Why isn’t a universal atonement a more successful atonement?
Gene: “Isn’t the purpose of the Cross to save the world? Does the percentage change the purpose?”
While I am not myself a universalist I continue to be puzzled at some of the assumptions that non-universalist Christians have about the position. For example, in “Hell if universalism is true” I I provided one possible model for hell from a universalist’s perspective: a native healing circle. I wrote:
“Could it be that the restorative view of hell consists of a process by which victimizers are led to confront the full implications of their victimization of and injustice toward others (other human persons, creation, God) and themselves so that they are brought to a point of repentance, restoration and transformation?”
The first response came from atheist Jerry Rivard who wrote: “Now that is potentially consistent with a good God.”
That model does not necessarily make Jerry any more likely to become a Christian. But to the extent that it can be defended as a position which is consistent with Christian orthodoxy, it is one which should be invaluable to the Christian apologist. After all, the good apologist is all about removing stumbling blocks to faith. The apologist who believes God didn’t necessarily create the world in six literal days will not let people get away with rejecting Christianity because they don’t believe the world was created in six days. “That isn’t part Christianity,” he’ll say. “Many Christians believe the world evolved slowly over millions, indeed billions, of years.” By making that point he has removed an unnecessary stumbling block to faith.
By the same token, if universal salvation is consistent with Christian belief just like an old earth is, then this point should be made as well to remove another unnecessary stumbling block: i.e. the objectionable moral nature of a retributive hell. The point is not that the apologist has to be a universalist but rather that the apologist can point out “Not all Christians accept that hell is retributive. Some believe it is restorative.” Shazaam! Another stumbling block removed and folks like Jerry say “”Now that is potentially consistent with a good God.”
So why don’t more Christian apologists make this clear? Sadly, they think that an orthodox Christian cannot believe that hell is restorative. And why not? In many cases the objection is rooted in the assumption that the concept of universal reconciliation undermines the atonement. As common as this objection is, it is also very, very strange.
Picture the scene. A salesman is demonstrating a new household cleaner in front of a crowd of moms. “This cleaner will remove everything from your carpet.” he says.
“Everything?” the moms reply in skeptical unison. “What about ketchup?”
A squirt of ketchup in the carpet sample and a spray of solution reveals it removes ketchup.
“Grease?” the moms ask.
A smear of grease and a spray of solution later and the grease is gone.
“Dog pee?”
The salesman grabs his Pug who obligingly opens its bladder on the sample. Spray. Clean.
“Blood?”
The salesman splits open his hand and drips his precious AB positive onto the carpet. Spray. Clean.
“Wow,” the moms say. “It really can remove every stain.”
Now for the question. Do you think the moms will value the cleaner more highly because it can remove every stain? Of course.
So why is it that when Christians encounter the unviersalist’s claim that the atonement is ultimately effectual for all people the first question from many Christians is “So why did Jesus need to die?” Ack! That response is about as bizarre as the moms asking: “What’s the point of buying a cleaner that can remove every stain?”
Salesman. Face in palm.
Tags: apologetics, atheism, atonement, universalism
36 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] apologetics is about making the faith more attractive, why aren’t more apologists employing universalism part of that strategy? [T]o the extent that [universalism] can be defended as a position which is consistent with [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Jared says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 5:00pm
I think, as you’ve said before, there are questions hiding in the trunk of that question.
I’m not sure that the question is only “why did Jesus need to die” but, “then why bother being a Christian. Why bother being in church on Sunday morning, why bother living in any particular way.”
The Christian response being that we do these things in response to what Christ did. But if the atonement is a universal atonement, that might make it more acceptable, more sellable, and more useful – but I’m wondering if that’s really what some Christians want…
randal says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 5:47pm
“I’m not sure that the question is only “why did Jesus need to die” but, “then why bother being a Christian. Why bother being in church on Sunday morning, why bother living in any particular way.””
I’ve met that reasoning too.It sounds just like the elder prodigal son: “Why did I spend all my years serving the old man faithfully when that snotty rebel can get forgiven and invited back onto the estate.”
I think Christians should really inspect their own aversion to universalism and if it comes from those kinds of impulses they should repent of them.
Jared says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 7:23pm
“I think Christians should really inspect their own aversion to universalism and if it comes from those kinds of impulses they should repent of them.”
I wholeheartedly agree. It sounds way charismatic of me than I ever have been or will be, but I think Christians are in defense mode about the idea of a universal atonement because it might mean one more nail in the coffin of the Christian religion. I don’t spend much energy fretting about that.
I’m reminded of something that Jeff asked in the previous post – is your objection philosophical or biblical. I don’t generally like that dichotomy, but here I find it helpful. Because in your analogy of the Prodigal son, the son still has to choose to come back. I think that’s still a testament to the limitless nature of God’s Grace, but Biblically I think the case for universalism is far more untenable than from a philosophic perspective.
Gene says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 7:03pm
Randal,
For me as a Universalist, it’s truly mind blowing because I’ve really come to fall in love with the one we call Christ Jesus.
I’ve been given those same reasons Jared shares and I’ve been shocked at such responses.
There are several reasons why they respond like this and my comment was directed at that particular paradigm.
Some Calvinists sees it that if God saves all then his glory is somehow diminished (Nevermind that every knee bowing does not diminish his glory???).
So the percentage question more defined towards Calvinists (penal substitutionists) would be at what percentage point do the scales tip?
Does 85% still qualify as maximal glory if 88% qualifies? How could it?
And
Does 99% still qualify as miximal glory if 100% does not?
I think this type of response is just someone hitting the panic button and trying anything and everything to undermine Universalism’ arguments.
Jared says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 7:35pm
I think you have a good point Gene. God’s maximum glory is God’s maximum glory.
I don’t think Glory is the point though – because as you suggest, every knee will bow. God’s maximum glory is assured. So that’s not the issue. I think the issue is of Will. To paraphrase CS Lewis – people either say to God “Thy will be done” or God says to them “fine then, have it your way.” The universalist position actually takes free will out of the equation.
What if someone actively chooses to define themselves by rejection of God? Does God save them? And if he does what does that say about their will? If God doesn’t save them then Universalism is simply Arminianism (God saves those, not who choose him but choose not to reject him – a position that I see as being open to the Grace of God when it comes to those who haven’t heard, etc.)
gene says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 10:58pm
Jared,
I’m not certain of that. I’ve heard that argued quite often and I don’t quite see it that way.
Why is it that God could not draw people freely to salvation? Why does God (logically) have to bypass a person’s will in order to save one? If God can save on without co-opting the will, then perhaps he could logically save all without co-opting the will? It seems to me that probability is the real question for free will thesits.
I admittedly agree more with the Calvinist understanding of scripture (God’s sov) but not on limited atonment.
Jared says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 12:07pm
That’s a really interesting point. It seems logical enough that a maximally sovereign God, being maximally good, would elect the greatest number possible. I think that’s a really fascinating critique of Calvinism.
But for me, the if still stands. I don’t think Universalism gives credence to the fervor and vitriol of (especially) the New Atheist movement. I think about Christopher Hitchens definitive statement that the will never accept God, and that any accounts of death bed conversion will be a hoax. Can a person who distinguishes their life by opposition to God really be altered at a fundamental level without co-opting their will?
It seems to m that there are a couple of different options for proceeding:
1) We accept your premise that God is maximally sovereign and maximally good and therefore saves all by complete removal of free will (toward some or all who oppose Him)
2) We accept your premise that God is maximally sovereign and maximally good – but that goodness entails the need for Human Free Will and therefore God saves as many as actively choose not to reject Him
3) We accept your conclusion that God saves everybody but that Justice and Goodness are then relative terms, rather than objective values rooted in God’s Oneness and Holiness
4) We accept that people are forced to choose or reject the offer of God’s Grace in this life
5) We accept that God elects who God will
Gene says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 1:50pm
Jared,
Thanks for that response. I’m certainly not smart enough to chase down all the possibilities for God’s maximal glory. I do tend to think that the one Randal mentions is a smoke screen.
It seems to me that Christopher Hitchens lives under a delusion. You might say, the god of this world has blinded him, and thus I would not conceed that he can make a free choice.
Thomas Talbott is far more eloquent on such matters than myself and reading him would probably help you to understand where “we” new Universalists are coming from.
I would certainly not conceed 3. Why logically would justice and goodness have to become relative terms if God in fact saved all without co-opting their free will. Seems again like a smoke screen in order to diminsh the argument: God COULD logically (without contradiction) bring all to salvation without violating their freedom of choice. – justice and goodness (love) would all be part of how he accomplishes this.
Likewise, I think we could argue:
If every knee bowing is forced, that is God steps on the neck of Christopher Hitchens in order to force some verbal admission that Jesus is Lord, then God’s maximal glory is diminished. For only a free confession of this sort would bring glory to God otherwise his justice and goodness become relative terms.
I think more logical appeals need to be made to this:
Suppose a father, whose 10 children have fallen out of the boat, should save all 10 children. How is it problematic in ANY WAY that he saved all when he could have saved some. Will a death of at least one make the salvation of any others shine even more?
If Paul is right that God reconciles ALL THINGS (which he defines in the earlier part of the chapter) by making peace via his blood shed on the cross, does that diminish the reconciliation God has for us if in fact every single person is reconciled?
I simply don’t see the logical consistency of arguing against Universalism in this fashion.
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 7:18pm
Good point.
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 12:58pm
Most Christians simply don’t think universalism is consistent with what God has declared concerning the future of humanity. One must allegoricalize, spiritualize, or simply ignore so much of what Christ said, not to mention the rest of the New Testament.
This, of course, is quickly translated to denial of the notion that universalism is in God’s best interests or provides maximal glory. Formally, it looks something like this:
A) God will do whatever is just and best and brings maximal glory.
B) God will not ultimately save all men (based on a straightforward reading of Scripture).
Therefore, ultimately saving all men is not just, not best, or would not bring maximal glory.
So this conclusion is demanded by prior conclusions doing double duty as premises. Proposing potential explanations may be difficult, but the explanations are not the basis of this conclusion; its genesis is independent of any given explanation.
Speaking of which, here’s a possible explanation for your consideration:
Why does evil exist, and why would a maximally good God (arminian or calvinist or whatever) purpose to save less than 100% of human beings from their wickedness and its consequences? Possible answer: God receives the most glory when individuals choose to love him in response to the testimony of his love, despite being hampered by the still-selfish flesh. God demonstrates his wisdom and glory by conforming his children to the image of Christ in a hostile and ungodly environment. Evil is therefore allowed to remain so as to make our salvation all the more challenging.
If all were to be eventually saved, then there would be little purpose in sanctifying individuals while they are still alive. It would be as if the universalism was a backup plan to “catch” everybody that the Lord “couldn’t get to” during their lifetimes. And there would be no demonstration of glory if everyone was saved during their lifetimes. If it happens to everyone, man could take credit for it; when enough people around you love God, it’s more immediately advantageous to love God and so we would do it on our own.
The only way that God can get maximal glory from an individual salvation is if that individual is in an environment that would never prompt love and desire for God without a divinely-initiated revelation of love. Thus universalism is defeated on the basis of quality over quantity.
Gene says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 2:20pm
David,
“If all were to be eventually saved, then there would be little purpose in sanctifying individuals while they are still alive.”
Why?
If only some are to be saved then there would be little purpose in sanctifying individuals while they are still alive?
The Christian life is not about, well look at me! I’m a good boy! It’s about reconciliation and us coming back into that relationship and being transformed back into the image of God.
So I would press the same question:
At what percentage do the scales tip?
If 100% can be God’s maximal glory then can 99% bring maximal glory? I think the answer is no.
BUT
IF 85% is the point at which the scales tip, then is one more person going to ruin the maximal glory?
Our being sanctified is to be transformed into the image of God. Why is it if all 10 children are saved (out of 10) then living in the boat is all a waste of time? It seems utterly illogical to argue in such ways to me.
One could say, it’s good that the Nazis killed as many Jews as they did. If Americans would have saved every single Jew, that would diminish the glory America receives in the rescue of such troubled people. So we ought to be thankful that the Nazis killed as many as they did.
But now consider if we found government documents, which clearly showed that the president of the United States knew he could have saved every single Jew from dying at the hands of the third reich. And imagine if the president wrote a memo: The reason why I will pause as to save many families is so that at the right time, America will receive it’s full glory for saving some rather than all. For if America is to save all, then that would not maximize the glory that’s due.
I would consider such a president corrupt and evil.
But I don’t believe God does that. I read the bible as saying that God has bound all men over to disobedience that he might have mercy on them all.
So if Jesus died for Jews, then if you’re Jewish – he died for you!
If Jesus died for Gentiles, then if you’re a Gentile – he died for you!
When you put those two together, he died for the whole world.
Gene
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 3:53pm
The problem with these analogies is that they always cast people who deserve to be saved in place of humanity. For example, the Jews during the Third Reich. We Jews did nothing to deserve Hitler’s genocide, so the Final Solution was decidedly evil.
Instead of casting the Jews in place of humanity, try casting the Nazis in place of humanity. Just as our sin condemns us before God, the Nazis brought the destructive assault of the Allies upon themselves. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that the Allies decided not to fight the Axis by a direct assault; it would cost too many German lives. Instead, the Allies decided to infiltrate the Party and the SS, slowly picking apart the Third Reich from the inside out. Allied spies slowly and steadily recruited from Hitler’s upper echelon until they had a network of dedicated spies, ready to help overthrow the Axis.
As soon as the Allied command believed that they had enough men on the inside of the Nazi regime, they gave the signal and stormed the beaches of Normandy. The ex-Nazis had disabled so much of Germany’s defenses that the Allies swept through Europe with no significant resistance.
It would have been pretty awesome, don’t you think? What’s significant is that none of us would criticize the Allies and say, “If you were doing just fine with ‘converting’ the Nazis, why didn’t you keep on going? You could have just infiltrated the entire country and never had to fire a single shot!” But that’s what we are doing when we criticize God for converting precisely the number of humans necessary to defeat evil.
This is the purpose of salvation, isn’t it? That sin might be defeated by the very instruments which formerly lived in sin? You need not light every candle in a room in order to light it thoroughly.
This answers the problem of evil, too. Let’s suppose further that the Manhattan Project had been completed a decade earlier. Would we criticize the Allies for infiltrating and defeating the Nazis instead of just nuking Berlin right away? Of course not. In the same way, God is capable of destroying sin instantaneously, but he chooses to use sinful humans instead of just annihilating us all instantly.
davidstarlingm says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 5:29pm
Related note:
Picture Nuremberg, 1945.
The defense for Hermann Goering and Hans Frank addresses the court. “My clients would have defected during the war if Allied infiltrators had given him the same treatment as they gave to the other Nazi officers who became Allied spies. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. It’s not fair that the Allies ‘saved’ some Nazi officials and not others before attacking.”
I’m sure that would have been a really successful argument.
Jeff says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 6:09pm
David, the obvious question here (that has already been posed repeatedly by recent commenters, but which has yet to receive a response from Calvinist commenters):
If we’re all just automatons playing out the script God has already written, down to the very slightest detail (“not one rogue molecule”), then how can we possibly be morally responsible for our sinfulness? The most common and superficial response I’ve generally heard is that we’re guilty because we want to sin. But this ignores the obvious: on the Calvinist view, even our very wants and desires have been eternally foreordained and unchangeably decreed by God.
I’ve done some digging through John Piper’s materials, because he is certainly one of the most academic and eloquent of Calvinism’s contemporary defenders, and his answer is that he doesn’t have a philosophically satisfying answer. He believes what he does on this point because that’s what the Bible clearly teaches, or so he says. For me that is not an acceptable answer, nor is it for millions of “Bible believing” Christians who do not agree with Piper’s analysis of the biblical data.
So I’ll pose the question specifically to you. Can you give me some sort of answer that goes beyond a mere assertion of your view? And not being an inerrantist or infallibilist, I won’t be persuaded by a simple biblical appeal.
Gene says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 12:57am
Jeff,
Recently on Facebook I asked the question regarding compatibilism.
Is it really a philosophical view? it seems to me, it’s just a mere assertion. The very name “compatibilism” indicates that the two things in view are apparently incompatible or dare I say it – CONTRADICTING.
So in order to avoid contradiction, it seems to me that Calvinists claim it’s not but rather it’s compatibilism. But I need more than just a mere proclamation. The only answer’s I’ve received are as you describe; the bible teaches both. And so at this point, I believe Calvinists believe the bible teaches a contradiction, only they call claim it’s compaible. Like wise, Mormons proclaim monotheism but also believe they’ll be god’s too; compaible ideas no contradictions.
Perhaps I’m wrong on it. That’s how it appears to me.
Jeff says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 2:05pm
Good thoughts, Gene. I’m not exactly sure where I stand on libertarian free will, compatibilism, etc. But what I am reasonably sure of is that assuming a deterministic framework, God may hold us responsible for our actions in the sense that God may correct/punish us in order to steer us in the right direction, but determinism seems to me to rule out an absolutist sense of human responsibility, in which God may justly subject us to eternal conscious retributive torment.
gene says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 11:56pm
Agreed Jeff,
I’m actually favor determinism but only under a universasalist paradigm. Of course if the truth of libertarianism is true, I’ll only believe it under a Universalist paradigm.
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 2:10pm
If you’re asking me to reconcile human responsibility and divine sovereignty….well, wiser men than I have tried that many times before. I’ll suggest a few options, though.
For one thing, human responsibility must be assumed from the outset. This should be self-evident; it is rooted in every code of ethics known to man. The notion that human beings are individually responsible for their actions is perhaps the most basic abstract instinct. The responsibility of man cannot be questioned.
The question, then, is whether sovereignty conflicts with human responsibility. Is the latter an illusion? Perhaps some models of sovereignty would make it so, but I take issue with the assumption that sovereignty necessarily renders responsibility an illusion.
We should not take the “no rogue molecule” illustration to mean that God is continually altering the course of every subatomic particle. Rather, this illustration presumes that every molecule is acting in accordance with the purposes of God ordained before the foundation of the world. Human beings are not marionettes, jerking into position at the hands of divine whim. God is not a puppeteer; he is a playwright whose drama is reality. God does not need to micromanage the universe in order to remain fully in control of it.
And so I humbly turn the question around on you: why does a divine creator who maintains control of all events somehow negate human responsibility? Can you give me an answer that goes beyond a mere assertion of that view?
Gene says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 1:02am
David,
The analogy was not to illustrate that God is crooked for showing favoritism – though I believe that’s true of Calvinism.
It’s to illustrate the point that saving less people never brings more glory than saving all. It’s like saying skunking your enemies is never better than pulling out a come from behind. Well it might not be as exciting but it certainly never convinces anyone that the come back kid was that much dominant. But when a team MAN HANDLES – the way the 49ers mandhandled my Broncos in 87 – it’s KNOWN by everyone, The 49ers were the team of glory.
So I think you’re missing the point of the analogy.
Clearly every knee bowing does not diminish the glory that is given to God. Or perhaps you believe that there will be some knees that won’t bow so that the knees that do bow are maximizing the glory brought to God?
I doubt you do, I’ve still never heard a good argument made as to why some being saved is better than all.
Gene
Jeff says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 2:32am
Yes Gene! Sorry to rub it in, but hey, 49ers fans such as myself need some sort of glory to revel in, even if only for games that were played decades ago.
gene says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 3:08am
Jeff,
God works out all things for good, even when the 49ers beat the Broncos that year. It’s how I became a fan. Watching Elway run in that touchdown converted me forever. And now that I see that Jesus was alluding to the Denver Brocnos in so many of his sayings, I can’t help but spread the good news there is only one way; ELWAY!
Jeff says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 2:16pm
“And now that I see that Jesus was alluding to the Denver Brocnos in so many of his sayings, I can’t help but spread the good news there is only one way; ELWAY!”
YES! That made me laugh out loud!
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 3:36pm
“It’s to illustrate the point that saving less people never brings more glory than saving all.”
Replace “saving” with “pardoning” and “people” with “criminals” and see if what you said still holds.
Here’s the analogy that I gave before, presented more succinctly:
It is the start of World War II, and the Holocaust is beginning. The Allies have nuclear capability and a powerful network of counterintelligence within Germany. They have three basic options:
A) Nuke every major city in Germany, effectively annihilating the Third Reich and preventing the Holocaust from ever really getting underway.
B) Allocate resources to arrest the spread of Nazism outside Germany, while employing their counterintelligence network to recruit high-ranking Nazis and Party Members one by one. These will be tasked with remaining outwardly loyally to the Fuhrer but secretly sabotaging the Holocaust whenever possible (“in the Reich but not of the Reich”). Once the ex-Nazi resistance is strong enough to effect a successful coup, they will overthrow the Fuhrer, putting an end to the Holocaust and allowing the Allies to sweep in without resistance. Place the remaining “unconverted” Nazis on trial for war crimes at Nuremberg.
C) Prevent the recruited Nazis from overthrowing the Third Reich when they are strong enough to do so. Instead, leave them to chafe under its injustices and remain outwardly loyal to the Final Solution. Require them to wait patiently, the Holocaust raging on, while the Allied counterintelligence network continues to recruit more and more Nazis. Do not put a stop to the Holocaust until all the Nazis, including Hitler, have been secretly recruited to the Allied side. The Holocaust will have claimed hundreds of thousands of more Jewish lives by this point, but at least you saved all the Nazis from the Nuremberg trials.
Which option is most wise, most merciful, and most just?
Just in case you need further explanation:
Nazism and the Holocaust represent sin and the problem of evil.
The Allied command represents the Father.
The Allied counterintelligence network represents the Son and the Spirit.
The Jews represent every innocent person who has ever suffered because of sin.
The ex-Nazi resistance represents the Church.
The battle between the Axis military and the Allied military represents the ongoing struggle between the forces of spiritual darkness and the forces of righteousness.
Nuremberg represents the final judgment.
Jeff says:
Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 2:38pm
“Most Christians simply don’t think universalism is consistent with what God has declared concerning the future of humanity. One must allegoricalize, spiritualize, or simply ignore so much of what Christ said, not to mention the rest of the New Testament.”
Leaving the question of inerrancy/infallibility aside (both are obviously false, in my opinion), I don’t think this description is accurate of Christian universalists’ handling of the scriptures. If anything, many tend to concretize Christ’s warnings as specific warnings of impending historical events (destruction of Jerusalem, etc.), and many claim that certain key terms have been chronically mistranslated (eg, aion/aionios). And on the flip side, there are many passages in the scriptures that seem to present themselves as stunning affirmations of universalism. There’s certainly much, much more that can be said in favor of universalism’s biblical basis than can be said in favor of, for example, limited atonement.
As for your objection, David, that universalism undermines sanctification, that is a common charge that is very false. If anything, it is traditionalist evangelicals who much more often tend to undermine sanctification, because what’s the point? We’re going to be automatically perfected upon death anyway, right, so why bother? Universalists generally take a much richer view of sanctification, as a process that we all must undergo, over the course of this life and into the next (Randal’s previous post about hell and universalism sheds some light here). Universalists generally teach that God is infinitely longsuffering with our shortcomings, as needs be from person to person, but that doesn’t mean that sanctification is therefore any less necessary for anyone.
And David, about your quality over quantity argument, that simply boggles my mind. Are you really saying that without the Holocaust, without billions of wretches weeping in anguish in hell for all of eternity, your own salvation wouldn’t be of as great a quality? John Piper is on record as saying that if it turns out that his very own sons are among the reprobate, then he will rejoice in their eternal conscious torment (not that that’s exactly how he put it, but that’s the very clear implication of what he has said). To be perfectly frank, that absolutely disgusts me and is one of the prime examples in our day of theology run horribly, inhumanly, blasphemously amok.
Walter says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:09pm
David says:And so I humbly turn the question around on you: why does a divine creator who maintains control of all events somehow negate human responsibility? Can you give me an answer that goes beyond a mere assertion of that view?
David, Let’s say that I have the ability to control your every desire, and I make you desire to murder your neighbors because it serves a nefarious purpose of my own, would you consider yourself to be guilty of the murder of your neighbors? You would definitely be responsible but not guilty since your desires were not truly your own. This is the objection that many have to your worldview: God is controlling the very desires of the elect and the reprobate, therefore your desires are not truly your own; you are being manipulated by a higher power for his own purpose. Humanity “rebels” because God desires the rebellion of humanity so that he can come in an alter the desires of a few to become his eternal cheerleaders and witness his glory.
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 5:33pm
Under your analogy, I am certainly not guilty for the murder you described. But I don’t think that’s an accurate description or analogy of my worldview.
God does not create the desire to sin. He controls and directs those desires in such a way that A) evil might not have as much freedom as it otherwise would, and B) that the sins we commit might lend themselves to redemption.
Analogy: I have the wicked desire to go and mug someone for cash. You have the ability to control my every desire. Instead of simply deleting my nefarious desire, you use your ability to direct me to a particular alleyway at a particular time, where I will attempt to mug someone but be caught in the act; my arrest will result in my sincere repentance and eventual rehabilitation. Were you in complete control of my actions and desires the entire time? Yes; it was your influence that made me assault that particular victim. If you had not directed me as you did, I might not have found any victim at all that night. However, this circumstance doesn’t make me innocent of the crime and it doesn’t make you culpable, either.
Even if I am never rehabilitated (perhaps I die in a prison fight a week later), your involvement is justified as long as what happened serves a greater purpose (maybe my younger brother was alarmed by my arrest and dedicated his life to ending inner-city violence). Regardless, I am still entirely guilty of the crime for which I was convicted.
Walter says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 5:54pm
“God does not create the desire to sin.”
If God is sovereign in the way that Calvinists claim, then the logical conclusion is that God did indeed create the desire for humans to rebel, since that rebellion supposedly serves a higher purpose; to say otherwise is to say that humanity’s fall caught God with his divine pants down instead of being a part of the master plan all along.
Arminians get around this by saying that God gives up just enough control to allow each human being to truly be a free moral agent. And as soon as the first humans got this touch of freedom we supposedly misused that freedom, resulting in the Fall–but the buck still stops with the individual.
The problem with your view is that you want God to be in complete and utter control except when you don’t want him to be. You don’t want to admit that God directs people’s actions when they rebel, only when they repent.
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 7:19pm
There is a decided difference between creating a desire and ordaining a desire. To create is to produce something that did not previously exist. To ordain is to directively determine the particular expression of previously existing desires or tendencies.
For example, God did not create sinful desires. He created beings which were self-aware, despite knowing that self-aware beings would have the capacity to rebel (that ability is a fundamental aspect of self-awareness). Given time, humans would inevitably rebel in one way or another. Instead of leaving this inevitable fall to chance, God ordained the Fall of Adam so as to “contain” this tendency to rebellion within one single attribute: an inherited sinful nature. In this way, God could provide for the redemption of humanity (and the defeat of our tendency to rebellion) by overcoming the inherited sinful nature through the Cross.
If God had not ordained the Fall of Adam to contain rebelliousness within our inherited sinful nature, then we would be as bad off as the fallen angels — all having rebelled independently, without any common attribute whereby God might show mercy to all.
“You don’t want to admit that God directs people’s actions when they rebel, only when they repent.”
God ordains the expression of rebelliousness in precisely the same fashion and degree to which he ordains the expression of repentance. That’s the 6th point of MacArthur’s tongue-in-cheek “seven point Calvinism”.
Jeff says:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 12:47am
David, I’m not sure what you’re saying here. That God could have given humans libertarian free will, but foreknowing that we would fall into sin as a result of free will, God decided to forego human free will and instead foreordain that we fall?
I can’t see how this is advantageous. You say that without a foreordained fall, we humans would be just as bad off as fallen angels? But aren’t the reprobate just as bad off as fallen angels? And this seems to beg the question: Didn’t God, then, make a mistaken in granting angels libertarian free will? And at least in the case of fallen free angels, they actually chose to rebel. But not so in the case of humans–reprobation is unconditional.
“If God had not ordained the Fall of Adam to contain rebelliousness within our inherited sinful nature, then we would be as bad off as the fallen angels — all having rebelled independently, without any common attribute whereby God might show mercy to all.”
I’ve never heard this argument before and the only thing that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 15:22 (“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”), but that’s one of the chief universalist proof passages. And in your last phrase “whereby God might show mercy to all,” you’re almost sounding like a universalist.
Jeff says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 6:40pm
First of all David, sorry if I sounded a tad combative in my earlier comments. I had just watched nearly two hours of a lecture Piper gave on TULIP, and I was feeling cranky. Most cranky indeed.
David, are you a determinist? As Walter has just pointed out, your statement that “God does not create the desire to sin” seems to position you as backing off from determinism somewhat. But I just don’t see how that’s compatible with Calvinism, and it comes across as very ad hoc. As Walter has rightly pointed out, “The problem with your view is that you want God to be in complete and utter control except when you don’t want him to be.”
You said:
“For one thing, human responsibility must be assumed from the outset. This should be self-evident; it is rooted in every code of ethics known to man. The notion that human beings are individually responsible for their actions is perhaps the most basic abstract instinct. The responsibility of man cannot be questioned.”
It doesn’t matter whether human responsibility is our most basic abstract instinct. Under a deterministic framework, it’s an illusion. In the very same way that, even though libertarian free will is an equally strong abstract instinct, determinism renders it illusory, if indeed determinism is correct.
Determinism doesn’t imply “that God is continually altering the course of every subatomic particle.” If that were how God operated, then our universe would appear to us to be chaotic rather than deterministic. Determinism does not entail that we feel as if we are automatons, or marionettes, but it does require that we are doing nothing more than playing out a set-in-stone script, even if we’re not aware that we are doing so.
The burden of proof is very firmly on the shoulders of determinists who would like also to affirm that moral responsibility and culpability are ultimately and finally intrinsic to the human actor. It certainly seems to me that the two notions are blatantly incompatible, and can be assumed to be such, unless one is able to compellingly demonstrate otherwise. I certainly don’t know of any such compelling demonstration (of course, I’m surely no expert in the field, either).
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, determinists certainly can and do adopt a “soft” view of human moral responsibility, in which our moral failings can justly be met with restitutive “punishment,” in order to shape appropriate behavior. But it strikes me as very incoherent for determinists to hold human actors chiefly morally responsible and culpable for their actions. Philosopher Matt Lawrence sums up this “soft” view or moral responsibility pretty well: “Even if we were to conclude that no one really ‘deserves’ punishment [that is, if we were to conclude that determinism is correct], this does not mean that we should release mass murderers. Rabid dogs don’t deserve their fate either, but that does not mean that we should let them run free.”
Under a Calvinist framework, eternal conscious retributive torment is absurd and morally repugnant [same is true under any other framework as well, but this is especially true of Calvinism]. Universalism is the only morally and logically reasonable position for Calvinists to take, it seems to me. Or perhaps, if God for some reason is unable to reconcile all people to himself, then annihilationism/conditional mortality might be a viable option. But under Calvinistic assumptions, that would certainly seem to lessen God’s sovereignty and glory.
I am curious, David, what attracts you to Calvinism. If I remember correctly, you said in a comment a week or two ago that Calvinist theology restored your faith in God. May I ask how so?
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 11:28pm
Am I a determinist? Good question. I certainly wouldn’t adopt that title willingly, but I’m sure that plenty of people would instinctively use call what I believe determinism.
It’s my belief that the events which happen could not happened otherwise unless God had willed them to happen otherwise. Note, however, that this “determinism” (if you would want to call it that) is limited to actual events themselves, not the desires which prompt us to produce those events.
God directs our choices, but God does not direct us to any choices which are inconsistent with our desires. Here’s one illustration that I’ve used before:
I love a particular woman very much. I would like to marry this woman very much. I know this woman very well, and I know that she also loves me very much.
At some point in the (hopefully) near future, I will undertake a series of actions (getting down on one knee, opening a small box, saying a particular series of words) that I am very certain will provoke a particular action on her part (saying “yes” and kissing me). My confidence that this will be the exact action is around 93%.
One could envision a situation in which I knew her better and had 95% or even 98% confidence on that point. On the other hand, it’s possible that I might know her less, and have only 85% or 82% confidence that I could provoke that reaction. If I was omniscient (at least with respect to her), I could have 100% confidence as to her exact reaction. At that point, I would actually be in complete control of her actions with regard to me.
My level of confidence, however, does not in any way devalue her decision to say “yes”. Even if I knew with 100% certainty that she would say yes, asking her to marry me doesn’t make her affirmative decision a forced one, even though I was the one who caused her to make that decision. In the same way, God dictates which choices we will make, but he does not direct us to choices that are inconsistent with our desires.
Take the recent tragedy at Oslo. God was in complete control of the type of bomb used, the setting on the timing mechanism, the type of firearm, and each shot that the madman fired. This was not because God desired to cause the tragedy, but because the killer desired to cause the tragedy. God could have altered any of the predetermined details of the attack, but the desire to carry out the attack belonged solely to the killer.
Some Calvinists may balk at the idea that God does not dictate our desires “thought-for-thought”, but they shouldn’t. God remains in complete control. We are wholly responsible for our actions, but God controls which actions (out of all the possible actions that would fulfill our desire) we actually end up taking.
I’ll answer your question about what attracted me to reformed theology a little later. But it didn’t have anything to do with determinism, I promise.
gene says:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 12:08am
Jeff,
well said. I consider myself to be far close to Calvinism but I am clearly a Universalist. For me the scriptures are screaming it out.
I recall in 5 views on Election, Thomas Talbott argued similar to you, that Determinists on one hand want to make God the cause of why people get saved but then want to make people the cause of why people get damned – and it just can’t be.
They’ll argue on beahlf of double predestination and say yes, God ordained their damnation and then argue, it’s what they wanted so they’re responsible. But if that’s so then a man who is ordained unto eternal life also wanted to be saved and therefore the man is responsible for his own salvation; I’ve never heard a response to Talbott on this.
Gene
Walter says:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 12:37am
God directs our choices, but God does not direct us to any choices which are inconsistent with our desires.
That is inconsistent with Reformed Theology as I understand it. What you stated here is that those people who repent to Jesus and get saved are following their own personal desires which God is not affecting. According to Calvinists God is altering the desires of those chosen for salvation. So God does indeed tamper with human desires to achieve a certain outcome of his choosing.
You also claimed in an earlier comment that God is in complete control, but he is not the author of sin–humans are. Did God lose control of humans in the instant that sin was *invented*? I doubt you want to go there. To me the only consistent viewpoint that a Calvinist can hold would be to affirm that God is the author of sin and evil, but God uses sin and evil to further his own purpose (which I assume means maximizing his glory).
Linda says:
Friday, August 12, 2011 at 8:17pm
Randal,
I think people need to go deeper, why not ask such questions as:
Why did God allow Adam to sin, when we know He could of prevented it?
Also how come God has no plan to restore the fallen angels?
We know that God is not going to save everybody because that would be the same result as God not letting Adam fall into sin. It seems pointless to let all humans fall into sin them save all of them when you could of have prevented them from even having a need of salvation.
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, August 12, 2011 at 11:37pm
I don’t think it would be the same result at all. Creating beings with no chance of ever falling is a great deal less impressive than allowing them to fall and redeeming them to perfect love and holiness. Engineering the fall is perfectly wise; if all men fell in the same way, they could all be redeemed in the same way. Otherwise people would be falling all over the place.
The question of universalism is this: if God seeks the greatest possible glory for Himself by redeeming sinful men, why not redeem them all? A possible answer is this: in order for men to be capable of falling (and thus capable of redemption and love), evil must be allowed to exist. Every moment that evil continues to exist, innocents suffer. God must save enough people to prove the end of sin and evil, but He cannot allow evil to exist a single moment longer than it must for this first goal to be realized. Hence the continued existence of evil; hence the apparent scriptural failure of universalism.
randal says:
Saturday, August 13, 2011 at 3:07am
“It seems pointless to let all humans fall into sin them save all of them when you could of have prevented them from even having a need of salvation.”
Clearly there are goods God achieves in the “fall redemption” world which make it a superior option to the “never fall” world.