Paul Manata and JD Walters have been sparring over universalism. Among other things, JD said:
Hmmm….sounds a bit like the worker who grumbled that those who worked just a few hours in the evening were being paid as much as those who had toiled for the whole day?
Your original post makes it seem, against all reasoned protest by universalists to the contrary, that universalism posits that those who have to go through hell before getting to heaven have somehow gamed the system, that they get ‘all this and heaven too’.
Why wouldn’t the believer be entitled to make a similar complaint, that his friend got to ‘have fun’ and live his youthful years however he wanted and still got into heaven because of his midlife repentance? How is this scenario any different from the one involving the earthly saint and the post-hell redeemed sinner? Under any scenario salvation is ‘unfair’ and a gift of sheer grace.
A few quick points:
i) Manata wasn’t “complaining” that it’s “unfair” to “game the system.” Rather, he was giving a factual description of what universalism entails. If universalism is true, then, as a matter of fact, “they do get all this and heaven too.”
ii) Actually, it’s the universalist who bristles at the suggestion that sinners can game the system. So, if anything, it’s the universalist who’s complaining about the unfairness of that depiction.
iii) Far from supporting universalism, the parable to which JD alludes is diametrically opposed to universalism. The punch line in Mt 20:16 involves the eschatological reversal of fortunes. But that’s not the case in universalism. If universalism is true, then it’s false to say the first will be last and the last will be first. In universalism, everyone crosses the finish line. Everyone wins the grand prize. There are no losers. Rather, you have complete equality of outcome.
iv) Apropos (iii), wouldn't that be unjust in terms of Mt 20:16?
Your iii) is invalid. Though everyone is going to heaven, everyone is not going to the same place in heaven.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, you've dodged the main point of your challenger which is that evangelical Christianity has the same issue to face as universalism when it comes to the complaint of workers who dislike an employer who is generous.
I don't see why the main point of the challenger needs to be dodged. Instead, it is refuted fairly simply by observing that that JD has misused the parable. The parable of the workers doesn't connect with universalism as some are trying to connect it.
ReplyDeleteHell is not "the eleventh hour" nor any other hour of the day. Instead, the day clearly refers to the lifetime of a person, where the 11th hour is the end of their life on this earth. If you can't see how that jumps right out of the text, feel free to refer to any of Jesus's other parables regarding the final judgement. The context is pretty clear in that we have our chance to respond here, in this life.
I wonder at some people's willingness to bring back the non-scriptural idea of Purgatory... This really isn't that difficult to understand, so I see no reason to twist and contort the text to fit such an aberrant application.
That parable isn't about the workers per se.
ReplyDeleteIt is about the Grace and Mercy of God to bring them into His planned harvest.
Everyone God "hires" gets the same pay.
If you are not hired, well, does anyone deserve Eternal Life?
And what is the pay?
Jesus defines it so well this way:
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
I would walk this bridge to a very familiar verse walking over these words from Psalms 143:1-2.
Psa 143:1 A Psalm of David. Hear my prayer, O LORD; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness!
Psa 143:2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
Seeing those who began "working" in the vineyard at the first hour were just as unrighteous as those at the eleventh hour, maybe you can appreciate what the Apostle meant when he wrote this:
Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Whether chosen in the first hour or the last, we should rejoice in that whatever hour we are chosen, we are chosen by the free gift of God and not by the merits of man!
BLOGFORTHELORDJESUSCURRENTEVENTS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Your iii) is invalid. Though everyone is going to heaven, everyone is not going to the same place in heaven.”
In relation to the parable, which is the reference point in this discussion, that’s completely acontextual. Keep in mind that Mt 20:16 forms an inclusio to Mt 19:30. The distinction is not between those who are first in heaven and those who are last in heaven; rather, those who are winners in this life (by worldly standards) will lose out in the afterlife while those who are losers in this life (by worldly standards) will win in the afterlife. A contrast between the faithful and the faithless. Between salvation and damnation. As Knox Chamblin explains in his commentary on Matthew:
“Memb ers of the religious aristocracy will be barred from the kingdom, whereas tax collectors and prostitutes will be welcomed (Mt 21:23-32). Those who save their lives will lose them, but those who lose their lives for Jesus’ sake will find them (10:38-39; 16:24-27),” 2:957.
“Moreover, you've dodged the main point of your challenger which is that evangelical Christianity has the same issue to face as universalism when it comes to the complaint of workers who dislike an employer who is generous.”
I don’t know if you’re ignorant, obtuse, or both. But in my debates with Victor Reppert on Calvinism, I’ve always granted that God could save everyone (but won't).
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the inclusio, but you and Knox are the ones being acontextual for the parable is about the kingdom of heaven, which is where both the first and last are.
As for your contention that "God could save everyone (but won't),"
I can't think of a clearer example of stinginess, which is completely counter to the generosity of God that Jesus is teaching by this parable.
The willingness to force the text through one's own emotional grid is astounding.
ReplyDeleteI left a comment here earlier, didn't go through for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the parable of the workers supports universalism. I mentioned it in a comment to Paul's post because he seemed to be raising an objection to universalism based on the wicked essentially being able to game the system by living life just as they wanted, and then after a (comparatively) brief stint in hell joining the righteous in heaven.
Now both he and you claim he was just giving a factual description of what happens under universalism. But regardless of whether the post was merely descriptive or in fact lodging a criticism, it seems to me that there are certain parallels between the standard orthodox understanding of salvation and Paul's portrait of universalism. People are converted at all sorts of stages in their lives, some of them having managed to 'enjoy the pleasures of sin' for a longer season than others.
BLOGFORTHELORDJESUSCURRENTEVENTS SAID:
ReplyDelete"You are right about the inclusio, but you and Knox are the ones being acontextual for the parable is about the kingdom of heaven, which is where both the first and last are."
i) In Matthean usage, "kingdom of heaven" is a pious circumlocution for "kingdom of God."
So it's not about "heaven" but the kingdom of God.
ii) And as Knox documents, which you blow past, that involves a separation between those who enter the kingdom and those who are cast out or debarred.
A number of kingdom parables make that very point. And that's the larger context of this parable, on both sides of the parable–not to mention the punch line.
In the reversal of fortunes, those who are "haves" in this world are "have nots" in the next world while those who are "have nots" in this world are "have's" in the next world.
JD,
ReplyDeleteI've given stories to account for that and show relevant disanalogies. The two students getting the paper in by the deadline, while one toiled all semester and the other wrote it the night before. Neither have any reason to begrudge the other. But now consider the stgudent who partied the entire time, missed the dealine, and then still get to turn in his paper. You're missing out on a main point, which is that there's an urgency and seeming final deadline attached to the claims, but then we find out the deadline was never real in the first place. One could, in fact, live however one pleases now and one will, most assuredly, get into heaven, even if one spends an infinitesimal (used in its precise, mathematical sense) time in hell compared to his flourishing time in heaven.
JD said:
ReplyDeleteI left a comment here earlier, didn't go through for some reason.
Hm, that could be for a number of different reasons.
I haven't had the time to look into it in as much depth as I'd like, but one reason is that it seems like some comments are being marked as spam when they're not spam. However when people format the same comment a different way, then it does get through, I believe.
Last I checked I think this was a known Blogger issue. Also, Blogger has a couple of related issues which people interested in could simply Google and read about. These related issues might be affecting this issue too.
Unfortunately I'm pretty busy with school, but maybe I can find the time to look into it someday.
JD SAID:
ReplyDelete"I left a comment here earlier, didn't go through for some reason."
That's cuz you've been hexed. There's an archaic ritual you must preform to lift the curse.