Of the many critiques against the idea that God (eventually) saves all, this one rates right up there in it’s ability to rankle/annoy/irritate me; …as if the accuser claims for himself enough insight to acknowledge that some element of sentimentalism is allowable but has the unique discernment to know when it’s too much.
This charge seems, at least to me, deeply incoherent. It posits a force, in this case sentimentalism, which sways God towards the inclination to pardon and save us. And opposing this force is another which is acting in the opposite direction. That force is most often called “justice”. It’s yet another manifestation of the conflict within God to be in opposition with Himself: to punish and to save; to love and to judge; to heal and to exhibit wrath.
Yes sentimentalism is like salt. Too much ruins the dish by leading to universalism, so just a dash can be tolerated. See, Saving must be tempered with a bit of annihilation and/or Eternally Conscious Torment to be meaningful and palatable. (Apologies for sarcasm are offered, if needed…)
But really now: why the miserly parceling out of just the right amount of sentimentalism? We don’t do this with God’s other attributes do we? We hold that God is Love; full and pure and complete. And He is Just; full and pure and complete. And is Holy and Wrathful and Faithful. Just please hold down the sentimentalism if you don’t mind. Why, too much of that, and God may just forget Himself and end up saving everyone!
So, is sentimentalism a good thing or not? Does God display it towards us or not? Seems to me that a recurring flaw in the way many think about God is that His various characteristics are held to be pulling God in varied, and often opposite directions. He’s Love (that’s the part that saves I guess) but He’s also Just (which must be the part that compels Him to ECT or annihilation). Universalists avoid this dilemma it seems to me in holding that everything God does is always just and everything He does is always love. There is no tension or cross purposes at all. His Love is always Just and His Justice always demonstrates and is motivated by Love.
Seems to me a sentimental God will do anything He must to ensure our eternal happiness and well being. Even if it manifests as corrective punishment.
That’s kind of how I see this; wondering how you do?
TotalVictory
Bobx3
(easing back in after some weeks of reflection, and other personal things…)
This was an interesting definition of justice that I ran across recently, from an ultimately Greek orthodox source. I think it neatly dispels our notion of what God’s justice is:
" This paganistic conception of God’s justice which demands infinite sacrifices in order to be appeased clearly makes God our real enemy and the cause of all our misfortunes. Moreover, it is a justice which is not at all just since it punishes and demands satisfaction from persons which were not at all responsible for the sin of their forefathers 4 In other words, what Westerners call justice ought rather to be called resentment and vengeance of the worst kind. Even Christ’s love and sacrifice loses its significance and logic in this schizoid notion of a God who kills God in order to satisfy the so-called justice of God.
Does this conception of justice have anything to do with the justice that God revealed to us? Does the phrase "justice of God" have this meaning in the Old and New Testaments?
Perhaps the beginning of the mistaken interpretation of the word justice in the Holy Scriptures was its translation by the Greek word DIKAIWSUNH. Not that it is a mistaken translation, but because this word, being a word of the pagan, humanistic, Greek civilization, was charged with human notions which could easily lead to misunderstandings.
First of all, the word DIKAIWSUNH brings to mind an equal distribution. This is why it is represented by a balance. The good are rewarded and the bad are punished by human society in a fair way. This is human justice, the one which takes place in court.
Is this the meaning of God's justice, however?
The word DIKAIWSUNH,"justice", is a translation of the Hebraic word *tsedaka*. **This word means "the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation"**. It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, *hesed* which means "mercy", "compassion", "love", and to the word, emeth which means "fidelity", "truth". This, as you see, gives a completely other dimension to what we usually conceive as justice."
So, if that qualifies God as being “sentimental”, then I guess those who call this type of justice by that name are fooling themselves with that label. But this is His definition of justice, over and against ours.
interesting to see the Orthodox perspective, and some of the reasoning behind it, Melchizedek! i really liked it, and it makes sense with what i have experienced…also helps me understand a few things i didn’t before as well. thanks!
the argument that God is “sentimental” or “wishy washy” is from what i can tell the opposite of the viewpoint of adherants to EU.
a God who is wishy washy would just lean back on his futon and say “yeah man…it’s all cool, everyone’s welcome.”
the EU (or at least how i understand it so far?) God says “i love you so passionately i will KILL YOU if it’s necessary to save your soul! i will NEVER GIVE UP ON YOU!”
nothing sentimental about that…that’s passion, and passion is something we have many examples of God demonstrating in the Bible
TotalVictory I agree, this has rankled me too. It seems that the traits of God’s character are frequently pitted against one another- his grace being a small window of opportunity because He is merciful; but ultimately withdrawn when man has made the wrong choice (or lack thereof) by the end of his life- the fact that God’s ideals for us are to be continually forgiving (70X7), loving, and to show mercy without limit doesn’t seem to enter the rationale.
With respect to Justice being not in tension with God’s love but an outgrowth from it; I’ve pasted an article by Robert Brinsmead that I have on file, which I’ve found quite helpful. I think I may have abridged the original article but I’ve had it a long while and don’t remember. I would be interested in the opinion of those amongst you who have scholarly skills with regard the original language, Hebraic concepts etc
I have to say I’m posting this without checking the various scripture references again so I hope it all makes sense.
(Robert Brinsmead was Australian and is now deceased. He is probably not known to most of you but wrote in the 70’s and 80’s from various theological positions as he changed his perspective over the years; his background was Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) and caused some flack in his time due to his position on various doctrines.)
TotalVictory I’m also from an SDA background; I’m sure you’re familiar with Brinsmead.
Anyway here’s the article:-
God’s Justice – A summary of Brinsmead position in ‘Scandal Of Justice’
"The justice of God is so contrary to man’s idea of justice.
Luther acknowledged that he could not understand Paul’s gospel at first because he did not understand what the apostle meant when he said that the gospel revealed God’s justice (Rom. 1:17).
The Reformation was born when Luther began to understand the surprisingly kind face of God’s justice.
Traditional Protestant theology was controlled more by Western views of Justice than by the Justice which God revealed in the gospel of his Son. Such questions as the character of God, the meaning of the atonement and the nature of Christian ethics hinge on the biblical concept of justice.
The Bible does not use one word for righteousness and another for justice. The Old Testament has one word-sadaq-for righteousness and justice. New Testament Greek also has one word dikaiosune. Thus,“justice is righteousness and righteousness is justice.
. When the word justice is substituted for righteousness, familiar texts often have more impact. Some become quite startling In the Hebrew, for example, justify is simply the verbal form of the word sadaq (justice), i.e., it means doing justice or having justice done to or for an object Righteousness [justice] … is for the Hebrews the fundamental character of God.
Justice is the heart of biblical theology. It is central to the message of the Bible. Our understanding of God’s justice will therefore affect our view of the atonement, the last things, the church and the nature of Christian existence.
Righteousness [justice] as it is understood in the OT is a thoroughly Hebraic concept, foreign to the Western mind and at variance with the common under- standing of the term There seems to be a consensus among Old Testament scholars that sadaq has two basic meanings (which are two aspects of one idea): 1. Sadaq has to do with relationships. Most scholars now follow von Rad, who says that sadaq “is out and out a term denoting relationship . i.e… loyalty to a relationship.
E. R. Achtemeier says: Righteousness [justice] is in the OT the fulfilment of the demands of a relationship, whether that relationship be with men or with God. Each man is set within a multitude of relationships: king with people, judge with complainants. priests with worshipers, common man with family, tribesman with community, community with resident alien and poor, all with God. And each of these relationships brings with it specific demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes righteousness. The demands may differ from relationship to relationship: righteousness in one situation may be unrighteousness in another Further, there is no norm of righteousness outside the relationship itself. When God or man fulfils the conditions imposed upon him by a relationship he is, in OT terms, righteous.
, sadaq “concerns the ‘right order of things’ – i.e. the correct ordering of the world according to the divine intention.”
Thus, some scholars say that justice is conformity to the created order of things.
When even weights and measurements are true to what they ought to be, they are said to be sadaq, i.e., just (Lev. 19:36: Esek. 45:10). When sacrifices are what they ought to be, they also are said to be sadaq (Ps.4:5: 51:19).
Justice in the Mighty Acts of God The special revelation of God does not take place in nature – his created works- nor in abstract propositions about himself, nor in diffuse mystical experiences of the divine- As far as the Bible is concerned, the special revelation of God takes place in history. The Old Testament is a record of God’s mighty acts. The biblical word which most adequately and most frequently sums up God’s mighty acts is the word sadaq (justice).
In these acts God’s justice is published for all to see. As one reviews these and many other passages which witness to the justice of God in his mighty acts, one fact is made prominent by its remarkable repetitiveness: God’s justice is associated with his acts of salvation and deliverance, and with his deeds of mercy and forgiveness.
Justice = Salvation.
Deliver me in your [sadaq-justice].Ps. 31:1
My mouth will tell of your sadaq [justice], of your salvation all day long. Ps 71:15.
I am bringing my sadaq [justice] near; …and my salvation will not be delayed. Isa 46:13.
My sadaq [justice] draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice [sadaq] to the nations. Isa. 51:5
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of sadaq [justice]. -Isa. 61:10.
In 1 Samuel 12:7-12 God’s justice plainly means his saving deeds in the deliverance of Israel (see also Judges 5:11). Justice = Mercy and Forgiveness Have mercy on me, O God,… blot out my transgressions. … Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me,and my tongue will sing of your sadaq [justice]. Ps. 51:1, 14
Justice = Deliverance of the Oppressed Perhaps the justice of God is most prominent in those passages of Scripture which speak of delivering the oppressed. For example:
The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed. A stronghold in times of trouble. Ps 9:7-9
The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land. You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth may terrify no more. Ps. 10:16-18
You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them.” -Ps 35:10.
The Lord works sadaq [justice] and mishpat [judgment] for all the oppressed Ps 103:6. He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free, the Lord gives sight to the blind, the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down, the Lord loves the righteous.
The Old Testament never tires of reciting God’s deed in delivering the oppressed Hebrew slaves from Egypt. This event forever stamped God’s justice as that which executes deliverance for all that are oppressed (Ps. 103:6).
If we may anticipate the New Testament gospel here, we would simply indicate that the resurrection is the preeminent event which proves that Gods justice works deliverance for all that are oppressed.
Jesus was the most oppressed man who ever lived. The oppression of every son and daughter of Adam was summed up in him. But God’s justice raised him from the dead in the real exodus of human history. (Luke 9:31.
Justice is the ordering of things according to the divine intention. Part of this “right order of things” is violated by the very existence of the poor and needy and especially of the oppressed: therefore, if sadaq [justice] is to be established God must deliver these unfortunates from their plight; For this reason, God’s justice comes to be associated with God’s liberating acts of salvation.
Another way to show that Gods justice is equated with his saving mercy is to show that justice is God’s being true to himself.
From the beginning God pledged himself to be overwhelmingly kind to undeserving people. He would be this because his love called him that way. God would be irrevocably committed to the wretched. As Paul said. 'He will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. (2 Tim. 2:13).
God’s justice may therefore be defined as Gods acting for the sake of his name which is a biblical way of saying that God remains God. John Piper cites such passages as Psalm 143:1, 2: Isaiah 43:25: 44:23; 46:13; 48:9-11 and Daniel 9:7. 13-19 to show that God’s justice is his absolute faithfulness always to act for his own name’s sake and for the preservation and display of his glory.”
Contrast the biblical concept of justice- It Is Not Distributive Justice The Latin concept of justice was called justitia distributiva (distributive justice). This meant giving every man exactly what he deserves or merits. The justice of God’s mighty acts, however, is not based on either the merits or demerits of people God’s justice is based on his being true to what he has promised in his gracious covenant. If God is to be just, he must be true to his commitment to help and to save wretched, undeserving people.
The great emphasis in the New Testament is on fulfilling his ancient promise concerning mercy and salvation. There is no tension between justice and mercy here. God satisfied justice by doing for poor, lost, sinful humanity everything he had planned from the beginning
It Is Not Primarily a Punitive justice. Justice which is distributive (i.e., giving to every man his due) and which is the opposite of mercy inevitably becomes equated with God’s act of punishing men for their sins. If forgiveness is extended to them, it is only because the punishment fell on Calvary substitutionary victim.
What fell on Christ is called “justice” (according to the traditional interpretation of Romans 3:25, 26),while the pardon granted the believer is called “mercy”. This classical Latin theory of the atonement reinforces the idea that God’s justice is primarily punitive. No wonder Luther trembled when he read in Paul that God’s justice is revealed in the gospel!
If we read his parables and teaching this way, we will be forcefully impressed that God’s justice is indeed an overwhelming surprise which completely overturns our human concepts of justice.”
___________________________________
I just tell people who throw this up to me (mostly harder-core Calvinists) that I have never even once presented God as being “sentimental”, and so they never got that notion from me.
If they want to complain about authors writing a “sentimental” God, going back on His judgment of wrath and whining about how miserable He is without certain sinners and how much He misses so that He even feels sick to His stomach from depression, or abandoning His dignity to hustle down a road by Himself from where He has been helplessly watching day after day, they’ll have to go pick on the Bible instead! They and I would both agree that the statements there are not to be taken as “sentiment” in the sense of being wracked by emotional reactions (which is what they’re complaining about supposedly from ‘my’ universalism), but rather as metaphorical language for emphatically expressing the active persistent love of God toward even sinners: a love so much stronger than mere human emotions that we can’t relate to it very well and so have use analogies to even get a taste of it.
If that isn’t (really) sentimentalism when the Bible does it, and if that isn’t (really) sentimentalism when Calvs (or Arms) do it, then I’m not being sentimental either or presenting God as (really) being that way when I quote or otherwise reference scriptural imagery on that topic. (Which I rarely do, and typically qualify when I do–ironically because I know if I do, I’ll be charged with claiming that God is too sentimental! )
It’s funny, I actually pulled this from an article that was ultimately non-universalist, but had some interesting things to say (unintentionally) in favor of universalism! And actually, I think this was an eastern orthodox perspective via American ortho. branch (vs. strictly Greek ortho.).
Hi sturmy:
Man this is crazy how things work in life (I of course am gullible enough to believe it is God working behind the scenes! ) but here I am, asking a question/presenting an idea and I get a response from you that, on surface anyway, seems to be rather distantly related. (Of course it was I who likened the botching of the concept of sentimentalism to that of the botching of the concept of Justice… ) And you bring up Brinsmead… Yes, I’m familiar, but only with enough specifics to “know” that he’s one of the rebels; left the church because of “apostasy” and heresy (though we SDA’s don’t typically use that term much…) and of course leave some kind of blight upon us because of his beliefs and behaviors… Know much about him? No, almost nothing. Know a lot about the next great SDA heretic, Des Ford, so assume that this one (Brinsmead) must likewise have been misunderstood, slandered, and treated shabbily.
So I just read the essay you sent. And it seems we are kindred spirits here sturmy! I love this stuff!
Wow I can’t thank you enough for pointing me this direction.
Have found and downloaded the entire essay (it’s over 16K words long) and look forward to reading it.
I’ve had so many of these thoughts over the years of my own journey (yes, I once looked up EVERY text on biblical justice for myself and have already discerned that our culture has little to no idea what justice meant in the bible…) that I just smiled and laughed my way through this essay!
WHY we Christians don’t let the stunning biblical message of God’s vast and infinite ability to love and to save just flow over us and save us baffles me more each passing day…
And am impressed that you bothered to discover my SDA past sturmy… and present too… Thanks!
Hope you hang around and stay.
Not to pry, but your Adventism sounded sort of past tense. That interests me too. You know how Christians talk of being in the world, but not of the world? Well, that’s kind of how I see myself in my church… Guess that might make sense to you…
Don’t know how you found us here, but man have you stumbled on to a magnificent bunch of folks!
I’ll just put my welcome here instead of over on the introductions page – which I’m woefully bad at keeping up with…
TotalVictory
Bobx3
(PS: would love to hear more of your story… if so inclined…)
For more recent discussion on Brinsmead’s Scandal of God’s Justice, and links to a (somewhat typoish) three part article reproducing his monograph, please check this late August 2013 forum thread.
Well said by GM. We are saved from our sins not essentially from the consequences of our sin; however surely the ultimate consequence was death and eternal separation from God: no small consequence to be delivered from.
S
a. Characterized or swayed by sentiment.
b. Affectedly or extravagantly emotional.
Resulting from or colored by emotion rather than reason or realism.
Appealing to the sentiments, especially to romantic feelings: sentimental music.
Sentiment A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason
First, when someone says “your God” are they saying that there is more than one God - mine, yours, and others? More accurately and more gracious one should say “Your understanding of God is… in my opinion.” Even this irritates me for it is a statement of judgment based in pride and self-rightness. It would be better to say, “My beliefs concerning the character of God are different than yours. I believe…”
Second, the word “sentiment” speaks of something (like a belief) that is based mainly upon emotion instead of reason. And some people do process things emotionally, more so than logically. If it doesn’t “feel” right, then it can’t make logical sense to them. Frankly, love is often “sentimental”, as is hate and other emotions. It doesn’t make “sense” to me that God would love me so much, but I accept in faith that He does. Love does not always “make sense” and does not always follow the “logical path”. But which is greater - logic or love? I believe that love is.
That would be true IF “death and eternal separation from God” were a consequence. But what if there were no “eternal separation from God.” What if hell is simply a necessary means to correct some who refuse to be corrected while on this earth?
George MacDonald believed that any hell which would be experienced ought to be welcomed, for God would not administer it unless it were absolutely necessary.
Because I believed in Conditional immortality I have never believed in hell as such but as the following is true:-
2Ti 1:9 …He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
2Ti 1:10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
For Christ to have destroyed death and brought life and immortality implies without him having done that there would be no life and no immortality. To me this doesn’t mean there would have been eternity in hell and separation from God but rather non existence and separation because of that.
It’s a hypothetical though as in Christ’s resurrection he conquered death and brought life and immortality; as that was God’s eternal intention it’s almost meaningless to consider an alternative.
…1Co 15:52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
1Co 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
Now if a period of correction is required, and I believe that to be fully reconciled to God we must be fully reconciled to each other; those that our sins have damaged in this life and an understanding of the ripple-like ramifications it has caused. How this happens I’m not certain, whether it involves some type of purgatorial correction.
How this varies between those who are currently christian already undergoing this process?? And those who might be classed as the worst of sinners (let’s wheel out poor old Hitler again) I don’t know, I would be interested in your perspective Paidion.
And is it a process that occurs after the twinkling of an eye change above?
Cheers Sturmy (this has deviated some from the original thread!)
I could get really upset about this. A statement like “God saves everyone” or “x^n+y^n=z^n has no whole number solutions for n>2” is either true or false. We many not be able to decide quickly, in fact my second statement took something like ten generations of mathematicians to prove, in some cases we may not be able to decide at all, but a statement like that is either true or false, sentiment has nothing to do with it.
To be blunt this guy is dodging the issue and displaying mental laziness. Getting to the truth of universalism needs considerable effort and re-examination of lot of assumptions. Going on with the same brand of theology year after year does not.
Ten generations? It took me ten seconds. X=0; Y=0; z=0; n=3 satisfies the conditions you specified. Or did you mean “positive integers” rather than “whole numbers”?
They and I would both agree that the statements there are not to be taken as “sentiment” in the sense of being wracked by emotional reactions (which is what they’re complaining about supposedly from ‘my’ universalism), but rather as metaphorical language for emphatically expressing the active persistent love of God toward even sinners: a love so much stronger than mere human emotions that we can’t relate to it very well and so have use analogies to even get a taste of it.
) but here I am, asking a question/presenting an idea and I get a response from you that, on surface anyway, seems to be rather distantly related. (Of course it was I who likened the botching of the concept of sentimentalism to that of the botching of the concept of Justice…