Pages

Monday, March 07, 2011

Cynicism, idealism, and universalism


Some crooks are escape artists. I don’t mean that in the literal sense that they are good at breaking out of jail. Rather, I mean that in the figurative sense that they have a knack for staying one step ahead of the law. They leave a trail of broken lives wherever they go, yet they manage to elude justice their entire lives.

Sometimes this is because the crook is very clever. He knows what he can get a way with, and what he can’t. He knows how to game the system. He knows how to cover his tracks.

Or you have crooks like the high-ranking Nazis who fled Germany for countries without an extradition treaty. They disappeared into South America. Die of old age on a sunny beach.

Or you have the rich and power who stay out of jail because they are well-connected. Make a few phone calls, call in a few favors. Maybe they have an open file on the mayor, the police commissioner, or the DA. They’re untouchable because they can sink you if you go after them. A bribe here, a threat there. Incriminating glossies in a manila envelope.

Or you have the military dictator who can act with impunity as long as he keeps the army well paid. He’s answerable to no one.

On the other hand, you have the disillusioned idealist. As a young man, he was a crusader for justice. But over time he becomes cynical. He begins to see that striving to be honest in a dishonest world is a fool’s errand. He’s seen so many crooks thumb their nose at the law, that he loses hope in the system of justice. So he changes sides. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

He didn’t start out that way. Rather, he was corrupted because, from his experience, the system is rigged. It’s futile to fight a losing battle. Might as well take your cut.

Asaph (Ps 73) was within a hair’s breadth of changing sides. Idealism and cynicism are twin brothers.

Universalism is the ultimate in diplomatic immunity. No matter what you do, in the long run you get way with it. Just waive your diplomatic passport in the face of the victim.

Oh, yes, they may have to pay a fine in hell, but in the end they still beat the system.

What’s wrong with the notion that at the final judgment, justice finally catches up with a fugitive from justice? Isn’t that long overdue? Shouldn’t we take moral satisfaction in seeing him caught and punished after he cheated justice all those years? That there’s no escape, no pardon, no deal, no commutation? 

15 comments:

  1. Such people would only beat the system if they get all the benefits of heaven without a genuine repentance, change of character, and whatever else goes on in the purgatorial hell of the universalist. The universalist, however, does not need to grant that anyone gets into heaven apart from the right conditions obtaining, conditions pertaining to his character, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Repentance, change of character," &c., isn't restitution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is also tension in "Evangelical" universalism between retribution and remediation. So-called Evangelical Universalism pays lip-service to the atonement of Christ.

    However, universalism logically favors remedial punishment over retributive punishment. For if universalism regarded retributive punishment as intrinsically good, it couldn't very well attack everlasting punishment.

    Therefore, a purgatorial hell fails to exact justice on the wicked.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although I'm not a universalist, I have to agree with Steven that universalism is innocent of the charge that it allows sinful people to 'game the system', or that it implies that one's actions are ultimately of no consequence. I'd still be afraid of hell even if I were a universalist, because it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Take the example of Jesus: was the prospect of suffering and dying for us any less painful or terrifying because he knew that within a few days he'd be back at the Father's right hand enjoying the pleasures of heaven?

    Also, why does retributive justice require that any punishment meted out be never-ending? Isn't a fine still retributive even though it can be paid in full and the person allowed to walk free?

    Perhaps one will bring up the point about sins being against an infinitely Holy God, but then one might counter-argue that Jesus on the cross could have finally satisfied God's retributive justice once and for all, so that all might be saved and that justice upheld.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This whole thing shows how anthropology almost always determines theology proper. In the universalist accounts of Maclaren and Bell (quit pretending otherwise - he has been heading this way for ten years!) they can't imagine anyone saying no to God after being properly motivated. So a temp hell will serve for the motivation and ollee ollee oxenfree (does anyone know how to really spell that?) everyone gets in. Because of course human beings are so rational and so benign and so basically good...of course they are- thats the ticket. Lip service now paid to the Cross and no repentance necessary for anyone. Jesus story about Lazerus makes the point - what will it take for people to really believe? A good heart - like Gandhi? snicker, snicker. Hey Rob try explaining the good heart of the man who for the last several decades of his life slept with at least two naked girls, adolescents no less, in bed with him every night. I know - his heart must have been pure - I mean he said so- so why believe the Bible's testimony when Gandhi was so sincere?
    Satire alert -
    The scriptures are quite clear - we are not in love with God, but with ourselves and our sins. Short of God's mercy that does not change. To refuse that mercy (on Arminian or Calvinist grounds) is be non-repentant by definition. If they don't love a holy, loving, just, merciful God when they have hints of Him here - what makes you think they will love Him in His presence?
    If anyone is offended by this statement, I can redo the piece using all questions and thereby deny any real positioning at all. Clever boy that I am...

    ReplyDelete
  6. JD SAID:

    “Although I'm not a universalist, I have to agree with Steven that universalism is innocent of the charge that it allows sinful people to 'game the system', or that it implies that one's actions are ultimately of no consequence.”

    And what’s the ultimately consequence? No matter what you do in this life, God will save you in the next.

    “I'd still be afraid of hell even if I were a universalist, because it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

    If the living God is a universalist, then that doesn’t sound very dreadful.

    “Take the example of Jesus: was the prospect of suffering and dying for us any less painful or terrifying because he knew that within a few days he'd be back at the Father's right hand enjoying the pleasures of heaven?”

    So what are you saying? That according to universalism, God tortures the damned into worshipping him?

    “Also, why does retributive justice require that any punishment meted out be never-ending? Isn't a fine still retributive even though it can be paid in full and the person allowed to walk free?”

    i) A fine may be adequate restitution for a property crime. What about murder? Or betrayal?

    ii) Do you think guilt fades away like an old coat of paint? You’ve mentioned that you have a kid brother you’re very fond of. Suppose someone kidnapped him and tortured him to death for fun.

    Is your brother’s killer 100% culpable the moment after your brother dies, 97% culpable a month later, 53% culpable a year later, and so on, until, by mere passage of time, he ceases to be culpable?

    “Perhaps one will bring up the point about sins being against an infinitely Holy God…”

    Not an argument I ever use.

    “…but then one might counter-argue that Jesus on the cross could have finally satisfied God's retributive justice once and for all, so that all might be saved and that justice upheld.”

    As I’ve explained on more than one occasion, there are additional justifications for everlasting punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Universalism denies the necessity of the offense itself being remediated. The remediation is focussed upon man, and not the offense. Like all crimes, however, it is not just paying back the value, but erasing the event itself that is the problem.

    Even if we could assess the value of the damage done to the infinite worth of God, and his creation, we, not being the creator, cannot make a new creation erasing the event. Guiltlessness, not quantifiable liability, needs to be restituted. How can man create man again, and, how can man come before God who he has effaced by sin so as to restore His original image?

    We are instructed that God accepts nothing from the hands of men. He requires, though, right judgement, mercy and humility. What then? With what can man repay God? His punishment of us? Sacrifices and burnt offerings? No. Neither. Scripture declares that God himself has prepaired a body for us, that is Christ. How then can one be the Christ, is the question that universalism begs but cannot answer and so cannot restore man to his original Imago Dei, nor can he make undone what man has done to God himself. Scripture warns us not to even begin to think that we can climb up and bring Christ down, or descend and bring Christ up. Not in this life, nor in the next, is there any ability in man to provide the body which God alone requires as retribution. We must judge rightly is there another Christ? We must love mercy, because only by mercy can the offence be made as if it never happened. Humility requires of us our place before God as soley the recipient, and not the giver.

    When man believes that by punishment endured man satisfies the wrath of God, he continues to think of himself as the body which only God can offer. In short, he continues in the role of the usurper, or as Cain, offering a sacrifice not required by God.

    Steve's right, '"Repentance, change of character," &c., isn't restitution.'

    The works of the law can not accomplish the righteousness of God. They are gifts, given, not aquired. Which is why, what is required is a new creation, not enduring punishment.

    That is a bizarre definition of retribution, anyway. How does being punished pay back for that which was destroyed, let alone retore it to its former state? How does stripping naked in shame become clothing in righteousness? And how does grinding the cup to dust form the cup? How does the one being punished become the punisher, paying as it were, a debt incurred, as if he were punishing himself for the crimes committed by another?

    Remedialism does by that self-effort, paying man for his merit. The punishment is endured, and that endurance is translated into the aquired character, eventuating in repentance, supposedly. One thing it cannot do is give rise to faith. And without faith, it is impossible to please God.

    So then, retribution is not in question. That may be possible if it could be quantified. Restitution is what is in view. That is, making those things that are not as though they were, is.

    Or, as steve points out, even if there is a reduction of guilt, at what point will little brother be brought back to life? Can the duration of punishment, even if it quantifiably pays off the guilt, restore?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If the living God is a universalist, then that doesn’t sound very dreadful."

    If I were told that I was infected with a terrible disease for which the only cure was to be irradiated for years at a time to the point where I felt like I was burning alive, I would still be afraid of the cure even though I know it is a cure. But I doubt the people who continually resist God's prompts to repent to the point where they face him as a consuming fire would be consoling themselves with the thought, "It's OK, he's going to save me in the end." That sounds like too rationalistic a view of human nature.

    "So what are you saying? That according to universalism, God tortures the damned into worshipping him?"

    It's not the torture as such, but what it involves: the stripping away of pretense, the forced abandonment of one's idols and illusions, the facing up to the consequences of one's actions. I've heard of many conversion stories in which some painful personal event forced people to ponder their eternal destiny. What's so strange about the use of pain to get people to repent?

    "Is your brother’s killer 100% culpable the moment after your brother dies, 97% culpable a month later, 53% culpable a year later, and so on, until, by mere passage of time, he ceases to be culpable?"

    First of all, I think there's an equivocation here between responsibility and liability to punishment. If I commit a crime and serve a sentence for it, even if justice is satisfied that doesn't mean that I no longer bear responsibility for committing the crime. That action will always be a part of my history. But that doesn't mean justice demands I be continually punished for that crime.

    I do agree that crimes like murder and betrayal deserve a proportionately greater punishment. But never-ending?

    Out of morbid curiosity I was watching a documentary clip on Youtube about the brazen bull, the tyrant Falaris' execution device. What was interesting is that while some commentators gleefully said, "Let's do that to pedophiles," most of them said that death was not something they would wish on their own worst enemy. Now I'm not suggesting that hell is like an eternal brazen bull (I know you hold more nuanced views of what hell is like), but I'm inclined to agree at least by temperament: even if someone tortured my brother to death for fun, I would not wish eternal punishment on him. Lots of punishment, yes. Painful punishment, absolutely. Punishment that brings about repentance, even better. But eternal punishment? At this point, no.

    Perhaps the fault is mine, though. Maybe I need to have my sense of justice rewired so it's more in line with God's, at least if the eternal punishment interpretation is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JD- "But eternal punishment?"

    "the facing up to the consequences of one's actions."

    Why can't the first be the second?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Strong Tower,

    "Why can't the first be the second?"

    Why does it have to be?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve: If a universalist adopts a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, then he could say that the retributive aspect of salvation is dealt with in the crucifixion of Jesus; the purgatorial fires of hell are a means of conversion that God may use with men. God may use all kinds of means to bring people to faith and genuine repentance. But then again, it isn't obvious to me that hell of itself couldn't have both retributive and remedial aspects!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I asked first.

    But, to catch the mouse, why do you limit the consequences as only those within the reach of man acceptation?

    To answer my own question: Because you said so. But that is arbitrary. What if the consequence is never being able to repent? What if we are held to account for guilt imputed? How would a man repent from that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steven- "God may use all kinds of means to bring people to faith and genuine repentance."

    If a person rejects the blood of Christ, are you saying that there is then another means of justification, i.e., the purgatorial fires? If appears you confuse propitiation by subtracting from it the effects of justification provided within it, namely sanctification. Remember, it was not just that he took upon himself our sins, and suffered retributively for us, but he has healed us by the same sacrifice. I think it is clear that having rejected the blood of Christ which sanctifies, there is no other means:

    "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified...How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

    So we see that in is his propitiation, the wrath of God was poured out upon him by which we are brought to repentance. It is not the wrath brought upon man which which works it. We are sanctified in reference to our salvation, not by undergoing trials, or tribulations, or punishments, but by his.

    We could look at Romans 1. The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness, not by reforming man, but by casting him deeper and deeper into sin. Likewise, the punishment of hell is God's wrath poured out antithetically to the height and width and depth of God's love. It is likened to a bottomless pit. It does the opposite of sanctification through Christ, it produces, rather than light, the darkness of darkness, forever.

    Again, as steve points out, the focus is remediation in a universalist mindset is on man. But that is not the focus of Scripture. The focus is upon the vindication of God, the remediation his glory, and in that, retributive justice has been poured out upon Christ in full so that old things have passed away and the new has come. There is no other payment accepted, no other remediation than in Christ glorifying the Father and the Father, He, and no restitution other than the new creation. As the twelth chapter states, our discipline only proceeds as sons, not as illegitimate. Secondly, the remediation of man is accomplished in Christ's sanctification of himself on behalf of those who were given to him and not all who are in the world. In short, no sanctification of man ever prepares him for, or brings him to repentance. Rather, it is Jesus' sanctification and sacrifice which is imputed to children as both their justification and sanctification. Retributive justice in hell as a means of purging is rejected by the clear testimony of Scripture, as the sanctification which accomplishes salvation is what Hebrews tells us was only that which is accomplished by Christ who has accomplished it all. The remediation, or restitution, even the retribution, is not what God is extracting from man, but what he extracted from Christ, the benefit is remediated to man through him. There is then nothing left to be done, nor anything which can be accomplished, by any future actions effecting salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can Jesus' death satisfy the exemplification or magnification of God's justice through retributive punishment? Oliver Crisp in _Is Universalism a Problem for Particularists?_ offers a reason for thinking otherwise:

    "The Augustinian could adopt another approach, involving revision of one (or more) of these conditions. The obvious candidate is condition (c), which had to do with ‘The need for the display of both God’s grace and mercy and his wrath and justice in his created order’. But, the Augustinian might argue, it is important that the display of divine justice has some connection to desert. Were Christ to be the only human person upon whom divine justice was visited, as a vicarious substitute for sinners (as per Augustinian universalism), this would not have the right connection to desert because Christ does not deserve to be punished – he acts vicariously (and sinlessly) on behalf of sinful human beings deserving of punishment. There has to be some connection between the display of divine justice and the idea that (at least some of) those upon whom divine justice is visited are deserving of punishment. In order to reflect this, we could rephrase condition (c) as follows:

    (c∗) The need for the display of both God’s grace and mercy and his wrath and justice in his created order for some number of deserving humanity.

    Let us call this the strict justice condition. There seems to be a good independent theological reason for thinking the strict justice condition is true. Unlike the Augustinian universalist argument outlined earlier, the strict justice condition

    requires that at least some of those upon whom divine justice is visited deserve to be recipients of that justice, which Christ is not. So the strict justice condition promises to deliver another reason for the Augustinian to resist universalism.36

    Applied to the foregoing, this would mean that any world that God creates that includes creatures that are sinners must have provision for the display of divine justice to some number of deserving humanity. Taken together with the modified Adamsian argument, either as a supplement to the Adamsian argument, or an additional, independent reason for particularism, this constitutes a strong case in favour of non-universalistic Augustinianism. In which case, God has good reason to create a particularist world, and no obligation to create an Augustinian universalist world instead. And this rebuts the necessity of an Augustinian version of universalism."

    ReplyDelete
  15. JD SAID:

    “If I were told that I was infected with a terrible disease for which the only cure was to be irradiated for years at a time to the point where I felt like I was burning alive, I would still be afraid of the cure even though I know it is a cure. But I doubt the people who continually resist God's prompts to repent to the point where they face him as a consuming fire would be consoling themselves with the thought, ‘It's OK, he's going to save me in the end.’ That sounds like too rationalistic a view of human nature.”

    It’s only fearful because you’re trading on a metaphor that evokes excruciating physical pain. But you don’t think remedial punishment is analogous in that respect. So the comparison is deceptive.

    “It's not the torture as such, but what it involves: the stripping away of pretense, the forced abandonment of one's idols and illusions, the facing up to the consequences of one's actions. I've heard of many conversion stories in which some painful personal event forced people to ponder their eternal destiny. What's so strange about the use of pain to get people to repent?”

    But, of course, that’s quite different than radiation therapy which makes you feel like your on fire.

    “First of all, I think there's an equivocation here between responsibility and liability to punishment. If I commit a crime and serve a sentence for it, even if justice is satisfied that doesn't mean that I no longer bear responsibility for committing the crime. That action will always be a part of my history. But that doesn't mean justice demands I be continually punished for that crime.”

    Are you discussing the offender’s objective moral status, or simply the conventions of penology?

    “I do agree that crimes like murder and betrayal deserve a proportionately greater punishment. But never-ending?”

    Why not?

    “Now I'm not suggesting that hell is like an eternal brazen bull (I know you hold more nuanced views of what hell is like), but I'm inclined to agree at least by temperament: even if someone tortured my brother to death for fun, I would not wish eternal punishment on him. Lots of punishment, yes. Painful punishment, absolutely. Punishment that brings about repentance, even better. But eternal punishment? At this point, no.”

    i) I wasn’t discussing how you think you’d feel in that situation, but the nature of blame. Mind you, if that scenario actually happened, you might well be consumed with vindictive emotions.

    ii) Likewise, you’re not offering a moral argument. It’s natural for humans to have fellow sympathy for other humans. To be empathetic towards members of our own kind. We extrapolate from how we’d feel in that situation, how we’d wish to be treated in that situation, to a second party. And up-to-a-point, that type of compassion is a virtue.

    On the other hand, it’s not a just attitude. And we don’t feel the same way about lizards that we feel about other men, women, and children. That’s because we don’t identify with lizards at the same level.

    Blind sympathy can cloud moral judgment. But God is more detached. That makes him a just judge.

    ReplyDelete