In my recent thread, "Evangelical Universalism Isolation?” at Evangelical Universalist Isolation?, I indicated that I would be talking to my pastor soon about my doubts concerning the traditional view of hell and my study of Evangelical Universalism. A few of you expressed a desire to know how this turned out.
I did finally talk to my pastor on Saturday 9/25/2010. Unfortunately I have been extremely busy and unable to update you until now. Since such a large amount of time has passed since then I thought it would be best to just start a new thread.
To the best of my memory I have tried to relate our conversation below. I started writing this immediately after our meeting but only finished it today. I tried to edit this as best as possible with the available time I have. Please forgive the length and any repetition.
Here goes:
…………………………………………
I began by discussing how philosophical considerations can often influence our exegesis of Scripture and explained how this probably is the reason why I am so drawn to Calvinism over Arminianism, as it provides a basis for the security of the believer.
Reductio ad absurdum: I then attempted to demonstrate that the logical consequences of the Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) proposition are so absurd that the proposition apparently becomes untenable.
Me: “I am having a hard time reconciling the fact that God calls and motivates us to love our families and the people of the world, be they saved or not, even though many of these souls may drift off to eternal conscious torment (ECT) one day. I cannot see how this could possibly be considered good news. In the O.T. God always seems to demonstrate a reluctance to execute judgment and simultaneously appeals for repentance so that people can avoid the consequences. He calls us to have the same attitude. Yet this is not the God we see in heaven nor is it the attitude that we seem to be demonstrating in heaven. “
Me: “It is difficult to love the unbelieving world when we know that many of them will go to hell. In fact, in recent months I have come to terms with the fact that through my entire Christian walk, I had guarded myself from truly loving or caring about anyone who at least did not appear saved. “
Me: “In addition I wonder: How can I possibly have put a smile on my face in years past and go about my day with relative peace of mind knowing that some of my dearest relatives have passed from this earth without faith, despite my witnessing to them? The fact that I can do this seems to imply that I’m some kind of uncaring monster. I finally must confess that the only reason I can do this is because I have been guarding my heart from loving them for fear I would one day have to bear the thought of their eternal misery if they died. In fact, I am starting to realize just how little love I have had for anyone who is not saved for fear that such love would end up destroying my mental stability as I contemplated their eternal state. I believe this is the biggest incentive Christians have for NOT loving the world. Just what we all need: a doctrinal incentive to NOT love unbelievers, as if our naturally cold hearts were not enough of a barrier.”
Me: “For all your pleas that God really does love everybody while they live on the earth, what difference does it make if such love does not deliver anything in the end but damnation?”
Me: “In fact, God seems to exacerbate the problem by putting us into institutions called families, that require us to love each other for the institution to even survive. Yet all the while there are no guarantees that the ones we intertwine our lives with will end up in heaven. It seems like a cruel joke that God plays on the redeemed. Yet we play right along as we cultivate our maternal and paternal instincts and blithely conceive fresh little ones who are soon thrust to the edge of the pit of hell. What will be their next step?”
Me: At first glance it would appear that, no matter how powerful Jesus is, He is only part of the chain of salvation. Ultimately, their fate will be determined by the weakest link: their faith. To think that their presence in heaven depends upon their own marred ability to understand and chose what is right. How reassuring can this be for parents? Yes, Christian parents will raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but this can still be thwarted by the stubborn self-will of their children.”
Me: “However, a more careful reading of the Scriptures reveals that, because of Original Sin, their fate cannot possibly rest upon their ability to choose, for in this case none would be saved. No there must be another piece to the puzzle. Alas there is! God comes to the rescue again to liberate us from our bondage to sin. Therefore, our salvation really does depend upon Christ alone! ”
Me: “Then why would anyone miss heaven? Because Christ is free to choose some for Hell, or at least pass over some. According to election, this would be part of His plan all along: that some are saved to demonstrate His grace and some are destroyed to demonstrate His justice. In either case, God is glorified.”
Me: “So we may rest assured that the fate of our little ones rests in God. But how does the face of God appear when we look up to him in prayer for the salvation of our children? Is he smiling upon us assuring us that he is motivated in the same direction we are: towards their eventual salvation? Or do we find only a grin of temporal love that belies a darker plan to ultimately include one or more of our children in the roll call of the damned. In this case, where is the consolation if one of our offspring perishes in unbelief? Very simply, it must be in the fact that it was God’s plan all along because in fact He hated them all along – even though we as parents must never do this. No, we must keep on loving them, and thereby experience the pain of their eternal suffering right along with them. This is the appropriate response of Christian parents.”
Me: “But in the face of these consequences, we cheerfully go along dressing our kids up in cute little clothes and erecting white picket fences as if the horrifying prospect of ECT does not exist. The exuberance we bring to our baby showers, and even to those of our unsaved neighbors, further perpetuates this charade of coldness. Somehow we comfort ourselves with plans of inviting our neighbor’s kids to church, along with our own, to teach them a gospel that guarantees nothing, until they can make an intelligent choice. In the meantime we are content to deceptively lead them to sing Jesus Loves Me when we have no idea if this is true.”
…………………………………………….
Me: “If one raises their voice to question ECT they are pacified with: “It is not our place to point a finger at God. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. His thoughts are higher than ours. (Note: I’ve been told “You need a bigger God.” I guess bigness covers a multitude of contradictions.) God is glorifying Himself in the redeemed as well as the reprobate … so itsallgood.”
Me: “But deep inside we know its not ‘all good’. The damnation of any of our children is cause for unthinkable mourning, no matter how much we may try to assuage our horror over Hell with the triumphant imagery of Revelation 14. Something inside tells us that when God creates people all the while knowing they will NOT choose Him and that He will also NOT choose them, this is NOT Good News. That He uses our penchant for the pitter patter of little feet to bring this about makes this enterprise even more sadistic. That we are willing accomplices demonstrates that we are either unfeeling zombies or that we have an insane ability to so compartmentalize our worldview that it has no bearing on our experience. No wonder any rational atheist shakes his head in bewilderment at the supposed people of love.”
Me: “Of course all of this extends to our relationships with the rest unsaved humanity. Are we permitted to have a sense of gleeful satisfaction at the ECT of some or most? Noooooooooooooo, not today. Today it is our responsibility to love everyone, even though God is free to hate. In fact, not only does God hate the reprobate, He tries to make it appear like He loves them now and then calls us to love them now as well.”
Me: “It would seem like the best course of action would be to remain guarded with our love concerning those who do not seem to be Christians while actively hating those who pass from this earth as unbelievers. This would seem to be most consistent with God’s ultimate attitude.”
To this my pastor vehemently disagreed and echoed the encouragements we normally hear from the pulpit to love our families and the world around us regardless of any assurance they may one day be in heaven. Despite the fact that he is a 5 point Calvinist, he maintained that God genuinely loves the whole world and desires their salvation and we should too. In addition, He affirmed that we should continue to love and mourn over our loved ones who have died in unbelief.
Me: “And if we do preach to someone and they ultimately turn away, we can rejoice that their rejection of the Gospel will cause the flames of their Hell to burn brighter and increase our appreciation of heaven. Either way, it’sallgood .”
He adamantly denied we should ever look at it like this. Yet where is the logical problem? (Is not the above statement consistent with Jonathan Edwards in The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous biblebb.com/files/edwards/contemplated.htm.)
Pastor: “God is love and we are to live according to that.”
Me: “But why not err on the safe side. After all, for many we will find out that God hated them all along.”
Pastor: “But I don’t believe that. He didn’t hate them all along.”
Me: “But that’s what Jonathan Edwards said?”
Pastor: “That’s only Jonathan Edwards.”
Me: “But you sent me the article.”
Pastor: “But I don’t believe everything he says.”
Pastor: “This all has to do with how we view the atonement. Because I see unlimited atonement like in I Tim 2 and I John 2 among others I believe the cross of Christ provides for what we call ‘common grace’ for the reprobate. By a legal obligation he puts on Himself and by love He determines to apply the blood of Christ as a temporary covering for them while they have breath. I believe this is what Paul is getting at in Galatians 6 on why he boasts only in the cross…. The cross thus becomes a kind of dam holding back the wrath of God on the unbeliever as long as they have breath. Once they die unrepentant then the cross is removed and the full wrath of God is poured out on them. So we love the unbeliever/reprobate just as God loves the unbeliever/reprobate. I don’t think we can dance too much around passages like John 3:16 that affirms the love of God for the world (I know some try to limit the “world” as John does occasionally in gospel of John but I don’t buy it)”
Me: “That sounds good but it seems to imply that we are living in an illusion. It’s one thing to say that God is holding back the sin of the reprobate but it’s quite another to suggest there appearance is so altered by ‘common grace’ that our attitude towards them will change from love to hate one day.”
Me: “OK, but won’t we be miserable in heaven as we mourn the misery of unbelievers?"
Pastor: “No because we will be so caught up with the justice of God that we will praise him and not be sad. Once we are in the presence of God, our affections will change.”
Me: “Apparently God’s will also. The God I see in the Bible presents Himself as one who is reluctant to execute judgment on the living and eagerly desires us to turn back to him. Yet in heaven God is quite content to torture the unrepentant without hope of release and expects us to glorify Him for this.”
I thought: So much for the idea of rejoicing over the fact that “mercy triumphs over judgment”(James 2:13) and that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) and that to Him it may be said: “You do not stay angry forever, but delight in showing mercy” (Micah7:18b). Maybe God’s present obsession with mercy is just a “hangup” He finally gets over. I guess that ultimately mercy and judgment are equally praiseworthy and equal causes for rejoicing.
Pastor: “I believe we are definitely called to love the unbelieving world with a passion. We are not to hold back or guard ourselves. Yes, this will lead to pain if or when many of them go to hell, however this is the nature of life and gives us a glimpse of the pain of what God bears when we turn away from him. Yes, I believe that God loves the whole world indiscriminately. God is love. Yet God is also just. He must execute justice. There is no way around it. Therefore he mourns when any one turns away from him and must face this. But this is what they chose. As CS Lewis said……”
I interrupted: "yes I know CS Lewis says (in The Great Divorce) that everyone who goes to Hell chooses it over heaven, however not every theologian agrees with that scenario and I’m not so sure I do either. Consider Jonathan Edwards or Calvin. Yes they believe that people chose to turn away from God but that does not necessarily mean that they chose to go to hell.”
Pastor: “True, but nevertheless it is their just reward.”
Me: ” Yes but does this somehow make it all better or less repulsive to us?
Me: “Would you agree that God knew they would do this before He created them, yet He chose to create them anyway?"
Pastor: “Right.”
Me: “And according to the picture you’re painting, God truly loves unbelievers but must torture them for an eternity because of the need to have justice.”
Pastor: “Right."
Me: “Well doesn’t this lead to the idea that God is somehow in heaven frustrated and mourning over this apparent disaster. ”
Pastor: “Within God we see the marriage of both love and justice. Just because that doesn’t fit into our finite sinful minds does not mean it won’t all make sense one day.”
I thought to myself: “You are saying that the reason we cannot comprehend this is because of our finite and sinful minds. However, the contradiction that arises does not stem from our fallen nature which is inclined towards selfishness, but stems from the example and command of God to unselfishly love others. I am just pointing out this contradiction that you are proclaiming. If I, you, or all of us have a difficult time understanding this, don’t blame it on our sinful hearts, blame it on the contradictory theology of ECT.”
…………………………………………….
Me: “But what if ……what if the Justice of God and the love of God actually served the same end? What if both existed for the purpose of redemption? ”
(He looked puzzled.)
Me: “Is that not possible? Doesn’t God at times behave like that? Consider his dealings with Israel in the Old Testament, or even Egypt and Assyria.”
Pastor: “Yes.”
Me: “But in heaven it won’t be that way?”
Pastor: “Not everything is going to make sense to our finite sinful minds.”
Me: “Yes, but so many things DO make sense. So many of the descriptions of heaven are very appealing and I believe God presents them this way to make heaven appealing. Yet the presence of ECT contradicts everything I have learned about what SHOULD BE appealing. Why would God entertain such a radical contradiction? It seems like two Gods.”
Me: “And I’ve got tell you, if this is what heaven is going to be like, I have no desire to go there. I may not turn away from it, but it will only be because I am trusting that God will re-create me with a new principal for living. One that is happy to witness torture for the sake of justice… yes happy. But why would God create a heaven that is so contradictory to everything he taught us about how we should think, believe, and act? Why are we forced to leave behind the Christian sensibilities that God is trying to cultivate in us in order to possibly have any anticipation of the joys of heaven?”
Then he said something very interesting:
Pastor: “Well this is why people turn to universalism. Everything becomes consistent and fits together. And then we get to put God in a box and smile and be happy and peacefully live our lives.”
Please forgive the sarcasm but I thought to myself: “Apparently holding to a system that is logically consistent, that leads to peace, is tantamount to putting God in a box.”
He continued…
Pastor: “We are then free to live without concern for witnessing to people or whether or not people turn to Christ or not, because in the end everybody’s going to be with him. There are no consequences. ”
Me: “Well there still is the lake of fire. EU is really quite similar to traditional evangelicalism except it proposes that people can and will turn to Christ from within the lake of fire, at which point they will be saved.”
Pastor: “but this would diminish the value of the cross since it no longer is necessary to redeem one from an eternal hell."
Me: “Nothing changes about the deservedness of eternal hell, the need for Christ, or penal substitutionary atonement.”
He did acknowledge that according my presentation of EU I was not denying the same reason for the cross that he holds to.
Me: “So, if I were to accept this view, where would this put me in terms of the Church?”
Pastor: “I’m confident that once you really examine the Scriptures, you’ll turn back to the traditional view.”
Me: “Okay, but what if I don’t?”
Pastor: “Well there’s no way that we could accept this in our church.”
Me: “Am I dabbling with something that could get me thrown out of the church?”
Pastor: “Right now you are listening to your emotions. I’m confident that this is only a temporary thing and that you will find your basis in Scripture.”
Me: “But…”
Pastor: “I don’t know, I’d really have to think about this. I’ve never had to deal with this before.”
He said he was not familiar with the form of universalism I was describing.
……………………………………………….
Later he contacted me about how this is such a serious error that Origen was disciplined out of the church for believing in a form of universalism.
Me: “Yes he was. Wasn’t this the same church that ousted Luther? But Gregory of Nyssa is a ‘saint’.”
Pastor: “The Church is not infallible of course. That is not what I mean. It is that something that was proposed 1700 years ago, was condemned, and then not attempted for another 1700 years should mean that it is not to my good. People who have followed Jesus for centuries have rejected this. I’m still trying to figure out how you can biblically come to this view. “
Me: “For a biblical basis for this view i would defer to the book The Evangelical Universalist.”
He agreed to look at it.
Pastor: You are playing with something that very very few have ever held to and if they did they were disciplined out of the church for it. I believe you are playing with fire but am confident you will rest in the Scriptures and not your emotions.
A few days later I lent him the book The Evangelical Universalist.
Unfortunately my pastor had to go in for surgery immediately after this. His recovery lasted weeks. He contacted me on 10/12/10 to express how he really wants to work with me on this but feels I would be better off speaking with someone who is more experienced. He asked if I would be willing to meet with an associate pastor at the much larger church that planted our church, to which I agreed. I am forwarding many of my writings to this pastor, some which have appeared on this website, and will soon be meeting with him.
My pastor is a caring and sincere man. I appreciate his humility in being willing direct me to another more experienced pastor when he realized this was beyond his ability to effectively handle.
To those who have responded to my previous post (Evangelical Universalist Isolation? at Evangelical Universalist Isolation?) and have asked to be updated on how things were going with my church, I appreciate your interest and would appreciate your prayers for the future.
As stated earlier, at our meeting I attempted to demonstrate some of the absurdities that ECT leads to. How’s my logic? How is my Pastor’s?
)
I would–to my shame–have sacrificed every ‘better feeling’ to the cold hard truth of the ‘good news’. And I did for many years, until I was slapped in the face with a scriptural basis for doubting by beliefs.