Packer: The Problem Of Universalism Today (1969)

[Alex_Smith]

The New Testament seems very clear at first sight about the hopelessness both in this world and in the world to come of unbelievers.

Already some unbelievers have become believers (with hope) so I think that there is hope for the remaining unbelievers.

This is the meaning of the wrath of God: it stands for the first retributive judgment of the Lord upon those who have transgressed his law.

I’m sure there are examples of “the wrath of God” not being the “first retributive judgment”? Anyone?

the essence of death in both texts is the same. Here is a non-relationship with God where it should be a positive relationship. Consequently loss of true life, something essential for which you were made, missing

I agree that death is a non-relationship and something essential for which you were made. However, the question I would ask is, if God made you for a something, and you don’t fulfill that something eventually, doesn’t that imply a small part plan of God has be thwarted by you? Similarly, if there “should be a positive relationship” and there never is, doesn’t that imply that the universe will reach perfection?

Well, we know the basic meaning of aionios in the New Testament is ‘that which relates to this world to come as contrasted with that which relates to this aeon. Thus it stands for fixity and finality’

I’m not sure who he is quoting here, but the second sentence is a big step and hardly a simple “thus” i.e. it’s an assumption that everything in the world to come, will be infinite in duration.

[Alex_Smith]

Jesus is the person who is responsible for the doctrine of eternal perdition.

. And you remember some of the fearsome pictorial language which he used and which, prima facie, is expressing precisely this idea: the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the outer darkness, the worm dying not and the fire not being quenched. His use of the picture of Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside of Jerusalem where they burn the rubbish, as a picture of the final destiny of some; the reference to the great gulf fixed between the place where Dives is and the place where Lazarus is.

]Certainly Jesus saw the coming judgement as very serious, and therefore used strong language to warn people./]
]How many of the warnings concerned the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?/]
]Weeping and gnashing of teeth will occur according to EU too and doesn’t imply ECT./]
]I think “expressing precisely this idea” is not possible with “pictorial language”, and that there are still many unknowns about the afterlife./]
]As TEU pointed out the story of Lazarus was an existing Pharisaical illustration, that Jesus reused but swapped the two main characters around to make a point to the Pharisees. Apart from the logical inconsistencies which so it’s not literal e.g. they were able see each other, maintain a conversation (over the deafening screaming of everyone else in Hell!), and possibly ‘pass a drink’ over the “great gulf”/]
]Ask Bob Wilson about Gehenna./]
]See Talbott’s (or Robin’s) book for an explanation of the “worm dying not”./]
]There are other aionios fires that do get quenched e.g. Sodom/]

[Alex_Smith]

[ECT] is, to be sure a fearful doctrine

I agree. I’m sure there’s something more that could be said about this comment but it ain’t coming to mind right now

[Bob_Wilson]

Alex, thanks for the referral and recommendation! Did you realize that I have actually been to Gehenna? Or does it just sometimes feel that way

[Alex_Smith]

Alex, thanks for the referral and recommendation!

No probs, I’m keen to read your article on it too soon (God willing, when I’ve finished reading “All Shall Be Well”).

Did you realize that I have actually been to Gehenna?

No, but that is very cool!

This [ECT] is the consistent teaching of the New Testament

Hardly, a few passages could be read that way but many more oppose it.

the New Testament is not in the least troubled about this [ECT]

ECT isn’t there for them to be worried about and there are passages that show Jesus/God were even concerned about the finite judgment coming.

Rather the insistence all the way through is that the final punishment of the impenitent is right, and is a manifestation of God’s glorious justice and something for which the people of God should praise him

Well to begin with, I don’t see “insistence all the way through”, and find it at least illogical that we would be praising the ECT of over 90% of humanity, including most of our loved ones (and if we were loving our enemies like we’ve been commanded, they would all be our loved ones!) If the punishment was bringing the to reconciliation, it would still be painful (like watching someone having unanesthetized surgery!) but eventually we could praise God when they were healed.

the judgment on Babylon is regarded as a matter for which God should be praised.

Again, if we know God knows what He’s doing and is doing it for their good, I can see the possibility for praise.

Compare also the Old Testament where ‘saints’ or ‘the Psalmist’ rejoice at the righteous judgement of God.

]As far as I know, Hebrew and Aramaic (underlying the written Greek) didn’t have ways to clearly express comparative degrees of love in direct grammar so they had to use idioms (also makes sense of the ‘hate your parents’ passages). See the non-universalist site: biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm/]
]The Psalmist also says in Psa 137:9 (ESV), “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” And I assume you don’t think that God blesses infanticide. The point being, that the Psalmist told us his view of God, and we can learn a lot from that, however, it has to be taken in the light of what Christ thought, and said, about God./]

uppermost in their ‘saints’ & ‘the Psalmist’] mind is the knowledge that God is vindicated, and his righteousness has triumphed at last.

God is already “vindicated” and doesn’t need ECT to do it. ECT triumph is only physical; mentally and spiritually the enemy is still in complete rebellion.

[Alex_Smith]

In the section titled 2. The universalist response (end of pdf p5 & beginning of pdf p6), he does a reasonable job of explaining what the UR claims are, although he doesn’t really explain why they claim UR, except that they think “God’s grace is going to triumph in the end!”.

However, he goes on in the section titled 3. Arguments justifying this [UR] thesis (pdf p6) to put down a couple of exegetical and theological arguments based on John 12:32, Acts 3:21, Eph 1:10, Rom 5:18, Philippians 2:9-11, 1Cor 15:22-28, 2Pet 3:9, 1Tim 2:4, 2Cor 5:19, 1John 2:2, Heb 2:9, Titus 2:11 & Col 1:20 But goes on to try to disprove them:

(1) Do these texts admit of another explanation more germane to the content?

No. Why should they?

(2) All these texts are juxtaposed with texts in the documents from which they are drawn which refer specifically to the prospect of some perishing through unbelief. And unless we assume that the writers did not know their own minds, we have to conclude that they cannot, in the texts quoted, really have meant to confirm universal final salvation.

It’s hard to respond without knowing what the ‘counter’ texts are! Of course I assume the writers knew their own minds when they wrote the UR texts.

(3) Let us note the fact that there is no scripture for the form of the second probation theory. You certainly cannot argue it from that mysterious text 1Pet 3:19, telling us how, quickened in the spirit, Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison ‘who were disobedient in the days of Noah’. Whatever that means, it is a reference to a message taken to a particular limited group of spirits in prison. And the fact that the group is so limited is a strong argument against there being any suggestion of a universal publishing of the gospel to people beyond the grave in Peter’s mind.

I wouldn’t base my EU on this verse but, at the very least, it shows that there is some point for preaching to dead people… (And it shows God is able to visit Hell, a place, according to ECT, He is completely absent from) The second chance is logically implied because God says He loves His enemies and He will save everyone.

[Alex_Smith]

The attempt to establish the doctrine of universalism by exegetical means must be held to have failed, and as long ago as 1908, Robert McIntosh, whose position might be regarded as wishful universalism, wrote, ‘The question is generally argued as one of New Testament interpretation, but the present writer does not think that hopeful. He sees no ground for challenging the old doctrine of exegetical lines.’

I’m not sure why Packer jumps to this conclusion, and even more surprised that he thinks quoting a “wishful” universalist is conclusive evidence Furthermore, there has been a lot of improvements in translation since 1908 (e.g. the word “hell”: KJV 54 times, NIV 14), which does effect interpretation.

And most of the modern universalists would agree with that [the above quote].

I’m yet to find an EU who does agree with that…

Therefore they base their universalist speculation on a different foundation [as opposed to exegesis].

It’s slightly condescending to call someone’s beliefs “speculation”. Anyway, again I think EU is grounded more on exegesis than ECT.

[Luke]

Good to see your notes here Alex. Although I don’t agree that " EU is grounded more on exegeses than ECT."

[AllanS]

Hey Alex

Conscience, not Conscious. Spelling: Con science

Yer eva lovin’ pa.

[SLJ]

While we’re at it, it’s “exegesis” not “exegeses.”

Couldn’t resist!
Sonia

[amy]

Picking on the spelling, geeze louise. How do you spell geeze? Which reminds me, where in the world does the edit button go? I’ll realize I made a mistake, want to go back and fix it and it’s gone!

[Alex_Smith]

they are all words that the spell checker doesn’t help with

Thanks I honestly appreciate the corrections.

Although I don’t agree that “EU is grounded more on exegesis than ECT.”

Can’t say I’m surprised My point here is mainly that I believe EU is grounded on exegesis (rather than speculation, wishful thinking, ditching bible, etc.), just like Packer believes ECT is grounded on exegesis.

[Alex_Smith]

where in the world does the edit button go? I’ll realize I made a mistake, want to go back and fix it and it’s gone!

Oh, I’ve never seen that happen before. How often does it happen? What other buttons do you see when it happens? Which internet browser are you using? Have you asked Gene?

[amy]

I’ve meant to ask Gene, but somehow always forget. I see the exclamation point and the quote buttons. For just a short time after I post the edit botton will be there, but in not too long it disappears on me. Browser? Oh, I do need help. I’ll have to ask Gene why this is. No biggie!

[roofus]

I think the edit button only appears for a certain amount of time, then one misses their chance to do so (from my experience).

[Alex_Smith]

I think the edit button only appears for a certain amount of time, then one misses their chance to do so (from my experience).

Interesting, that sounds like an annoying built-in “feature”, I’ll have to investigate it. Fortunately, it’s never happened to me, but that’s probably because I have a crazy level of access

Anyway, back to Packer

They [universalists] seek to present it [their “speculation”] as an irresistible theological inference from certain things in the New Testament; an inference so irresistible and certain as to warrant our discounting certain other things in the New Testament. It is, in other words, a hermeneutical speculation, bound up with the belief that you are allowed to handle the Bible like this.

Insulting, but hardly a good argument, or at least not for EU

Let us see how they [universalists] argue this line of thinking in theological terms.

God, they say, is love.

No, the **Bible **says God is love, and EUs are merely quoting those texts!

This is the real centre of the New Testament revelation, and love must have the last word, and love in the Scriptures is sovereign love, therefore the love of God must imply an effective intention in saving all the rational creatures he has made.

Not only that, but all creation will be reconciled to God \o/

Nels Ferre, the American, expounds this in terms of the old liberal thought of the universal fatherhood of God - ‘God has no permanent problem children.’

Aaron wrote some good stuff about this in The Universal Fatherhood of God and we discussed it in UR in the Lord’s Prayer?.

[Luke]

Alex,

It’s good to see your notes and understand your thinking.

However you said “the Bible says God is love.” This is the difficulty we are running into on the other thread. What do you mean by that statement? Wouldn’t God be a consuming fire (Heb 12:29), for example? Why is God being love (whatever that actually means) more important than God being three and one? Also aren’t you confusing a characteristic with an essential description?

I say all this not to bombard you, but to show that the statement by-itself is almost meaningless with explanation and context. It’s not a argument for universalism. A more accurate and powerful way of saying what I think your saying is; “God is loving and this is expressed in who he is as the Godhead.” - ‘God is love’ is a misleading statement.

[SLJ]

‘God is love’ is a misleading statement.

Um … maybe someone should have informed John of that??

I think what at least some of us here believe–and I’m not sure if you’ve picked up on it or not–is that God is consistently, in all things, all the things that characterize Him. That is to say, in my perception, He isn’t “Love” sometimes and not other times. He is always love and always a consuming fire and always just. His justice is a consuming fire. His mercy is just. He is Good. He is Light. He is Love. He is Just.

None of his character is missing from any of His actions. They make up who He is. His justice acts in love, His love acts in justice. His mercy is love, His justice is merciful. When He is just toward someone, it is in love, as a consuming fire, bringing light, with good intent.

Sonia

[Luke]

I’m sure you didn’t mean to insult me by effectively saying God doesn’t care about precision and obeying his entire revelation. Just as I didn’t mean to insult you by questioning Alex’s use of the phrase “God is love” which if it was entirely self-evident, would mean we wouldn’t need the rest of Scripture.

[SLJ]

I’m sure you didn’t mean to insult me by effectively saying God doesn’t care about precision and obeying his entire revelation.

Not at all, Luke! I apologize for insulting you, and certainly did not intend to. I’m not sure why you think I was implying that God does not care about precision. It seems to me the statement “God is love” is quite precise. Nor am I sure what that has to do with obeying God’s entire revelation. I’d welcome an explanation–perhaps I’m just being dense and missing the obvious.

Just as I didn’t mean to insult you by questioning Alex’s use of the phrase “God is love” which if it was entirely self-evident, would mean we wouldn’t need the rest of Scripture.

I was not (and am not) at all insulted. I was trying to help clarify a position that many of us here hold. People tend to assume that when we point out that “God is love” we are elevating “love” above His other attributes, but that’s not the case.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the statement, “God is love” is misleading. In what way does it mislead people? Why would John, writing under inspiration, describe God in a misleading way?

In what way does “God is love” (not necessarily as “self-evident” but as further defined by John in his letter) negate the importance of the rest of scripture?

Sonia