Just Some Food For Thought
January 18th, 2007 | by Scott |From Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God:
Suppose that Christ commanded that we love our enemies and love our neighbor even as we love ourselves because such love is an essential condition of blessedness or supreme happiness. If this is true, as I believe it is, then God could not possibly bring blessedness to one person without also bringing it to all.
Here is why. If I truly love my daughter even as I love myself, then her interests and my own are so tightly interwoven as to be logically inseparable: any good that befalls her is then a good that befalls me, and any evil that befalls her is likewise an evil that befalls me. I could never be happy, for example, knowing that my daughter is suffering or in a miserable condition–unless, of course, I could somehow believe that all will be well for her in the end. But if I cannot believe this, if I were to believe instead that she had been lost to me forever–even if I were to believe that, by her own will, she had made herself intolerably evil–my own happiness could never be complete. For I would always know what could have been, and I would always experience this as a terrible tragedy and an unacceptable loss, one for which no compensation is even conceivable. Is it any wonder, then, that Paul could say concerning his unbelieving brothers and sisters whom he loved so much: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people” (Romans 9:3)? From the perspective of his love, in other words, Paul’s own damnation would be no worse an evil, and no greater threat to his own happiness, than the eternal damnation of his loved ones would be.
God could make us “happy” whilst our loved ones suffered in hell only in two possible ways: either by concealing from us the magnitude of the tragedy (blissful ignorance), or by giving us a callous and stony heart, so that we no longer truly loved those who were lost. Both of these possibilities, however, are incompatible with true blessedness. So in the end, it is logically impossible for God to bring blessedness to one person without also bringing it to all
23 Responses to “Just Some Food For Thought”
By greg on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
“God could make us ‘happy’ whilst our loved ones suffered in hell…”
That concept has always troubled me. I’ve heard some explain that our joy will be so great that nothing could diminish it, or something to that effect.
Will I know my loved ones in heaven? If so, then it seems I would realize that there are people ‘missing’ as well. If that’s true, it’s difficult to comprehend not feeling grief over their fate.
On the other hand, if I won’t recognize my loved ones, that doesn’t seem any better, perhaps worse.
Sometimes this looking through a glass darkly kind of sucks.
By Scott on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Greg, I agree. The way it has always been explained to me, and what I subsequently taught, was that heaven would be so great we basically wouldn’t care about what happened to those not with us.
Could our doctrines need some re-examination?
By jasonk on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Greg, you made me laugh out loud. Yeah, it does suck. But it might suck worse if we didn’t see through a glass darkly. I don’t know if we could handle it. Perhaps when we get to Heaven we will have the mind of Christ, and we will understand the logic behind it all. But at the same time, I find it difficult to imagine that if our friends and loved ones are lost, and it causes grief to our spirit here on the earth, that it would not cause grief to our spirit in Heaven.
Scott, I think I know where you are going with this, you universalist son of a gun. I think you may be right, our doctrines need to be re-examined.
By justin on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
AMEN AND AMEN!
This was the first thing that got me rethinking this whole mess.
How could a God that doesn’t want anyone to perish, but all come to repentence, a God who was willing to become flesh to show us how things were supposed to be, throw a party upstairs for all the cool kids, whilst everyone else is suffering below and unable to change their mind and come to the party?
Doesn’t sound like a God of love or mercy to me.
By Scott on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I’m not ready to throw my hat into any ring of doctrine, here. But there is a need to rethink some long held views that might not jibe with scripture.
By Tracy on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Its important that when we think of things like Heaven and Judgment we remain careful to keep perspective. His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than my thoughts. Scripture is clear that we just don’t have a clue how amazing Heaven is going to be and how great sitting at the feet of God are. There simply aren’t words that can adequately express it and our human eyes just can’t grasp it. I take the same approach to discussions about Heaven as I do End Times - don’t know and won’t know until I get there.
By justin on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I’ve heard a lot of talk about “heaven” being the world recreated to what it was supposed to be in the first place.
That idea seems to jive with me much more than any other ideas of heaven.
By Scott on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
is the fact that his ways are higher than ours mean that we just except a logical impossibility: that God tells us to love and then magically we won’t anymore.
It seems like Heaven is something we need to study anew as well. Especially if we hold to an Augustinian notion of a “City of God.”
By Colleen on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Hi Scott, definitely food for thought that I hope you elaborate on. I can’t imagine the love we have for spouses, children, family and friends not transcending this lifetime… to me, relationships are what gives this life its meaning and as such it seems it would be just a glimpse of what heaven must be like….maybe relationships without the barriers we encounter as humans on earth…..
It’s something that has been on my heart alot lately the past year given the loss of my dad and a baby. It gives me peace to think that maybe my dad will somehow know his granchild without meeting him or her on this earth….I’m hoping I will someday….
By KS on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Maybe it’s just me but my “logic” and God’s don’t always seem to jive. While I in no way am able to sit in judgement, the verses about wide is the way that leads to destruction seem to warn me against universalism.
By jasonk on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Kenny. I would love to believe that everybody gets in. But the Bible just doesn’t teach that. Think about the man who went to hell, then looked up from his suffering and saw Lazarus. He longed for someone to take one drop of water to put on his tongue, to relieve his suffering.
At the same time, I have never gotten very good answers to questions about certain verses in the Bible. Romans says that all Israel will be saved. The NT says that at the name of Jesus, EVERY knee will bow, and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. If God’s love is everlasting, why would He give up on the Hebrew people, and move to plan B? Or, if you say that He did not give up and move to plan B, that it was always His plan to do this, how cruel is that? Make promises to an entire race of people, then pull the rug out from under them, just to make a point. No, that’s not God.
There are lots of unanswered questions, and my solution is to trust God and His word, not the traditions of men.
By Scott on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Colleen, I think you can find peace in the inescapable love of God. It’s the one, true pure thing we can believe in.
By Scott on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Kenny, you are right. They do seem to warn against universalism.
And don’t think that I am saying that we need to embrace the universalist position.
But I do think we need to study this afresh, especially in light of the fact that the early church adopted much of a universalist postion (at least until that cursed Augustine came along).
And Jason, brings up a great point: why do we reconcile the ALL passages to the Hell passages rather than the other way around? They seem to be in contradiction with each other. Our tradition is to take the hell passages as superseding anything else that Paul said.
By justin on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Or is it possible that the passages relating to “hell” are more figurative than literal? I mean, several different words are used for hell (hades, gehenna, come to mind) Hades being part of Greek mythology and Gehenna being an actual location in Israel. The old testament never talks about it. The whole idea of hell wasn’t even introduced until the babylonian captivity, through zoarastrianism.
Is it possible that Jesus was trying to explain the dire need to repent and become part of the kingdom of God? Was he trying to show the devout jews that israel would be destroyed and their whole worldview was about to collapse?
Anyone else notice that Jesus never threatened any of the “sinners” with hell, only the religious people?
By Scott on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
That’s a great question, Justin. Obviously, our doctrine of hell needs to be re-examined as well.
Personally, I believe in hell. What that consists of, and how long it lasts, is another story.
By KS on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
I’d be interested to see you blog on that Scott. As probably the only non-bible scholar on this site, I’d like to see what are some other views than I have always heard.
By len on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
I disagree with Talbott’s assumption that God can make us happy in only 2 possible ways. While I am changing many of my views on Christianity, I cannot get away from the fact that hell is treated as a very real place by Jesus, and by the New Testament writers. It is also seems pretty evident that the belief of Jesus and the NT writers is that people will go there.
God is God. He is all-knowing. Heaven doesn’t cease to be Heaven just because He is aware of hell. Maybe when we get to Heaven our understanding will be more like God’s and we will live, not in ignorance, but in a fuller knowledge of all things.
By Scott on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Talbott isn’t denying the existence of hell. He’s just challenging the broad understanding of what hell will be.
By greg on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
In more recent years, I’ve read a little on the annihilation/destruction view and found it interesting. Anyone read Edward Fudge’s book? I’ve had it for years but never read it, but I have read somewhat of a summary of his view in his GraceEmail from years past and seen it discussed on various forums over the years as well. I haven’t ever really done any kind of in depth study of heaven or hell, though.
By Jeff on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Len -
I don’t see anyway if love is real that an eternal punishment and torment of someone you love can be tolerated with no impact to happiness. So you either stop loving/caring, or the punishment has to be balanced to the offense and therefore limited. Therein lies the rub.
I think more importantly, Talbott, et al, are not challenging the existence of Hell (so much for problematic references to it, then!), but to the everlasting punishment of unregenerate souls.
Richard Beck points out this idea of thanatocentrism - the idea that our last chance to gain any knowledge or understanding is at physical death - after that, we can’t learn or change our minds. It is more this concept I think Talbott and Gregory Macdonald are challenging - with much to recommend it, by the way. Hell is real, but that may not be the end of all possibility of conversion (every knee shall bow, after all.)
Greg - I read Edward Fudge - even exchanged emails with him. I can’t buy the annihilation thing because (1) it denies the everlasting nature of soul, which seems to contradict some noetic and epistemologic propositions regarding agency and intention; (2) it contradicts the clear teaching of a punishment after physical death.
By colleen on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Scott, Thanks…that’s the one thing that I do hang onto tightly, and it does give me peace through all the doubts, anxiety and questions along the way. When I think about the cross and God’s grace in my life…and the opportunity to start over every day….well it’s so powerful that I just can’t let all my questions become a barrier and I’m compelled to surrender. As a believer, people often expect you to have all the answers, but for me, it’s really only a whole new set of questions. It makes me think of the beginning lyrics of U2’s City of Blinding Lights
“The more you see the less you know
The less you find out as you go
I knew much more than I do now…”
By Garth Hope on Jan 21, 2007 | Reply
I will readily admit I am late to this discussion. But here were my two cents from facebook.
By Garth Hope on Jan 21, 2007 | Reply
Scott Freeman posted . . . Just Some Food for Thought.
This is very interesting. I find that writing very insightful and thought provoking.
I see it like this.
Paul, understood, the concept of “No Greater Love.” He understood what a wonderful blessing or gift that Christ poured out on so many because He (Jesus) actually became accursed for the benefit of His people and the world. Paul was a disciple extraordinaire and strove to be like Christ and follow Him. He understood that along with Christ’s wonderful gift and blessing, there was a side effect. That side effect was judgment.
I have encountered several who have asked, “How can I believe in God if that God would make my loved one suffer in hell?”
And knowing that we are to be prepared to answer, I have this answer to give.
God does not make anyone suffer in hell. It is by man’s choice, not God’s, that anyone suffers in hell. God is just.
This is the problem of disbelief or disobedience. It is a curse. Your knowledge, doubt, or discernment about your loved one’s eternal condition or damnation curses those that love them. It infectiously causes disbelief because you do not want to believe in a just God.
But, there is good news. Jesus Christ. He is the way through whom the curse is broken. Because of Him and His willingness to become accursed in our place, we are given a choice; a choice to be a blessing instead of a curse.
We can choose to break the curse by believing and being obedient to Christ, so that our loved ones can know with certainty that we will live in peace, joy and blissfulness for all eternity. Or, we can continue to pass on the curse by disbelieving and living a disobedient life giving the knowledge we are damned. The choice is ours.
I choose Life. What is your choice? A curse or a blessing?
Now, I have also seriously considered the notion of how anyone could be happy in heaven with the knowledge that our loved ones are not with us, but instead burn in hell. How can that be heaven?
Honestly, I believe it is hard for our fleshly minds to wrap itself around the infiniteness of God. But I will attempt to explain how I see it, like this.
There is a side effect of eternity or infiniteness. That side effect being, time has no influence. Remember eternity or infiniteness has no beginning or end. So, without beginning or end, we loose our reference.
One curse or blessing (depending on your perspective), which is thrust upon us in the world, is the concept of absence. Absence exists, because we have the reference of time. We can mark distance, speed and yes, absence because of time.
Curse, because we miss our loved ones in their absence and we desire to be in their presence.
Blessing, because we miss our Lord and we desire to be in His presence.
When time is no longer an influence on our lives, our ability to perceive absence is eliminated. When we enter into eternity there is only presence. I guess the best way to describe it is sorrow, pain and absence are … absent.
This is not blissful ignorance, but the removal of ignorance.
So, what about the light? Isn’t that a reference for time?
Well, it is what we call a constant. And don’t we use that in relation with darkness to create a reference and measurement? We know that in the presence of God, there is only light and no darkness. None.
Now consider darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. What a curse. By definition darkness has absence at its core.
Genesis chapter 1:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
Revelation chapter 22:
“There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.”