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 )

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.

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. 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 . 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.

Thanks, Akimel

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.

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.

PM sent.

The confusion is happily resolved! Prince is a gracious and intelligent contributor to the Forum, IMO, and I was not clear enough in my cheerleading for Johnny’s post - I was in fact, happy about the post, but in no way was I saying the Prince’s views were wrongheaded. I thought he was asking questions, and I think Johnny’s post was a good answer. I thought the OP questions were excellent.
So let us go forward good people.

Yaay! Trebles all round, what!

Seriously, I think most of us here are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet as far as God’s freely embraced obligations to his creation are concerned. I agree GMac’s sermon I quoted doesn’t settle the matter by any means. But personally I think that Talbott kind of does, following MacDonald, when he says that God is ‘obligated’, in his loving nature, to do his very best for us. Because surely if it is in God’s power to grant us eternal bliss with him, and he does not do it, then he is not in fact doing his very best for us?

I wonder, Prince, if the answer may lie in that phrase “gratuitous suffering”? My guess, and guessing is the best I can do here, is that our suffering is not gratuitous. Rather, I believe, it is necessary - an intrinsic and necessary corollary of freedom. If that is not the case - if God could alleviate or eliminate our earthly suffering and still bring us to precisely the same supremely worthwhile state of bliss in the eschaton - well then, I’m stumped. In fact, I’m an atheist, for that god would be no more god to me than the tinpot dictator of Calvinism.

Cheers all

Johnny

I think this is it. It obviously makes no sense to say that God causes suffering for the mere sake of suffering - and yet that he is perfectly benevolent. Suffering, therefore, cannot be gratuitous. Yet why is it here? Why does any suffering exist?

I reject the notion that it is somehow “necessary” for us to experience it. At least, pre-fall it was not necessary. It may now be but only because we have already sinned and continue to sin and therefore reject the sweeter/less painful promptings of God to become such people (which would make it not strictly necessary, since we only suffer because we contingently act such and such a way.) But I do not think that Adam - or anyone - had to suffer in order to bring about greater good. This theory – which I used to hold – ends up making God somehow metaphysically dependent on evil. So much for his asiety, all-perfection, and the light in which there is “no darkness at all”. Also, intuitively it just doesn’t make sense to say that all evil somehow makes the good greater. If that’s the case it really ceases to be evil - for it’s something that must be done in order to bring about more good. It would be evil, in fact, not to do said evil, since less good would therefore follow. Plus, if all evil brought about greater good, why should we prevent it? Why stop evil acts if they’re “necessary” for something better to come about? The idea totally contradicts our practical - and accurate - moral intuition. Evil acts should be stopped. The Holocaust should not have went on as long as it did. It should have never even happened to begin with. A lot of people get tripped up because certain goods certainly do come about because of evils; but that is only because God “maketh all things new”, not because “evil is necessary”. Would you say that a man had to experience infidelity from his wife in order for him to know how much she loved him? Of course not. But, supposing such did occur, it is possible to pull forth from that experience “new” goods.

I think suffering exists because of the creation’s freedom - a thing without which actual personal causation would be impossible, which, when taken to its logical conclusion, destroys the notion of “I” and personhood altogether. God, I think, desires more than anything that we become good; and he spends his utmost energy in continual persuasion towards this end. Every time God “forces” or purposefully removes someone’s freedom - which he may do on who knows how many occasions - he is in a sense defeated; his purpose of creation is foiled.

I think it is however impossible to tell why any particular suffering exists. But I think it is for either one of two reasons: God is “remedially punishing” us (and he may use various means - even free willed acts of others - to do this); or because of the free will of other beings. Of course, I don’t know what exact formula God has, or in what ways he has limited his response/interaction with those free willed creatures (though I assume he has, and that his influence on us is finite). But I do believe there is a formula somewhere. One would literally have to be aware of every cause and every free agent in the entire universe to determine what or how God should or should not have acted. There is a huge difference between saying “God does not or cannot have a reason for permitting this evil” and "I do not know why this evil has been permitted, but I believe a reason does exist". That difference is between an all-perfect, personal God and one totally beyond our categories of good and evil.

Who knows how much God suffers and groans for his sons and daughters to come into the true liberty he has planned for them? God puts his hand over the creations at shows him how to paint a picture. But sooner or later he must remove that hand and allow the creature to do so herself. Is it not an unspeakable joy to see a child, who had been learning to walk all the while holding on to his father’s hand, to begin, staggering, to walk without that support?

I believe that is God’s destiny for us. I believe the whole point in creating sentient beings at all was not to make them perfect sons of God, but to have them be such.

I think we’re on the same page on this one, Bob.
I would also add that, from my perspective, the problem of “hell” is one that has largely been created by bad theology and translation. In other words, our “traditional” notion of “hell”, if we can even call it that, is completely skewed. As far as I can tell from the biblical witness, the “traditional” hell does not exist, and is therefore not a problem. Purposeful redemptive judgment, yes. Endless hell of punishment, no.

Great post, Chris. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Although just to clarify my own view, I don’t believe it is ‘necessary’ for us to suffer in the sense that we have to suffer per se in order to ultimately be able to enjoy perfect bliss with God in the eschaton. Rather I think suffering is a ‘necessary’ - ie intrinsic - corollary of freedom, and of the process whereby we reach that blissful perfection. Things could not be other than they are (other than to be worse than they are). The distinction may be slight, but it’s important, I think.

Which if I read you right is what you’re saying yourself, I think.

I also have big problems with the whole concept of ‘the fall’. But that’s another story …

All the best

Johnny