THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

September 7, 2002

The model goes something like this: God has granted forgiveness to all, we are all forgiven. If we repent we can then be reconciled to God in light of that forgiveness. It is fair to say that in this model, salvation is achieved at reconciliation, not forgiveness. So forgiveness is a necessary condition for reconciliation, but so what.

Well, this has major implications for some other portions of theology. You see, if forgiveness is granted unilaterally, but salvation does not occur until reconciliation, there are major issues concerning the afterlife for the "unsaved", or "unreconciled," to be more precise. If God has forgiven the unreconciled, then even they face no condemnation. So in the very end, we are left with the reconciled being with God and the unreconciled being apart from God, or simply banished from existence. In other words, unilateral forgiveness removes the necessity for a hell.

Now despite the fact that I reject this argument, it has some merit in theological terms. Many would argue that because the prevailing attribute of God is love; this arrangement is in concert with such a personality. A truly loving God, they would argue, could not bear to cause torment and suffering in His people, even those that are unreconciled to Him. Furthermore, they would argue that spending eternity apart from God, or not having an eternity for that matter, is "sufficient" punishment for the unreconciled. These statements are sensible and attractive. They are particularly attractive in the modern world.

I have problems with this line of thought on two levels; the first is scriptural/theological, and the second is practical. Considering first the theological issues. I am not at all sure it is entirely fair to say love is the overwhelming attribute of God’s character, and even if that is fair, I am not at all sure that such love would preclude punishment and torment.

The oft heard phrase "God is love" actually appears only twice in scripture, both in the fourth chapter of the first epistle of John. Without even examining the context I think it would be fair to say that a phrase appearing so narrowly in scripture is obviously only useful within some narrow context and is not intended to be some sort of universal definitional statement. We could go through that chapter carefully and examine that context and place some boundaries around the applicability of the phrase, but there is another scripturally based objection to this argument that is very powerful, so I’ll save the disk space.

Simply put, God’s behavior throughout the whole of scripture indicates that He is more than willing to condemn and cause pain in people. The Old Testament is rife with stories of God ordering the destruction of entire nations, including the women and children. God in fact cursed Saul, the first King of Israel, for failing to kill all the women and animals in a nation that God gave him.

Some have argued that God only ordered such a fate for non-Israelites. That when Jesus came and made God’s blessing available to all, the need for such condemnation ceased to exist. However, God preserved tortuous treatments for those he loved the most, even in the Old Testament. Consider that the OT’s greatest figure, Moses, was never allowed to enter the Promised Land because of an infraction. David, the most beloved of God, was punished severely for his transgressions. God permitted His most faithful servant Job to be tortured by the minions of the evil one to settle a bet.

No, scripture is filled with stories of God allowing or causing torment in people’s lives. To suppose that a loving God would not do such things is to assume that somehow the God of the OT was not a loving God and He only became so after the revelation of Jesus. This I refuse to accept. A god so changeable ceases to meet the definition of a monotheistic god and becomes one of those lesser things of mythology.

If we are going to have this model of unilateral forgiveness leading to reconciliation and thus salvation, implying no hell, then we somehow have to reconcile that model with all of scripture and I don’t see that happening.

Now let’s examine the unilateral forgiveness/reconciliation model from a practical standpoint. We begin with the assumption that we are to treat one another as God treats us. This is a fair assumption as we are admonished to it in scripture more than once.

Suppose I transgress against you in some way, say I steal your car. You, following God’s example, forgive me, and wait patiently for me to come and repent, return the car and reconcile our relationship. Because you have forgiven me, you do not even press criminal charges against me. Let me ask you this. Unless you have something that I need or want a great deal, what motivation do I have to come back to you and try and reconcile things?

While arguing eternal estrangement from God is sufficient consequence for sin is appealing, it breaks down utterly when we apply the same model to inter-human affairs. At this point mutual accountability is removed from all human interactions. Our sole motivation for good is now avoiding eternal annihilation. I don’t know about you, but when I sin, I am usually not thinking about eternity, and if the sin results in something pretty nice, say a 1972 Sedan De Ville convertible in cherry shape, then I may not think about eternity until I get there. If you have a continuing supply of something I want or need, then I may continue to be nice to you, but if you do not, then I am free to take what I need and move on without fear of consequence. I am beginning to see why this model has some appeal to pastors. Because pastors have something people usually want they can get people to forgive them virtually anything and Jimmy Swaggert remains in ministry.... But that is a side issue.

Thus we are left with either rejecting the unilateral forgiveness model, or limiting it to man/God relationships only and having to create a new model for man/man relationships.

One must ask oneself what is "just?" Is it just that I go away scot-free with your car? Is it just that God would relate to us in one way, but expect us to relate to each other in some different way? The answer to both questions is an emphatic, "NO!" The last refuge of the unilateral forgiveness crowd is now to argue that our human concept of justice is perverted by sin and God really does think these things are just.

Once again this just flat out contradicts scripture. Scripture provides severe consequence for taking another’s property. God’s own declarations state that it is not just for me to get away with your car. No, our sense of justice may not be as perfectly attuned as Gods’ but I do not think it so warped that we cannot recognize justice as God would.

So, what are we left with? Well, we have gotten by for centuries on older ways of thinking about this, of requiring repentance, of holding one another accountable. Forgiveness and reconciliation may be distinct concepts, but they are inextricably linked in their execution. Repentance is a necessary element of the equation that allows for the avoidance of the consequence of sin. After all, isn’t it scripture that says, "IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."? (emphasis mine) Some would counter that the world is rejecting the old ways of thinking about these things. I would respond with a resounding "SO WHAT!". God has promised us the world will reject Him. Those of us that are His people have to bear that burden. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about truth.

With Love,