The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Problem of Hell vs Problem of Heaven

Hi Everybody,

Typically, we (at least we universalists) consider universalism to be the most tenable soteriology b/c it secures God’s omnibenevolence from the Problem of Evil (arguably better than the Free Will Defence). However, there is another logical problem, a more unpopular one, which Arminians and Calvinists might appreciate more than universalists: What right, other than that given to us by God, do we have toward Heaven? If we believe that we are saved by grace, through no merit of our own, is it right for us to bemoan the Problem of Hell?

Obviously, since God has revealed Godself as a “good” God, one would think that God has a duty to us now that we’ve been created. Even more, if we consider the Incarnation, we might consider that God’s love and forgiveness are ours now b/c God has promised them (although this might turn on how we exegete). However, many Calvinists and some Armininans, and perhaps even some universalists, argue that God is an another category - as our Creator, can do anything with us or even subject us to eternal punishment, without invalidating God’s goodness.

Ultimately, the question is: does the Problem of Heaven significantly counterbalance the Problem of Hell? Emotionally (and intellectually as well but equally of more emotionally), I am moved to universalism. Intellectually, sometimes I think universalism is presumptuous or entitled…

If God’s goodness is so very different from our conception of ‘goodness’, we don’t have a chance of knowing anything. That He is good, infinitely good, is the only hope we have, and I think that Scripture does point to that goodness. And since we are made in His image, even though we are marred by sin, the idea of goodness is, I believe, real to us and in us, so that we are not deceived by believing in the infinite goodness of God.
That was very wordy, sorry - I’m in a bit of a hurry…
BUT…I always hear this as the next thing…BUT God is JUST and MUST punish sinners!!!

For that, I always suggest GMac’s essay on ‘Justice’. Also, Wm. Ellery Channing’s essay on 'The Moral Argument Against Calvinism". Those two works alone have settled the case in my mind.

Talbott seeks to lessen this tension: Being created does mean we credit God and unearned grace as the ultimate source of heaven and all we obtain, while still properly being held accountable to receive discipline for sinful choices (we’re not “entitled” to escape painful consequences of evil behavior). But God’s character as love does mean that his goodness requires that he Not subject us to (disproportionate) endless & unredemptive punishment, but instead effectively bring us ultimately to wholeness. Talbott appears to see that in order to be free, our ignorant finitude makes it inevitable that we’ll make some wrongful choices. But this predicament means that God’s character commits him to a parental, loving albeit painful, pursuit of our redemption.

Thus, ‘hell’ is not a “problem,” since with justice and love two sides of the same coin, he sees ‘hell’ as part of God’s redemptive process (grace?) to bring us to repentance, faith, character, and ‘salvation.’ Thus, I wouldn’t say this belief is “presumptuous,” but in light of the nature of our existence, it actually magnifies our trust in God as holy, yet truly good and loving.

Hi Prince

Good question. My answer is unequivocal: absolutely we can and should bemoan the problem of hell. In The Inescapable Love of God, Thomas Talbott talks about (I paraphrase from memory here) God’s freely embraced obligations towards us, his creatures. The analogy, of course, is that of a parent’s obligations to their child.

We had no say in our own creation, no choice about being brought into the world. As Milton’s Adam says to his creator:

“Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me Man? did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?”

Hence our creator has a duty of care to us. And of course, given his very essence as love, God is ‘obligated’ to love us and do the very best he can for us by his own intrinsic nature. And writing us off as a bad lot because we fail to turn to him in this life is certainly not doing his best for us. I don’t think this is anything to do with a presumptuous feeling of entitlement on our part - it is simply us accepting God as Jesus and the Bible show him to be.

All the best

Johnny

Heh, you posted while I was composing my message, Bob. Glad to see we’re in accord on this one :smiley: .

J

Myshkin,

You post such interesting topics. :slight_smile: I’m not best qualified to address this, but I can’t resist musing on it. We know what Father wants; He’s made it clear in the scriptures. He desires that all people repent and believe the gospel. We know what He’s like – He’s like Jesus. Jesus, who preached the sermon on the mount and bade us to be like THAT, so we would be like our Father in heaven. He IS completely OTHER than us, but not in the direction we traditionally posit. He is MORE loving, more just, more merciful, more tender, more humble, more kind, more beautiful.

I asked my husband, “What is justice?” and he responded with mankind’s default position that “a man’s gotta pay for the wicked deeds he’s done.” He didn’t say that exactly, but he loves this song :wink: and if he’d thought of it, he would probably have said just that:

I like the song too, and I’m not even a country fan, really. It makes me feel good that the helpless are protected and that the wicked get their just wages. This song follows a simplistic fallacy that justice is fully served by the bad boys getting their due, but in fact, this is merely the best we can do for justice. We see that it isn’t right for a person to profit from the wicked things he’s done. If we can, we force him to make restitution – return what he stole, repair or replace what he destroyed. The problem is that in the end, there’s often little we can do in the way of restoration. Can we restore the innocence of the child who’s been sexually abused? The murdered father to his family? The victim of a drunken driver to those who loved her? The best we can do in these cases is to attempt to prevent the perpetrators from enjoying an advantage over the victims. We will put them in jail or even execute them to keep them from experiencing things (life, happiness, ease) that they’ve taken by force from others. This is our conception of justice. Someone must pay. That’s the best we can do. The problem is that it falls so far short of being good enough, as Inigo Montoya knows well:

But if you could REALLY do justice, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to restore the dead to their loved ones and the innocence to the defiled ones? Beyond that, if we could, how beautiful it would be to make the harmful (the adder, the asp) harmless and safe and a blessing (the child putting his hand into the asp’s den) as opposed to only punishing them! The abuser is destroyed by making of him a humble and devoted servant; the murderer becomes a loyal and true brother; the drunken driver a free and honest and faithful friend. We don’t even dream of such things because they are so far and beyond us. What would be the point? But God’s ways are not our ways, neither are our thoughts His thoughts. He is able and He does the best that could ever be. (Which for Him, is infinite.)

Ultimately though, I think it’s less about what WE are entitled to and more about what our Father is entitled to. He created us to be His children. If you’re a parent, Myshkin, you know the yearning you have after your own children – how you love them. You care for them, sacrifice, labor, weep and pray for them, and actually, I think that if you are a loving and good parent, you are entitled to their love and respect and their care for you in your old age if you need it. Your duty to them becomes their duty to you. God of course doesn’t need us to care for Him but He does long for our love. He wants to rejoice over us with singing and enjoy our true and freely given affection and adoration. He wants to see us earnestly obeying Him in our pure desire to become like Him (ie: like Jesus) in love and goodness, justice and mercy and faithfulness. I believe He’s entitled to that – not only is He entitled, He’s fully capable of bringing it to pass both for our good and for His love.

Love, Cindy

I just trust that Mother/Father knows what He/She is doing and that it will all work out the way it’s suppose to in the end. I don’t however think that justice is eternal torment. I think justice is making things right. If that’s the case then Justice is never served if eternal torment is true. That’s one reason I don’t hold to it. The other reason is that it just seems insane to me to torment someone forever. The more loving and compassionate I become the more crazy eternal torment sounds. For me it’s not about “obey me or I will beat you”. Rather, I think Mother/Father lets us make our own decisions and suffer the consequences until we come to the point of brokenness and hitting bottom. For me it was when I came to realize I needed help that I then began to reach out.

Johnny,

Wow, I read your response, and thought, two great minds are going down the same great track (Talbott’s)!

What if the question is approached from God’s intention for his creation. Instead of jumping ahead to what God as a loving creator would or could do for or to his creatures; what about his intention of communion and instruction to his children to be like him? The comparison I have in mind is the same one Paul uses comparing Jesus and Adam in the latter part of 1Corinthians 15. If God’s intention for humanity was for us to be his image in the world he created, this seems like it would be primary to questions about what we deserve as a final reward. Yes, no, maybe so?

If I repeated what someone else already posted, I apologize for a hasty response, the topic is something I’ve been wrestling with quite a lot.

Grace and peace to you all.

Thanks for the excellent responses (and songs and Ignio Montoya’s “argument”, with its undeniable conclusion :smiley: )

I goofed in the phrasing of the question, for i see that many of you responded to a slightly different question; that is, is God justified sending any of his creatures to eternal Hell? This isn’t the problem I wanted to tackle (though certainly it is the perennial problem that universalists must answer, so we’re keeping our minds sharp at least).

This is, I hope, a better phrasing of the ?: What does God owe us? For instance, I agree that, having given us life, God, acting consistently with his supremely loving nature, would probably not be justified in damning us (unless you buy some version of the Free Will Defence). Yet, this still doesn’t mean that we are owed Heaven. Perhaps God is acting fairly by granting our earthly lives, or, given the preponderance of earthly suffering, maybe God after our death, redresses any imbalances, but still does not extend our lives to an infinite duration.

It seems that Karl Barth felt this problem, which made him reluctant to espouse dogmatic universalism, despite the universalist conclusion which could be drawn his theology, as he felt that it would be a constraint against God’s freedom or a presumption. However, (again I apologize for miswording of my initial ?), even if one is hesitant to assert universalism as dogma, that doesn’t mean that eternal Hell is necessarily justified, though it might be an argument in favor of annihilationism. It could be that we just aren’t owed eternal life, leaving a range of intermediate possibilties that God could offer us. Maybe 400 yrs of playing Diablo III or King’s Quest. :smiley:

Myshkin,

I don’t know that God does owe us anything. I do think that it would be very wrong of Him and completely contrary to His nature to torture any of His creatures forever and ever, but I don’t know that it would be wrong of Him to annihilate us all at some point and start over. I’m not sure why He’d do that though. If He loves us as He says He does, it would make no sense – to me, at least. He goes to all this trouble, waits all these millenia (which probably isn’t quite waiting, as we see waiting) sheds His blood for us, conforms us to His image, and then one day shrugs and says, “Ah, what the heck. I’m tired of it,” and wipes down the white board with solvent and starts over? It might not be exactly wrong, but it doesn’t seem very coherent with who we know Him to be.

Let me think how I would feel about this . . . I used to make little monsters when I taught kids’ clay classes. Here’s one:


I remember fantasizing about bringing them to life. They’d be so cute! I can imagine them skittering around my feet, begging for tidbits. What kind of noises would they make? Would they try to lick my face? They’d better not bite!!! I’d have to make the teeth a little shorter anyway though, or the poor little things would be constantly forced to hold their mouths open. :frowning: Now let’s say that I could actually do that. Let’s say that I made them not only alive but conscious and sentient and that they loved me and I loved them . . . . I have to tell you that I’d feel guilty if I suddenly took a whim and destroyed the lot of them. That’s not a sure indicator that God WOULD be guilty, but thinking about it that way, I’m not sure it WOULDN’T be wrong for Him to annihilate us, even if He doesn’t owe us anything at all.

Cindy, I love your comment.

Does God ‘owe’ us anything? I believe he does, and I think I’m in pretty good company :smiley: . Here’s what the great George MacDonald has to say, in his Unspoken Sermon The Voice of Job (it’s quite long, but worth reading I think, my emphases):

And a hearty Amen to that!
It just turns false ideas about God right on their heads. Where they belong. :laughing:

Thanks, Akimel :slight_smile:

Most worthy and excellent comment, Johnny! Thanks!

In the beginning God…

That’s all there was…God.

This means, that all He created somehow came from Him, His very essence or energy. All things were created from Him out of His power.

I’m not espousing a form of pantheism, rather when God spoke the word from His mouth, He created the universe and the world. Much like He breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. (I realize that most scholars would say God created everything ex nihilo, but however He created it, it still came out of His Power). Some believe the concept of Tzimtzum, a contraction or ‘empty space’ out of Himself, made by God to accomodate the universe. (I believe Jason touches on this in his Sword Of The Heart).

He holds all things together. He encompasses the universe, yet not part of the universe. He is omnipresent.

I said all that to say this: Since everything came from God, then, as some scriptures suggest,everything will *return *to God (c.g. Eccl 12:7, Rom. 11:35-36, Hosea 6:1-3). We are to be partakers of the Divine Nature (II Peter 1:4) through His great an precious promises. If God is going to be ‘all in all’, then it is not ‘all in some’.

Therefore, God’s will for creation to be restored to Him, and through the will and word of His Divine Character (and His word will not return void (empty space?), then His plan for us is to be fully reconcilled into Himself. He will not leave hell to suffer forever.

It is the grand cycle of His plan for all creation, that as He “contracted” Himself (made empty) to accomodate the universe through the power of his word, then His word will not return void. There will be no void of hell. It will be a complete restoration.

It makes sense from a biblical perspective. It makes sense from a metaphysics perspective.

We have nothing to worry about.

…in the end God.

DaveB:

Perhaps you find the question “what does God owe us?” to be wrongheaded, but I think it is somewhat disrespectful for you to applaud that my “false” ideas are being rightfully denounced. After all, unless the matter is a foregone conclusion (obv., I realize that many on a universalist forum are going to be dogmatic universalists, but in a forum I think we are at least giving due consideration to all ideas), we haven’t arrived at what is “true” or “false”. I don’t believe I phrased anything dogmatically, and even if I were to assert that universalism is false or possibly false, I think it would still be bad form for you to sort-of cheer lead others who are, in your opinion, refuting my “false” ideas. You made a small reply to my first iteration of the question, what are your own thoughts as to “what does God owe us?” If you think God owes us lives of infinite duration, then by all means contend for that. Yet, I don’t think Johnny’s quote of MacDonald settled that question, let alone rendered a negative answer to it “false”. It seemed that MacDonald showed that we have rights from God and that God is obligated to us out of His righteousness. Is one of those rights infinite life? I didn’t find that argued for in the quotation.

You have almost a thousand posts more than me here so maybe I am wrong to rebuke you; if I have misconstrued you, please accept my apology.

I would, if I were God (forgive any hubris in this thought experiment), make creatures and extend their lives to match eternity with eternal bliss. I would, as Johnny quoted MacDonald, consider it an “obligation” on my righteousness. Yet, I also know that would not have subjected most of my creation to gratuitous suffering in this life, especially if (as contended in other threads) we don’t have free will.

The more we insist that God is absolutely loving and has already considered our eternal bliss “an obligation”, the less we can make sense of today’s pain; that is, I think one could argue that the existence of a predestining God who plays favorites is more likely than our universally loving God. While I might find certain Calvinistic ideas (e.g. anything God does, no matter how evil it seems to us = holy) to be wrong, there is a germ of truth in that formula; namely, that our moral intuitions often don’t coincide with how the world is actually run. If that is the case, why do we suppose that eternity would correlate any better to them? Granted, we have Jesus Christ - who hopefully is an indicator that universalism is true.

There is matter that relates to the possible “presumption” of universal, eternal salvation = is it actually infinite life? We are, obviously, speculating about “God’s time”, but maybe we are misconceiving what universalism is. Could one consider oneself a universalist (that all will be saved), while denying that this salvation is of infinite duration? It would seem that technically, if God redressed all our earthly pains, that God would be saving all of us, even if we didn’t actually exist forever. Though this is a digression, It may be that the afterlife is like Nirvana, in that our individual consciousnesses might be integrated to God’s. This seems implicit in the notion of ἀποκατάστασις - were the patristic fathers arguing for universalism in the way we construe it, as enduring individual consciousness, or merely that no life or creature would, in the end, exist separately from God (i.e. all of our life "energies would return to God, but that our individual consciousness would cease). Maybe this wouldn’t be a bad thing - maybe we all have forgotten that we are God. :smiley:

Hi Prince - you addressed something to me - DaveB - I think by mistake? You are taking me to task for something I never said. Unless I’m totally spaced out - a possibility - maybe you could edit that message to reflect who you were really addressing?
Thanks
DaveB

My God doesn’t owe me anything. I’m just grateful for what I do have. This keeps me humble. When things are going bad I count my blessings.