McClymond, Fulkerson and Hieston discussions

[corpselight]

Any comments on this one - it’s mercifully brief?

Pastoral reflections on Hell

GF We’ve agreed that hell is the orthodox position in theology how do we counsel people grieving for those who have died outside to the faith?

they’ve agreed. i do not. it seems that there is ample evidence that not all orthodox church fathers do not agree with that, and a reasonable percentage of them thoroughly disagree.

G.H. Even in Churches where there is not a rejection of hell there is a silence on it. That’s a hard thing. It’s easy to talk about Hell in an abstract philosophical discussion. I did a funeral of a person who died an atheist recently who was the brother of a friend of mine . How do you navigate that and what do I say to my friend who knows his brother for whom he had affection died an atheist and has now slipped under the judgement of God. This is the ultimate question of theodicy.
The Book of Job offers us resources here. Job found himself in a situation where he didn’t have a lot of information about and was not completely aware of what was going on.
Job is a righteous man by God’s standards and God who says – ‘I bless righteousness and I bring judgement upon wickedness’ – and he had every reason to expect that he would continue to be blessed. What he did not reckon in his theological calculus – and neither did his friends – was wickedness.
He doesn’t have a theological category for wickedness and the answer that comes in the end is a theophany of God – not explanation. When the issue of hell gets personal when it’s someone I know silence is the best response and finding peace in God himself (that God himself has it figured out) – instead of our theological explanations and rationalisations.
If hell doesn’t; make sees to us it is not for us to judge God for the decisions he made – I’ve met him and seen him in Christ and that is enough. Perhaps there is other stuff for God to reveal that will make sense of Hell.

so…the get out clause is that God will explain one day? what if He’s already explained: God desires all to be saved, and Love never fails? that doesn’t require any of this “there there, the worst has happened…and will continue to happen for all eternity to your loved one, but don’t worry, God will explain it to you in a way that satisfies you one day, and you’ll be able to enjoy the fact.”
Job as said previously has no bearing on ECT. nothing in the OT does! which is surprising, given that almost all (if not all) Israel’s neighbours had afterlives. Israel just had Sheol, and the vague promise of resurrection or future peace and prosperity.
i don’t think Job discounted wickedness. i think that was core to his argument…he WASN’T wicked. his friends argued he must be. God said STFU to his friends and then asked Job how he could possibly hope to understand (which doesn’t superficially seem that helpful, but certainly doesn’t seem to indicate eternal punishment). it’s an odd tale, and i have issues with everything being ok in the end when Job had lost family he’d not see again this side of heaven (no issues of ECT for them are evident here…Job sacrificed for them in case they sinned, and the story doesn’t contradict that morality, so they’d be ok if anyone was).

MM. IN Psalm 19 there is an affirmation that the judgments of God are true and righteous. This is echoed in Revelation 19 where the saints in heaven having seen God’s judgement on Babylon rejoice in this - with the benefit of the information that informs a heavenly view. Our problem is that we are on the ground. Jonathan Edwards had a fascinating analogy for this. He spoke of how from the ground if we point to view the tributaries of a river may seem to be going nowhere. However, from above we can see that they all ultimately join the river that flows into the sea - and this it is like God’s providence.

so inappropriate quoting Jonathan Edwards here, relevant to this discussion. Jonathan Edwards has doubtless influenced countless universalists inadvertently with his bizarre medieval and pagan view of God.
God’s judgements are wise and true…no universalist will contradict that. it isn’t fair to most strands of UR that i’m aware of to assume that no justice takes place in this view. judgement is paramount, but also seen in the light of Hebrews and Proverbs, where we learn that a loving parent will sometimes have to chastise their child…but for their betterment and correction. not for retribution, and certainly not to lock them up and throw away the key.

GH: Hell is the one doctrine today that challenges us to trust God judgment over our own, Maybe that wasn’t true two hundred years ago. Keller in his book ‘The reason for God’ makes the point that in past times and other cultures people would be offended if you did not believe in hell rather than if you did believe in it.

Hell is the most important doctrine regarding our discipleship because it forces us to come to grips with the fact that we are not God

I think the fact that we aren’t God is also emphasised by Postmodern thought which makes plain our inability to grasp all truth in neat concrete soundbytes.
another thing is that previous cultures might be offended if we told them black people were just as human as they were. the past is not always a good gauge of morality. even if you believe that those in the past had a higher moral standard from which we’ve fallen (disproved 2 sentences ago), that doesn’t work for Calvinism, because i’m reasonably sure Total Depravity doesn’t have degrees…like they were slightly less totally depraved than we are
so that’s just a stupid and facetious thing to say.
but seriously, if God knows how to give good gifts to His children, that indicates that He is the best of all Parents. which means that He knows that fear is a crap motivator, but love is the best motivator. So hell does not lead to discipleship. hell unchecked breeds awful, compassionless people that only give a toss for themselves and their friends and family, or hell leads to distress and mental anguish if the people are more Christlike in their compassion.
anyone that suggests that God would be “happy” (because of that Psalm where God laughs at the ridiculousness of the heathens raging) about suffering, and that we will unlearn the lesson He’s spent aeons teaching us about forgiveness, grace and redemption so that we also join in on this abominable celebration of pain and hopelessness cannot know God, even to the tiny degree to which i know Him…and that’s saying something.

personally, i think this notion that “plain readings” of (poor translations) of Scripture, coupled with bad reasoning, awful history, logical fallacy etc etc as a means of doing justice to God’s word is pure idolatry. rather than worship the God who redeems them, they worship a book, and an idea imported from Pagan Rome by those that sought to dominate using this new religion.

it’s sickening.

[Sobornost]

Good points James Well at long last I’m getting fed up here – I hate to say it but ever now and them I can see why people get annoyed with hard line Calvinists (I’m beginning to think that I prefer the sectarians to the seemingly irenical ones because at least you know where you stand with the sectarians ). So here’s my stab at the final discussion which you can all add to.

Universalism; the New Testament Doctrine of Mercy.

This discussion does not deal with the New Testament doctrine of mercy at all!

G.F. How is the doctrine of hell found in both Testaments and what is the canonical trajectory of linking God’s mercy in the NT with God’s judgement in the OT?

There is no doctrine of hell in the Old Testament - pure and simple. There is a gradual development of ideas of punishments and rewards in the world to come but in most of the Old Testament God’s retributive judgements take place purely in this life (and sheol is not the same as hell – everyone knows this!!!l). As well as assuming teaching on total depravity, PSA. Christ against culture, an iffy definition of postmodernism as a term of abuse etc these discussions and the lecture also assume a presuppositional, axiomatic sense of scripture (and a Calvinists one at that, rather than a Lutheran or a dispensationalist one for example). This makes it impossible for the participants to look at developments in understanding that take place within the Old Testament and between the Old and the New Testaments even though these are starring them in the face. So as Dave said earlier they present us with false choices regarding the ‘biblical data’. This is not a new false choice (as it were). We find it in St Augustine’s polemics against the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum. Augustine argues from the collective judgments of the Flood and the Cherems that unbapstised children can rightly be damned for collective original sin rather than for actual sins (just as God destroyed or had others destroy children in these collective judgements). Julian is horrified quoting Jeremiah that the child will not pay for the sin of the father and we are only responsible for our own sins. Who is right?

MM. I believe that in both Testaments mercy has priority over judgement. One of the remarkable things in the OT is the astounding mercy of God.
The astounding mercy of God is shown to the Ammonites and Moabites people who are at one point enemies of God’s people and most notably to the Assyrians – a passage in book of Isaiah speaks of Assyria the rod of my anger whom he has raised up to punish the Northern kingdoms and now is about to punish and we think ’end of story’. But later in the book we have the vision of the nations – including the Assyrians - sitting with Israel in the kingdom as restored children of God.
We also have the example of the wicked King Mannaseh who is one of the most wicked of the rulers of Israel who practised witchcraft and even child sacrifice. And yet when he goes into judgement he is greatly humbled before his enemies and he calls on God for mercy and he is not only restored to Jerusalem but actually restored to the throne. And the passage in Chronicles says ‘And then Mannaseh knew that the Lord is God’ – and this illustrates the passage in Romans that says that it is the kindness of God that leads us to repent.

I can’t see anything to disagree with here.

That is one theme of mercy – but then there are some judgments of God that are simply irrevocable. The most prominent one is the irrevocable judgement on Babylon that appear in Jeremiah and Isaiah. The common denominator in these irrevocable judgment is that they are judgements against arrogance and prideful rebellion. The daughter of Babylon says ‘I sit as Queen and will be Queen forever. I will never know mourning and will never know judgement.
There is something about pride and arrogant rebellion that brings down God’s irrevocable judgement. And of course the judgment upon Babylon is picked up again in the Book of Revelation so the final end time judgement is coming upon Babylon. Jeremiah says very clearly that the city will be a ruin and will never be rebuilt. We have to look if we are to do judgement to the totality of scripture that God’s judgment is not final in very many cases but there are some of God’s judgements that are irrevocable.

We’ve looked at this above. Babylon as a city that is decoyed never to be rebuilt speaks of the ruin of an empire. IN the Book of Revelation Babylon is a symbol of everything that oppresses the people of God and everything that is an impediment to God’s Shalom – it doesn’t stand for individuals.

GH The OT contains types and shadows and prefiguring of what is to come. It is appropriate to see God’s judgments of the flood, on Sodom and Gomorrah and against the Canaanites as prefiguring Gods eschatological judgements (because this is how Jesus saw them). In those OT judgments we see judgment against entrenched intractable rebellion.

These judgements on sin the OT are acts of destruction in time and not damnation in eternity. Jesus refers to these collective judgements in his discourses about the destruction of Jerusalem IMHO. Oh and btw John Calvin left Christendom a poisonous legacy when he restored the relevance of the Cherem texts – this we know well. (And Jesus does seem to revoke the Cherem judgement with his merciful treatment of the Canaanite woman in Matthew’s Gospel!)

For example in the Book of Revelation when the people know God’s judgment is coming their response is not to plead for mercy but to gnash their teeth in anger – which shows the depth of their perversity in cursing God.

People gnash their teeth in Jesus‘s parables - people who are expecting wrath judgement and hell but expecting them for other people rather than themselves. And actually if the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was irrevocable why does Jesus speak of the people from these cities accusing the sinful generation of Jesus’ day on the Day of the Lord?

GF The Day of the Lord is a theme that runs throughout scripture – where God’s judgment can be both cleansing and eternally damming (but sometimes people just expect the cleansing and don’t reckon that judgment may be damming for them)

In the NT Jesus singles out the ones who expect retribution to fall on others rather than themselves for admonition.

GH People think of judgement as the dark side of God. But in reality you judge something as wanting because it threatens something that you value. So judgement is actually an expression of God’s love – not of his love for those he is judging but of his love for those he values.

In Revelation the saints long for the judgment to come as his expression of his commitment to them. We spend so much time apologising for hell but in the heart of a believer there should be a longing for God’s judgment. In Revelation Christ comes in wrath as judge not because people have been naughty and need a spanking but because they have abused his Bride the Church.

In Revelation the Saints long for vindication and the end of persecution and for a cosmos made whole by God’s justice. There is nothing to suggest that they long for the eternal damnation of others (and longing for God’s judgement in Pastor Hieston’s remarks primarily means longing for his vindictive judgment against others rather than for his restoration of Shalom according to where his emphasis falls)

MM I see both restorative judgement and irrevocable judgment as evident in the Old Testament. Psalm 2 is interesting where God laughs to scorn the nations (which ends with the warning ‘kiss the son unless you perish’).

BTW I also see distributive justice in the OT – it’s a major theme in the prophets and is especially strong in Amos. Gods laughing the nations to scorn in Psalm 2 is ,as James has already noted, a figure of speech highlighting the stupid arrogance of the nations who think they are greater than God (and these are the very same nations who are restored at the close of the Book of Revelations). The warning ‘kiss the son unless you perish’ does not imply eternal hell – the Psalm is not about judgment of individuals - but anyway it is a controversial way of translating this phrase. A case can be made for it but many think it is not what the author intended (and we have to make the translators of the KJV inerrant to insist on this reading)

The Church culture has absorbed ideas from the Enlightenment and secular thought. We need to be more loving, caring and nicer. In Jesus we see perfect love but when this becomes manifest we murder him… And he tells us ‘If they hated me they will hate you also’. We have been seduced by the idea that everyone is essentially good

We have not been seduced by the idea that everyone is essentially good I think (even those of us who think that everyone is not totally depraved and that grace completes/heals nature rather than destroys it. We believe God’s love will restore everyone eventually – which is a different belief.
The idea that we should love others – including or enemies -is a rather central Christian belief anyway (and judgement is very much linked to our treatment of others in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats). I find it a little disturbing that Jesus as teacher who invites us to imitate him as he imitates the Father, and Jesus as shepherd have completely disappeared from this discourse that emphasises only Jesus as substitute and Jesus as avenging judge.

GH. This shows a misunderstanding of the destructive aspect of sin about how it warps the human heart… We see this in the fall in Genesis we see this when the Guards report Jesus resurrection to the Pharisees – they don’t deny it they just want it hushed up. As C.S. Lewis says – God leaves us with our hellish self autonomy if that’s what we chose in rebellion.

Have already commented on the use of C.S. Lewis here in a previous post.

[Sobornost]

I’ll end with a poem by Bonheoffer who has been so badly misrepresented in this lecture and these discussions (and to be fair think it was done through ignorance rather than through actual intention to mislead - but the ignorance was fuelled by wanting to be identified with the good guys against the universalist bad guys so it has some self righteous culpability).

The poem was written while Bonheoffer was awaiting execution as he could hear the Allied bombs dropping with apocalyptic power.

(Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 134)

Men go to God when they are sore bestead
Pray to him for succour, for his peace, for bread,
For mercy for them sick, sinning, or dead;
All men do so, Christian and unbelieving.
Men go to God when he is sore bestead,
Find him poor and scorned, without shelter or bread,
Whelmed under weight of the wicked, the weak, the dead;
Christians stand by God in his hour of grieving.
God goes to every man when sore bestead,
Feeds body and spirit with his bread;
For Christians, heathens alike he hangeth dead,
And both alike forgiving.

Note ‘bestead’ = placed in a position of sorrow and anguish.

Who are the ones who call out ‘how long Lord’ in Revelation if not the martyrs? Here is a record of a martyr giving this plea - and it does not entail longing for the ECT of his enemies. I also remember the incredibly brave 2nd century martyr St Perpetua who died with great courage encouraging her fellow Christians as they faced the beasts being giving courage by a dream that here little brother who had died of face cancer as a pagan was healed and within God’s love (for this reason Augustine found her flaky and suspect).

This is what Bonheoffer actually had to say about apocatastasis - he never completely made up his mind but he had his strong hopes:

The strongest reason for accepting the idea of apocatastasis would seem to me that all Christians must be aware of having brought sin into the world, and thus aware of being bound together with the whole of humanity in sin, aware of having the sins of humanity on their conscience. Justification and sanctification are inconceivable for anyone if that individual believer cannot be assured that God will embrace not only them but all those [others] for whose sins they are responsible.”

[corpselight]

Excellent post.
So ironic that a hopeful Universalist would be misappropriated by those who don’t agree with UR

[Sobornost]

Thanks James - I think the only one that I’d like more information on is Kierkegaard - he did say something that affirmed universal salvation unequivocally but I’d like to know more about how this fits in with other things he said since he often spoke through assumed characters but as for Bonheoffer, he’s been misused. (He also had a Karl Barth type ‘Christology’ and believed in the kenotic, suffering, and ‘marginalised’ God in Christ)

Yes for Kierkegaard I also have the following quotations

Not famine, not pestilence, not war will bring back seriousness. It is not until the eternal punishments of hell regain their reality that [humans] will turn serious.

Soren Kierkegaard, quoted in Time, January 27, 1961, p.50. (but I can’t for the life of me find confirmation of this quotation)

He also certainly did write -

“If, after the Final Judgment, there remains only one sinner in Hell and I happen to be that sinner, I will celebrate from the abyss the Justice of God.”

• but this hardly chimes with the views and aspirations of the discussion participant’s. But it would be good to have confirmations about Kierkegaard’s view from a Kierkegaard scholar. Like Bonheoffer he appears to be undergoing rehabilitation with American conservative evangelicals - because like Bonheoffer Francis Schaeffer also placed him in hell.

[Sobornost]

I think the key thing about Kierkegaard as heretic - in terms of conservative evangelical apologetics - is not that he was a universalist but that he had no time for objective truth whatsoever -‘All decisiveness inheres in subjectivity, only in subjectivity is there decision, to seek objectivity is to be in error’. So he is in fundamental disagreement with all attempts to argue for an axiomatic objective faith (against Carl Henry, Francis Schaffer etc…). As such he is an odd ally of Dr McClymond - I don’t quite understand his take on presuppositionalism or that of Carl Henry’s; is the apparent irenicism to do with a willingness to collaborate with and co-opt other Christians who at least share some important presuppositions (like the doctrine of hell)?

Anyway Kierkegaard was a Christian Universalist, according to his journals, “If others go to Hell, I will go too. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that all will be saved, myself with them—something which arouses my deepest amazement.” However, as the wiki article says -

this view is not always consistent with Kierkegaard’s other writings. He presupposes the individual who has decided to become a Christian has an interest in becoming that, is interested enough to attempt to develop a relationship with Christ, and has enough faith to believe that the possibility extends to all individuals equally. He wrote the following in his 1846 book, Concluding Unscientific Postscript:

Although an outsider, I have at least understood this much, that the only unforgivable high treason against Christianity is the single individual’s taking his relation to it for granted. I must therefore most respectfully refuse all theocentric helpers and the assistance of helper’s helpers to help me into Christianity in that way. So I prefer to remain where I am, with my infinite interest, with the issue, with the possibility. In other words, it is not impossible that the individual who is infinitely interested in his own eternal happiness can some day become eternally happy; on the other hand, it is certainly impossible that the person who has lost a sense for it (and such a sense can scarcely be anything but an infinite concern) can become eternally happy. Indeed, once lost, it is perhaps impossible to regain it. Page 16

However, the ‘perhaps’ is not an outright denial and the tow quotations above may well fit a larger picture. The one about the need to reclaim the vision of hell - if genuine - may well be simply about the need to face our individual despair (since Kierkegaard had no time for objective doctrine). The one about being the last sinner in hell with everyone else saved seems a hyperbole for coming face to face with an absolute claim upon oneself.

[corpselight]

I think the key thing about Kierkegaard as heretic - in terms of conservative evangelical apologetics - is not that he was a universalist but that he had no time for objective truth whatsoever -‘All decisiveness inheres in subjectivity, only in subjectivity is there decision, to seek objectivity is to be in error’. So he is in fundamental disagreement with all attempts to argue for an axiomatic objective faith (against Carl Henry, Francis Schaffer etc…). As such he is an odd ally of Dr McClymond - I don’t quite understand his take on presuppositionalism or that of Carl Henry’s; is the apparent irenicism to do with a willingness to collaborate with and co-opt other Christians who at least share some important presuppositions (like the doctrine of hell)?

Anyway Kierkegaard was a Christian Universalist, according to his journals, “If others go to Hell, I will go too. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that all will be saved, myself with them—something which arouses my deepest amazement.” However, as the wiki article says -

this view is not always consistent with Kierkegaard’s other writings. He presupposes the individual who has decided to become a Christian has an interest in becoming that, is interested enough to attempt to develop a relationship with Christ, and has enough faith to believe that the possibility extends to all individuals equally. He wrote the following in his 1846 book, Concluding Unscientific Postscript:

Although an outsider, I have at least understood this much, that the only unforgivable high treason against Christianity is the single individual’s taking his relation to it for granted. I must therefore most respectfully refuse all theocentric helpers and the assistance of helper’s helpers to help me into Christianity in that way. So I prefer to remain where I am, with my infinite interest, with the issue, with the possibility. In other words, it is not impossible that the individual who is infinitely interested in his own eternal happiness can some day become eternally happy; on the other hand, it is certainly impossible that the person who has lost a sense for it (and such a sense can scarcely be anything but an infinite concern) can become eternally happy. Indeed, once lost, it is perhaps impossible to regain it. Page 16

However, the ‘perhaps’ is not an outright denial and the tow quotations above may well fit a larger picture. The one about the need to reclaim the vision of hell - if genuine - may well be simply about the need to face our individual despair (since Kierkegaard had no time for objective doctrine). The one about being the last sinner in hell with everyone else saved seems a hyperbole for coming face to face with an absolute claim upon oneself.

Not believing in objectivity sounds a tad post-modern to me. As you say, he is an odd ally for McClymond and co.

If he was the only sinner in hell, and he glorified God from there…why would he be in hell for any more time than that? surely the hellbound gnash their teeth in rage at God’s justice, according to this sort of reasoning. i would say that as soon as a sinner recognised their need for judgement, they’d no longer be in hell, because nobody who praises God can do so without the Holy Spirit, and so they would have to embrace Him to praise God…and then how could they be in hell, if hell is absence from God? So this statement to me, taken to its logical end, seems to indicate universal salvation.

[Sobornost]

Excellent point James - indeed this is so

[Wendy]

If you start rejecting the wrath of God you ultimately start rejecting the love of God. I’m thinking of Psalm 136 with the refrain ‘ The love of God endures forever’ – but if you go through it God’s love means that he crushes my enemies – God’s judgement upon our enemies is his expression of your love for us. The problem with the trajectory of denying the wrath of God is that you end up denying the love of God and in the end denying God altogether even if you start off with the good intention of trying to protect the love of God.

Several great observation already in this thread .

I am perplexed at his conclusion that " God’s love crushes my enemies" ? How could this be the case when Christ commanded His followers to love and pray for their enemies. ( Luke 6:35). The psalms are full of human emotions, if he is using the psalms of David to support his view, his foundation in on quick sand.

[corpselight]

If you start rejecting the wrath of God you ultimately start rejecting the love of God. I’m thinking of Psalm 136 with the refrain ‘ The love of God endures forever’ – but if you go through it God’s love means that he crushes my enemies – God’s judgement upon our enemies is his expression of your love for us. The problem with the trajectory of denying the wrath of God is that you end up denying the love of God and in the end denying God altogether even if you start off with the good intention of trying to protect the love of God.

Several great observation already in this thread .

I am perplexed at his conclusion that " God’s love crushes my enemies" ? How could this be the case when Christ commanded His followers to love and pray for their enemies. ( Luke 6:35). The psalms are full of human emotions, if he is using the psalms of David to support his view, his foundation in on quick sand.

Nicely put. Totally agree.He clearly argues from such a bizarre inerrantist viewpoint that even these clearly human emotions must be dictated by the Holy Spirit. One wonders about the bits where david says no one praises God from Sheol which indicates a belief in death that contradicts the evangelical normal belief…i bet the say what i always heard as a child, that david didnt know better, but this contradicts the notion that the psalms are infallible

[Sobornost]

no one praises God from Sheol which indicates a belief in death that contradicts the evangelical normal belief

Yes I guess someone who believed in soul sleep could get round this - namely the soul dies with the body and is not resurrected until the last day (but not I think in terms of what David probably believed - if we are permitted to take an historical view of scripture - namely that the biblical evidence suggest that resurrection was not a belief of the Hebrews during David’s’ time). But soul sleep is not the normal evangelical belief (and Calvin fulminated against it and was the first Reformer to name it as heresy).

Pastor Hieston appears to be contemplating eschatological justice here and associating the amazed anticipation of this with the psalms that bring call down vengeance upon enemies. But yes indeedy - what has happened to the injunction to love enemies and be merciful in imitation of the Father? It is confined to the exegetical footnotes it seems.

[Sobornost]

Here’s an interesting one from ‘Hell in a cultural perspective’ (that also features a Psalm of David) -

G.H… With post modernity – like Gnosticism we have a rejection of sin. Once you start losing the doctrine of sin, whether through Gnosticism or postmodernity, you are going to lose any understanding of the doctrine of Hell.
M.M. An insight from C.S. Lewis. Lewis pointed out that when Jesus came into a situation where he declared forgiveness of sin – he could make that stamen because he was speaking on God’s behalf and as God Incarnate. The implication is that when human begins sin against each other God is the chiefly offended party
G.H. Psalm 51 –‘against you and only you have I sinned’. It’s remarkable because at this point David has just killed a man and stolen his wife and probably killed a whole bunch of people.

These thoughts are not well developed; but a thread on this site that clarifies these issues very well is David Konstans’ thoughts about the meaning of forgiveness at -

Before Forgiveness: Classical Antiquity, Early Christianity.

I’m ready to post an article on forgiveness. This is a talk that summarizes many issues in the book. It has not been previously published, so you are the first! With warmest wishes, David Before-Forgiveness-David-Konstan.pdf (101 KB) , I"]Forgiveness is a virtue very much in vogue: but was it always? Did the modern conception of forgiveness even exist in ancient times? I am about to argue that it did not. In its place, there were other strategies of reconciliation between an offending …

A very woolly synopsis of David Konstan’s wonderful little article is that in New Testament terms it is for God alone to forgive and bring radical change and healing to a person. We human beings must release each others from debt, apologise and make peace with each other and not hold grudges because God has forgiven us - but God alone can give real forgiveness (I think that’s about right ). So in this sense King David was right to pray to God ‘against you and you alone have I sinned’. Also Bonheoffer (see above) was right to suggest that those who receive God’s costly grace should hope that this grace will extend to everyone - because we are all implicated in/affected by each others sins in the first place.

[Wendy]

If you start rejecting the wrath of God you ultimately start rejecting the love of God. I’m thinking of Psalm 136 with the refrain ‘ The love of God endures forever’ – but if you go through it God’s love means that he crushes my enemies – God’s judgement upon our enemies is his expression of your love for us. The problem with the trajectory of denying the wrath of God is that you end up denying the love of God and in the end denying God altogether even if you start off with the good intention of trying to protect the love of God.

Several great observation already in this thread .

I am perplexed at his conclusion that " God’s love crushes my enemies" ? How could this be the case when Christ commanded His followers to love and pray for their enemies. ( Luke 6:35). The psalms are full of human emotions, if he is using the psalms of David to support his view, his foundation in on quick sand.
Nicely put. Totally agree.He clearly argues from such a bizarre inerrantist viewpoint that even these clearly human emotions must be dictated by the Holy Spirit. One wonders about the bits where david says no one praises God from Sheol which indicates a belief in death that contradicts the evangelical normal belief…i bet the say what i always heard as a child, that david didnt know better, but this contradicts the notion that the psalms are infallible

Exactly. I don’t even know how he can logically say you must have wrath with love ? But the very foundation of how he defines wrath is another matter. But again , if the foundation is such as ect, it follows the same pattern in each and every turn ( or verse they interpret).