, the postmillennial interpretation
is clearly the only other possibility. Yet it is hard to conceive how such an
interpretation could apply to a verse like 1 Timothy 4:10 where the future
salvation of those who are currently unbelievers is suggested by the use of the
inclusive adjective 'especially.' Furthermore, in Philippians 2:9-11, the
eventual reconciling of all things to Christ is said to occur not merely among
those living on the earth, as postmillennialism has it, but also "of those
under the earth" which is symbolically representative of the departed
dead.
Douglas:
When I say that an Adam's descendants are global, I mean to include each
and every descendant. In Adam's case, this also means each and every human
being. In the case of the second Adam, it means each and every one of the
elect.
My handling of 2 Peter 3:9 as limited by the phrase "toward
us" was a contextual issue that would not apply to the other passages you
mention. In other words, it was not an all-purpose answer. It was simply an
assertion that 2 Peter 3:9 is not applicable to this debate. And yes, I am
willing to accept the converse. God in fact does not will the salvation of
those He does not will to save. Does He delight in this? You bet. "And it
shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to
multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you" (Dt.
28:63).
My Greek text has "eis aiona" in 2 Peter 2:17, and forever is
a good translation of it. Back-translations into Hebrew are a perilous way of
proceeding, and besides, we have contextual reason for translating it as
forever in certain passages. My position is not that aionios cannot mean
anything else, but rather that it can mean eternal and in certain contexts, has
to mean eternal. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but
the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). The same word modifies
life and punishment.
With regard to Phillippians 2:9-11, we should note that Jesus did in
fact reconcile those in heaven, on earth and under the earth. The Old Testament
saint Abraham was under the earth (Lk. 16:23).
Robin
If
the words 'as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive' merely
mean that the work of each Adam reaches all his descendants, then that is a
mere tautology and could hardly have inspired the exuberance Paul felt when
articulating this theme (indeed, it should inspire depression). So isn't it
more likely that the parallel is between the scope of each Adam's descendants,
with Paul saying in effect, 'Just as the descendants of the first Adam included
every individual, so also the descendants of the Second Adam will be
universal'?
However,
Doug, I don't think we'll make progress by simply batting our interpretations
back and forth like this, because it's hard to prove anything conclusively
simply from dissecting the language of a verse here, a verse there, because the
Bible is not like a legal document where all the meanings are literal and
explicit. Also, our interpretations are bound to be effected (rightfully) by
what we believe to be the larger context of scripture. Thus, when we come to a
verse like 2 Peter 3:9, or even 1 Cor 15:22, although I agree that when the
words are analyzed purely in and of themselves, they could mean either one of
our two interpretations, I have to opt against your interpretation on the
grounds that it is inconsistent with the character of God as revealed generally
throughout all of scripture. In the case of 2 Peter 3:9, your interpretation is
additionally contradicted by Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11 & 1 Tim 2:4.
You
quote Dt. 28:63 to try and prove that God delights in the death of the wicked.
This verse is taken from when Moses laid before the children of Israel two
paths: the path of obedience to God's commands, which will result in abundant
blessings, and the path of disobedience which will result in curses and
judgment. Unfortunately, they did not heed the warnings and used their free
will (do you believe in free will?) to choose the path leading to judgment. Now
clearly God was displeased that they had chosen the way of wickedness, but once
they had made that choice, refusing the multitudinous second chances offered
through the mouths of the prophets, it reached the point where the destruction Moses conditionally foretold was the
only solution. God can rejoice in their destruction (and so can I) because He
knows it will ultimately lead to their salvation. But if, as you believe, such
judgment is an end in itself rather than a means to a higher end, then God
would be a sadist to rejoice over it.
Of
course I agree that God does not owe mercy or salvation and to anyone, but although
He is not obligated to provide salvation on the basis of what we have done (in
which case it wouldn't be grace) He is internally obligated to always act in
conformity with His own perfect nature. For God to act contrary to His own
essence would be as impossible as if a triangle had six sides. Now, providing
salvation is an act that follows from God's infinitely perfect nature, an act
of grace because it is something He
gives because of who He is and not because of what we have done to deserve it.
On the other hand, when I say that eternal damnation has moral problems
inherent in it, I mean that it
contradicts God's nature - which is the source, not only of all His acts, but
also of our basic sense of morality, obscured as it is by the fall.
I
was surprised your Greek text had that phrase in it. I found that it only
occurs in the Alford text and none of the other more reliable manuscripts,
which is no doubt why the modern versions have left it out. However, this is
irrelevant, as is the issue about the Hebrew, since we seem to agree about
aionios. The real issue then is whether the context of Matthew 25:46
necessitates that aionios means eternal literally. It surely necessitates the
opposite for at least four reasons.
1.
The word for punishment that is used is not the ordinary Greek word for
punishment but kolasis which has a special nuance that indicates the punishment
is rehabilitative and purposeful, and consequently temporary. There is ample
evidence of this distinction in classical Greek literature.
2.
The same people Jesus was referring to in Mt. 21:28-31, namely the chief
priests and the scribes (those who were later responsible for his crucifixion),
He elsewhere declared would be entering the Kingdom of Heaven! That's right,
though 'the publicans and the harlots will go into the Kingdom of God before
you.' (Mt. 21:31) That word 'before' is used over twenty times in the gospels
and in each case indicates one thing being proceeded by another. Getting into
the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore, will be like a que in which those who
expected to enter first will actually go last, probably after the millennium
altogether.
3.
If anyone is in the category of those who 'shall go away into everlasting
punishment' it would surely be those who crucified our Lord. Yet Jesus Himself
prayed that they would be forgiven (Luke 23:34), which is incompatible with the
idea that they will never be forgiven but tormented in hell throughout
eternity.
4.
It would violate what the Bible (and our innate moral sense) tells us
about the character of God if punishment lasts eternally since such punishment
would be unproductive, pointless and consequently cruel. If you object that it
is not pointless since it is something we all deserve and hence satisfies
Divine justice, then I want to say two things. First, in that case you would
have to say that Divine justice never obtains satisfaction since it is always
being satisfied but never is satisfied. Thus, in so far as the task of
satisfying justice is never complete (an infinite task, by definition, can
never be complete) it follows that God is never vindicated and consequently
that evil is victorious. Secondly, while we all deserve death because of our
sin (Rom. 6:23, Gen 2:17) the Bible no where says that we deserve eternal
punishment as a debt for sin, for if that were the case Jesus would then have
had to experience eternal punishment substitutionally before the price for sin
could be paid. However, Jesus did experience death on behalf of all men, and
then conquered death for all men by His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:55, Is. 25:8),
thus opening a way out of death to life for all who believe. (Rom. 6:4-5)
We
still have the remaining problem of 'eternal' life being modified by the same
word as the punishment. But since aionios literally means 'age-lasting' (in so
far as it is the derivative of the parent noun aion) I take this as a reference
to the millennial age that we both expect, where some (the goats) will be excluded
and others (the sheep) will be included. We know that life shall continue after
that age because of another word: immortality (2 Tim. 1:10).
Are
you suggesting that Philippains 2:9-11 has already been fulfilled? The future
tense 'shall' in this passage would seem to contradict that idea. Also remember
that 'now we do not yet see all things put under Him.' (Heb. 2:9) It is
something glorious to look forward to.
Douglas:
Well, actually, I don't believe in free will. I do hold to free agency,
and that creatures are held responsible for their actions
Your argument is basically that the doctrine of hell is
"inconsistent with the character of God as revealed generally throughout
all of scripture." Elsewhere you refer to eternal damnation as
contradicting God's nature.
I believe that everyone who holds to the doctrine of Hell would be
gladly willing to accept the doctrine of universal salvation if the Bible
taught it. Saving people is, we believe, consistent with God's character as
generally revealed. Your position, however, is that damning people is
inconsistent with God's character as generally revealed. It follows from this
that you would have to be unwilling for the Bible to teach the doctrine of
Hell. This is why the debates over close exegesis will be fruitless.
So perhaps the question should be posed at the broader level. Why do you
hold that the wrath of God is not an important part of what is generally
revealed?
Robin:
You
say you would be glad at the idea of universal salvation. Would God also be
glad at the idea? If the answer is yes, then why - on your view - did He not
choose to die for everyone? If the answer is no, then it how can it be avoided
that you have more love than God, for you would be glad to see all men saved
while He would not?
Whichever
of the two possibilities (universal salvation vs. eternal damnation) will in
fact be true, the other must be inconsistent with His character, for logically
both cannot be consistent with His character simultaneously since they are
opposites. The opposite of universal salvation, however, is not the doctrine
that God damns people, for I believe in hell just as surely as you do, only I
believe hell is a purifying process and that all damnation will eventually lead
to salvation. I do hold that that wrath is an important aspect of what is
revealed about God. In fact, it is God's wrath on sin that makes the idea of
endless evil so unthinkable, for God surely hates sin too much to see it
perpetuated into eternity. It is an assault on God's righteousness to suggest
He could stand by complacently while every kind of filth, blasphemy and
abomination - confined as it may be to hell - is allowed to coexist eternally
along side his own purity and holiness.
Our
disagreement is in what we believe the purpose of God's wrath to be. I believe
the outpouring of God's wrath is not an end in itself but a means to a higher
end. (Hos. 5:15, Is. 26:9, Heb. 12:10, Rev. 3:19). When chastening does not
lead to correction God says it was done in vain. (Jer. 2:30, 5:3) It's no
different here than with loving parents. (Deut. 8:5, Pr. 3:11-12) A loving
father may have severe wrath on his child's sin, and the greater his anger at
the sin the greater will be his persistence to do whatever is needful to bring
about a change in the child. This may include some severe measures, but the
discipline is done with the child's best at heart. No father would even think
for a moment of wanting his child to undergo unproductive suffering, especially
throughout all eternity! I would venture to suggest that such fatherly
instincts are a reflection of the Divine Fatherhood and that we therefore get a
warped idea of God's wrath when it is not seen in the context of His love.
Please
provide definitions for free will and free agency, and explain how you
reconcile the apparent contradiction between your affirmation of human
responsibility and your denial of free will. Venturing to assume you believe in
double predestination, let me ask what the purpose was for God to create
vessels elected to destruction? I believe in a form of predestination, but not
in a deterministic sense.
Douglas:
No, God would not be glad at the idea (otherwise He would have acted on
that desire), which means that I am less loving than He is. Our duty is to
conform our sentiments to His revealed will. My point was simply to show that
my doctrine of Hell did not arise from my personal whims.
I believe in free agency, meaning that men are free to do what they wish
to do. I do not believe in free will, which would mean that men are free to do
what they choose, whether they wanted to do it or not. Free agency is necessary
to responsibility; free will is inconsistent with it. Free will (choices
without motive) is simply another name for insanity.
God created certain vessels assigned to perdition to reveal His glorious
justice. In a world in which sin was not judged in this way, the perfection of
His holiness would go unrevealed.
Robin:
How
do you reach the conclusion that you must be less loving that God since He is
not glad at the idea of universal reconciliation?
You
had asked me to explain why I thought eternal damnation was inconsistent with
the revealed character of God, and I tried to show this clearly and
persuasively in my last entry. You did not respond to those considerations even
though it is the crux of the whole issue. I really would like to know how you
can reconcile the issues I raised, particularly about God's fatherhood, with a
belief in endless torment.
Do
you believe that God's goodness is or might be essentially different than that
which our innate moral sense says is good? If so, would you follow Calvin in
saying that an act is good simply because God wills it, rather than that the
goodness of the act and God's will are both effects of the same common cause,
namely God's own nature?
Whether
free agency - that men are free to act as they wish - is compatible with
responsibility, depends entirely on why they wish to do what they wish to do.
If, as you seem to believe, God causes them to wish to do what they do, then
that negates moral responsibility since they could not have acted otherwise.
God, in punishing such people's sin, would really be indirectly punishing
Himself. That would seem to be the necessary inference from your belief that
'God created certain vessels assigned to perdition to reveal His glorious
justice.' In addition to it making God the direct cause of all evil, this idea
that eternal punishment is necessary in order for God's justice and holiness to
be revealed, can be refuted in the following five ways
1. It
belittles Christ's death by implying that His death wasn't sufficient
demonstration of God's judgment of sin. Since Christ's substitutionary death is
sufficient to show both God's hatred of sin and the perfection of His holiness,
we do not also need some to be eternally punished in order to know these
things.
2. Against
the testimony of scripture it implies that eternal punishment, rather than death,
is the just deserts of sin. As I said to you earlier, if that were true then
Jesus would have had to undergo eternal punishment substitiutionally before the
price for sin could be paid.
3. It
places a duality in God's character, making the demands of His justice and
wrath opposed to the demands of His mercy and love, requiring two groups of
people in which both facets can be demonstrated. This contradicts the
scriptural idea (which I tried to show in my last entry) that God's justice
proceeds out of his love. Because it makes God's purposes dual rather than
singular, it destroys any basis for a coherent theodacy.
4.
It maligns the character of God by making a mockery of his goodness. To
show that this is so let us imagine what we would say if you and your wife had
two boys and two girls. Now you and your wife decide to use one girl and two
boys to demonstrate your mercy and loving kindness on, but the other girl you
set aside as a 'vessel of wrath', continually tormenting her as a punishment for
her fallen nature. Then I come along and object that this is a most cruel and
ungodly way to treat your girl. But you reply, 'On the contrary, it is
necessary to do this because otherwise my justice and hatred of sin wouldn't be
known. I am simply being an imitator of our Heavenly Father who will act in
this way to thousands of His offspring.' Does not every ounce of parental
instinct recoil from the very idea? Yet you calmly attribute to our Heavenly
Father an act that is infinitely worse than that imaginary scenario!
5. God's
hatred of sin is not revealed by it being endlessly punished but by it being
eliminated - and the only way that could happen is for the sinner to forsake
his evil and turn to the Lord. God's glorious justice is not demonstrated by sin's
eternal punishment, for that would seem to indicate a toleration of sin on His
part. It amounts to saying, 'God hates sin so much that He wants it to defile
His creation eternally so that he can punish it. His wrath on sin compels Him to give an endless duration to every
form of abomination, blasphemy and filth.' Surely God's purity and holiness
make such a suggestion utterly unthinkable! Take the sternest possible view of
sin and the perpetuation of this awful hostility by God becomes unfathomable.
Douglas:
God is the pattern of all that is just and loving. If my sentiments
conflict with what He has revealed, then that reveals a deficiency in my
sentiments, not in His revealed character. We know that God is love and that
Hell is eternal because the Bible teaches both.
You appeal to our "innate moral sense." But the Bible teaches
that we are corrupted by sin, and that our understanding of moral issues should
not be automatically trusted -- particularly when it conflicts with what the
Bible teaches. Of course, an act is good because it proceeds from God's
infinitely good nature. But our dispute here is over whether an act can be good
if it does not accord with *my* "good nature." I am maintaining that
we are not to be trusted on this point.
Your view of free will requires that men must be able to choose what
their heart does not want. But if that is the case, then why did they choose
it?
The rest of your argument rests upon certain philosophical assumptions
about God, grace, justice, and atonement. Then you go to the text to try to get
confirmation for your views after you have developed them. If the Scriptures
teach universal (distributive) salvation, I would be willing to receive that
teaching. If the Scriptures actually do teach the doctrine of Hell, are you
willing to set aside your assumptions and receive the teaching?
Robin:
Yes,
God is the pattern of all that is just and loving. This pattern has been
implanted in our natures so that our instinctive moral sense is a true reflection
of our Creator's character. This is presupposed by the fact that the Lord frequently appeals to the innate moral sense
(Is. 5:3, 41:21, 43:9, Jer. 2:5, Mic. 6:1-3, Lk. 12:57), that Paul says men
will be judged by it (Rom. 2:14-16), and that Christ calls men to repent - a
call that would be meaningless if there were not an existing moral standard
that men knew but failed to live up to.
But
apart from this, the idea that there may be an essential qualitative difference
between God's nature and the human moral sense, would make the entire Bible
into a nonsense, for if to God 'good' may be something opposite to what it
means to us, then what guarantee can we have that to God truth might turn out
to be what men call falsehood? In this way your view undermines any basis for
communication from God to man, for it might be 'good', according to God's
different definition of goodness, for Him to lie to us in the Bible, or for
heaven and hell to switch places! Reading the Bible would thus become like
reading a book in a foreign language, and the statement 'God is good' would
merely mean 'God is I know not what.' (See C. S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain,
ch. 3.) This does not deny that man's mind is fallen, or that our moral sense
is fallible, or that our understanding of moral issues is not automatically to
be trusted. It is simply a recognition that, though we are corrupted by sin,
there yet remains some remnant of the Divine Image within us. How else is the
fact to be explained that throughout all generations men everywhere have had a
transcultural moral code deeply embedded in their instincts which accords with
the basic axioms of Christian ethics? (See C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man.)
Therefore, if ever something God has revealed seems to contradict our moral
sense, then either
A) We
are misinterpreting the text, and further study will illuminate a solution.
B) We
do not have enough data to understand the thing correctly and to see how it
really works together for good.
C) In
the application and outworking of moral principles, our mind, having been
obscured by the fall, needs to be renewed through submitting to God's Word and
the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.
By
this third category I mean something very different than I think you would mean
by these words. I do not mean that our moral sense must be repressed but,
rather, that it must be awakened, so that instead of having to say, 'It must be
good because God did it, however it may look to me,' we see how the thing
actually is good. As C. S. Lewis says,
...you
need have no fear that, as you approach {the Divine goodness}, you will be
asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference
between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact,
be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already
call 'better.' The Divine 'goodness' differs from ours, but it is not sheerly
different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle
from a child's first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child learns to
draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to draw
from the very beginning.
You
dismiss all my arguments as being assumptions that I try to confirm from the
Bible after I have developed them. I tried to show, however, that these ideas
were not just assumptions but followed logically from the general revelation of
God's character in scripture. If you disagree, the burden rests on you to
provide a more reasonable interpretation to the scriptures and scriptural
themes I cited. Also, you have yet to provide scriptural verification for your
idea of eternal hell.
Having
said that, however, I would want to lay down the following hermeneutical principle
to guide all interpretation: that no scripture/s must be interpreted in any way
that makes nonsense out of any other scripture/s. If we believe that the whole
of the Bible is God's Word, then we must also believe that all scripture is
internally consistent. Thus, when we read that God is a loving Father, and then
we read something else that seems to contradict that - such as the scriptures
you think teach endless torment - we are compelled to interpret the later in a
way that doesn't compromise the former. If instead we simply say, 'We know that
God is love and that Hell is eternal because the Bible teaches both' and just
leave it at that, then we would be compelled to admit that we cannot really
know what this 'love' means since it is so foreign - even opposite! - to the
love of which we have any knowledge. With all of God's attributes, although we
could affirm their existence, their meaning would be completely off limits to
our minds.
The
solution to this problem rests in the fact that God has communicated to us in
an intelligible, propositional way that we can understand. It would not be
'revelation' otherwise. This does not mean that the truth of scripture is
always prima facie, only that it is in our language, accessible to our minds.
Thus, when God reveals Himself as our heavenly Father, we know what 'father'
means because we have a conception of that from our own experience. We
therefore have every reason for believing that Fatherly instincts mirror Divine
Fatherhood in essence.
I
approach the problem of free will in the same way, refusing to entertain any
idea that compromises God's revealed attributes.
Do
you agree with this method of approaching scripture? If you do then we have
common ground from which to resume our examination of the Bible's teaching on
free will and the duration of hell. But if you do not agree, then I think we
should debate these foundational principles of hermeneutics before proceeding
with any of the practical issues.
Douglas:
I quite agree with the options you have outlined, but differ with how
you apply them. We do have an instinctive moral sense, a conscience, which is
given by God, and it is, as you say, implanted in our natures. This sense of
right includes an appreciation of both mercy and justice. Those who are
regenerate, who love God's Word, and who seek to study what that Word says in
order to follow it, have had their consciences renewed and quickened by the
Holy Spirit of God, and hence made more effective and sensitive. And while I
believe that we cannot trust our consciences contrary to the clear teaching of
the Word, I do believe that our consciences should be heard. And here,
interestingly, it is a fact that for two thousand years, strong support for the
teaching on hell has come from the vast majority of Christians, whose
consciences have no trouble with the teaching. Shouldn't we listen to the voice
of such consciences?
The guarantee we have that God is not lying is His Word. He speaks only
the truth in His Word. The issue here is exegesis, and not whether all things
are up for grabs.
I agree with your outline of options. If a revealed portion of God's
Word seems to contradict our moral sense, then we must either study the text
some more, set the problem to one side for the time being, or allow our consciences
to be informed by the Word. I also agree that we must come to see that the
thing really is good, and agree with Lewis' treatment of such things. Hell is
something we must grow to be able say amen to. It must not be seen as utterly
contrary to what we have learned from God.
Your assumptions govern your handling of the Word in this way. You say
that God is revealed as a loving Father. But the Bible reveals Him as a loving
Father *to His children.* Frequently, the Bible contrasts His love for one group
of people with his hatred for another group.
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers
of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor
the bloody and deceitful man . . . For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous;
with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield" (Ps. 5:5-6,12).
He shows favor to the righteous; He hates the worker of iniquity.
"Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye
may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: Seeing
it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble
you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall
come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
(because our testimony among you was believed) in that day" (2 Thess.
1:5-10).
Quite apart from what you might think "everlasting
destruction" means, the whole tenor of the passage shows God making a
distinction between groups of men, those who do not obey his gospel on the one
hand, and His saints on the other. Given this pattern, which we see throughout
the Bible, it is simply humanistic and irresponsible to make the "love of
the Father" as the guiding principle to interpret all things.
You say that you refuse to "entertain any idea that compromises
God's revealed attributes." But His sovereignty over all things, including
the betrayal of Christ by Judas, is one of His revealed attributes.
Robin:
You
create a false dilemma. It should be evident from what I have already written
that I am in full agreement with the idea that God makes a distinction between
groups of men: between His saints, on one hand, and those who do not obey the
gospel, on the other, expressing anger ('hatred' if you will) towards the
later. The false dilemma comes in saying that this contradicts my view of God's
love. If we grant the premise that God's (AGAPE) love means that He always does
what is best for each and every person, and if we grant what I wrote earlier
concerning the positive purpose and motive behind God's wrath, then there is no
inconsistency whatsoever between my view of God's love and the pattern you
pointed out between two groups of people. Our disagreement only arises when we
consider why and to what purpose there are these two groups. For
this we must consider the scriptures' teaching on election.
To
understand the election of the church I find it helpful to first consider the
election of Israel. When God called Abraham, He was establishing a holy people
to Himself. For what purpose? It was in order that they might be a light to the
gentile nations around them that "In your seed all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 22;18). In this initial promise to
Abraham we see that the election of Israel was not at the exclusion of all the
other nations, but for their eventual inclusion. Abraham's heart would have
longed for this, as he was an intercessor and a man of mercy. Consider
Abraham's example when God threatened to obliterate the inhabitants of Sodom.
(Gen. 18:17-33) Abraham did not respond to God's judgment by saying, "Woe
be it for me to question the justice of God" or as the catechisms will
say, that God's judgments are beyond what may be rationally apprehended. No
indeed, for Abraham would not have been the man God was looking for if he had
respectfully listened to God's plans and passively accepted what would happen.
Precisely because he intercedes for Sodom he demonstrates that he is the man
through whom God will lead all nations to the salvation he has prepared for
them.
That
may all seem to be negated by the fact that Sodom had to be destroyed in the
end regardless. However, though the lord had to wipe out the inhabitants of
Sodom, He nevertheless promises one day to restore them.
"I
will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and the
fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes
along with theirs, in order that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of
all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them. As for your sisters,
Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your
daughters shall return to your former state. Was not your sister Sodom a byword
in your mouth in the day of your pride, before your wickedness was uncovered?
"...yet
I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will
establish with you an everlasting covenant. Then you will remember your ways
and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters for I will
give them to you for daughters, but not because of My covenant with you, (Ez.
16:53-57 & 60-61 NRSV)
(I
quoted that from the NRSV since the KJV mistranslates the text by inserting the
word 'when' in verse 53 and 55. That is not consistent with the Hebrew text and
allows some commentators to argue that the prophet is using irony by positing
the restoration of Sodom like one could say "when the rivers run dry"
– in other words, something that never could happen.)
So
in a way, Abraham's prayer for Sodom is answered after all. God delights to use
human agents, like Abraham, in the outworking of His plans, and that is why He
set Israel apart.
The
children of Israel were meant to serve the function of a firstborn son. (Ex.
4:22, Jer. 31:9) In ancient Israel, various responsibilities and blessings came
to the firstborn son. The firstborn received a double portion of his father's
inheritance, stood as the domestic priest to the rest of the family (Num.
3:12-13, Deut. 21:17), redeemed a lost inheritance within the family (Lev.
25:25-27, 47-48, redeemed a poor brother who would otherwise be sold into
slavery (Lev. 25:47-49) and raised up seed to the brother who died without male
issue (Deut. 25:5-10). The nation of Israel, as God's firstborn, likewise
received a double portion of God's blessing, and was expected to serve as
"'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation'" (Ex. 19:6), being a light
to the gentiles that they too might come to know and participate in the
inheritance God had to offer.
Now,
the blessings and responsibilities of the firstborn were conditional. If a
firstborn son failed to fulfill his responsibilities, he would forfeit the
birthright and the position would fall on the next oldest son. (Gen. 4;
25:29-34, 1 Ch. 5:1-2). Similarly, the nation of Israel's function of firstborn
was conditional, depending on their obedience. We see this clearly in
Deuteronomy where Moses lays two paths before the people: the path of obedience
which God promised would result in blessings and rewards, juxtaposed with the
path of disobedience which God promised would result in punishment and curses.
This dual possibility implies free will, for in a predetermined scheme such a
thing would be meaningless. If the children of Israel did not have a degree of
free will, it would be nonsense for the Lord lay down two paths before them
from which to choose, or for the prophets to appeal to the people to change
their minds and alter their wicked behavior. (When I mentioned this before,
rather than addressing the scriptures I presented, you responded with a reductio
ad absurdum philosophical argument against free will. While I am prepared to try to answer that
argument, I think it would be unproductive not to first debate the scriptures'
teaching on free will, as this should be the starting point of any inquiry.)
So,
how did the children of Israel use their free will? Throughout the Old
Testament we see how the children of Israel freely chose not to heed Moses'
warnings, leading to the curses and ultimate destruction he had forewarned. In
failing to fulfill their responsibilities as God's firstborn, the nation of
Israel also lost the blessings and forfeited their position. Thus, John says to
those who thought they were heirs of the Abrahamic covenant,
and
do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say
to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And
even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which
does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'" (Mt.
3:9-10)
And
that is exactly what happened. The ax was taken to those who did not bare
fruit, and God raised up in their place a nation from stones, so to speak. The
position of God's firstborn was transferred to another people, who became heirs
of the Abrahamic covenant. To quote Christ's words, "Therefore I say to
you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing
the fruits of it." (Mt. 21:43, see also Rom. 9:6-8). This other nation is
a nation of individuals "out of every tribe and tongue and people and
nation" (Rev. 5:9) who are part of Christ's elect church. Our election
parallels the election of Israel in the following respects.
Like
the nation of Israel, we too are elected for special grace, not because of our
own merit, but through God's sovereign choice (2 Thess. 2:13). Scripture
affirms that no man can come to Christ unless he be drawn through the Holy
Spirit (Jn. 6:44), that the Lord opens people's hearts to heed the word of
truth (Acts 16:14), and that though many are called few are chosen (Mt. 20:16).
When grace to believe to a person by the Holy Spirit, this includes a
conviction of sin (John 16:8), the ability to believe (1 Cor. 12:3) and the ability to live a sanctified life (Phil.
2:13). The New Testament declares that those who receive such gifts and, like
the children of Israel, willfully trample it under foot, forfeit the chance of belonging
to the elect class and become the enemies of God (Heb. 6:4-8). Therefore just
as the children of Israel had a choice in how they responded to their special
grace, so we also face a choice whether to accept or reject the gifts given by
the Holy Spirit. This is presupposed by the fact that the apostles continually
exhort us to be on guard, to abide in the faith, to make every effort to stand
firm in the faith once delievered to the saints. Again, this would be
meaningless if every act was foreordained.
Just
as the children of Israel were meant to serve as priests for the other nations,
so we too are called to be priests (Rev. 5:10). Our example is Christ who was a
priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-11). This means that although
Christ was not a Levite, He was grafted onto the priesthood in the order of
Melchizedek, even as are we.
Most
importantly, just as the election of Israel was meant to be a blessing to the
other nations, so the election of believers is not at the exclusion of everybody
else, but the means for their eventually inclusion. During the present
dispensation the Lord passes by the majority of mankind in order to draw out
His remnant - the firstfruits - that will be used as instruments to gather in
the remainder of the harvest. (James 1:18) This final harvest will not simply
include all those living on the earth, as you believe, but also those who have
already died, as I showed earlier in my exegesis of Philippains 2:9-11.
I
cannot overemphasize how intensely I dislike you comparing my teaching on God's
love to the popular humanism of our day. When I speak of God's love and mercy,
I mean something that is very severe and terrible (in the original sense of the
term). God's love is a consuming fire, burning all that stands in its way with
a holy vengeance, a wrath unspeakable, until the last trace of defiance be
purged from His creation. This holy hatred of sin which emanates from the
Divine essence, consuming all the enemies who dare to flaunt themselves in the
face of His righteousness, will never rest satisfied until all dross and
impurity have been expunged from His creation. So intense is the passion with
which our Lord hates evil, that it is unthinkable He would provide sin with a
home of everlasting duration. The scriptures you quoted, attesting to God's
holy hatred for the workers of iniquity, prove my conclusion, not yours, for
they suggest (if we only draw the logical conclusion) that God hates sin too
much to abide it's endless perpetuation.
That
there are the two classes of individuals you spoke of - God's enemies and God's
followers - is a fact that God is angry about! There is an understanding
through all scripture that it ought to be otherwise. Evil is not
something God acquiesces at now and least of all for eternity, rather, he
desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth. The message of scripture is
not a passive acceptance of two opposing classes, but a struggle against this
very fact. "'Repent, and turn from all your trangressions, so that
iniquity will not be your ruin." (Ez. 18:30) "'...turn, turn from
your evil ways!'" (Ex. 33:11) “’Be instructed, O Jerusalem, lest My soul
depart from you…’” (Jer. 6:8) “’Amend your ways and your doings…’” (Jer. 7:3)
“’Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings
good.’” (Jer. 18:11) Paul wished Himself accursed for the sake of his brethren
(Rom 9:3), he did not just accept that God had predetermined them to perdition.
With
such a weight of scriptural evidence, I just cannot imagine what goes through
your mind when you read the Bible. The entire Bible presents the world's
history as a battle, while you present it as a game of chess in which all the
moves (of both sides!) have already been mapped out in advance. When the
innocent children were forced to pass through the fire to Molech, the Lord was
so horrified that He said such a thing had not even enetered into His mind
(Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 7:31), while your view leads us to say that the most filthy
abominations and evil acts are concieved in the counsel of the Almighty and
implemented at His fiat!
God's
sovereignty is not compromised by the existence of free will, for two reasons.
First, to say, as I do, that God is the cause of our natures, which includes free
will, does not imply that part of God's creation is not under His control. On
the contrary, if God's being the first cause of the nature of dogs makes dogs
doggy and not un-doggy, then likewise God's being the first cause of human
freedom makes freedom free, not un-free. Grace establishes nature rather than
removing it.
Secondly,
in a wonderful way that defies human comprehension, God uses human autonomy to
further His own purposes. His sovereignty over the betrayal by Judas did not
mean that Judas was predetermined/forced to betray our Lord, for if that were
the case, how could you explain Christ's words that it would have been better
if Judas had never been born (Mt. 26:24), and Christ's condemnation of Him for
the act? Rather, God, knowing from the foundation of the world what Judas'
would freely choose, used that choice to fulfill "'the determined purpose
and foreknowledge of God'" (Acts. 2:23). How God's sovereignty and man's
freedom can actually be intertwined like this is, I concede, impossible to get
one's mind around. However, seeing as the Bible undeniably teaches both, we
must believe in both, however difficult it may be to conceive. This conceptual
difficulty arises not from any logical contraction between the proposition that
God is sovereign and that man is free, as if I were simultaneously affirming
two opposites. Rather, it arises from the incomprehensible nature of their
relation. There are many things in the world which are not logical contractions
but which we still find incomprehensible and unfathomable. This only adds to
the majesty, greatness and wonder of the Almighty. Your view, on the other
hand, subtracts from the majesty of God and, if we extrapolate it to its
logical conclusion, ends up denying the very sovereignty of God. Let me try to
show one way this is so.
I
want to start by making a distinction between contingent properties and
necessary properties. Imagine there is a triangle before us. Imagine further
that it is a wet, green triangle. Now, the qualities of greenness and wetness
are properties that the triangle possesses or, if you will, participates in.
They do not belong to the nature of the triangle, for it might just as easily
have been a dry blue triangle. Such
properties are, therefore, contingent. But when we move to consider the
triangle's triangularly (it's three-sided-ness), this is a property that
belongs to the very nature of the triangle, just as roundness is essential to
the nature of circles. This property, unlike the contingent ones, is necessary,
essential and fundamental to the triangle's very existence, for without it the
triangle could not be. So to put it simply, necessary properties are intrinsic
to the nature of a thing; contingent properties always could have been
otherwise.
Now
we must ask whether the attribute of love is a necessary or contingent property
to God? First let us suppose that God had an attribute that was contingent. In
that case, God's free will could be the source of the contingency, for if God
willed to have the attribute, say, of righteousness (by which I refer to the
quality that has content in human language and action, rather than a tautology
that means 'whatever God does') rather than the attribute of wickedness, then
righteousness is a contingent property since God might equally have willed the
reverse. But notice what this entails: it entails that we postulate
righteousness as a standard external to God in which He chooses to participate.
This applies equally to any of God's attributes - if we say God chose to be
love but might equally have chosen the opposite, then the quality of love
becomes something external to God's nature, just as greenness is external to
the nature of triangles. In addition to the logical contradictions this could
be shown to entail, it minimalizes God's sovereignty and means that He is not
completely ultimate.
The
conclusion forces itself that all God's attributes are necessary properties,
not contingent properties. Consequently, love, goodness and excellence of every
manifestation, are not primarily descriptions of things that God does,
but descriptions of who He is in His very essence. God must necessarily
be the ultimate embodiment of every positive quality, for to imagine God being
anything else is as impossible as imagining a round triangle.
Notice
what immediately follows. Your idea that God is loving merely 'to His children'
becomes untenable, for it means that God's love is limited to His actions with
certain people, rather than a necessary property that He embodies in His very
nature. Such an idea reduces God's love to a contingent property, and thus
denies His sovereignty. Worse even than that, it turns God into an unknowable
object, for if the scriptural declarations that God is love simply describe His
relation to a certain class of individuals, rather than being a statement of
how God actually is in Himself, then when scripture declares that God is
righteous, holy and truthful, perhaps these also are not descriptions of God's
nature but merely descriptions of how He acts toward us. But that being so, who
can then guarantee that there might not be other worlds in which God's
manifests Himself (heaven forbid) in attributes of wickedness and deceit? Since
we cannot, on your view, guarantee any differently, we cannot really know what
God is like in His character, we can only know how He acts towards us. In the
end, we cannot know even that, for how can you really be sure God will
always act in a loving way towards you? It is no good trying to answer that
question by referring to one of God's promises, for the ability to rely on
God's veracity assumes certain things about His essential nature, the very
thing your position undermines. You wrote that the guarantee we have that God
is not lying is His Word since He speaks only truth in His Word. But that only
begs the question.
Finally,
you suggest that we should listen to the consciences of the vast majority of
Christians who have had no trouble with the doctrine of eternal hell. My answer
would be first to point out that it is not because the doctrine of eternal hell
hasn't violated people's consciences that it has been believed, but because it
has been thought to be the teaching of scripture. I think that with most
ordinary, honest Christians who believe in eternal damnation, if they sat down
and really thought it through, they'd have to say that, going exclusively on
the basis of their consciences, the idea of endless torment is problematic.
Nevertheless they continue (quite rightfully) to believe it because they think
it is taught in scripture. My (limited) experience talking with people bares
this out with few exceptions, even among the most adamant defenders of eternal
hellfire.
Secondly,
I think we need to consider the historical causes for why eternal punishment is
now accepted by the vast majority. The tale of how the doctrine evolved and
came to be accepted as orthodoxy is an extremely disturbing one, almost enough
to furnish a compelling argument in favor of the alternative. But there is not
time to go into that right now.
Douglas:
First, let me thank you for a good exchange of ideas. In my final summary, let me note that some of what I will say here is repetitive, and some is new.
As I have said previously, I have an objection to saying that my understanding
of something like the love of God can be used as a hermeneutical screen, to
keep doctrines like endless punishment from consideration. This brings us back
to a question I have posed several times in different ways -- are you willing
for the Bible to reveal a doctrine of endless Hell? If so, then you agree that
our a priori notions of love may need instruction. But if not, it does
not matter what the Bible actually says.
Related to this, you have affirmed aspects of God's justice and judgments (that
fall short of endless punishment but which are severe nonetheless). What is to
prevent someone from objecting to your exegesis because it is inconsistent with
their notion of the love of God? God's Word must define what love is for
us. Our view of the love of God must not be allowed to define what the Word of
God is.
On another front, you have asserted free will. But you have also asserted
universal salvation. Aren't these two inconsistent? If you hold to free will,
then why are you not required to say that some can use this freedom to reject
God everlastingly. This is what I hold -- the torment is eternal because the
sinning never stops. When you say that God passionately attacks sin in such a
way as to guarantee the outcome of universal salvation, it sounds to me as
though He is doing a little arm twisting. What happened to free will? And if
you think that God can guarantee the outcomes of human choices this way without
destroying free will, then welcome to Calvinism.
This so brings us back to whether God wants every last person to be saved. I believe
a simple reading of many texts (a number of which I have cited) leads us to
believe that He does not. Some are vessels of mercy and others are vessels of
wrath. And even if you make the wrath temporary, then how does this fit with
out natural views about the love of God? If my sentiments were the judge, bad
things happen in automobile wrecks that seem inconsistent with the love of God.
But we know they cannot be, and something is wrong with these sentiments.
If you want me to admit that natural affection shrinks from the horror of endless punishment, I will do so. But, in me at least, it also shrinks from the countless famines going on in the world today (when God could have plenty of food there, easily, today), suffering in hospitals, wars, genocides, rape, and the wrath of God as you have described it.
When we are troubled by such things, what are we to do? Where shall we go? To the law and the testimony.
Thanks again for the debate.
Robin:
Thank you Douglas. I too
have enjoyed our debate and it has certainly challenged me to consider these
questions in new ways, as I’m sure it has with you. I wish everyone else whom I
have had occasion to discuss these issues with could be as gracious as you have
been.
Thanks again.
For anyone seeking
more information on this subject, the best book to get is The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. Information about ordering it is
available on his website at
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/theol.html
Tom’s website also has some excellent essays on the
subject and you can download free chapters from his book.
Another useful website with some articles about
universal reconciliation on it is
http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
Return to Robin Phillips HOMEPAGE
You are invited
to join my mailing list!
As a member of
my mailing list, you will receive automatic notification about additional
material and features on this site, as well as occasional newsletters. To join,
send a blank email to
largerhope @
tiscali.co.uk
with “Join” in
the subject heading. To unjoin, send a blank email with “Unjoin” in the subject
heading.
(Note: for anti-spam purposes, the above email address has had spaced inserted before and after the @ sign. The address will only work after deleting these spaces.)