The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Must the post-mortem saved become callous about the damned?

Evangelical Universalism
#1

I have been struck by dramatizations I’ve seen in films that depict the attitude that the post-mortem saved have about the damned. In particular, there was one story in which a Christian girl is being escorted by an angel to her judgement. The devil shows up to play some mind games. He gives her a vision of her sister who everyone understands in this dramatization to have died in her sins. The sister is engulfed in flames. “My sister!” gasps the Christian girl. “She’s in hell!” Then, she quickly composes herself. “She knew what she was doing.” Thus ends her instant of compassion. And now, off to her own time of judgement. We know she’ll do well. She’s a Christian, after all.

Robin Parry deals with this question in The Evangelical Universalist. How can there be bliss in Heaven while there is suffering in Hell? The notion that the saved will revel in the righteous judgement of the damned doesn’t sit well with him. Won’t the divine presence lead us to love the damned even more?

Now, I thought of these things this weekend after one of our cats died. It was sad for our family, but what interested me was seeing the point of view of my 4-year old daughter. I told her that the cat had died and asked her if she wanted to see it. Yes she did. We went downstairs to where the cat was curled up on a cushion in her basket. I explained to her as best I could what it meant that the cat was dead. When she started crying, I knew she had grasped the significance.

Then she said something curious. She said she expected the cat to be “made alive again.” In later conversations it became clear that she had been impressed by what we had taught her about the resurrection of Jesus and the general resurrection to follow someday. Now that someone she loved had died, she expected it to happen now. Her Mom explained that the resurrection will happen when Jesus comes back. “How many days will that be?”

What I want to draw attention to is this child’s faith and her reasoning. Will her pet be resurrected? We don’t concern ourselves always with this question. I don’t feel that my eternal heavenly bliss will be compromised if my childhood pets are not with me. But my daughter my be thinking differently. If her beloved kitty isn’t waiting for her in the next world, she might be thinking, that will hamper the bliss.

So, contrary to Robin’s argument in TEU, are we just being childish when we think we can’t be happy without our loved ones in the next world? Is this an idea we need to grow out of? Or is this a place where we need to become more child-like? Is it an idea that we need to grow back into?

#2

If we are disciples of Christ, the scope of our “loved ones” may be much broader than our immediate families and relatives. Jesus said:

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35)

If we truly love our enemies as Jesus asked us to do, will we be happy in the next life without them?

#3

I think that if eternal torment is true, we would have to become callous about the dead ones for being happy in heaven.

According to this view, however, the damned are people who rejected God’s love BOTH before and after the grave and they will cease eventually cease to exist.

I expect only a minority of wicked humans to end up in such a fate so I don’t see a problem for being glad in Heaven.

#4

Adam,

I appreciate your perplexity on this, but I can’t help thinking that while you might be okay with the cat not being resurrected, you definitely would NOT be okay with your little girl ending up in eternal conscious torment. At least I hope you wouldn’t. Unless we become like little children (childLIKE, not childISH) you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I don’t think Jesus was giving a warning here about not “going to heaven,” but rather about not being able to participate in and cooperate with the kingdom of heaven right here on earth, in this life. I’m prejudiced of course, but I applaud the wisdom of your sweet little girl. :wink:

This love thing is, imo, a tremendously strong argument against ECT and Anni. Why? Because we know that God’s faithfulness is to all generations and His mercies never come to an end, but are new every morning. The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. If you read carefully the Sermon on the Mount, you’ll see that Jesus commands us to love our enemies – but here’s the clincher – why are we to do this? So that we will be LIKE our Father in heaven. Does He love His enemies? If He does, then we can be sure that His steadfast love for those enemies never ceases and that His mercies toward them never come to an end. If His mercies never end, that must, in my mind, mean that there’s a person there to be merciful to. Anni would to me entail the mercies coming to an end. ECT would certainly entail the mercies coming to an end as Father ceases to work toward the well-being and reconciling of the one He once loved.

His steadfast love never changes.
He loves the world (and by extension, all that the world contains).
His mercies never come to an end – they are renewed every morning.
His faithfulness is to all generations.
Nothing He desires to do can be denied Him.
His Word does not return to Him empty but accomplishes all that He sent it to do.
He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from all their distresses.
We are to love our enemies so that we will be like Him. (That is, He loves His enemies.)

There’s only one way that I can see to reconcile these statements to one another without discarding or modifying some of them. In any doctrine, there will be scriptures that have to be “interpreted away.” That doesn’t mean scripture contradicts itself, but (imo) that we often aren’t able (for reasons both within and beyond our control) to ferret out the precise meanings of the writings. It seems good to me that we take the witness of scripture as a whole, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and settle on the interpretation that best ties the largest number of scriptures together into a cohesive whole. For the above, God’s faithfulness to continue to work for the reconciliation of His entire creation (and His ability to carry that off) is far and away the most comprehensive solution. If you say that some must be annihilated, then you have to throw out His persistence and probably His steadfast love. If you insist that some must burn forever, well, you have the same problem. If you believe that while He would love to save them all but cannot whilst retaining free will, you have to toss out omnipotence.

On free will and omnipotence, I’m sure you’ve read Tom Talbot. If you haven’t, I highly recommend The Inescapable Love of God. I used to think that Father couldn’t bring all to salvation without violating our free will, but now I wonder why it never occurred to me that in fact He can – and it isn’t all that complicated. But this post is long enough and you haven’t asked about that topic. Let me know if you do want to hear it and I’ll do my best to at least sketch it out.

Love in Jesus, Cindy

#5

i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Emoticons/goodpost.gif

#6

I find it interesting that the only account that we have in the New Testament of an interaction between the post-mortem saved and the post-mortem lost is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. And while on a superficial level it appears that the rich man is hopelessly lost, there are some hints that it may not be the case.

First, it is important to recognize that the rich man was a Jew, caught up so in his riches that he didn’t observe the commandment in Deuteromony 15:7-8, 11 to care for the poor (recognizing that observation of the Law of Moses is paramount to receiving blessings or cursing, since the story Jesus tell us occurs pre-Cross). The sin of coveteousness is the reason that lands him in hell (Hades).

But it is noteworthy that Abraham still calls the rich man “son”, implying that despite his predicament, Abraham still regards the rich man as his offspring. Obviously, Abraham did not wish to see him there. But why Abraham, and not Moses? Because it was Abraham that was given the Promise, not Moses. And if Abraham calls the rich man “son”, then the rich man might be still be an inheritor of that promise, which would find it’s fulfillemnt at a later date. Personally, I see it fulfilled in Romans 11:26, when “all Israel shall be saved.”

One wonders, if the account is based on reality, if Abraham appears to* everyone *who had ended up in Hades. I’m sure that the rich man wouldn’t be the only one to lift up his voice afar off to Abraham.

Whether that parable is based on reality or not wasn’t really the point, but there may be some truth to the idea that the saved may have some kind of interaction with the lost, post-mortem. But parable doesn’t indicate that there is anything the saved could do to help them in their state one way or another. Nor does it indicate that the rich man repented, other than his desire to keep his brothers from the same fate. But it seems to me that Abraham at least was trying to impress upon the rich man of why he was there. Perhaps this would offer the seed for repentence.

#7

Thanks so much, Paidion! :slight_smile:

#8

‘’ are we just being childish when we think we can’t be happy without our loved ones in the next world? Is this an idea we need to grow out of? Or is this a place where we need to become more child-like? Is it an idea that we need to grow back into?’’

I think we need to become more childlike, like your daughter. I am 72, almost 40 years in the Lord, and more and more, as I get older, I long to see my atheist parents and be able to show them how much they are loved. They died relatively young, full of hopes and dreams for the future.

It is funny when I hear people say, "Of course, the first person I will be glad to see is Jesus’’. It is because of Jesus that I long to see my parents.

As for our pets - if everything is restored, why not them? We loved and served one another - they probably more purely than we. We’ll rejoice to see them running free with no fear of getting hit by an auto. . . .they were a part of our joy in life - the unbridled joy of life and love is what this existence is all about!

#9

Yeah, I wonder about this too. After all, we have various verses speaking about “the lion laying down with the lamb” (although that could be metaphoric speech), and King Jesus and the saints riding white horses into the final battle, etc. Wouldn’t the* whole *creation be groaning for redemption? (Romans 8) If the earth is but a shadow of the heavenlies, why wouldn’t we expect the reality of heaven to include trees (which there is at least one :wink: ), rivers (which there is at least one), fruits (at least 12), and why not animal? Yea, maybe there are animals and creatures that we have never even seen or conceived of!

Of course the question that even if there were animals in heave, would any of them be the pets we lost. We are told that animals don’t have souls because they are not rational beings created in the image of God. But what do we really know? If life came from God and returns to it (Eccl. 12:7), then possibilities arise.

#10

Lovely post, Cindy.
I can’t believe for a second that callousness would be a required attitude of a Kingdom that is built by acts of mercy and kindness and forgiveness.
it seems the Adam’s little girl has the right idea.
Because we grow older and sadder as time goes on, we start to lose the optimism and trusting faith of childhood. there are some good survival aspects in that, but God wants to restore the faith and joie de vivre that we’ve lost.
It says about returning that which the locust and worm have eaten…i’m sure that’s not just about restoring our fortunes after plagues, but about restoring what we lose by growing callous and sad during life. i am speaking generally…there are some people who obviously get more joyful as they grow old.
So an old person might “understand” the idea of losing things forever (or think they do), and thus become accustomed to it, but i don’t think that’s part of the lesson we are meant to learn.

#11

Where does it say that? Is that a biblical reference? If so, where?

#12

Thanks so much, CL. That is a very comforting post, and I LOVE that passage. God is so good to us.

#13

We need balance. This is what God offers by giving paradox. We will be sorrowful yet always rejoicing. Steady joy is tinged with steady sorrow.
The seasoned soul in Christ will have a steady joy and a steady sorrow. They protect each other. Joy is protected from being flippant by steady sorrow. Sorrow is protected from being fatal by steady joy.

#14

Name just one verse from the Bible which speaks about “the lion laying down with the lamb” and I will be satisfied.

#15

"We are told that animals don’t have souls because they are not rational beings created in the image of God.’’

‘Yes - says who?’ is my gut reaction. Our dogs know where their bread is buttered, is that not rational? And they even seem to have a sense of humor.

''But what do we really know? If life came from God and returns to it (Eccl. 12:7), then possibilities arise."

Right, what do we really know?

Paidion - that beautiful passage in Isaiah 11 may be it, though it is the wolf with the lamb:

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.’’

#16

For obvious reasons, i find verse 8 particularly comforting. :ugeek:

#17

:sunglasses:

#18

Thank you, Jepne. That was the verse I was thinking of, sorry for the misquote. It’s one of those things that people hear all the time thinking it’s in the bible, withou checking for sure, like “Cleanliness is next to godliness”. I should have been more thorough, though the crux of the saying is not without warrant. Actually, it’s also sorta repeated in Isaiah 65:25, in reference to the new heavens and new earth.

And futhermore, the original verses in Isaiah actually bolsters the idea of animals in the new heavens and new earth anyway, now that we have wolves, leopards and goats, too.

Of course, some interpret these animals allegorically to different peoples who will dwell peacefully together during the Millenium, too.

#19

Hi Dondi,

Actually, for me, the misquote was of secondary consideration. Indeed, I didn’t know it was a misquote until I attempted to look it up. It was the grammar of your “misquote” that bugged me (being a former teacher can make a person picky about incorrect grammar).

My immediate reaction was "What were the lion and the lamb laying? Eggs?

It should be:

However, I don’t blame you, Dondi, since this is possibly the most common grammatical error in North America. One hears it everywhere. I have a friend who was reading from the King James Version the following verse aloud in church during the Christmas season:

Lu 2:16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.

But even with the word right in front of him, he read the word “lying” as “laying”!

You may not want a grammar lesson at this point, but I’ll give one anyway, for anyone who might be interested:

The verb “lie” (does NOT take a direct object)

Present Tense: lie
Now I lie on the couch.

Present Participle: lying
Now I am lying on the couch.

Past Tense: lay
Yesterday he lay under the tree.

Past Participle: lain
Before he ate lunch, he had lain in his bed for half an hour.

The verb “lay” (DOES take a direct object)

Present Tense: lay
Now I lay the book on the shelf.

Present Participle: laying
Now I am laying the book on the shelf.

Past Tense: laid
Yesterday, Sam laid 10 layers of bricks.

Past Participle: laid
Before going to roost at night, the hen had laid two eggs.

#20

:laughing: Ya’ll had better just watch out, 'cause Paidion’s our resident grammar gestapo. :wink: No lambs laying in the hay for us – only hens do that. Paidion, I DO appreciate that lesson, because that is precisely the kind of mistake I’m likely to make. Thanks!