Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/24/2006 4:31:24 PM (GMT-5)

Laika: The problems I see are:

1. No one chooses the sure eternal punishment of ECT nor the potentially eternal punishment of universalism nor annihilation.  They're just rejecting what they think they don't need, due to lack of faith.

2. God would have to sustain people throughout ECT or sustain them throughout the potentially eternal punishment of universalism. 

3. What kind of confession is God getting out of people He is sustaining throughout potentially eternal punishment?  It's a coerced confession wrought via torture.

4. How do you square your open theism with the idea that God knows how all people will choose regarding the most important choice they make? Has God left the trivial choices open for us but settled the important choices?

Tom: I appreciate the importance of these issues. But I think a version of universal hope can answer them:

Re: 1: All the more reason to object to ECT as just punishment for sins committed during this lifetime.

I also asked this (and didn’t get an answer yet): Laika, help me out here. Do you not have any problems with, say, (a) embracing the "justice" of an eternal punishment for finite sin?... Forget the nuts and bolts of universalism for now, just think of whether or not God's the sort of loving being who would continue to pursue people so long as it was metaphysically possible to do so. Conceptually, can you at least accept that?

Re: 2: All the more reason to object to ECT. God sustains a world that eternally objects to him and curses him as the ‘just’ punishment of sinning during this lifetime? This doesn’t pose any problems at all for your understanding of ‘just’?

Re: 3: The sufferings of those in hell are the just consequence of their own choices. So any choice based upon the realization that I’m suffering the just consequences of my own choices cannot be a "choice coerced via torture." It's not Abu-Ghraib. Nobody's doing anything to me that I don't deserve. If I go to prison for committing a crime and discover that prison life sucks and I don’t like it and in response decide to turn from a life of crime and reform my ways, my choice isn’t ‘coerced’. That’s what just suffering for bad choices is designed to do, get us to reconsider our ways. And I just don't see any metaphysical objection to the notion that hell can just be the sort of place where God justly leaves us to discover how existence without him (and without the so-called luxury of imagining things are other than they really are) sucks. That's mercy, not torture--even if we experience it as torturous for a time. It's redemptive, not retributive. But if just sufferings in this life can be redemptive, on what basis will you argue that the just sufferings of hell can't also be redemptive but must ONLY be retributive (especially since whatever retributive payment might need to be addressed was settled by Jesus on the Cross)?

Re: 4: A lot has been said about this and is available in past posts. It doesn’t destroy the open view. As I said before: God says, “Hey, you want this? OK, but you won’t be allowed the luxury of imagining things are other than they TRULY are. Have at it!” People will still have to trust that God’s the sort of person who would forgive and welcome them and they control the timetable. They can choose to reject God or turn to him. It’s up to them. But they do so in a context of having always to experience the awful truth about their sinful selves as a consequence of rejecting God. The suffering and pain of that isn’t torture. It’s the just consequence of their choices. There’s nothing torturous, Machiavellian, or coercive on God’s part about it. We push God away. God says, “Okay, I’ll back off. Tell me how you like it.”

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/24/2006 5:26:33 PM (GMT-5)

Yes and all the more reason to reject the potentially eternal punishment of the universalist model as well.

But there is no viable, attractive alternative.

Here in this life, the alternative usually appears to be more attractive.  Look at what the 'heroes' of Hebrews 11 went through.  When God supposedly offers life to those being sustained in punishment, there is no viable, attractive alternative.  No possibility for faith.  God exists, He's punishing me, I don't have to seek Him, the only attractive offer is to get out of punishment. 

Try again. 

Open Theism says the future is open for the choices people make.  might/might not, remember?

Universalism says all will choose God. 

They are incompatible in my opinion.   Maybe Alan could help you formulate a way to present them as compatible.  I'd REALLY like to see this.

jefscott, the story of Lazarus shows that there's a gulf that can't be crossed and the rich man wants his brothers warned before they die.  Where's the "closing of epistemic distance"???

Laika: jefscott, the story of Lazarus shows that there's a gulf that can't be crossed and the rich man wants his brothers warned before they die.  Where's the "closing of epistemic distance"???

Jeff: It would seem that the rich man is desirous that his brothers be warned though that was not the case prior to his post-mortem experience. It would seem, then, that there was a moment of clarity for the rich man which his self-deceit had protected him from, theretofore.

And I agree that there is no explicit scriptural evidence for universalism. But enough is said about our volitional sufferings with Christ fitting us for his kingdom that I think it's conceivable, at least, that such language describes what is required for participation in Christ's temporal reign. I'm just saying that after Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (the temporal aspect is done at that point), the Father CAN, simply by virtue of the effectualness of Christ's propitiatory death, choose to save those who did not partake in Christ's temporal reign.

And I'm wondering if we can argue for that as a logical possibility from the benevolent nature of God--not any explicit textual assertions. Such a salvation could be affected for its contribution to God's glory and/or other motives. I'm not at all trying to negate the scriptural evidence for just recompense of works done in this life or the requirement of volitionally suffering with Christ as a condition for reigning with him in his temporal reign.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/24/2006 6:38:28 PM (GMT-5)

jefscott, here's the story of Lazarus.  Please point out the "closing of epistemic distance".

19 "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.

20 "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,

21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.

22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.

23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'

27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--

28 for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/24/2006 6:43:10 PM (GMT-5)

Laika: I understand that ECT has a problem with eternal punishment for finite sins.

Tom: But the problem is fatal so far as I can see. If not, show me how it’s not fatal.

--------------

Laika: A few points: A. Don't assume I'm arguing for ECT.  I'm pointing out the faults of universalism.  I don't need an alternative.

Tom: If the problem justice posses for ECT is fatal, then you do need an alternative to ECT. If the problem is only damaging, then you at least need an explanation. What’s your explanation for how eternally punishing finite persons for finite sins is just and compatible with the sort of loving God we’re assuming?

--------------

Laika: …but if I had to pick one, I'd pick annihilation.

Tom: What explanation of the problem justice posses to ECT makes you think the problem ECT faces isn’t fatal?

--------------

Laika: I more concerned with what is truth than which one I prefer to be true.

Tom: Oh, me too. Totally. Are you thinking anybody on the other side of this question isn’t equally concerned with what is true? Let’s just assume that both sides in this discussion prefer the bare truth over satisfying their preferences.

--------------

Laika: B.  If you think of judgement as a payment, sin by sin, you could conclude that both ECT and the potential of eternal punishment via universalism don't make sense as it either is or potentially is an eternal "payment" for finite sin.

Tom: But D. and others (me included) don’t think hell as ‘potentially eternal’ (at least not in the sense I think you mean). I mean, there’s every reason to believe that people will eventually choose. See, “potentially eternal suffering” only makes sense if “potentially choosing eternal suffering” makes sense. Secondly, I don’t think of hell as “payment” for sins AT ALL. But those who insist hell will be irrevocably eternal DO think of it as “payment” for sins. So given your agreement that hell is just the natural consequence of choices made in this life, how is it’s being irrevocably eternal the just consequence of those choices?

--------------

Laika: I prefer to think of it as, people decide now, in this life, they don't want to live with God.  So God gives them their choice.

Tom: I’m with ya. That’s how I see it too. But I don’t see why God can’t continue to be as merciful THEN as he is NOW. At death people get what they want in the sense that we enter into a state of existence that’s the just and logical and natural consequence of where our choices have led us. So far so good.

But how can irrevocable eternal suffering really be the just, logical, or natural consequence of the choice made during this lifetime to live without God? So even if God gives us what we want—an existence without him—after we die, what metaphysical obstacle would stand in the way of our supposing God would respond mercifully to those who upon experiencing the truth and reality of an existence without God decided they were wrong, that they’re sinful idiots, that God really is the source of their identity and existence, and so cry out for mercy? Why wouldn’t or couldn’t God save them? We either have to suppose that (a) they will upon death be irrevocably fixed in their rejection of God (and so can’t respond to God) and/or (b) there will be some metaphysical reason why God’s having mercy upon such people is impossible even if they were able to turn toward him.

I’m trying to find some argument for either (a) or (b).

--------------------

Laika: C.  For jefscott as well, where is the evidence that God pursues people after they die?

Tom: Well, there are the several passages that describe the reconciliation of all things (passages you know and which universalists appeal to). True, one has to suppose then something like, “People go off to suffer. But everything is reconciled? Hmmm. How’s that? I guess God keeps lovingly pursuing people.” There are no explicit passages that state so. Like so much of what we believe, we have to theologically reason our way through to some things. It’s either that or we reason something like, “Hell is irrevocably eternal, so the ‘reconciliation of all things’ must really mean ‘the reconciliation of some things’ (and not even MOST things when you consider how many people have and will end up in hell since they die without having made the necessary choice for Christ).”

In my case it was the same sort of reasoning from what I believed God to be like to what must be the case about the world if God is really like. Over the years here you and I have tried to get opponents to the open view (or even just to libertarianism) to asked themselves, “If God’s really loving and wants a personal loving relationship with me, shouldn’t X, Y, and Z really be the case about us and the world?” There’s no clear, unambiguous evidence for X, Y, and Z. But it follows given God’s being a certain kind of God who is after a certain kind of relationship with us. I think we all do this kind of reasoning. I’m suggesting you consider doing the same thing with the question of hell. Just ask:

(1) What do I already believe about God and/or the world that would make irrevocable eternal conscious torment the necessary and just consequence for any finitely evil choice made during this lifetime?

(2) Then, what do I already believe about the world that would make it impossible for someone in hell to turn sincerely to God?

(3) Lastly, what do I already believe about God that would make it impossible for him to continue pursuing those in hell and to forgive any in hell who turned to him?

-------------------

Laika: There is no viable, attractive alternative.

Tom: There’s no question that everybody’s eventually choosing God is a more attractive alternative. The only question is whether it’s a viable option. So far as I can tell it is. But I’ll offer this much—if evangelicals would just relax a bit and not get so uptight at the thought of reintroducing this whole question and let people struggle through to own their answers, that would really help.

--------------

Laika: Here in this life, the alternative usually appears to be more attractive.  Look at what the 'heroes' of Hebrews 11 went through.  When God supposedly offers life to those being sustained in punishment, there is no viable, attractive alternative.  No possibility for faith.  God exists, He's punishing me, I don't have to seek Him, the only attractive offer is to get out of punishment.

Tom: Maybe this will help. I don’t think that in hell a purely selfish escapism will qualify. It doesn’t now. Why should it then? Sure, people make such choices now, but it’s an evangelical belief that such choices DON’T result in new births. There HAS to be a true repentance at the core. Even if there’s some escapism mixed in, there has to be enough of a genuine heart repentance and cry to God in order for the new birth transaction to occur. Why suppose that this won’t be the case in hell if in fact people can still make the choice for God? All we should suppose is that people will face the TRUTH about themselves, they won’t be able to hide behind a choice that’s motivated PURELY by selfish escapism. There will have to be at the core just as much a true repentant heart as is now required.

--------------

Laika: Universalism says all will choose God.  This is a settled future regarding people with supposed free will.

Tom: I totally understand. But you and I have both argued true “will”-type propositions within an open view. All we do is make the inevitability grounded statistically in the factors that apply across the board and posit enough time for the factors to be eventually embraced by everybody. So we can say that in the next six months there “will” be 100 automobile accidents in the Twin Cities area. But just WHO chooses to become part of that statistic is entirely up to teen drivers to decide libertarianly.

So just imagine people in hell suffering the painful consequences of their rejection of God, having to face the TRUTH of all their missed opportunities, all the ugly choices they made, having to come to terms with every hurtful word and deed. They’re free to reaffirm all those same choices if they wish. They’ve got the volitional capacity to keep rejecting God and keep embracing the pain of rejecting God. Imaging what Hitler will have to face—something like a full review of every suffering Jew, the face of every child he consigned to an anguishing death. No hiding. Nowhere to run. Just the painful truth about who and what he turned himself into and all those he made suffer. But just posit enough time, enough truth, enough grace waiting patiently—don’t you think everybody will eventually come around? Is there a number we could attach to the probability that ONE person will just keep choosing to reject God? Actually I suppose there probably is. Sure, why not. It would be infinitely smaller than the possibility of my placing just all those English letters that comprise the 23^rd Psalm into a barrel, tossing them out from the top of the Eiffel Tower, and their landing on the ground below to perfectly spell out the 23^rd Psalm. I wouldn’t say such a thing is metaphysically impossible. Sure, it’s p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e. But who would ever bank on it for ANY reason. Who would park themselves over top that minute of a probability and insist that we believe or not believe this or that because of it? Nobody.

Will people have the capacity to just keep rejecting God in light of the suffering that issues as a continued consequence of their choices? Sure. Yeah. But given the context and length of time God is willing to keep pursuing people, what reason is there for not HOPING that all will eventually turn sincerely to God and cry out for mercy? I can’t imagine our insisting that the infinitely minutest of possibilities would ground so passionate a rejection of the universalist’s hope?

In truth, I ‘HOPE’ it. I don’t ‘KNOW’ it. I’m just loving the joy that hoping it brings.

Love hopes all things. Laika, if I ‘can’ hope it, I’m gonna hope it.

------------

Laika: jefscott, the story of Lazarus shows a gulf that can't be crossed. Does the story show the gulf being crossed?

Tom:  I missed it. Where is the gulf described as irrevocable and uncrossable?

Tom

Tom: Re: 2: All the more reason to object to ECT. God sustains a world that eternally objects to him and curses him as the ‘just’ punishment of sinning during this lifetime? This doesn’t pose any problems at all for your understanding of ‘just’?

Jeff: I think one could posit that an unrepentant defiance in the face of just punishment is, itself, just more sin that needs to be punished--hence, an infinite loop of sin and consequences.

Tom: Exactly. But this is just infinite punishment for infinite choice. That's possible, AND it's just. It's the ONLY version of ECT that I can get with. But it’s not the traditional view of ECT which says that hell’s just infinity follows ONLY finite earthly choices. So long as a person chooses their pain and suffering, in light of the full knowledge of what it is, the yeah, hell goes on. It’s just that my ‘hope’ that eventually all will choose God is growing more and more confident, even if it stops short of ‘knowing’.

Jeff: But I think the parable of the rich man and basic knowledge of human nature would lead us to believe that such a scenario is just implausible.

Tom: I agree.

Tom

Laika: The way you pose the problem is fatal to ECT.

Tom: OK, let’s just take this much. Are you agreeing with me that irrevocably eternal conscious torment cannot be the ‘just’ consequence of sins committed during this lifetime? Are you agreeing with this much?

-------------

Laika: But it's also fatal to universalism.

Tom: We’ll deal with that later. If it REALLY is fatal to any version of universal hope, then fine. I’ll embrace annihilationism with you. But are we agreed that ECT is out?

-------------

Laika: The eternal punishment is potential in unversalism because people have free will. The only way God can guarantee all will freely choose is to determine that all will freely choose. Which is a contradiction. So either we don't have free will or God cannot guarantee that all will freely choose. Hence some may be eternally punished while God sustains them hoping they'll freely choose.

Tom: Again, once we agree that ECT as just consequence for earthly sins is OUT, we’ll move on to whether or not it’s equally fatal to all versions of universalism.

My preceding post tried to address the basis for universalistic hope and the unimaginably minute, practically meaningless probability that given the circumstances and God’s patience facing no temporal time restrictions everybody will eventually come around. If that’s not enough to prefer a universalistic hope over annihilationism, then go with annihilationism. That’s cool.

-------------

Laika: Is the problem you pose fatal to annihilationism?

Tom: I don’t’ think so, no. Annihilationism is a far more viable option than ECT as just consequence for earthly sins.

Blessings,

Tom

rec‧on‧cile