Why Eternal Conscious Torment isn’t the only game in town for a Christian
MGT2 writes: “I believe that the Bible teaches eternal conscious torment (and I still cannot see how one can deny that after considering the whole of Scripture)….”
Allow me to explain.
First, many scriptural passages appear to teach a universal restoration of all things. The advocate of ECT interprets those texts in light of the passages they have already decided teach ECT. But you can reverse that direction and interpret the prima facie ECT texts in light of the universal restoration texts.
Second, many scriptural passages appear to teach that the wicked will cease to exist. The same reversal of hermeneutical priority outlined in the first point is possible here too.
Third, the scriptural passages that are typically marshalled to support ECT can be reasonably interpreted as not teaching ECT. Advocates of universalism and annihiationism have plausible interpretations of passages like Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 14:9-11 and Revelation 20:10.
Fourth, nobody interprets scripture apart from their own intuitions of divinity and morality (and it is naive to think otherwise). For example, when texts depict God as being ignorant or losing his temper, most Christians readily interpret those texts as anthropopathisms, and a significant reason they do so is rooted in their own intuitions of divinity and morality. With that in mind, ECT presents overwhelming problems for our moral intuitions. For example, if I am saved and my daughter damned, then ECT (on its most common and coherent formulation) obliges me to think there is a time where I will rejoice in my daughter’s damnation. I have overwhelmingly strong intuitions that this claim could not possibly be true and thus that ECT must be rejected.
Tags: annihilationism, eternal conscious torment, hell, universalism
156 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 2:44pm
Your comments show a lack of understanding of the Word of God.
randal says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 2:58pm
Better to be thought a fool than to post a comment and remove all doubt.
Jouras says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 11:44am
Ah, see how they love one another!
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 3:32pm
Star, I’d have to challenge you on this, too. I’m inclined to ECT, weakly, but I’m wondering what specific scriptures and theological formulations compel you to to believe ECT. It’s really important that we be clear in our interpretation and theology, not just relying on doctrines we have received. That’s putting man’s word over God’s.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 8:46am
Compelling scriptures for eternal conscious torment in hell is Luke 16:19-31 and in the Lake of Fire is Rev 20:10.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 4:17pm
star2, I’m curious: which of these would you rather be true, and why?
1. Those who believe in God and interpret His word correctly (which includes you) are going to heaven, but those who don’t believe in God (like me) or who misinterpret His word (like Randal) are going to burn in hell for eternity.
2. At the end, it doesn’t matter what we believed in this life, all of us (you, me, Randal) are going to heaven.
I want to be clear here. I’m not asking which of these you believe to be true, but which you would prefer to be true.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:34pm
I prefer the Word of God to be true.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:50pm
Right, me too, but what specific scripture are you referring to that necessitates ECT and how do you interpret the scriptures that seem to reference annihilationism or universalism?
This is an honest question.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 9:05am
Rev 20:10 and Rev 20:15 makes it quite clear that there is no annihilationism where people who don’t make it to heaven will eventually cease to exist or universalism where everyone will eventually make it to heaven.
Hell is the holding place until the Great White Throne judgment (Rev 20:11-13) for all who die in their sins. Jesus made it quite plain that those who go to hell will experience conscious torment (Luke 16:19-31).
The lake of fire is where all these people who were in hell and all those who have not had there names written in the Lamb’s book of life will go. They will be tormented day and night for all eternity.(Rev 20:10)
The Great White Throne Judgment occurs after the 1000 yr reign of Christ.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:23pm
star2,
In both of the hypothetical examples I gave, the Word of God is true. In the first one, the correct interpretation of the Word of God is that some of us are going to hell, because we hold certain incorrect beliefs. In the second one, the correct interpretation of the Word of God is that none of us are going to hell, regardless of our beliefs.
Are you saying that you have no preference between 1 and 2 as long as God exists? If so, what if you knew that someone close to you, a parent, sibling, child, spouse, friend, would suffer for eternity in hell if 1 is true but not if 2 is true? Would that change your (lack of) preference?
Or are you saying that neither of the examples I gave is the correct interpretation of the Word of God? If so, how can you be so sure? Haven’t there been many people who’ve dedicated their lives to God who made both of those interpretations? In a comment on another thread, you wrote “I have had a problem with pride and haughtiness in my Christian walk.” Would failure to acknowledge the possible correctness of an interpretation other than yours be an example? And below, you answered clamat by saying that “Christians don’t bother to seek God for its understanding.” Is this another example? Can you really not at least imagine that your interpretation might be wrong?
I don’t even believe God exists, but I can still answer that hypothetical. I would prefer 2 to be true. My reason is that my own sense of justice and fairness (God-given, perhaps?) says that eternal punishment for a finite crime is unjust and unfair, serves no purpose whatsoever, and is mercilessly cruel; and that in particular, any punishment at all for the ‘crime’ of failure to correctly sort out the jumble of religious thought and writing that abounds on this planet is absolutely unwarranted. I believe in my heart that if God exists and 1 is the correct interpretation, then God is evil, and if God is evil then, well, God help us all (figure of speech). So I prefer that if God exists, 2 is the correct interpretation of His Word.
I’ll ask again. If you have only two choices, and either 1 or 2 is the correct interpretation of God’s Word, which would you prefer to be true?
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:15pm
The Word of God is my standard for what is right and wrong. Statement 1 and 2 are both wrong and violate the Word of God. Therefore I reject each.
It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think or what anyone thinks. All that matters is what God thinks and His Word will judge all in the end.
A person who dies in their sin, whether they are Christian or not, will perish (they will go to hell).
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:06pm
OK. But it seems to me from your posts that you relish the idea of some people (not you of course) suffering ECT. I’m trying to determine if that’s true.
You’re right that if God exists, it won’t matter what anyone’s preferences are about the way things should be. But this is just a thought experiment, it isn’t rocket science. A five-year-old could answer easily.
Unless you’d care to prove me wrong, I will take your refusal to answer as an indicator that I’m right – that you do relish the idea of ECT for those you think are wrong about God’s word, and that you are unwilling to admit this to others or perhaps even to yourself. (Perhaps a more charitable interpretation would be your fear of God’s retribution if you do answer. Is there a commandment not to think hypothetically about anything you “know” not to be God’s word? Or are you just afraid the whole house of cards will come down if you look objectively at the unfathomable horror of 1?)
(After I wrote this, but before I posted it, you added this gem: “they go to there rightful place which is hell when they die and the lake of fire”. Oh yeah! You Go, God!)
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 11:54am
I don’t relish the thought of anyone perishing. When I got saved at 8 yrs old God revealed to my heart the reality of hell. I didn’t want to go there and I knew that you had to have Jesus to go to heaven. I asked Jesus to save me.
I had 2 friends that my mom took to Church with us on occassion. I didn’t want them to go to hell so I witnessed to them as best as an 8 yr old can who just recently got saved.
I still am that way. I don’t want my friends and those I know to perish so I pray for them and I witness to them.
Scripture teaches that those who perish will have conscious torment for all eternity.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 4:47pm
I stand corrected then, and apologize for my accusation. Sorry, I first tried to probe that notion indirectly rather than stating it outright and got nowhere. (And there definitely are Christians who do relish ECT for others, so I’m not coming completely out of left field with that mistaken intuition.)
I still find it a bit puzzling that you seem unwilling or unable to separate “this is the way I think things are” from “this is the way I hope things are”. Randal, for instance, believes in annihilation, but hopes for universal salvation, and this is true of others who comment here as well. Your resistance seems to me to be fear of what God will do and/or fear of your worldview unraveling if you speculate in that manner. I won’t press it any further though. Thanks for the exchange.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:42pm
Jerry
I accept your apology.
I still find it a bit puzzling that you seem unwilling or unable to separate “this is the way I think things are” from “this is the way I hope things are”.
I accept God’s Word as truth.( I take God at His word.) I don’t have to hope that it is this way or that. If the Word of God says that it is this or that then that is what I accept and I don’t have to hope for any thoughts to be true that go contrary to it.
I do a lot of teaching in my evangelism. When I make incorrect statements God reveals that to me and I change my beliefs accordingly.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:50pm
Also, if anyone relishes a person going to hell then their heart is not right with God.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:56pm
“When I make incorrect statements God reveals that to me and I change my beliefs accordingly.”
How does God communicate with you? When He does, how do you know it’s God?
star2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 1:34am
Jerry
“When I make incorrect statements God reveals that to me and I change my beliefs accordingly.”
How does God communicate with you? When He does, how do you know it’s God?
He communicates by thoughts to my heart and mind. I just know in my mind and heart that what I said was wrong. It oftentimes bothers me. I pray or ask God about it and what is the truth. Sometimes God helps me think through it or He floods my heart and mind with what the truth is, or I’ll get better understanding while reading the scripture.
star2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 2:44am
God loves you Jerry (John 3:16).
God gave His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for your sins so you could be forgiven (1 John 2:2) and He rose Him from the dead so you could be justified before God (Romans 4:25).
God wants to save you from the penalty of sin (eternal damnation) and to give you a home in Heaven with Him.
If you want what Jesus did for you, then turn to God in prayer and confess that to Him. Ask Him to come live in your heart and be the Lord of your life. If you do, then God will come live in your heart and He will make you a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). He will give you a new heart created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24).
star2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 2:48am
Source:http://www.precious-testimonies.com/BornAgain/s-v/SweetsurM.htm
FROM ATHEISTIC SCIENTIST TO CHILDREN’S CHRISTIAN ENTERTAINER
By: Dr. Maurice Sweetsur
I was born and brought up in Stoke-on Trent in England, but spent all my working life as a Research Chemist in Ayr, Scotland. I hold a PhD degree in Food Science from Strathclyde University (Glasgow). I am the author or co-author of over 60 scientific papers.
For most of my life I was an atheist. I never considered the possibility that God might be real, believing that “we Scientists” had proved He didn’t really exist and was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the various life forms.
At age 36, I started going along to a Baptist church with my wife, just to keep her company. However, I heard the Gospel for the first time, and was forced to consider the amazing Christian claims.
For about a year I tried to prove the existence of God in a scientific way, but got nowhere. Then at 11 am on November 11, 1980, I was praying (I had begun to pray sometimes just in case God was real), and I realized the futility of my search for the truth. Suddenly a scripture came into my mind: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).
Something ‘clicked’. I realized that I couldn’t prove (or disprove) the existence of God through reason or science. It was a matter of taking a step of faith. Then a second scripture came into my mind: “Ask, and you shall receive.” (Luke 11:9)
So I did. I prayed: “God if you are real; if you really do exist … reveal yourself to me.” Immediately I sensed His presence. It was as though waves of love and joy were flowing through me. But intermingled with this was a devastating sense of shame. For the first time in my life I realized I was a “sinner” (By going to a Baptist church, I had been told I was a sinner and had accepted in my head, but having a revelation of that in your heart is completely different). The surprising thing was that I realized my ‘sin’ was not so much the ‘bad’ things I had done, but rather that I had centered my life around myself instead of God. I asked God to forgive me, and committed my life to Jesus. Suddenly all the doubts, problems and unanswered questions I had concerning the Christian message didn’t matter any more. I just “knew” that God was real, and that He loved me and accepted me.
If I could describe my life since that time in two words, it would be: “New desires.” I got a tremendous desire to read the Bible, pray, meet with other believers, and share God’s love with those who didn’t know Him — not because I thought I should now that I was a Christian, but because I really wanted to. The things that used to have priority in my life, such as sport and my work, didn’t seem so important any more. (Though I did get a promotion in my job about a year after my conversion experience because of my “greatly improved performance.” Jesus enhances all areas of our lives!). I have been endeavoring to follow Him since.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 9:17am
Interpreting the Word of God accurately does not save you.You are saved when you believe on and receive the Lord Jesus from your heart after God has revealed to your heart that you are a sinner in need of a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. (Romans 10:9-10,13)
Romans 10:9-10, 13
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus: and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:02pm
Hey, star2, I clicked through to your blog and found your scripture references for Hell, and I think there are some problems with using them as proof-texts (understanding that I’m still sympathetic to your position)
Matthew 25:41: This is in the context of a parable in which the main point is our treatment of other people, not doctrine. I think it’d be presumptuous to make a grand theological statement off of a secondary detail in a parable (which is an allegory)
Romans 6:23: The word in this verse is “death” (thanatos in the Greek), not “hell” or “lake of fire”. You have to stretch the meaning of that word in order to make it a proof-text for ECT.
Mark 16:16: The word in this verse also does not mean “hell”, but rather “condemned” (katakrithanai, or judged against, in the Greek). Once again, you’re having to stretch the meaning of the word to make it say what you want, and that’s not even considering whether or not this verse was originally in the book of Mark based on textual evidence.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:54pm
Brad:
“Matthew 25:41: This is in the context of a parable in which the main point is our treatment of other people, not doctrine. I think it’d be presumptuous to make a grand theological statement off of a secondary detail in a parable (which is an allegory)”
No Jesus, the Son of man is talking about Himself when He come back in His glory. He is not using any allegory here.
Matt 25:31 – when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.”
Matt 25:41 – Then shall he say also unto them on the left, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”
“Romans 6:23: The word in this verse is “death” (thanatos in the Greek), not “hell” or “lake of fire”. You have to stretch the meaning of that word in order to make it a proof-text for ECT.”
That word “death” is refering to the second death. The first death is a physical death. The second one is a spiritual death. Rom 6:23 says that the payment or wages for your sins is spiritual death.
Rev 20:14 – “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
“Mark 16:16: The word in this verse also does not mean “hell”, but rather “condemned” (katakrithanai, or judged against, in the Greek). Once again, you’re having to stretch the meaning of the word to make it say what you want, and that’s not even considering whether or not this verse was originally in the book of Mark based on textual evidence.”
Do you think that people who are damned because of sin go to Heaven? No, they go to there rightful place which is hell when they die and the lake of fire after the 1000 year reign of Christ.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:27pm
Now we’re in conversation, star2!
I think you make a good point in the case of Matthew 25.
Let’s take a closer look at Romans 6:23.
You say that “death” in this verse, means the “second death”, but that isn’t the plain reading of the verse. In Revelation 20:14, ironically, death is one of the the things thrown into “the fire”, along with Hades. So how could “death” be placed in Hell? You’re having to re-interpret the meaning of “death” in Ro. 6:23 in order to make it mean “second death”.
(BTW, I think that’s an ok thing to do, but you need to recognize that you are assigning a new meaning to the word than the one normally understood)
My point with Mark 16:16 is that Hell is not specified. They could be condemned to a specific time of punishment, or total destruction, or something else we haven’t thought of. We’re stretching the meaning once again of the verse in order to accommodate what we already think. That’s what I want to avoid.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:43pm
Your comments indicate that you have no or very little understanding of scripture regarding hell. I’ve been up all night and I am very tired. So, I am leaving the discussion for now.
Seek God for understanding.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:16pm
Have a good rest. I know what it’s like to spend too much time in a comments section.
I hope this doesn’t end the conversation, though!
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 3:33pm
Randal, I was just wondering at the last line of your post. Do you reject ECT, or do you remain uncommitted, as I gathered from the article on ECT you linked a few months back?
randal says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 4:07pm
I reject ECT. The chapter “Must Hitler Burn Forever?” didn’t take a stand either way because that wasn’t the intended purpose of that work. But regardless the main point is that a Christian (indeed a conservative evangelical one) can reject ECT, so Parsons’ essay, while interesting, is not contributing to a cumulative case for the end of Christianity.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:04pm
If you don’t mind me pressing a little further, do you take a position between annihilationism or universalism?
randal says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:47pm
I do believe I’ve addressed that in the past. I’m an annihilationist and a hopeful universalist. That is, I believe the most likely eschatological outcome is that the unregenerate will ultimately be destroyed but I hope that I am wrong and that the actual outcome is universal restoration.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:15pm
Jesus said that those who end up in hell will experience ECT (Luke 16:19-31).
Jesus was taught by the Father (John 8:28). His doctrine was from the Father (John 7:16). Jesus said that if any man will do the will of the Father then he would know whether what He spoke was of God or of Himself (John 7:17).
Your doctrine is not of God Randal but of your flesh.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:28pm
See here, star2, you are using a passage that is a parable and trying to say that Jesus is teaching ECT (not even the point of the parable). I think you need to be more careful because I believe that Jesus did teach the Truth. So if you are taking a parable and making it doctrine, you may just be twisting Jesus’ own words.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:07pm
Jesus described basically what a person experiences when they go to hell in Luke 16:19-31. It involves conscious torment plus it will last forever.
Go to the following link if you wish to read about what the saw, heard, and sometimes felt when they went to heaven and hell: spiritlessons.com
clamat says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 4:59pm
Randal, star, and Brad,
Whatever the purported nature of Hell, fortunately for all of you there’s as much evidence for it as there is for Neverland.
(Forgive me. But you know us atheists – potshots whenever possible!)
Now for a more constructive comment. Question, actually. Two questions, actually.
A ton of the back and forth between believers and non-believers involves what it means to be a “Christian.” This discussion of ECT touches on that issue: You (and MGT2, whose post in another thread prompted this one) have different conceptions of Hell, yet presumably you all recognize each other as Christian, right?
So, question 1: What basic elements of “Christianity” must a person accept for you to recognize them as a Christian?
Question 2: If two people who call themselves “Christian” don’t agree on those basic elements, doesn’t that mean the concept of Christianity is (at least somewhat) incoherent? Put another way: Who are we non-Christians to believe about what Christians believe?
Randal, I realize this kind of derails the thread. Sorry for that. Further, I’m sure these are rookie questions. If you’ve got other blog posts on them, as usual, point me in the right direction and I’ll end my hijack here. Thanks.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:09pm
I take Christianity as a set of truth claims to be a conglomeration of the classic creeds, per Plantinga. I would accept anyone as a Christian who accepts those teachings, and I’d probably want to know that they have some genuine connection with a church body of some kind. It’s not too complicated and it covers the broad majority of Christians.
I’d reject anyone who calls themselves Christian who doesn’t a) believe in God or his working through Christ (such as John Spong), or b) is merely a cultural Christian (by heritage, such as a British person baptized into the Church of England but does not attend or have any connection with the church).
randal says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:41pm
“Whatever the purported nature of Hell, fortunately for all of you there’s as much evidence for it as there is for Neverland.”
In order to determine whether there is evidence for the existence of hell we first have to define what we will consider a legitimate source of evidence.
“question 1: What basic elements of “Christianity” must a person accept for you to recognize them as a Christian?”
That’s like asking “what makes something science?” or “what makes somebody a capitalist?” Questions like that are not as easily answered as “what makes somebody a bachelor?” We can identify some core claims in the concept of course. In the case of Christianity belief that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself is essential. But coming to agreement on the necessary and sufficient set of core claims as well as the legitimate range of interpretation of those claims, now that’s where things get complicated.
“Question 2: If two people who call themselves “Christian” don’t agree on those basic elements, doesn’t that mean the concept of Christianity is (at least somewhat) incoherent?”
No, it means the concept is vague. There are many, many vague concepts. Baldness is a vague concept. So is science (as I pointed out above). If you are well read in the philosophy of science you know that there is no agreement as to what makes something science. (At a popular level many people appeal to falsificationism, but that is no longer considered a serious contender for a formal criterion.)
So Christianity is no worse off than science.
Oh, and don’t forget “naturalism”. If you thought “Christianity” is a wooly concept, you should read up on the debates trying to define “naturalism”.
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:00pm
Regarding your first question:
There are two primary definitions for the term Christian: first, an individual whose life evidences an ongoing relationship with Christ, and second, an individual whose beliefs and practices place them within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. I assume that your question is referencing the latter definition.
Answer: throughout history, groups of Christians who approached Scripture with the concept of sola scriptura (i.e. Scripture alone, interpreted contextually, without any higher tradition or authority) have largely (and independently) agreed on what it constitutes Christian orthodoxy. The Nicene creed represents the first such universal agreement.
In response to your second question:
If two people who call themselves “environmentalists” disagree on the basic elements of environmentalism, doesn’t that mean that the concept of environmentalism is incoherent? No, it doesn’t. It means that these two people disagree; nothing more. Calling oneself an environmentalist does not necessarily correlate to a specific set of beliefs or practices; likewise, calling oneself a Christian does not necessarily correlate to any beliefs or practices.
“Put another way: Who are we non-Christians to believe about what Christians believe?”
The next time someone tells you they are a Christian, ask them to prove it to your satisfaction before you accept that they represent the whole of Christendom. When it comes to accepting claims of Christianness, atheists are some of the most gullible people I know.
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 3:51am
Clamat:
I’d like to respond specifically to your question on ecclesiastical (church) membership and soteriological (salvation) membership.
It’s ironic that we are debating the merits of Matthew 25 for altering viewpoints.
The consistent exegesis in that PARABLE (do we really think Jesus is holding eternal court for species that Christians believe Jesus created specifically as sheep and goats?), is that people who die thinking that they are “IN”, may wake up to find that they are “OUT”.
That is a very sobering thought. It reinforces another clear teaching: Don’t judge lest you be judged yourself.
While I have a very conservative position on ECT itself, like Randal, I am a hopeful universalist….. from my perspective, of course God has the ability to save anyone he chooses.
Atheists included
That gets back to your question: Is it the people who falliable Christians say are part of a denomination who adhere to a specific branch of theology…. who they deem to be CHRISTIANS….are in fact true CHRISTIANS, namely the Sheep of Matthew 25.
(that would seem very incoherent for a faith that claims that we can’t save ourselves)
Or is it more likely that the Muslim who saves a number of Rwandan Tutsis, and gets murdered for his effort, has more of a shot before Jesus than the Christian Pastor who systematically reports the same Tutsis to the Hutus for systematic slaughter?
I don’t mean to judge the Christian Pastor of course…….
MGT2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:29pm
“…nobody interprets scripture apart from their own intuitions of divinity and morality (and it is naive to think otherwise).”
This seems like an appeal to a purely subjective interpretation of Scripture based upon an inductive reading of select texts. As far as I know, proper hermeneutical methods discourage such an approach to Biblical interpretation. When context is preserved in light of related pericopes and all Scripture, there is no refuge for universalism and annihiationism.
“For example, if I am saved and my daughter damned, then ECT (on its most common and coherent formulation) obliges me to think there is a time where I will rejoice in my daughter’s damnation.”
It seems to me, Randal, that you have unnecessarily restricted your options. You could feel obligated to affirm, “God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” and so rejoicing at anyone’s damnation runs counter to the Christian’s nature.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:44pm
MGT2,
I’ll weigh in here if that’s okay. I think the basis for Randal’s comment is that the Modern notion that there can be an atomistic reading of a text has been found to be false. Post-modern philosophers and critics have shown convincingly that we all have an interpretive framework for everything that we encounter (N.T. Wright, BTW, calls this our “narrative”). This has lead some critics to claim that there is no such thing as an objective text, but only the meaning that a reader constructs as he or she engages with the text. That’s way too far, IMO, but there is an important implication for interpretation and hermeneutics.
We choose our hermeneutic before we ever read or interpret. The way in which we approach the Bible (or any text, for that matter) is in some way context-dependent on our end. I also agree with Wright that that in no way negates an objective text (or world) with which we interact. He calls that “critical-realism”, or talking about “objective” facts with the realization that all of our experiences, even interpretation, are, by their very nature, personal.
The other problem is that semantics can be multi-valent, or a phrase can have a number of meanings. Once again, that’s not to say that a word can mean anything that anyone wants, but many times there is a defined set of meanings that a word can take (e.g. dictionaries have multiple entries for the word “run”). So this means that a connotation or implication of a phrase that one person might see clear as day may be totally obscure to another. That’s the reality of interpretation.
Now I think there are solid methods for interpreting scripture which produce repeatable results (say, if you follow the steps yourself and your conclusion matches with a number of commentaries), but even given that, theological formulations are a synthesis of biblical, philosophical, and experiential ideas. I feel like it’s just too much for one person to hold in their head all at one time, so we need to have charity in our pronouncements on theological issues.
But if we approach the text in reverence, holding ourselves accountable for our community as interpreters, then I’ve seen God’s Word come alive and challenge me in exciting ways.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:01pm
If Christians took seriously the words of Jesus in John 14:26, John 16:13, and John 17:17 then there wouldn’t be all these disagreements about what the Word of God teaches.
John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
John 16:13 – “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he shall shew you things to come.”
John17:17 – “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:12pm
But star2, look at who Jesus was saying those things to in 14:26 and 16:23. This was said to the disciples in the context of their anxiety over how to defend themselves against public accusations, not a guarantee for all Christians to have full doctrinal knowledge. How could one person know everything about God, anyway?
And I fully believe John 17:17, which is why I’m spending so much time trying to understand the Bible and how my own biases affect my interpretation of it.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:34pm
The Apostle John would disagree with you that those scriptures, John 14:26 and John 16:13, applies only to them.
1 John 2:27 – “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye have not that any man teach you: But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
This anointing is from the Holy Ghost that abides in you. The Holy Ghost is the one that teaches you. He is the one John says teaches you all things and is truth and is not a lie.
The devil doesn’t want you to know the truth. He will do all he can to keep you away from God which includes not looking to God for understanding of scriptures but looking to man which includes yourself and your fleshy/worldly thoughts, or other people who interpret the scripture in their flesh. Don’t let the devil rob you of a personal relationship with God by drawing you away from what rightly applies to you (John 14:26, John 16:13).
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:02pm
If the Holy Ghost was teaching them everything they needed to know, then why did John have to write that letter to remind them of that?
It was because they were confused by other teachers and John wanted them to not listen to them (2:26) but instead hold to the original teaching from him (2:24-25). Context is key.
I do believe that the devil wants to deceive us, and I think one of the primary ways he targets Christians is to get them to quit reading their Bibles intently and focus on our handed-down doctrines. If you won’t even read the scriptures that Randal uses to support his position, then how can you say you are holding to the Word of God?
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:33pm
I have read those scriptures Randal mentioned and I do not agree with the interpretation.
The witness of God is greater than the witness of man (application of 1 John 5:9).
Jesus gave a story to illustrate what hell was like for those who go there. They have conscious torment and it is forever. I’ll take what Jesus says over what Randal say any day.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:14pm
But that’s not what He said, star2. Jesus’ point behind that story was to warn people not to hoard their possessions and to repent based on what they read in the scriptures. That’s also the main point of the Sheep and Goats passage in Matthew 25.
I’d also be really interested to know how your interpretations differ from Randal’s on those passages.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:56pm
Randal said
““…nobody interprets scripture apart from their own intuitions of divinity and morality (and it is naive to think otherwise).”
This is another reason why there is so much false teaching and false doctrines in the Church.
MGT2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:42pm
Brad,
I am by no means denying that we bring personal experiences and intuitions to our interpretations. That is par for the course. Recognizing that, we turn to a much less subjective method. Otherwise, anyone can take a text from the Bible and find plausibility for almost any philosophy that agrees with their experiences and intuitions. Thus, I agree with you that some critics have gone too far – excessively far.
Neither am I advocating an atomistic reading of Scripture, but that is not to say that there is not a unity of purpose. That has to be recognized when interpreting any text, because it is the nature of the various “books” to refer to events and narratives in other books, and often clarifies or is clarified by the text of the other. So I think it is much better that the tenor of our interpretations conforms with the tenor of the whole than to conform the whole to a discordant note.
Brad Haggard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:05pm
Well, picking out the melody and harmony in theology is much more difficult than the interpretation of one specific passage. My point is that we need to embrace the discordant notes sometimes because they can add to the beauty of the whole (even if it isn’t our “taste”).
BTW, I love the image of theology as a musical piece that we are contributing to.
star2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 5:46pm
clamat
Answer to Question 1) To recognize someone as a Christian he/she must be born-again by the spirit of God. Click on my posting ID (star2) and it will take you to my blog which will explain the gospel and how to be born-again.
Question 2) The reason why there are so many different interpretations of scripture is because Christians don’t bother to seek God for its understanding but instead try to do it on their own by inserting their wordly/carnal thoughts to what is written or they look to other men to interpret it for them.
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 4:02am
star2:
But aren’t you telling us to go to your blog for YOU (a mere mortal) to teach us how to be saved?
So then how can you chide others seekers from going to other Christian teachers to receive knowledge.
Sounds a little Pharasaic.
I love ya buddy, but it seems like you are marketing your own brand of hermeneutics as the be all and end all.
Jesus told us to love your God with all your MIND, body and soul.
Brad has a point, and I think it’s been sustained. It’s not a sin to dig through the multivalent and polyvalent layers of scripture to get just a bit closer to the trasncendent “universal” truth of God….
If He so chooses to accept us there.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 9:37am
You can listen to whomever you want about what they believe but not all thoughts/beliefs are scriptural. I presented mine in my blog with explanation and scriptural references.
Plus, my thoughts also comes from my experiences of not only having been born-again myself but having lead others to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The testimonies of others who have been saved by the Spirit of God also verifies my teachings.
Brap Gronk says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 12:40pm
“The testimonies of others who have been saved by the Spirit of God also verifies my teachings.”
How do you know they have been saved? If someone misinterpreted scripture such that they believed a bunch of nonsense that does not agree with your teachings, yet they claimed they were saved, would they just be fooling themselves?
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 4:14pm
Read my 2 blog entries and then you will have the my answers to your questions.
pete says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 3:05am
Star:
Just curious, and all respect intended:
Where did you get your theological and/or pastoral training?
star2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 3:39am
I got it from the Lord. Here is my testimony.
When I was about 8 yrs old God revealed to my heart that hell was real. I knew in my heart that Jesus died for my sins. I asked Jesus to save me. After I was baptized my life changed however I didn’t make Jesus Lord of my life and led a life of sin. My sin grew over time. God allowed my sin to destroy my life intellectually, socially, and emotionally. After receiving my grades at the conclusion of my first quarter in grad school at Fla Inst of Tech I was worried. I was worried that I would flunk out of school, not be able to get a good paying job, and would have to go back home to live with my mother and return to my low paying job as a junior draftsman in a shipping yard. I picked up a Bible and began to flip through the pages and couldn’t read anywhere until I came to Matt 6:25-33. Jesus used that passage to reveal to my heart that I was living my life apart from Him, that I had sinned against Him and Him alone, and that it was my sins that destroyed my life. Immediately after He revealed all this to my heart, I began to pray and confessed to Him that I have been living my life apart from Him, that I made a mess out of it, and told Him that I would put Him first in my life, which all I knew at the time was to go to Church and tithe. When I was faithful to my commitment, God supernaturally changed my life. I went from being a lousy student to being one of the department’s better students. I became a better teacher. I was an introvert and became an extrovert. I use to be entertained by sinful programs on TV. No longer did sin entertain me and I stopped watching TV. My study habits changed. God increased my finances by giving me a tutoring job. I graduated from FIT and got a good paying job with a NASA contractor. God indeed took care of what I was worried about.
After I went to work for a NASA contractor, I began to have problems again but this time it was with my relationsghips with people. God used again Matt 6:25-33. He told me to put His will first in my life and He would take care of what I was worried about. I surrendered to Him in prayer and He changed my life again. He helped my with my relationship problems, brought healing to my wounded spirit through helping me to forgive my mother. All this happened between August 1980 to Nov 1980. On Dec 31, 1980, as the new year approached, I made four prayer requests to God for what I wanted to see take place in my life. They were, 1) I wanted to be a woman of prayer, 2) I wanted to grow in the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord, 3) I wanted to know what my spiritual gift was and to use it, and 4) I wanted to be a soul winner. God was faithful and in a unique way began to bring answers to my prayers.
In Sept 1986 I wanted to be a missionary, told God this, and made it public in my Church during invitataion time. I have been serving God and my Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, since Jan 1981.
In my walk with God I have learned to lean on God for understanding of His Word, for depending on Him for healing, and etc.
pete says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 3:46am
Thanks for sharing yourself.
That was deep
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 6:41pm
Is hell necessary?
Let’s assume that hell exists and that those sent to it are subject to ECT. I can think of two possibilities to explain the existence of hell.
One is that God created hell, but that He didn’t have to. He could have chosen to do anything at all with those of us whose sins warrant punishment, annihilation and the healing circle being two possibilities. Yet He chose to create ECT for that subset of those He loves who just didn’t get it.
The other is that God’s hand is forced. In other words, some force of the universe over which God has no control makes it necessary that certain actions and beliefs be punished eternally. Just as many or most theists believe that God is a necessary being, so is hell a necessary place, and ECT a necessary state, beyond God’s control.
So I ask again, is hell necessary? If so, why? If not, how is it consistent with a loving and merciful God?
Walter says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:01pm
So I ask again, is hell necessary? If not, how is it consistent with a loving and merciful God?
Eternal hell is not consistent with a loving and merciful God, but unfortunately Christians have no choice but to bow to the sacred texts, and the sacred texts say that God is going to punish his enemies forever while demanding that we humans turn the other cheek and forgive ours. You see, God is not constrained by human notions of morality and his ways are not our ways.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:39pm
Thanks, Walter. I think I’m beginning to see the light now. God is far more righteous than we can even comprehend, let alone emulate. Therefore, because of our inferiority to Him, we deserve to feel His full wrath made manifest in unimaginable torment with no end, no appeal, no redemption, no ifs ands or buts. We had our chance in the 60-70-80 years we got to live on this earth, and we blew it. That’s not God’s fault in any way, all He did was make the universe and the creatures in it exactly the way He wanted. It isn’t His fault we’re rotten to the core. Sure, God is merciful and loving and all, but even He has his limits, and boy do we exceed them. ECT’s too good for sinners like you and me.
Thanks for shining the light of Christ into my life.
MGT2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 7:03pm
How about a loving, merciful and JUST God?
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:09pm
Do you really believe that it’s JUST to subject people to ECT for failure to find the correct interpretation in a sea of conflicting evidence?
Let’s try another thought experiment. A scientist creates conscious creatures in a lab. He is able to observe them from a space outside of their purview. He sets up a scenario where an abundance of conflicting evidence appears, and he determines which of those creatures are able to interpret that evidence correctly and which are not. He tortures the ones who interpret the evidence incorrectly.
Is that just? Please don’t evade the question by saying the analogy doesn’t hold. I realize it’s imperfect, but it’s the closest I can get to the general principle: 1) create conscious creatures; 2) see to it that there is no clear path; 3) punish those who fail to find their way.
Had the scientist merely destroyed those who failed to find their way (the equivalent of God annihilating those of us humans who get it wrong), then it could be explained on the basis of the purpose of his experiment, and would at least be somewhat merciful if not just.
But torturing those who fail is nothing but cruel, and torturing them for eternity is a level of cruelty for which I can think of no adequate adjective. If that’s your God, it would be a better universe if I’m right that he doesn’t exist.
MGT2 says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 10:56pm
Before I address the question let me say this about thought experiments. They are useful, but limited in their ability to establish certainty of knowledge. This is especially so when it comes to the character of God. So it is better in this case to stay within the boundaries of what Scripture has to say.
Now, your thought experiment makes assumptions about God (made clear by your last two paragraphs) that are purely the products of your own moral intuitions. It assumes a priori that God is responsible for the sins of humanity. It trivializes the concept of divine justice and reckons God to be morally imperfect. That is not the God of the Bible and whom I serve.
We often forget that God is maximally just. That means his judgments, whether or not we agree with them, are perfect; they are never wrong or mistaken. They are always applied fairly and the punishments always perfectly fit the “crimes.” This is the teaching of Scripture. It does not matter how we look at sin and divine retribution.
So if we want to talk about whether ECT is supported by Scripture, fine; but let us not assume that we are morally equal to God. That would be thinking too much of ourselves.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 1:52am
I have no doubt that ECT is supported by scripture. That’s one of the many reasons I don’t believe the bible could possibly be the word of a good God. As I’ve said before in this blog, I believe the simplest reconciliation of all the biblical controversies is that the bible is an ordinary book written by ancient people that reflects the knowledge and morality of their time. By extension, I consider the God described in that bible to also be a product of their imaginations. Since those who wrote it lived in morally barbaric times, the book itself is morally barbaric and attributes commands and actions to God that are morally barbaric. So I don’t consider myself (and you, and most human beings today) to be morally equal to that fictional God; I consider us morally superior, and vastly so. (As recently as maybe 3-400 years ago, I could not say such a thing without the very real fear of being burned at the stake, which I consider an example of our moral growth as a species.)
I don’t blame God for the sins of humanity. How could I, I don’t believe that God exists? My placing responsibility for who and what we are on God is a direct consequence of my accepting (as a thought experiment) the claims made by many on this blog, such as that God made the universe exactly the way He wanted it, knows everything we will do, indeed created us to do what we will do, and chooses to subject some of us to ECT as a result of those beliefs and behaviors that are a direct consequence of His creation of us. “God made everything, including us, just the way He wanted it” and “God bears no responsibility for our beliefs and behaviors” are every bit as mutually incompatible as “Microsoft made Windows” and “Microsoft bears no responsibility for the bugs in Windows”. (Of course in the latter case, we know the first statement to be a fact.)
I realize that free will is the ‘out’ for divine responsibility, that God gave us free will and we abused it, etc. That’s an interesting discussion, but a bit of a tangent. The central issue here isn’t whether God bears any responsibility for our beliefs and behaviors, but whether ECT can ever be morally justifiable. I say it cannot.
So that leaves the two possibilities I started my comment with. If there is ECT, then either God is evil or ECT is not His choice. That’s the central issue I would like to see addressed, but so far it’s just being avoided by people making serious claims that are basically the same as what Walter said above facetiously: “God is not constrained by human notions of morality and his ways are not our ways.”
There is of course a third possibility: that ECT is morally justified. So perhaps my last comment should have stopped after my first question. I’ll ask it again, but with a variation that might help you answer it in the affirmative.
Do you really believe that it’s JUST for God to subject people to ECT for failure to find the correct interpretation in a sea of conflicting evidence?
For the record, in case it isn’t clear, I am of the opinion that morality is morality, and that there is no special God morality that operates on a different set of rules. Adding the words “for God” to that question as I’ve done does not, for me, change the answer one bit. ECT for any reason is cruel, merciless, and unjust. And, therefore, evil.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 11:21am
Your thought experiment does nothing to change the indictments I first highlighted. However, Pete has more than adequately addressed it.
BTW, for someone who does not believe God exists, you certainly do a lot of appealing to Him as the ground for your morality.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:48pm
I find your aside a bit puzzling. God is not in any way the ground for my morality. In fact, everything I’ve said has been the opposite, i.e. a good God wouldn’t do X, the bible says God did X, therefore either the bible is wrong or God is evil. The morality is outside of God, and God’s purported actions are judged on its basis. That’s certainly not a morality grounded in God – it’s a morality God (as written in the bible) fails to live up to.
I’ll be responding to Pete’s comment, but it will take me until early to mid next week to get to it (thanks Pete, and please be patient).
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 4:22am
Jerry:
Going by the patterning of your thought experiment, you are absolutely right. On that view you have a god named Josef Mengele, chief corner stone of a cosmic divine aryan eugenics program.
But I think the analogy is off. Please try my thought experiment.
Benevolent King, though all-powerful, has settled a land, and settles people who have no homes within his land, free of cost.
However, the King has a traitor from within his camps, whom encites the settlers to rebellion, murder, rape, genocide, burining children in the fire in fealty to the traitor, and slandering the name of the Good King.
Now this King cannot abide his good conscience to allow these crimes to stand, and resolves to wipe out the traitor and his army of murderers. He states a decree on his good name that these murderers will suffer beyond what any has suffered before, for the destruction of his beloved villagers.
The King sets a trap.
However, there are villagers themselves who are complicit in the pillaging of the traitors. They are warned by the King’s servants (both military and civilian), that continuing to help the traitor army will inevitably lead to being tricked into the trap themselves….. remember… the traitors even hate those who help them.
The King even goes so far to send his only son (you see where this is going) to give all the villagers pardons for helping the traitors.
Some accept the pardon, while others don’t.
But this pardon is not just any pardon. By opening the envelope in which the pardon is contained, the villagers unexpectedly inhale a magical mind dust, that opens their eyes and renews their minids to perceive the reality of the trap set for the traitors. They warn the others to open the pardon letter, but sadly many don’t, and unwittingly go to their demise, which was justly set for the genocidal demonic traitors.
Thus another import of Matthew 25: “Depart for the eternal flames prepared for the Devil and his angels”
I have other analogies, but I think you get my point, even if you don’t agree with it.
God ain’t Mengele…. he’s the Righteous King
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:41am
Part 1 of 3
Our analogies contain elements of science fiction (mine) and fantasy (yours), and that may say something about our respective perspectives. Both analogies are flawed, because we’re trying to put God into human terms. I believe that my analogy is more apt than yours, but you obviously disagree, so I don’t think debating that point will get us anywhere. But your analogy does bring in two elements that mine omits: the devil, and Jesus. So I need to address these.
My basic scenario is:
- God creates the universe as He wants it to be, including man
- Man is flawed
- God punishes man for acting on his flaws
With your additions, it becomes this:
- God creates the universe as He wants it to be, including man
- There is also a devil (created by whom?), who rebels against God
- Man is flawed at least in part because the devil tempts him to defy God
- God comes to earth, or sends his son to earth (I’m not exactly clear on that) with a message
- God punishes man for acting on his flaws, except for those who got the message
Your additions actually make it worse by introducing another extenuating circumstance. The devil provides temptation for man to act on his flaws.
Presumably the devil was created by God, so I can think of three possibilities: God created the devil to be evil; God created the devil to be good but lost control of him; and God created the devil and gave him free will, which the devil used to rebel against God. (In the latter case, please note that God didn’t choose to simply subject the devil to ECT and be done with it, He allowed the devil to be the catalyst for the ECT of millions of humans throughout our history.)
In any case, this increases the likelihood of man acting on the flaws God instilled in him by introducing a powerful tempter into the mix. And as such it gives God even less justification for taking it out on us.
Also, the magic mind dust used by your all-powerful king is far more effective than any technique allegedly used by God. In your analogy, anyone who opens the envelope gets it. In the real world, the pardon has been used to justify atrocities from hatred based on prejudice to mass torture and murder, and a whole spectrum between. So many believe they received the magic dust and understand the pardon while others just don’t get it, and one need look no further than the comments in this post for proof of that claim. Today, these differences of opinion are mostly just discussed, but in the relatively recent past they’ve often been fodder for far less tolerant behaviors.
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:42am
Part 2 of 3
Anyway, the basic point of your analogy is that maybe ECT is God’s way of deterring bad behavior. Let’s take a look at that. First, here’s my philosophical position on punishment: It’s useless. In and of itself, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
I hear the protests. “But what about the next guy who wants to do that bad thing? When he sees that the last guy got away with it, what’s to stop him?”
Right, deterrence is the “purpose” of punishment. But the person who refrains from doing the bad thing isn’t refraining because of any current punishment. He hasn’t been punished yet. He’s refraining out of fear of future punishment. So all that’s needed in order to deter him is for him to believe that he will be punished. He needn’t actually be punished if he goes ahead and does the bad thing anyway – as long as all others believe that he was and thus fear the punishment they think they’ll receive if they do the bad thing.
In our human justice system, of course, it would be impossible to only threaten punishment and never actually dole it out. Word would spread quickly, and the deterrence, to whatever extent it actually works anyway, would be rendered ineffective. And even if the word didn’t spread, the recidivism rate would approach 100% (unless we had an effective non-punitive method of redemption).
But we humans have zero visibility into heaven and hell. How do we know if Hitler is burning or simply annihilated? Or for that matter, yucking it up in heaven with 6 million Jewish victims, all of whom have been transformed to the point of complete forgiveness and reconciliation? If God can create the universe, doesn’t it seem possible that he could enable these 6 million and 1 people to sing Kum Ba Ya (or however you spell it)? It sounds preposterous and perhaps monstrous, but that’s only because we’re thinking of it in human terms. I keep hearing how God’s justice is not our justice, but that’s always to explain why it’s infinitely (and I mean that quite literally) more brutal. Maybe God’s justice is nowhere near as harsh as ours, and in fact not harsh at all. It doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me (assuming I’ve accepted the existence of God in the first place) that after death, nothing that happened in this world really matters anymore. We’d see things from a much more universal perspective. Hitler’d understand what he did wrong, his victims would understand why he did it, and none of it would matter in the least for whatever comes next.
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:43am
Part 3 of 3
I still hear the protests. “But what about justice? Isn’t this bad guy gonna get what’s coming to him? Or does he just get away with the bad thing he did? Why does he get treated the same as the guy who didn’t do that bad thing?”
In your response to Gene, you referenced the “injustice” of a heartless billionaire responsible for inestimable suffering having the same fate as a person not yet born (under annihilation). (I’ll –almost, except for this parenthetical – ignore the distinction between being not yet born, but with a life ahead, and being permanently non-existent.) I think to our human minds, that feels like injustice. But why? What’s unjust about it? Just because he isn’t suffering? What purpose would his suffering serve, other than to satisfy our human desire for revenge? Does God have that desire too, or is He above that?
So my point is really this: if the threat of ECT is truly a deterrent against evil behavior in this life, and if we have no way of knowing that anyone really is subjected to ECT in the next, then why should they be? It would serve no purpose, and if it serves no purpose it can only be cruel, and cruelty is evil.
In your analogy, the king wanted to scare people into not helping the traitor. So he uses the harshest punishment possible imaginable to instill this fear. Applying this to God, I will grant that a possible explanation for the doctrine of ECT is that God is using the fear of punishment as a deterrent even though He doesn’t actually go through with it. Despite the lie, that would not be evil.
Having said all that, my original point stands. If ECT is real, then either God created it, in which case God is evil; or God did not create it, in which case ECT is somehow a necessary function of the universe (which makes even less sense to me than God being so), or both God and ECT exist contingently, just at a much higher level than us (and once you go there, the concept of God probably loses its meaning for you).
In this post, specifically in the two paragraphs beginning with “I’ll give you a couple reasons why”, Randal describes the inadequacies of God(s) 1.0. God 2.0 is an improvement, perhaps, but His morality is still based on that of his ancient inventors, and ours has evolved well beyond that. The rock and the hard place theists are caught between is that God 3.0 is needed as the world slowly gets more compassionate, but in this age of information at our fingertips it’s gonna be awfully hard to sell the upgrade.
pete says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 8:45am
Thanks for the thoughtful response Jerry:
I will however point out, after you stated that it wasn’t worth debating the merits of our science fiction vs. fantasy argument, that is precicely what you did.
Remember that they were both analogies. Mine was a little more faithful to the message of the biblical authors / corpus of biblical text. You don’t agree, cast the gospel message in the worst possible light, and believe that the biblical witness, if true, represents a cruel Yahweh who pulls the wings off of human flies…..
Now we know where we stand.
So I will focus on your conclusion in part 3, because you were kind of all over the map in the first 2.5 responses.
And I’ll put it in the form of a question. My question to you is:
How would you order things? You seem to point out the flaws in my hypothetical God…. how would you dish out human ethics, morality, restraint, reward, punishment, etc?
What ageless wisdom would you use to govern human relationships and responsibilities?
If Jerry could run the cosmos and the world, how would he do it?
Give me your plan for peace on earth, and I promise I will cast it in the most charitable light.
However, I will use my finite skills of logic to press your proposals to their logical conclusion, and see where we end up.
Suffice it to say, that Deuteronomy 32:34 teaches “vengeance is mine, says the LORD”. Just think of the consequence of no eternal punishment…… I can get vengeance myself. You can shoot me because I wore the same Nike Shoes as you, and the Holocaust doesn’t mean a lick of squat. Jews now have the right to kill Germans upon sight (sound like fun to you?)
With what some Christians believe is God’s sovereign perfect justice (not that Christians should ever revel in the damnation of another), things are kept in check.
If things are all sunshine and roses for everyone, no matter what they do in life or who they do it to, whats to stop the most despicable evil fathomed by the human mind to run amok unchecked and unstopped?
It will turn into dog eat dog….. and the big dog wins.
I can sympathize with the atheist objection that ruling people with religion based on fear, or the possible imposition of a world view upon a populous can degenerate into oppression.
I get that. Just keep in mind that communism and marxism have killed a whole slew of humans, with people popularly quoting that its killed more in the 20th century than religion (I won’t make that claim until I actually get numbers)
It appears that people don’t press their assertions and objections to their logical conclusions.
Take away the doctrine of hell, and human might will make right.
With an all-powerful God ready to deal wrath upon the unrepentant murderers and predators et. al, nobody is immune from justice.
Sounds harsh. Well, theists will posit that God has felt the suffering of creation since the beginning. He promised justice, and justice he shall dispense.
And he even gives you an out through repentance and accepting the free gift of salvation, through the death and resurrection of Jesus (God himself)…. and that out is an eternity of communion with God, who may just put all this mystery and decree in perspective at that time.
And the whole by-passing of Jesus’ own teachings. Can you please show me how, when pressed to their logical conclusions, that Jesus’ teachings doesn’t give us a road map to solving our own problems?
Perhaps you should read them.
However, rebellious humanity is so obstinate that they won’t seek the truth, even if it means that they have to tuck their pride between their legs for a moment, to see if the Gospel message is actually true…. whether it means they have to bow down to God or not…
Walter says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 11:50am
And I’ll put it in the form of a question. My question to you is:
How would you order things? You seem to point out the flaws in my hypothetical God…. how would you dish out human ethics, morality, restraint, reward, punishment, etc?
I am not Jerry but I’ll take a stab at this. What kind of system will God setup for those true believers who get resurrected to everlasting life? Will they have free will but always choose to do the right thing? Will they have no free will at all? Take your pick.
Now imagine that God did that in the first place.
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:57pm
Hi Walter,
Maybe God did not do that in the first place, because it was not the best or wisest thing to do. After all, a maximally wise God always makes the best possible decisions. Don’t you think?
pete says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 3:06pm
Walter,
Thanks for the response, but maybe you missed what I was asking:
How would the atheist primarily (or even non-ECT theist) order reward, punishment, justice, and govern human relations accoring to the above.
I didn’t ask how the God you don’t believe in may do it. (I think we’ve been over that point ad nauseum, and it is the theists who get to present how the God they believe in may do it. Atheists and other critics naturally get to posit why our explanation is implausible, incredible, or immoral)
I want to see (via thought exercise or philosophical/ethical reasoning) if atheism and/or humanism has even the slightest ability to create, disseminate, and enforce universal moral relations among humans and the natural order.
Like I promised Jerry, I will be charitable to your construction, but de-construct it where necessary.
Simply put, I want to know how we can have universal justice without ECT.
Walter says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 3:39pm
Simply put, I want to know how we can have universal justice without ECT.
Seriously?
You don’t think we can have “universal” justice without some people having to be tormented forever? Justice would be where the punishment fits the crime. Eternal torment is way overkill for even the most heinous of crimes, and I don’t for one instance buy into the notion that we deserve infinite torture for “offending” an infinite being.
Let’s create a hypothetical scenario where a person’s only crimes in life are to experience the normal range of human emotion including anger and lust. Most Catholics and Evangelicals will tell me that this person *deserves* eternal punishment for the simple crime of being born human. And the only people who going to get a reprieve are the ones that have been arbitrarily chosen (Calvinism) or those who repent to the right god out of thousands, and they usually have to assent to the “correct” propositional knowledge about this particular deity as well.
And you call that perfect justice? I don’t think so.
pete says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 7:45pm
Walter:
I repeat —- you still did not answer my question.
I think its fantastic that you don’t agree with me…. however….
How would you/humanism/atheism impart perfect justice?
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 7:54pm
Jerry: “Both analogies are flawed, because we’re trying to put God into human terms. I believe that my analogy is more apt than yours, but you obviously disagree, so I don’t think debating that point will get us anywhere.”
Pete: “I will however point out, after you stated that it wasn’t worth debating the merits of our science fiction vs. fantasy argument, that is precicely what you did.”
Not at all. At no point did I compare the appropriateness of our respective analogies to the question at hand (whether ECT is morally justifiable). What I did do is to recognize and address the elements that your analogy added to the equation (the devil, aka the traitor; Jesus, aka the king’s son; and the gospel, aka an envelope containing a pardon and some magic mind dust). I addressed your analogy on its own merits, not in comparison to mine.
Pete: “So I will focus on your conclusion in part 3, because you were kind of all over the map in the first 2.5 responses.”
To the crime of failure to be concise, I plead guilty as charged. As to being all over the map, I don’t think you understood what I was trying to communicate (which could certainly have been my failure). So I’ll try to correct both problems by summarizing the points I made. Remember, this all stems from my base assertion that ECT is morally reprehensible and some of the conclusions that logically follow from that (and responds to your comment).
1. Your analogy introduces elements not covered in mine, including the devil. (Part 1, paragraphs 1-3, counting each set of bullet(-) points as one paragraph)
2. Considering the devil as an influence over man only strengthens my case, in two ways: a) the devil increases the likelihood of our failure to resist sin; b) God made the devil, or at least bears some responsibility for him. (Part 1, paragraphs 4-6)
3. (an aside, criticizing not your analogy but that which it analogizes) Your analogy of the gospel message does not match the real world because in your analogy the message is perfectly clear and in the real world it’s clearly not. (Part 1, paragraph 7)
4. Taking your analogy as a whole, it basically attempts to justify ECT as God’s way of deterring man’s bad behavior (on earth). (Part 2, paragraph 1)
5. Punishment is not truly a deterrent, but fear of punishment can be. (Part 2, paragraphs 1-4 & Part 3, paragraphs 1-2)
6. We don’t know whether ECT is real. (Part 2, paragraph 5)
7. Since it’s fear of punishment and not punishment itself that deters, it makes no difference as far as deterrence (on earth) goes whether ECT is real or whether we only believe it’s real. (Part 3, paragraphs 3-4)
8. So you failed to make your case for the moral justification of ECT. (Part 3, paragraph 5)
9. (another aside, citing what I see as evidence that the God of the bible is an invention of man) God’s morality, as described in the bible, is less like that of an omnibenevolent omnipotent deity and more like that of the ancient human beings who wrote the bible. (Part 3, paragraph 6)
I’ll get back to you on the rest of your comment, Pete, but I probably won’t be able to give it the time it needs/deserves until the middle of next week at best. For now I’ll just make one last observation. At no time did I assert that I know how to create a universe. I may answer your question about how I would do so, but I’ll probably devote more time to explaining why your question is off point.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:21am
Jerry:
Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and passionate response.
I agree with ECT being horrible. I don’t agree that its immoral…. but horrible and saddening…yes.
So was the sinless and perfect Jesus’ death on the cross for all of us. (feel free to disagree with penal substitution theory as you will…. but that is not part of the argument…. its divine proportionality vs. pre-given mercy by the divine….. maybe we can agree on the hypothetical definition of the divine…. the divine gets to choose)
But my question is not off point. I am simply asking you to give your best alternative to ECT, that would imbue universal justice. (was I right to take you as inferring I thought ECT was merely a deterrent?….. I infer both deterrent and justice)
(And the common 60 to 70 yo 80 year finite life argument doesn’t get to hold water if you receive the warning now, in which you can take action)
On your view, maybe the hypothetical/fictional God is a monster, and I am just a slimy sycophant. But maybe, (real and existant) God’s knowledge and justice is well above ours, and in which case I am just faithfully trying to forward the message, as neither God or I want anyone to end up there..
I get that you don’t agree with me. But I remind you, that I have invited you to give a systemic explanation of how YOU would make things right…..
Jerry Rivard says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:08pm
Pete, I don’t think you’re slimy, nor do I see you as a sycophant. I just think you’re wrong, so incredibly wrong that I don’t know how you can’t see how wrong you are. Maybe you feel the same about me.
In any case, thanks for your patience. I have another long 3-parter which I’ll paste as new comments so we don’t have to deal with all these inner boxes. As promised, I will answer your question as best I can in part 2, but first I want to point out its irrelevance in part 1. And in part 3, I’ll address a couple of points that you have made that I haven’t addressed yet.
I’m not sure I’ll respond again, as we’re unlikely to change each others’ minds and I’ve already spent more time on this than I can afford.
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:24pm
God is not universally loving. This point needs to be stressed.
Love must be connected to an object. God does not love every conceivable object; if he did, he would love things that are contradictory (e.g. loving children and loving child molestation simultaneously).
Usually, these discussions go something like this:
Let us dispense, as much as we can, with the unqualified notion that “God is loving.” Unless we define what objects God loves, this statement can be turned to support practically any conclusion. Let’s try it like this:
God loves mercy. God loves justice.
There we go. Much better.
– — – –
That being said, I feel like I’m in the middle on this one. I don’t think that ECT would be unjust, but I’m not sure that it would satisfy God’s love of mercy.
Does conscious suffering exist in hell? Absolutely; I don’t think there is any way around this. Jesus spoke more about the reality of hell than about the reality of heaven. But hell is not going to exist forever (Rev. 20:14), and I see no reason (apart from tradition) to believe that the souls in hell will exist any longer than hell exists.
As a semi-prooftext for immediate annihilation at the Great White Throne, note Jesus’s words about death in Matthew 10:28….
“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”
This is pretty basic annihilationism right here. Jesus uses two different terms that are translated “hell” — both Hades, the place of death, and Gehenna, the place of destruction. Hades is where men are tormented in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man; Gehenna is only spoken of as a place of destruction and can be connected with Revelation’s “lake of fire”.
randal says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:29pm
“:God is not universally loving. This point needs to be stressed. Love must be connected to an object. God does not love every conceivable object; if he did, he would love things that are contradictory (e.g. loving children and loving child molestation simultaneously).”
David, “child molestation” isn’t an object. It is a description of an action, i.e. the act of molesting a child. Of course God doesn’t love all actions In fact, God doesn’t love any actions (though he obviously approves of many).
Objects are things like persons, trees and rocks. Let’s leave the trees and rocks aside and just talk about persons. Why would you think God cannot love all persons?
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 5:11am
Randal,
What are your thoughts on “God hated Esau”?
randal says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 2:07pm
I’ll answer this in the blog.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 8:33pm
“I don’t think that ECT would be unjust”
Doesn’t justice involve some sort of an equation? What could possibly be put on the other side of ECT to balance that equation, especially for creatures living a finite life?
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 6:40pm
Jerry:
With respect to crimes deserving of hell, there are a few thoughts I have heard that seem reasonable.
Take for instance a person who spray paints a lawn sign advertising a controversial politician. Most people would laugh or even applaud the act, but staunch democratists would deride not going through proper political discourse, and chances are, that the cops don’t care.
Lets take it up a notch….. lets say the spray painting of a sign turns into the spraypainting of their family pet…. now the crime appears more significant, and a greater punishment is warranted.
Lets go further…. kick the dog…. kill the dog…. kill the kid…..
I know these examples are extreme, but they highlight the severity of the crime in direct relation to the importance of the victim determines the punishment.
Now from a theological viewpoint, God is the victim with ultimate importance.
Regardless of the crime, 1 x infinite still equals infinite.
I understand if a person doesn’t believe in the existence of God, they will reject this premise.
I also understand if a person doesn’t believe that God has the moral right to punish in this way, they will reject this premise.
However, I humbly think that might be part of God’s point. One day humans will have to believe in him and his authority.
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:44am
Part 1 of 2
Killing a child is certainly an act of evil, but it’s hardly extreme. Even Hitler is not extreme. The most extreme evil I can think of, and for which one man might be held responsible in the sense Hitler is responsible for the holocaust, would be to deliberately destroy all life on earth. So let’s say someone does that, and God will exact His perfect justice. Here we have a person who has caused untold suffering for billions of people, making Hitler look like a kid with a peashooter by comparison. What would be an appropriate punishment for this monster?
I don’t pretend to know exactly what would be appropriate, but a good starting point might be that he experiences all of the pain and suffering that he himself has caused. He feels the pain of every death he caused, every bit of suffering that preceded them, every bereavement that followed, etc. Does he feel this all at once or one at a time? Let’s give him both. Then let’s make him suffer through it all over again. And again. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again. Then repeat the whole process. Then repeat it again. And again.
At some point, though, isn’t God satisfied that justice has been done? Perfect justice for something done in a finite lifetime cannot possibly include ECT. If it does, then the punishment is infinitely worse than the crime, and the punisher infinitely more cruel than the criminal. Surely there is nothing perfect about such justice.
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:45am
Part 2 of 2
But that wasn’t your point. You said that punishment is determined by the importance of the victim. Although it’s true in our justice system that the penalties for shooting a police officer or an elected official are greater than those for shooting an ordinary citizen, I would challenge that the sole criteria is the importance of the victim. Here’s another thought experiment.
John is drinking in a bar with an acquaintance, someone of the same age and build as he. They get into an argument, and later when they leave John beats the man to a pulp in the alley.
Now let’s change it. Instead of the same age and build, it’s a frail old man. Should John get a harsher penalty than he’d have gotten for beating up a peer? Is the old man more important than the man John’s age?
Let’s change it again. John’s watching a movie, and another moviegoer in the seat next to him has thoughtless brought a crying infant. Annoyed, John rips the baby from his mother’s arms and flings it into the aisle.
John’s a bad guy for beating up his peer, but he’s an even worse guy for beating up an old man, and a much worse guy for his treatment of an infant. Why? At least in part because the peer had a chance to fight back, but the old man and especially the infant did not. The degree of helplessness of the victim is a factor in these cases. And God is the least helpless victim of all.
Finally, regarding your last sentence, the only point it really makes is “might makes right” – God can, and when He does, we will indeed have to believe him. Let’s rephrase: “One day [citizens of ____] will have to believe in [fill in the name of any brutal dictator here] and his authority.” You’re not making a moral argument here. Quite the opposite.
My point remains firm: If ECT is real, then either God created it, in which case God is evil; or God did not create it, in which case ECT is somehow a necessary function of the universe, which means God is less powerful than He’s imagined to be.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 2:49am
Actually Jerry:
I am steeping the righteousness of any consequence in the determination of the morally perfect law giver.
Case in point: (and I personally am not an advocate of capital punishment)
The state has more power than an individual and his accomplice. The individual and his accomplice brutally rapes and kills a family of 3 (wife and 2 daughters), and then sets the hosue on fire. This happens in the Northwest United States. The husband survives the attack (Google the description of the crime I provided, and see what comes up)
Place yourself in his shoes, see how you feels, and see if you can judge the husband if he wants justice in this instance.
So if the people of the great state of (x) determine that such persons are deserving of death, and the state executes them, is the state deserving of greater punishment?
No.
You see (and again, I’m not looking to re-instate the death penalty in Canada) you argument/appeal shouldn’t work with a Christian Theist:
“..for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:4)
When the U.S. assassinates Osama Bin Laden, or Ted Bundy gets the electric chair in 1989, I am not glad that it happened, but I do think justice has been served.
Although I prefer mercy.
So does God. But if the guilty don’t seek mercy, God serves justice.
It’s really our choice whether we want justice or mercy.
Mercy is a free gift.
Its like a condemned prisoner on death row:
Prisoner: “Nope, didn’t kill her”
Governor (God): “Listen to me. Just admit you are wrong, change your ways, and trust me…. I will pardon you”
Prisoner: “Nope, I’ll appeal the decision”
Governor (God): “Okay…. I promise you Skeech… Ol’ Bessy is getting juiced up right now, and the boys are gonna haul you right outta that cell, and plunk your keister right down on Bessy’s splintered lap”
Prisoner: “Nope…. I don’t believe in you”
Governor (God): Now Skeech… I love you, but justice dictates… (governor cut off at this point)
Prisoner (with hands covering his eyes): “I can’t see you, so you can’t see me!”
(muffled screams later….)
Ol’ Bessy: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!
gene says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 1:13am
Randal, I unlike you am first a Universalist. If that’s wrong, my money’s on Ann.
It’s amazing how we see the direction of most people who on one hand want to affirm the truth of scriptures (they see as clear) regarind eschatology, but don’t realize they’re denying scripture (which they don’t see as clear) that God reconciles all things in things on earth or in heaven. On one hand they want to affirm that God is compassionate but on the other they must deny it too.
Star2 demonstrates that quite nicely. Takes everything literally except the parts where God says he does not cast off men forever – suddenly we universalists can’t read.
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 4:48am
Gene:
Just to put it out there, “reconcile” does not necessarily mean “we’re all gonna have a big hugfest with Satan and the old crew”.
I (or Barack Obama) could just as easily “reconcile” to send a Covert Special Unit to Pakistan, to put a few bullets in Osama Bin Laden.
Sorry for the harsh analogy, but I think the U.S. was correct in that move (I wish they didn’t have to of course).
I think Scripture reflects the God has the same view: He does not wish that any person will be lost (again, Matthew 25 was very clear that Hell is prepared for the Devil and his angels), however if you hate all that is good, sooner or later it will probably catch up to a person.
Jesus also clearly taught (and I’m gonna do my best to put proof texts aside), that some people (particularly the rich), have received their “full inheritance” on earth.
So take the case of a CEO who rapes the environment, and sends/allows security forces to exterminate any protesters of the African country his company (Shell) is excavating.
Lets say this person makes $100 Billion Dollars in his life time, has a gaggle of kids, a perpetually young wife (he divorces them without leaving them so much as a cent when they age), and doesn’t believe in God to boot (not that I’m attacking atheists, but this point is specifically relevant to this thought).
(Again I preface that I don’t mean to judge this somewhat ficticious executive, lest I be judged myself)
Everything in life goes his way. He doesn’t believe in God, and doesn’t care if one exists. This person is maximally wicked. When facing judgement, would it appear to be an eternal punishment if God simply made him “fade to black”?
Remember, God to him isn’t a reward that he will miss. And even in the time he sits before the judgement seat, and sees the reward that God is, he won’t remember it when non-existent.
Isaiah 66:24 is the last verse of that major prophetic book, and is quoted by Jesus verbatim in Mark 9:48.
Jesus frequently uses the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to refer to the inhabitants of that place……
It also will serve as a reminder to creation in the New Heavens and Earth… read Isaiah 66:24 again.
Again, I am charitable to the fact I don’t have full market on the truth. But as the Second Death clearly appears to be a continuing punishment in every sense of the word, I just can’t logically reconcile myself to the view that non-existence or post-existence is somehow more of a punishment than pre-existence.
To unpack that point, how is it more of a punishment to be a baby that has not yet been conceived, over someone who was responsible for the systematic rape and slaughter of a race who then is punished by annihalation?
The non-existent child and the non-existent despot are both at the same place.
So then do non-existent or yet to exist-children deserve this fate?
That’s how annihilationism appears incoherent to me.
But I’d like to hear a proponents systematic explanation of annihalationsim.
Gene says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 3:39pm
Pete,
Thanks for that response. I want to say this: I don’t think there is an absolute case that can be made with certainty for any view. I think we’re all doing the best we can.
The points you raise are not proofs of ECT, but they do raise doubts towards ANN or Univ. That’s what we all tend to do. The difference for me was pondering the arguments from love that persuaded me Universalists are right.
I don’t view God as being capricious, Mischevious or malevolent. One thing that def. differentiates us Universalists from the rest is our stubornness to defend the love of God. While others point to the fact that God does not love all (Calvinists) or a God who gambles the objects of his love (Arminians), we see it that Paul explains God bound all to disobedience that he might have mercy on all.
But to comment back on reconciliation, I’ve argued (though I’ve been told I’m wrong) that Romans 5:10 is perhaps the most blatant universalist text out there. The reason is because I believe the following regarding reconiliation.
1) All men have been reconciled to God.
2) all were reconciled while they were enemies
3) all reconciled will be saved.
The usual response is that there are two forms of reconciliation. So the reconciliation of v 10 is a weak sense because even though God reconciled his enemies to himself, they still need to reconciled themselves to God. Thus it’s a weak form of reconciliation where the reconciliation that we perform is the strong sense. But I remain unconvinced.
Paul seems to me to argue that this “weak” reconiliation havine been done to us (against our will) ASSURES us that we will be saved.
So the question I have for libertarians is – Who do you believe he reconciled by the death of his Son? All or Some?
Determinists would agree with me (I imagine). It seems like Calvinists would render it, God reconciled the elect while they were hostile and now that the elect have been reconciled to him then they WILL BE SAVED.
So the difference for us Universalists and Calvinists is the scope of those reconciled. And I in all honesty believe he reconciled EVEYTHING to himself.
Gene
pete says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 3:58pm
and I truly hope that is the case also!
I guess I’m a hopeful, but pessemistic, universalist.
L. Lee says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 2:14am
Randall, examine this paper and see what you think: Reconciliationism — a forgotten evangelical doctrine of hell. By: Saville, Andy. Evangelical Quarterly, Jan2007, Vol. 79 Issue 1, p35-51, 17p
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 10:01am
I have commentmented on questions and statements that were left unaddressed yesterday (9/9). This is a summary of what I wrote today (9/10):
1) Brad wanted to know what compelling evidence and what scriptures I use to support my postition that there is eternal conscious torment. Here are my responses:
Compelling scriptures for eternal conscious torment in hell is Luke 16:19-31 and in the Lake of Fire is Rev 20:10.
Rev 20:10 and Rev 20:15 makes it quite clear that there is no annihilationism where people who don’t make it to heaven will eventually cease to exist or universalism where everyone will eventually make it to heaven.
Hell is the holding place until the Great White Throne judgment (Rev 20:11-13) for all who die in their sins. Jesus made it quite plain that those who go to hell will experience conscious torment (Luke 16:19-31).
The lake of fire is where all these people who were in hell and all those who have not had there names written in the Lamb’s book of life will go. They will be tormented day and night for all eternity.(Rev 20:10)
The Great White Throne Judgment occurs after the 1000 yr reign of Christ.
2) Jerry made the following statement:
“In both of the hypothetical examples I gave, the Word of God is true. In the first one, the correct interpretation of the Word of God is that some of us are going to hell, because we hold certain incorrect beliefs. In the second one, the correct interpretation of the Word of God is that none of us are going to hell, regardless of our beliefs.”
This was my response about the statement that having the right scriptural belief will determine if you go to heaven or not.
Interpreting the Word of God accurately does not save you.You are saved when you believe on and receive the Lord Jesus from your heart after God has revealed to your heart that you are a sinner in need of a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. (Romans 10:9-10,13)
Romans 10:9-10, 13
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus: and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
3)Pete said the following:
“But aren’t you telling us to go to your blog for YOU (a mere mortal) to teach us how to be saved?
So then how can you chide others seekers from going to other Christian teachers to receive knowledge.”
This was my response:
You can listen to whomever you want about what they believe but not all thoughts/beliefs are scriptural. I presented mine in my blog with explanation and scriptural references.
Plus, my thoughts also comes from my experiences of not only having been born-again myself but having lead others to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The testimonies of others who have been saved by the Spirit of God also verifies my teachings.
star2 says:
Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 11:57am
Jerry said
” But it seems to me from your posts that you relish the idea of some people (not you of course) suffering ECT. I’m trying to determine if that’s true.”
My response to him:
I don’t relish the thought of anyone perishing. When I got saved at 8 yrs old God revealed to my heart the reality of hell. I didn’t want to go there and I knew that you had to have Jesus to go to heaven. I asked Jesus to save me.
I had 2 friends that my mom took to Church with us on occassion. I didn’t want them to go to hell so I witnessed to them as best as an 8 yr old can who just recently got saved.
I still am that way. I don’t want my friends and those I know to perish so I pray for them and I witness to them.
Scripture teaches that those who perish will have conscious torment for all eternity.
MGT2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 3:39am
Star2
I enjoyed that testimony about the scientist from Trent. The mistake many make is to try and come to some sound conclusion about God based upon reason. When told that faith is more important, being the only way they will ever get a full revelation of God, they condescendingly declare that faith is based upon reason.
While reasoning is important as we continue on the Christian pathway, it ought to be applied to what God says and does, not to determine whether God “should have said or done.”
The fact is that one is not a Christian if one is not living by faith in God by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, with all that that implies. All this we know because of the testimony of Scripture. So if one eschews Scripture, then one cannot claim to be a Christian, because on what basis then would one make that claim?
“By faith we know that all that exists was made by what cannot be seen.” God will then reward those with the revelation of himself. After that comes reason and science.
Gene says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 5:28am
MGT2,
I’m one of those who believes reason needs to preceed faith. I do believe we can come to sound conclusions because God has revealed them in scripture. Now I grant that we’re all discussing what the text means and not all of us are perfect in doctrine. But I do believe we should repent due to kindness and not some shot in the dark decision. Is it not God’s kindness that leads us to repentnace? And if that is so, then does the person recognize the kindness of God when he/she repents? If not, then how do we say we’re convicted? How do we repent if there is no conviction? And if there is conviction, then there is reason for faith.
But with all that said, Star2 and you seem to reason that “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” which is a denial of interpretation. It’s as if you’re saying ANYONE can understand the scriptures and therefore they’re accountable for getting it right. If that’s so then why are there so many different views within Chistianity? If you say because they’re all confused, then how do you prove them wrong and are you one of those confused? Just declaring “I accept God’s word” is what everyone says, what matters is showing who has God’s approval.
Blessings,
Gene
MGT2 says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 2:03pm
Gene,
If you read what I say over any length of time you will see that I am a big supporter of reason and science.
Saying that conviction is the reason for faith is different from the kind of reasoning we are talking about. If it was not, then why are we accused of being irrational by appealing to God as the reason for all of creation? The truth is, God is the reason for faith, and the Holy Spirit is the reason we are convicted, but that is not the same as an intellectual exercise of evaluating whether certain propositions hold true, or are more plausible, or are better explanations than others.
If you read the testimony of the scientist from Trent, his point is that one cannot prove that God exists based upon reason or scientific inquiry. Do you disagree with that? He further pointed out that it was after taking a step of faith, simply believing in his heart that God is, that he finally experienced that reality. Only then did the words of the Bible take on new life and meaning, and became clear to him.
Paul made the same point to the Corinthians when he said that the things of God are foolishness to the natural man because he cannot understand them. This means that without spiritual revelation, the unregenerated person will NEVER be able to reason him/herself into understanding the things of God.
What God did, was to give a general revelation of himself, and that is what everyone will be accountable for. Central to that revelation is the Scripture in Romans 1: 18-25 and Titus 2: 11-15.
Because of historical distance from the cultures and times of the recorded events in Scripture, we are still learning and interpreting the the meaning of Biblical texts. Archeology and and other sciences have been very helpful in clearing up many misunderstandings of some difficult texts.
My issue is with the inconsistent and incoherent notion that one can accept the God of the Bible but not accept the revelation of the Bible that makes that acceptance possible. I have an issue with saying that God exists based upon what the Bible says, but the Bible is not really true; not the word of God as it claims. Upon what basis, then, does one argue for the God of the Bible?
I will be charitable and accept that by “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” you are talking about the tendency for many Christians not to reason as to why God might have said what he said. Without realizing that it might not apply in their times or circumstances. If that is so, I share your sentiments, and we can put that aside.
But let us take that phrase and let me ask you a question. If you accept that God is maximally wise, knowledgeable, just, loving,
merciful, good, kind and true, what is wrong with that phrase?
gene says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 5:57pm
MGT2,
thanks for that response. I’m off to Disneyland for the day with the fam so I’ll get back to you.
Gene
gene says:
Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 6:11pm
MGT2,
I’m saying that conviction begins with reason. Without reason how does the Holy Spriti convict us? For example. If we say I was convicted and thus repented, BUT I DIDN’T BELIEVE WHAT I REPENTED OF WAS WRONG. That would be senseless.
I simply see people like Star2 throw out these dogmas without any explanation except to quote verses as if that was the end all of the discussion. Satan quoted verses – So what! What matters is did he understand them and that is why reason is so critical.
Christians often appeal to the fact that only by the Holy Spirit can one come to reason with God. But everybody claims to interpret the texts correctly by the power of the Holy Spirit. So as Paul says …”so that we may see who has God’s approval”.
My recation to GSI, IBI, that settles it is that people are claiming to love something they openly declare they cannot understand. How can anyone love something they can’t grasp? Now if they say they do grasp it, then it’s not just a matter of God said it, I believe it. Now they had to come to agree to it and that is an gray area most Christians don’t want to approach or discuss. For example, Jesus prays “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” But Peter says “you killed the Christ!” – as if they knew. Perhaps Peter didn’t really get it. Perhaps Peter should have known that they didn’t know what they were doing. Point being, these issues are complex and God saying it needs to be tested as he commands us to test all spirits (including his own). But Christians are in a grid lock -
a) test all spirits
b) don’t put the lord God to a test.
I’m very disenchanted with believers who believe because of fear of hell; a father who’s gonna gut em like a fish. That makes no sense to me and it might jsut make no sense to me because of the Holy Spirit.
Anyways, thanks again.
Walter says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 7:52pm
pete says:
Walter:
How would you/humanism/atheism impart perfect justice?
Define perfect justice.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 2:30am
Walter’s imperative:
“pete says:
Walter:
How would you/humanism/atheism impart perfect justice?
Define perfect justice.”
Pete answers:
Definition: Every responsible personal agent is held appropriately accountable and/or rewarded for their action or inaction, as defined by a morally perfect law-giver.
Now define it yourself if you want, but please answer my question.
How would you/humanism/atheism impart perfect justice?
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 2:56am
I am not sure that perfect justice exists outside of wishful thinking. It is appealing for us to imagine that when a wicked person prospers in this life that they will get what’s coming to them in the next–assuming for the sake of argument that there exists an afterlife at all. Reality most likely cares little for what we prefer to be true; it is what it is.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:08am
Ok Walter…. I’ll try to be as charitable to your view as possible (as promised).
Correct me if I’ve taken your reasoning aside from what you intended.
Do you think that perfect justice is not possible? Or do you think that perfect justice is unknowable? Then on Ray Ingles view, you are religious….
In all seriousness, if you can not provide an adequate definition perfect justice or its source, then how can you say that ECT is perfectly unjust?
You obviously can’t be a reductionist, because you don’t believe humans are able to define perfect justice.
Can I be right to say then you don’t believe that perfect injustice exists?
If that is the case, again I ask….how can you critique ECT as pefectly/mazimally unjust?
Is then perfect justice transcendent and beyond the realm of human understanding? (not unknowable….. just beyond us)
If so, then logically you should admit that transcendence is a reality.
And if that is the case, and perfect justice is transcendent (beyond human understanding) but real, then the cause of perject justice is transcendent but real (anything that comes into existence requires a cause), and you should not be too far off of theism.
Or is perfect justice an uncaused non-contingent non-material agent? Again, you would not be too far off of theism.
If perfect justice is not transcendent and not real, then it is a fictional temporal concept with its inverse (perfect injustice) as also fictional and temporal…..
And that then leaves you unable to critique ECT.
But in my persistence, I must persist:
Use your human imagination, and see if you can define perfect justice.
I used my imagination, and answered your request to define perfect justice. Professional courtesy requires that you answer my request to define perfect justice (unless I am just using my imagination that perfect justice and professional courtesy would require this)
Or are you just imagining that perfect justice cannot exist apart from imagination?
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:29am
Walter:
“It is appealing for us to imagine that when a wicked person prospers in this life that they will get what’s coming to them in the next–assuming for the sake of argument that there exists an afterlife at all. Reality most likely cares little for what we prefer to be true; it is what it is.”
I agree with you on that point.
Hypothetically, if impending ECT is reality/”is what it is”, then why would you argue against ECT based on your own personal version of morality?
Shouldn’t you be more concerned with whether it is reality or not, over your own personal preference on the matter?
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 2:25pm
Hypothetically, if impending ECT is reality/”is what it is”, then why would you argue against ECT based on your own personal version of morality?
Many believers want to push the “limited perspective” card as a way to silence opponents who point out that eternal torment is vindictive, cruel, and not the way a maximally benevolent being would act. You claim that we are not in a position to judge whether ECT is really bad at all. At best an argument like yours will cause us to suspend all judgment and remain agnostic concerning the morality of an eternal tormenting hell. However, I can only judge right and wrong utilizing my own personal moral intuitions, and my intuitions tell me that any deity who places people in a hell of eternal suffering is an evil one.
Shouldn’t you be more concerned with whether it is reality or not, over your own personal preference on the matter?
We all should. That is the point of these discussions, no? I spend more time on the blogs of my “opponents” than I do at ones that echo my own beliefs. If I am wrong, I want to know it.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 2:39pm
Since I take it that nobody wants to offer their hypothetical models of universal justice, I’ll move on and put something else out there:
If we can infer that some punishment is moral (say in the discipline of a child or a soldier)…….
If we can infer that severe punishment can be moral (life in prison for multiple murders)…….
Is it POSSIBLE that maximum punishment can be moral?
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:09pm
If we can infer that some punishment is moral (say in the discipline of a child or a soldier)…….
If we can infer that severe punishment can be moral (life in prison for multiple murders)…….
Is it POSSIBLE that maximum punishment can be moral?
Pete, even if you don’t believe in a Dante’s Inferno type of hell, it is still a monstrous act to keep a being sentient and suffering forever as some kind of retribution for the horrible crime of being born human. I think that even the worst rapists and murderers in history do not deserve to suffer F-O-R-E-V-E-R for their crimes against humanity.
As far as perfect justice goes, I think punishment should fit the crime. For example, God could make Hitler relive the last day on earth of every single person that he caused to die while he was here. Hitler would get to experience the terror of the Jew he murdered or that of soldier bleeding out in a field somewhere, crying out for his mother. Hitler’s punishment would be great, but it would eventually cease. To keep punishing forever is cruel and displays no mercy.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:37pm
Jerry: “I probably won’t be able to give it the time it needs/deserves until the middle of next week at best.”
Jerry: “I may answer your question…”
Pete: “Since I take it that nobody wants to offer their hypothetical models of universal justice, I’ll move on…”
1) Walter and I had both given alternatives to ECT before you asked the question.
2) It isn’t the middle of next week yet.
3) Asking for a perfect justice system for the universe is off point, inconsistent (you asked the question 5-6 times, and each was different), and unreasonable. I’ll elaborate on this when I respond. And I will answer the question, as best it can be answered.
Pete: “Is it POSSIBLE that maximum punishment can be moral”
Maximum punishment as inflicted by man would be lifelong torture. Keep a person alive and conscious for as long as possible and make sure he experiences as much pain and suffering as you can dole out for the rest of his life. I believe the Nazis did this to some extent. No, it can never be moral. Are you really going to argue that it is?
Maximum punishment as inflicted by God would be infinitely worse. Keep a person conscious forever and make sure he experiences as much pain and suffering as God can dole out, which is an infinite amount. No, this is not moral. That was my starting point for this discussion.
Over the years I’ve been following this blog, Randal has made several moral declarations in support of various arguments. Off the top of my head, I recall three: Rape is always wrong; Infant sodomy is always wrong; and the latest, It is always wrong to inflict pain on others for personal pleasure.
Although I didn’t spell them out, I can imagine circumstances under which rape would be moral. Fortunately, those circumstances do not exist here on planet earth, so I can agree that here on earth with the human species the way it is, rape is always wrong.
I had to go outside of planet earth to do it, but I did explain circumstances under which infant sodomy is not only not wrong, but the right thing to do (it’s a long comment – skip to “OK. Premise 2: Objective morals do exist” about halfway through and read the next few paragraphs).
Randal has never addressed this, although perhaps he has in a roundabout way because he seems to have shifted from declaring certain specific actions to be wrong. This last is more general, which is a major step in the right direction. The suffering of conscious creatures was always the premise behind the examples he’s selected anyway, he just doesn’t want to admit that because he’s already laughed at Sam Harris for this “arbitrary” concept. Of course, Ray pointed out an exception to even this general principle (BDSM), but that’s easily fixed by adding “without their consent”. (As an aside, I’m not saying that it’s good or psychologically healthy for people to get pleasure from inflicting pain on others or having it inflicted on them, just that at least a case can be made that it isn’t wrong when all parties consent.)
So I’ve answered your new question, and answered it in a way that’s perfectly consistent with my initial comment. Now I have a question for you.
Is it possible, in principle, for a mere human being to be correct when declaring the hypothetical actions of an omniscient omnipotent deity to be morally wrong?
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:07pm
Jerry:
As a rejoinder to your assertion that you and Walter have both provided alternatives to ECT….. Thank You…. but with respect, the crimes of Hitler go much further than simply reliving the last day of victims….. can you calculate the amount of suffering one such individual has inflicted through the secondary and teriatary effects of systemic ethnic cleansing?
Given the fact he committed such barbaric mostrosities, and had been warned about the wrath of God, I don’t think he gets to debate the matter…. God gets to decide his fate (and I don’t judge whether he is infact going to be resurrected to ECT…. I simply don’t know)
“Punishment fits the crime” sounds great. We simply have different application. I take God’s side in which he has declared that the continued unrepentant human idolatry, pride, greed, lust et. al suffers eternal consequence.
But if you think your application is better than God’s, please show me how you would administrate the punishment in proportion to the crime, and maintain order in humanity.
God gives us warning, which helps govern our human relations. Not all people listen and/or seek correction, but many do. For those who persist in rebellion, justice is served. Although mercy is the operative goal.
Do you think that humanity will be scared enough of Jerry Rivard to repent and/or correct themselves? Collectively, most of us aren’t scared of and/or believe in an omnipotent awesome holy God, who has given us many veritable proofs and testimonies, to correct ourselves…… how do you think you would do better?
And in fairness, he has given us a way out through bearing the cross himself, in the person of Jesus.
But as for your question, I will happily answer it:
It is never wrong to question or doubt. The majority of the Psalms reflect the very real human pain and existential anguish over matters of injustice and seeming unrighteousness of God. The common theme however is praise of God despite a lack of understanding.
However, the prophet Jeremiah is probably the most famous example of questioning God directly (see Jer. 12:1). He is rebuked by God, because he crosses the line. He declares that God is less than righteous for letting the wicked prosper.
So in short, Doubts and Questions (ex. Job) are good. Declaring God is evil is bad (ex. Jeremiah).
However, God forgave Jeremiah when he repented, and lifted him into a position of critical importance at a pivotal time in the history of Judah, as God’s wrath was looming at the door.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:14pm
And for scriptural reflection on your question:
“whether a mere mortal can declare an omniscient deity as evil” (paraphrase)
The pericope of Romans 9:6-29 rhetorically yet in truth chides someone who wants to “talk back” to God as appears to be inferentially reflected in your question.
The apostle Paul gives a much better answer than I can.
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 6:20pm
Pete,
Regardless of how great the amount of suffering people like Hitler have caused, you simply will never convince me that punishing him with unending torments is anything other than the most extreme cruelty imaginable–and not the actions of a benevolent and merciful deity.
I responded earlier in this thread that many Christians admit that eternal torments seems very wrong, but they are forced to try and defend it because they are “locked in” due to their belief that the bible is an inerrant revelation from the Creator; I don’t share that belief. If making an enemy suffer forever is something that you feel is moral, then mine and your moral compasses are simply too far apart to ever have a meaningful discussion on this subject.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 6:32pm
Walter:
“I don’t share that belief. If making an enemy suffer forever is something that you feel is moral, then mine and your moral compasses are simply too far apart to ever have a meaningful discussion on this subject.”
That’s an ad hominen if I ever heard one.
Simply put, I believe God is righteous and it appears that you do not. Even though our moral compasses could be considered far apart on worshipping God vs. self, I can still rationally and openly discuss the matter with you.
If God wants to eternally punish the devil and his angels, and humans want to remain prideful in imitation of Satan, and not repent, and not serve God in the co-ruling of the New Heavens and the Earth, why is God responsible to you for providing a third alternative, or even an explanation for that matter?
In view of a maximally rewarding God, it doesn’t seem too out of character for him to be maximally punishing, especially after he has provided a multiplicity of veritable warnings.
I don’t pretend to comprehend God’s reasoning behind his sovereign choices. I simply and humbly accept them, and faithfully try to warn others out of compassion.
You would probably be correct in questioning my “moral compass” if I believed such a fate was reality, and didn’t warn people.
Do I think God is the ultimate standard of morality? Yes. Do I think anything he chooses to do is moral and correct? Yes. Do I sometimes question God or seek understanding of matters that seem incomprehensible? Yes.
Do I dare judge God Almighty? No.
Maybe Walter, we can agree to disagree for the time being. But don’t judge my “moral compass”. You don’t know me.
MGT2 says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:51pm
“Is it possible, in principle, for a mere human being to be correct when declaring the hypothetical actions of an omniscient omnipotent deity to be morally wrong?”
Only if that deity is NOT also, omnibenevolent, maximally righteous, maximally wise, and maximally just.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 9:13pm
Thank you. Good answer.
But how do we assess the benevolence, righteousness, wisdom, and justification of said deity? In other words, how do we know if He’s omnibenevolent, maximally righteous, maximally wise, and maximally just?
(I’ll be away for a few days, so if I don’t respond until next week don’t think I’m ignoring you.)
MGT2 says:
Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 12:13pm
Jerry,
It the same way we have come to know that he is omniscient and omnipotent: what he says about himself in the Bible (I am taking this deity to be God).
There is a general revelation that makes each of us aware that there is such a Being, even if some of us no longer acknowledge that initial sense, and that is what makes human beings search for the reason and meaning of our existence.
It is in acknowledging that general revelation that we become open to the special revelation of the person of this Being. In Acts 17:16-34, Paul reasoned philosophically for God on the basis of that acknowledgment by the people. Paul’s knowledge of God was rooted in what God says about himself in the Scriptures. God declares himself in these Scriptures to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, maximally righteous, maximally wise, and maximally just. He declares that he cannot lie; that the hates evil and cannot be tempted to do evil.
So when it comes to any morally questionable event documented in Scripture, I seek to understand why God’s judgment is the way it was documented. I ask what the people did that led to such judgment. But I do so with the awareness that God is perfectly justified, always. The Scriptures teach us about our moral failings and their consequences, and what God is doing to save us from them.
It does not mean he will save all: Matthew 10:33, and 2 Timothy 2:12.
Brap Gronk says:
Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 4:41pm
“There is a general revelation that makes each of us aware that there is such a Being, even if some of us no longer acknowledge that initial sense, and that is what makes human beings search for the reason and meaning of our existence.”
I actually think it’s the other way around. Humans naturally search for the reason and meaning of their existence, and the Abrahamic God is one of many theories proposed to answer that. The sense of the numinous may be universal across time and across cultures, but it’s quite a leap to assume an omni-whatever being is responsible for it.
http://thenewhumanism.org/authors/lawrence-rifkin/articles/transcendence-without-the-bull
MGT2 says:
Monday, September 19, 2011 at 12:41am
Brap,
I do not dispute that the Abrahamic God is one of many reasons proffered over the ages, but I agree with it. I dispute, however, that that sense has nothing to do with an “Omni-whatever” deity. Karen Armstrong gives a fair account of the development of the search for that Being in her book, “The Case for God.”
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 6:39pm
“God declares himself in these Scriptures to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, maximally righteous, maximally wise, and maximally just. He declares that he cannot lie; that the hates evil and cannot be tempted to do evil.”
Let’s assume I agree that God exists and that the bible is His word.
What would be the word of an evil God? Would an evil God tell us that He is a liar who loves evil and cannot be tempted to do good? Or might an evil God describe himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, maximally righteous, maximally wise, and maximally just?
Let’s say you hire a babysitter who claims to love children. When you come home after the babysitter’s first night, your crying daughter tells you that the babysitter threatened to burn her with a blowtorch if she misbehaved. You confront the babysitter and she attempts to justify the threat rather than deny it. Would you still believe that this babysitter loves children? Of course not. There is a conflict between her words and her actions, and it’s clearly her actions and not her words that reveal her true nature.
Yet you accept as maximally good etc. a God who orders and/or condones genocide, slavery, torture, murder, rape, and other clear moral atrocities, and threatens each and every one of us with eternal torture if we don’t obey Him.
“So when it comes to any morally questionable event documented in Scripture, I seek to understand why God’s judgment is the way it was documented. I ask what the people did that led to such judgment. But I do so with the awareness that God is perfectly justified, always. The Scriptures teach us about our moral failings and their consequences, and what God is doing to save us from them.”
Well, one thing God could do to save us from the consequences of our moral failings is to not impose those consequences. Another is to not impose them for all eternity. A God who would choose to inflict infinite punishment while having the ability to choose otherwise is maximally cruel. The fact that He says He’s maximally good is not inconsistent with this assertion, as a maximally cruel God would certainly lie.
But a claim of maximal goodness through the willful infliction of infinite torture is clearly inconsistent with itself. God’s maximal goodness and ECT cannot both be true (unless ECT is somehow out of God’s control).
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 7:29pm
pete says: Do I dare judge God Almighty? No.
When you declare God–whom you believe to be Yahweh/Jesus–to be good in everything he does, you are making a judgment call based on presuppositions you have about the nature of God.
I also have made a judgment call about the character called Yahweh, and I judge this character by the tales told of his deeds. My opinion is far less favorable than yours. Liberal Christians take the stance that much of the OT is errant and does not reflect Yahweh’s true self. I take the stance that the Hebrew’s national deity is mythical and not the universal Creator.
As far as you warning me about Christian hell: Well thanks, but I fear Christian hell about as much as you fear going to Muslim hell, which is to say “not much at all.” Shall I warn you of the danger of rejecting Allah’s greatest prophet?
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 7:46pm
Walter says:
“Well thanks,”
Pete says: “You’re welcome”
Walter says:
“but I fear Christian hell about as much as you fear going to Muslim hell, which is to say “not much at all.” Shall I warn you of the danger of rejecting Allah’s greatest prophet?”
Pete says:
What warning can you give me that the Koran/Islam hasn’t given me itself?
I happen to believe that Hell as described in the Koran is the exact same place as described in the New Testiment.
I will affirm that there is truth to be found in other religion and their texts.
The issue focuses on salvific truth.
Infact, if you want to search out a Koranic soteriological teaching as found in the Koran, you may be pleased to find that “Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Sabeans have nothing to fear about judgement or the last day” (my paraphrase of Surah 2:62…)
Check it out for yourself.
I’ve taken “Gabriel’s” warning under advisement. However, based on the glaring historical inaccuracies of the Koran (go do some digging as to why Surah 7:124 and 28:38 are historically inaccurate), the contradiction of affirming the Old and New Testaments as lesser canon while denying the divinity of Jesus, the fact that secular/non-Christian scholars don’t use the Koran as a reliable source on historical Jesus studies, and the strength of Galatians 1:8….
it went through my vetting process, and I am satisfied that I shouldn’t affirm the claims of the Koran as binding.
But if you wish to adhere to the teaching of Surah 9:5…… be my guest.
I hope you understand the moral grasp of the arguments you make. (I’m not in anyway judging you….. just your argument)
Walter says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 8:32pm
I hope you understand the moral grasp of the arguments you make. (I’m not in anyway judging you….. just your argument)
I grasp this: You believe that ECT is justifiable as long as the condemned have ample warning and an easy out from their sentence. I believe that ECT is morally reprehensible and is always wrong–no ifs, ands, or buts about it. My moral intuitions may be flawed, but they are the only ones that I have, so I am going to go with them.
Nuff said
pete says:
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 12:48am
Walter:
That sounds like quite the concise and honest representations of both our positions.
In all sincerety,I can definitely take something away from reflecting on your aversion and moral intuition. I appreciate it.
pete says:
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 6:22am
and for further clarification, I wish to add that I only believe ECT is justified through the justifier…. God Almighty. The fact that he has given us warning and an easy out is secondary, but pretty merciful to boot.
I’m not trying to rub you the wrong way, but seeking to make myself clear in a detailed-oriented manner.
Walter says:
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 11:56am
pete,
A) You have a philosophical presupposition that God is always right even when he appears to be wrong
B) You believe that Yahweh is the universal god of mankind and that the bible is a perfect record of his interventions in history
C) When Yahweh or Jesus command or advocate things that appear evil to us, you must believe those things are actually “good” whether we humans realize it or not
I understand your position, I just don’t accept your premises.
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 11:29pm
Jerry,
“What would be the word of an evil God?”
I do not know. The God of the Bible CANNOT, by necessity, be evil. This is part of the understanding of what it means to be God. That means he cannot lie, either. You MUST keep that in mind.
The rest of your argument ignores what I have already said.
There is very good evidence that God never ordered genocide, that this is just an emotional, unfortunate and unnecessary word applied to the documented events. It ignores the war practices of ancient Israel, and to a great extent, the other nations of that time period. It ignores the fact that “completely destroyed” does not necessarily mean eradication of a nation. One telling evidence is that none of these nations were ever eradicated or pursued to the point of eradication; there is no ancient secular record levying any charge of the kind.
Slavery within National Israel was not the same as the slavery we associate with the Amistad. Read how well they are treated and how many refuse to leave once they get their freedom. There is no Biblical evidence that God condoned torture, murder, rape, and other clear moral atrocities. Where do you get this stuff?
Consider David, a mighty warrior for God. When David wanted to build the Temple in His honor, God told him not to because his hand was stained with blood. Clear evidence that God takes no pleasure in the deaths of the wicked, and his house will not be associated such atrocities, because he is a Holy God.
God is always justified in what he does. We may not like it, but no amount of hypothesizing can undermine that. We are clearly told what to do to avoid eternal damnation. Why are we blaming God? Why should we expect God to save us when we reject him? Here is what God says through his word, the Bible.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:33: “But all who stand before others and say they do not believe in me, I will say before my Father in heaven that they do not belong to me.”
Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 2:12b: “If we say we don’t know him, he will say he doesn’t know us.”
No universalism, no inclusivism.
Walter says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 12:29pm
I do not know. The God of the Bible CANNOT, by necessity, be evil. This is part of the understanding of what it means to be God. That means he cannot lie, either. You MUST keep that in mind.
I have to ask why not? Why can’t a creator deity be amoral? Why can’t a monotheistic deity tell a lie or fudge a little when communicating with beings vastly inferior to itself? If humans are NOT the pinnacle of this being’s creation, then I don’t understand why it can’t be simply indifferent to our desires or suffering. It almost seems like human arrogance to believe that creation must be all about us. Maybe a deity has better things to concern “himself” with?
And I will never understand why a believer will answer a skeptic with biblical proof texts when the skeptic does not believe in the inspiration or authority of human-authored scriptures.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:09pm
Because God is NECESSARILY good.Goodness is necessary to the nature of being God. To say that God does evil is the same as saying a ball is red and green all over; it is illogical and incoherent.
Walter says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:59pm
Because God is NECESSARILY good.Goodness is necessary to the nature of being God.
According to whom? I say that goodness is a privation of evil and evil is necessary to the nature of being God. What makes my argument any less valid than yours?
MGT2 says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:58pm
“And I will never understand why a believer will answer a skeptic with biblical proof texts when the skeptic does not believe in the inspiration or authority of human-authored scriptures.”
As I said Beetle some time ago, when the skeptic uses texts from the Bible to undermine the character of God, then it is fair for the believer to use the Bible to refute those claims.
Now, you use your skeptic literature and authorities to prove your points, even though believers do not accept them as legitimate. Why do you do that?
The thing is, we both appeal to our own authorities.
Walter says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:04am
In other words, we are doomed to simply talk past each other until one or the other gets bored with the conversation.
What it always boils down to is this:
Christian says–the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it
The skeptic says–humans make fantastical claims, I don’t believe it, the matter ain’t settled
Jerry Rivard says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:14pm
“The God of the Bible CANNOT, by necessity, be evil. This is part of the understanding of what it means to be God. That means he cannot lie, either. You MUST keep that in mind.”
Is there extra-biblical evidence, or argument, for this claim?
I think I understand the chain of argument that says that there must be a first cause, and that the first cause must be necessary and not contingent. (I don’t agree with it, but moving on…) I don’t see how it follows that the first cause must be God, or that the bible is His word, or that any characteristics of God are established from this. What am I missing?
“God is always justified in what he does. We may not like it, but no amount of hypothesizing can undermine that. We are clearly told what to do to avoid eternal damnation. Why are we blaming God? Why should we expect God to save us when we reject him? Here is what God says through his word, the Bible.”
I did read the passages when you alluded to them in your other comment. As far as being clearly told what to do to avoid eternal damnation, I guess I missed the consensus between you, Randal, PM, Pete, Gene, and star2. It seems to me you all have pretty different interpretations of this clear message. As to the claim that ECT is acceptable because we’re told what to do to avoid God’s punishment, that’s a little like saying it’s okay to walk through a crowd swinging an axe as long as you warn people to stay out of its arc.
“Slavery within National Israel was not the same as the slavery we associate with the Amistad.”
No, I’m sure it was the good kind of slavery.
New moral absolute to add to our list: “It is always wrong to own human beings as property, even if you treat them well.” (AWOHBAPEYTTW – we can pronounce that one uh-wah-BAPP-ee-too)
“There is no Biblical evidence that God condoned torture, murder, rape, and other clear moral atrocities. Where do you get this stuff?”
On the one hand: If burning people in a lake of fire isn’t torture, what is? Isn’t there at least one passage about killing everything that breathes or something like that, except taking the young virgins for yourselves? Isn’t rape not mentioned at all in the ten commandments? Didn’t Lot, one of the “good guys”, offer his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom while God remained silent?
On the other hand: I did get into a bit of a rhetorical roll and made a careless list without considering specific instances, and that was wrong. I apologize for it. Rather than add to my argument, my carelessness detracted from it, and added fuel to a fire that’s already blazing. (No pun intended, really.)
Nevertheless, ECT alone is infinitely sufficient to support my original claim: if ECT is real and it’s not somehow beyond God’s control, then God is evil. I have yet to read a credible challenge to that position.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:44pm
“Is there extra-biblical evidence, or argument, for this claim?”
I am not sure what you are asking for when you ask for extra-biblical evidence, but hopefully it is not the same discredited request for scientific evidence. Otherwise, there is the entire universe.
There are very good arguments for God. Over the centuries and still going strong as they are refined by successive generations are: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:09am
None of which I find even a little bit convincing. I believe I’ve thoroughly trounced the cosmological and moral arguments in the Ockham again thread, near the end, and I don’t recall any rebuttal to my final statements.
The ontological argument, if I understand it correctly, is absurd (so much so that I must not understand it correctly, but I’ve tried, and I don’t think I’m stupid). I suppose now that I’ve made that claim I’m going to have to comment on it sooner or later, but I’ll wait until someone raises it as a serious argument.
The teleological argument has been discussed at length on this blog, and although I don’t recall commenting on it myself, I haven’t found it convincing.
Aside from the moral argument, none of these provides any evidence or argument for the claim that God is good. And my counter to the moral argument is that morality exists apart from God; otherwise God could declare rape, murder, and genocide as moral goods and they would really be good. If He can’t redefine morality in this way, then He isn’t the originator of morality.
I have yet to hear a reason (other than “the bible says so” or “that’s how we’ve defined God”) why God can’t be evil. Both of these are weak, and I think that’s a generous assessment.
I guess we’re basically at a stalemate. Who coulda seen that coming?
randal says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 1:02am
Jerry, I don’t recall your thorough trouncing of the cosmological and moral arguments. But it is worth keeping in mind that each is in fact a family of arguments. So the likelihood that Jerry provided a trouncing to two centuries old families of arguments is, well, not likely.
Same goes for the ontological argument. It is a family of arguments. Some members of the family are more persuasive than others, this is true. But the fact that you dismiss the whole family as “absurd” is indeed evidence that you haven’t yet understood that family. Maybe if you’re nice they’ll invite you over for a visit so you can get to know them better.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 2:45am
OK, “thorough trouncing” was a bit of bluster, but I do believe that I’ve sufficiently addressed the moral and cosmological arguments as presented in this blog. If there are stronger forms bring them on. However, we always seem to reach a stalemate at the end. At some point each side seems to experience the other as being stubborn in the face of clarity, and no further progress can be made in understanding each other’s views once that happens. Or perhaps it’s the other way around – once a point is reached where no further progress can be made in understanding each other’s views, we experience each other as stubborn.
The cosmological stalemate centers on the legitimacy of the question of how God came to be. I’ve never heard a convincing argument why God exists necessarily, which is the assertion used as justification to break the causal chain. I believe that matter and energy and laws of motion just existing is far more plausible than God just existing, and you believe the opposite. Stalemate. (Please read my comments at the end of Ockham Again before asking me to explain the Big Bang as a beginning of the universe. I’m pretty much in agreement with Ray Ingles on this topic.)
The moral stalemate comes when I assert that morals exist apart from God, offering as argument that if they didn’t God could make rape and genocide good and they would really be good. I recall saying this many times, including earlier tonight, and I don’t recall anyone ever responding to it. Stalemate. (Although frankly, when there’s no response it feels like checkmate. I hope someone proves me wrong by explaining either why my logic is flawed or why God can indeed make genocide – or ECT for that matter – a morally righteous act.) (Well, more honestly, I hope everyone says “Wow, you’re right, Jerry! The moral argument is indeed pure hogwash!) (And means it.)
I haven’t discussed the teleological or ontological arguments very much if at all, but teleological arguments have been made frequently and I always find the scientific explanations of how design came about more plausible than claims of deliberate intelligent design leading to the universe as I am aware of it. Theists find deliberate intelligent design more plausible. Stalemate.
I’d love for you to do a post explaining the ontological argument, or direct me to one that you’ve already done. It seems to me the weakest of the four, by far. I’d like to understand what I’m missing.
randal says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 2:59am
Just one observation for the moment. I don’t think that people who disagree with me about the adequacy of arguments for God’s existence are being “stubborn”. I recognize that people assess arguments relative to their background beliefs. Given that people reading this blog range from committed atheist to agnostic, deist, open theist, evangelical and on to fundamentalist, it doesn’t surprise me that there are a range of responses to the adequacy of the arguments presented.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:20am
Thanks, and let me clarify what I said/meant. I was careful in my wording to say “experience as stubborn” rather than “think they are stubborn”. The people who comment on this blog are generally too intelligent to be dismissed so cavalierly.
But I’ve never been so certain of a proposition before as I am that it’s wrong to subject conscious creatures to eternal torture. I’d love to hear from you on that one too. How can it be wrong to rape, wrong to sodomize infants, wrong to commit genocide, wrong to inflict pain for pleasure, but perfectly okay to inflict infinite suffering? And anticipating a form your answer might take, how can there be one standard of morality for God and a different one for man?
randal says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:31am
“But I’ve never been so certain of a proposition before as I am that it’s wrong to subject conscious creatures to eternal torture. I’d love to hear from you on that one too.”
Although I’ve spoken on that topic often enough in the past, like Billy Joel rolling out one more rendition of “Piano Man” I shall do it once again.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:38am
Write us a post, you’re the blog man.
Jerry Rivard says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:09pm
Response to Pete, Part 1 of 3
I said in my last comment that your question was off point. There’s really more to it than that. You are asking several different questions which you seem to be treating as equivalent, and they are off point for multiple reasons. Part 1 attempts to sort that out somewhat.
Let’s start with a reminder of what point they’re off. I asked if hell (meaning ECT) was necessary (meaning out of God’s control), and said that if it isn’t then God must be evil because ECT is infinitely cruel. I offered those two possibilities. That gives you three possible approaches if you want to engage my comment: 1) explain why you think ECT is out of God’s control; 2) explain why you think ECT is morally justified; 3) explain why my two possibilities are incorrect or incomplete.
You’ve denied 1 in your comments in other threads. (Something about God being able to save anyone He wants, including atheists.) You attempted to defend 2 with deterrence, but that failed, so you’ve introduced justice, which I address in Part 3.
Reversing the question attempts to go after both 1 & 2, saying there’s no other way to achieve justice (thereby simply asserting that ECT is just without an attempt to prove it), which means that ECT is a requirement for justice (and thus God’s hand is forced since He’s maximally just).
Here are some reasons why your question (to which I’ll respond anyway in Part 2) is a red herring.
1) One can posit that a given solution to a problem is wrong without having the correct solution. We do it all the time when we criticize politicians, athletes and coaches, employers, etc. It’s possible to see that an answer is wrong without knowing or even seeking the right answer. If you need examples, OK – I know that an appendectomy won’t cure diabetes, but I don’t know what, if anything, will.
2) The various questions you’re asking are not equivalent. You conflate ordering the cosmos with running the world with a plan for peace on earth with perfect justice. And you conflate me and Walter and all atheists and non-ECT theists with atheism and humanism. Talk about being all over the map.
I think what you’re trying to ask is how we humans would do it if we were in God’s place, but you’re specifically asking us not to answer how God might do it. That’s unfair, since what we’re asked to do requires God’s knowledge and powers. And it gets even more unfair when you state “peace on earth” and “perfect justice” as our targets, when God has thus far achieved neither.
Here’s the metamorphosis of your question as you repeated it:
Question 1: “How would you order things?”
Question 2: “If Jerry could run the cosmos and the world, how would he do it?”
Question 3: “Give me your plan for peace on earth.”
Question 4: “How would the atheist primarily (or even non-ECT theist) order reward, punishment, justice, and govern human relations?”
Question 5: “I want to see if atheism and/or humanism has even the slightest ability to create, disseminate, and enforce universal moral relations among humans and the natural order.”
Question 6: “How would you/humanism/atheism impart perfect justice?”
More variations followed, these were just the ones I’d copied and put aside for my response. Probably the best formulation of your question is this: “Simply put, I want to know how we can have universal justice without ECT.”
3) Somewhere along the line you also said “I didn’t ask how the God you don’t believe in may do it. (I think we’ve been over that point ad nauseum, and it is the theists who get to present how the God they believe in may do it. Atheists and other critics naturally get to posit why our explanation is implausible, incredible, or immoral)”
Sorry, no. If you’re asking me how I would run the universe, then I get to have God-like knowledge and power in my answer. Since I don’t have God-like knowledge and power, I can only speculate what that knowledge and power would be, which is a pointless exercise and a potentially long tangent. So I’ll try to stick to general principles in my answer. And I have already stated the most important one, which no one has credibly refuted: If I, as God, have the power to not torture people for eternity, and yet I do choose to torture people for eternity anyway, then I am neither good not just.
If you’re asking me how I would run the world, it’s way off point. We aren’t talking about human governance here. ECT is not within human power. I’ll answer that I’m a libertarian, but that I also hate applying encompassing labels like that to myself because in doing so I may be inviting many incorrect assumptions. But with that qualification, I’m a libertarian as far as human governance is concerned.
4) (raised because of formulations 4-6 of the question): Atheism is silent on matters other than whether there is or isn’t a God.
Atheism is not humanism or naturalism. It is probably true that the majority of atheists are humanists and/or naturalists (in the broadest sense of both terms) but it is not a requirement. It may be true that many atheists think alike in many ways, and as such share similar philosophies. But atheism is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is a single belief. (Many argue it’s a lack of belief, but I consider that to be a cop out. Agnosticism (unless you subscribe the ‘knowledge’ meaning of the term) is a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief that gods do not exist.)
(For a laugh (on me? you decide), see this post and the first comment where I put Randal’s poor analogy in its place.
And if you’re interested in the comment that led to that post to evaluate my assertion that Randal ignored its substance and responded to a segue, it’s here. But I digress, big time.)
5) (an aside, but one I feel is worth mentioning) The consequences of no eternal punishment that you cite are way off the mark. They reflect a type of all-or-nothing thinking that I find in many theist arguments (uh-oh, I just widened my focus).
First, you are confusing “no eternal punishment” with “no punishment”. Second, you confuse no punishment from God with anarchy. These two errors lead to inapplicable examples like my shooting you because I don’t like your sneakers.
These are examples of all-or-nothing thinking. And since the comment I’m responding to, you’ve provided several others, in various threads. For example:
“I would be a hedonist in the ultimate sense, as morals, virtue, and righteousness would be meaningless.”
“I’m saying there is no other source for morals than a perfectly moral well-spring.”
And I said that I find that thinking in many theist arguments, so that behooves me to provide a few examples. Here goes:
“If there’s no God, we’re just bags of meat.”
“If there’s no God, there’s no such thing as right or wrong.”
“If there’s no God, life is meaningless.”
(I’m not implying that all theists agree with all or any of these statements. That would be rather ironic. It’s just that I hear the arguments from theists a lot, and that they do reflect all-or-nothing thinking.)
6) (one last aside) Shortly after conflating punishment by God with punishment by man (asserted by inference from your examples that the latter goes away without the former), you identify some doctrines that include atheism as one of their tenets that have resulted in severe punishment when implemented. Do I need to point out the irony?
Jerry Rivard says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:09pm
Response to Pete, Part 2 of 3
Before I answer your question, I need to turn it into a stationary target. Really, I think there are two.
1) If you were God, how would you establish justice in the afterlife (and on earth)?
2) If you ran the world, how would you establish justice?
Is that a fair formulation of what you’re trying to ask? Hope so, because that’s what I’m answering. Here goes.
1) God’s justice is not our justice, or so I’ve been told. But as I’ve said elsewhere, that’s only ever used to justify extreme brutality, never a greater mercy than we’re capable of.
Perfect justice would be that nothing unjust ever happened in the first place. Presumably God could have created that condition, but didn’t. I’ll stipulate, for the sake of moving on, that He had a reason. But unless there is a way to reverse all injustices after they’ve occurred, God has to settle for near-perfect justice.
Near-perfect justice would render all necessary injustice temporary and short-lived.
Two parties would require justice: the wrongdoer and the wronged. In some cases, the wronged is only God Himself. In other cases, it’s other people. What would I do as God to restore justice after these injustices have occurred?
First, I’d immediately forgive all instances where I/God was the only party wronged. If that necessitates feelings of guilt on the part of the wrongdoer, I would make them as short-lived as possible.
Next, I’d take whatever is the shortest path to the wronged forgiving the wrongdoers and the wrongdoers forgiving themselves. Whatever negative feelings are necessitated by that, I would make as short-lived as possible.
Our human concept of justice involves something that is completely unnecessary: retaliation. An eye for an eye. That isn’t justice, it’s a recipe for blindness. God’s justice, being far superior to ours, would not require anything so pointless. God’s justice would serve a purpose, and that would likely be to heal all so they can move on unencumbered to whatever’s next. Or, if some circumstances beyond God’s control determine that some are not fit to move on, a quick and painless annihilation would be the most merciful.
However, because our human concept of justice requires retaliation, and because there is deterrence value in the threat of retaliation, I/God make it known that there will indeed be punishment in the afterlife for sins in this one (even though there really won’t – even God has to, and can, choose the lesser evil sometimes). Not eternal, as that would be a less effective deterrent than finite punishment. For one thing, my creations would think me a monster, and they might not believe such a thing. But more important, there is nowhere to go from infinity. Once a person had masturbated, taken my name in vain, or worked on the sabbath, he’d already be subject to infinite torture, so he might as well have a grand old time raping and pillaging until judgment day comes. No, there must be a threat that will deter even the worst of humans from committing yet another sin. The threat must be finite, so that it can always be increased.
2) On earth, we have no knowledge of God. We have beliefs, but no certainty. So we have to establish a system of justice that pertains only to earth.
Each person is born equal to and apart from others. Although some are born into better or worse circumstances, that fact does not give us greater or fewer rights to use this only life we can be sure we’ll get in whatever way we see fit – except that we cannot be allowed to prevent others from using this only life they can be sure they’ll get in whatever way they see fit. That single guiding principle would be behind every decision on how to govern.
Ideally, it would mean no governance at all, but as a species we’re simply not ready for that (sorry Jeff). Anarchy would (and probably did) lead to a constant state of civil war that would culminate in the creation of governments, probably less just even than those we have now. It’s the fatal flaw of anarchy: how ya gonna keep it?
The next best thing is limited government in the form of a republic bound by a constitution. That has proven to be hard to keep as well. It’s the fatal flaw in libertarianism: those who are truly libertarian-minded don’t want power over others.
So if I were made dictator of the world, would I make my ideas the world’s law? No, I don’t think that would work. It’s just as oxymoronic to dictate libertarianism as it was to dictate brotherhood and equality, and we all know how well that worked out. An attempt to force my beliefs on the world would result in a perversion of libertarian principles, if not by me, by those under me, and my name would probably go down in history alongside Stalin and Mao.
Now, wasn’t that irrelevant?
Jerry Rivard says:
Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:10pm
Response to Pete, Part 3 of 3
I think you’ve only made two points that I haven’t addressed.
1) ECT is for justice as well as deterrence.
2) As long as we are warned and given a way out, ECT is justified.
Here goes.
1) Actually, I have addressed this one, here and here. And it’s even relatively concise. There is nothing just about eternal torment. You’re confusing justice with retaliation (see part 2).
2) You are basically asserting the general principle that anything is justified as long as there is a warning and a way to get out of it. That’s just wrong.
John’s four-year-old son Bobby says a bad word, so John washes Bobby’s mouth out with soap. Afterwards, he warns Bobby that if he does it again, John will cut out his tongue. Bobby says the bad word again, so John gets out his hunting knife.
Bobby was warned, and he had a way out. All he had to do was avoid saying the bad word again. But he didn’t listen to his father, so he deserves to have his tongue cut out, right?
Wait, maybe Bobby is too young for us to make an example of him. I guess I could have made him 18, but let’s try another example.
Tom is a citizen of Totalitaria, a country ruled by a brutal dictatorial regime that controls every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Tom has been encouraging his fellow citizens to rise up against the government, but then he is caught and brought before the leader. In a magnanimous moment, the leader says. “Tell you what, Tom. I’ll let you go, but you have to promise to stop stirring up trouble. If you talk about rebellion again, we’re going to bring you back here and torture you as brutally as we can for as long as we can, until you die.” Tom tells his fellow citizens about his experience and says that we have to oppose this regime.
Tom was warned, and he had a way out. Just settle in and accept the leader’s authority and he would remain unharmed. But no, he had to go shooting off his mouth again, so he deserves exactly what he gets. Doesn’t he?
In both cases, it’s clear that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, and in the second case it’s easily arguable that there was no crime at all. A warning and a way out do not mitigate that fact.
I know davidstarlingm would criticize me for using sympathetic examples, so I guess I need to head that one off at the pass.
Bill is a pedophile and child murderer. He knew when he committed his crimes exactly what the penalty would be, but he did it all anyway. So when he gets caught, he deserves his punishment, right? He was warned, and he had a way out.
First, a red hot poker is inserted in his anus, then his genitals are burned with a blowtorch, each followed by medical treatment to insure that he doesn’t die. Next he is fitted for the pear of anguish so that maximum pain can be caused without killing him. His jaw is broken in the process, but in order to keep him from dying of starvation he is fed intravenously. Included with his nourishment is a chemical designed to cause an unbearable burning sensation, but not to kill him. Larger and hotter pokers are used, along with every instrument of torture ever devised by man, and this kind of treatment continues every single day until he dies a natural death 50 years later. Justice is served. And those who inflicted these punishments on Bill did nothing wrong, and can go home to their families with a clear conscience.
ECT is infinitely cruel, and a warning doesn’t make it any less so – especially since the warning we’ve supposedly been given is so vague and ambiguous – but even if it was crystal clear, it reveals your supposedly good God as the worst possible thing in the universe. (Again, unless His hand is forced – but even that would mean there’s something more powerful than He that is infinitely cruel.)
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that God exists and is evil. I don’t believe that God exists. But if I accept the claims that: God exists; and God chooses to inflict ECT on some of us for any reason whatsoever, with or without a warning and a way out, then I am led to the inescapable conclusion that God is a monster. The responses I’ve gotten have done nothing to shake the fact that these claims are incompatible with the claim that God is good. I am shining a light on this conflict.
I can’t think of a more obvious moral absolute than “it is always wrong to subject conscious creatures to eternal torment”.
pete says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 1:27am
Response to Jerry:
I am flattered that you dedicated 3 pages to me.
Don’t take any offence if I don’t get as detailed as you. I’ll attempt to collectively address your argument.
My family of arguments are related. They seek to discern ultimate eschatalogical justice from a teleological persective.
Suffice it to say I don’t find your collective rejoinder persuasive, insofar as your individual criticisms may have plausibility.
I am reminded of being a court room observer and watching defense lawyers assist their clients accused of drunk driving.
It goes a little like this:
-officer, couldn’t it possibly be that alcohol was spilled on my client, and not coming from his breath
-officer,couldn’t it possibly be that my client didn’t purposely run a stop sign, but that he had brake issues
-officer, couldn’t it possibly be that my client slurred his words because he had just bit his tongue.
-officer, couldn’t it possibly be that my client wasn’t fumbling with his drivers licence because he was nervous as opposed to drunk.
-officer, couldn’t it possibly be that my client’s urine-soaked pants were found around his ankles not because he lost bladder control from intoxication, but that he was in a hurry to see his dying mother, and tried to save time by peeing in a pop bottle en-route to hospital.
When you offer multiple plausible yet fallacious explanations for my evidence and arguments, that is called sophistry.
You should have just stopped at “I always believe ECT is wrong”.
I can’t argue with the way you feel, and you do well to defend your feeling.
When you try to impeach my logic and argumentation on sophist grounds you make a straw man.
Perhaps when you agree to light it on fire, we could broil the red-herring you accuse me of holding.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:34am
We are light years apart in the way we see things, not just the issue itself but our arguments regarding it.
“Suffice it to say I don’t find your collective rejoinder persuasive, insofar as your individual criticisms may have plausibility.”
Suffice it to say that I believe to my core that the thing you’re defending is perhaps the most indefensible position imaginable, and that I believe I’ve addressed every point you’ve made with a legitimate argument, neither strawman nor sophistry, much of which has gone unanswered. But I don’t want to have a discussion about the discussion. I’ve got no more steam for this.
Stalemate. Which is right where we started, really. Nevertheless, it’s been an interesting, if often frustrating, discussion. Thanks for taking the time.
pete says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:39am
And thank you too, brother.
Although we disagree, I would never accuse you of being less than moral about the issue.
It appears that morality and justice is central to both our arguments, even if we disagree on how they are applied.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:40am
On that we are agreed.
star2 says:
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 5:27am
FACT: HELL IS REAL…PEOPLE WHO GO THERE SUFFER CONSCIOUS TORMENT, AND IT LASTS FOREVER
Personal Testimony of someone who died, went to hell, came back to life and then got saved.
“I Continued to Go Down”
I had major surgery on my legs in 1969 when I was 32 years of age. Whilst on the operating table, and under anaesthetic, I had a cardiac arrest.
The only way I can describe it is that, although my body was on the table, and the doctors were fighting to get me back to life again, part of me was above them, and began to float away from that operating theatre. I started to go down and down. It was horrific. I could see faces in pits, contorted with agony and pain. As I continued to go down, I began to be tormented by demons of all shapes and sizes. Not only were they ugly, but the smell was dreadful.
What made this downward journey even more terrifying were the lost souls I could see. There were many other awful things of which I cannot bear to speak. I came into a room where I could smell sulphur, and I saw a lake of fire. I could feel the flames and heat from that fire. My thoughts were that if I hit the bottom I would stay forever. There is never ending night and day for eternity in that dreadful place where the fear, pain and torment never cease.
It was bad enough hearing the screams and seeing indescribable horrors. But then I saw my own father in that place. I wanted so much to help, but knew I could not do anything for him. My father had been a good man, and became very sick with cancer. The vicar came to see him and asked if he could pray, but my father refused any prayer, or any mention of Jesus. He wanted nothing to do with Him. Now, as I looked at him, I knew he regretted that decision to turn his back on Jesus. It was his free will choice, but what devastating consequences! As I continued to look with horror at the situation he was in, it was if his thoughts spoke to me again. He told me to warn my mother, so that she would not have to come to this terrible place where there was no respite, and no end to the torment.
The heat was unbearable. I also knew there was nothing I could do to release my father from his ‘chosen’ destination. I was also terrified lest I should dragged down and forced to stay there. In my desperation I cried out to God, ‘Oh, God, please help me!’.
At the moment of crying out to God, I heard another voice crying, ‘We have a heartbeat!’ I wanted to tell the surgeon, and the rest of the team, that I had been to Hell, and was terrified. I was put on oxygen. They kept telling me to rest because they were concerned about me, and wanted me to get well. Nevertheless, I kept trying to tell them, ‘I’ve been to Hell, and I never want to go there again!’
Yet still I did not come into a close relationship with Jesus. I allowed Satan to deceive me, and to draw me away from a true walk with God. There were further major operations. Each time I went into hospital I was in absolute terror of death and Hell. I kept seeing myself burning in the flames, being tormented like my poor father. My mother and sister would not listen to what I had to say about dad and Hell. The problem was I did not go to the right people for help, and I became more and more taken over by the torment and fear with which Satan and his evil spirits confused me.
It was when I was 50 years old that my lovely daughter Michelle came to see me one day. She told me that she had given her life to Jesus, and that she knew of someone who would be able to help me. Thank God I agreed to allow Canon Jim Fry to come and pray for me. On 23 February 1987 my life was completely changed. As Canon Fry prayed for me, God spoke to me saying, ‘I have sent my beloved Son, Jesus, to deliver and set you free.’ I saw the battle going on for my soul in the spiritual realm, but Jesus dealt with it all. I was set free to go and tell other people what He had done for me, in order to set other captives free.
What a wonderful day that was. My husband was there too, and he also gave his life to Jesus. We were both set free, born again by the Spirit of God, never again to be tormented by fear…. In 1995, Rita Chuter died at her appointed time, and we know that she is now with Jesus.
star2 says:
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 5:34am
Hell is real folks. Those who die in their sin because they never received Jesus as Savior and Lord will go there. They will suffer conscious torment and it will last forever.
Andy Derksen says:
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 3:45am
Tough subject. Now, I’m a rather independent thinker, meaning I don’t automatically buy this or that doctrine /just/ because some church authority teaches it.
Having said that, it seems to me that if God did /not/ want His people holding the ECT position, then something else–such as annihilationism–would have been planted in the ancient church by the Holy Spirit as an orthodox doctrine to offset those promoting ECT.
This never happened. The universal Church has historically /always/ held the ECT position, as far back as we can check. If it were a simple matter of reinterpreting this or that passage, then surely the Spirit would have led a significantly large number of church fathers to have taught something else.
He didn’t. Therefore the odds are mammothly stacked against any non-ECT doctrine. It is simply /more probable/ that the ECT interpretation of key passages is the correct interpretation.
MGT2 says:
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 3:36pm
Andy,
I think you are right. I think the Scriptures are clear on that. Origen’s universalism theology was rejected by the Church as heretical; a position the Church still holds today. Even if some proffer other alternatives, I do not think they amount to more than wishful thinking.
The late John Stott (who leaned towards annhiliationism) agreed that the scriptures used to support universalism in Paul’s writings do not, because he says that Paul was not a universalist. I agree with him as well.
randal says:
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 5:01pm
“Origen’s universalism theology was rejected by the Church as heretical”
Generally speaking that’s true. But you have to be careful here since Origen’s universalism was mixed up with all sorts of errors. Gregory of Nyssa was also a universalist and was never formally censured for it. In fact, he is revered for his trinitarian orthodoxy. Eastern orthodoxy has historically been more open to universalist theologies (e.g. Bulgakov in the twentieth century).
MGT2 says:
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 5:35pm
One reason I could give for the lack of specific censorship for Gregory and others is because their’s continued Origen’s doctrine and was considered under the same judgment.
I do not consider all universalists heretics qua heretic. So I would not throw out all the works of ones like Gregory or Origen.
Jim says:
Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 8:53pm
Here is what I have come to believe through hours of study and prayerful consideration.
Adam brought death to all, Jesus brought life to all – apart from our choice (1 Cor 15:22). It is by the faith OF Jesus that we are all saved, especially those that believe (Rom 3:22 and 1 Tim 4:10). For those that believe but reject the gift, no other sacrifice exists and the only thing left is some form of punishment (Heb 10:26 and Heb 6:4-6). Whether that punishment is destruction, eternal, or cleansing I am not sure.
To recap: All are saved except those that believe and reject anyway.
davidstarlingm says:
Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 10:39pm
Major difficulty:
Under this view, the worst possible thing you could do for someone would be to preach the gospel to them. There is a chance they would reject it and thus perish.
Jim says:
Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 11:43pm
First of all, I’m not talking about people that reject the good news. I’m talking about people who are enlightened, have tasted the gift, have received the holy spirit but then trampled the son underfoot and treat the blood that sanctified them as unholy by ultimately rejecting what they know to be true.
Secondly, what if the “punishment” is a cleansing period and not ECT or destruction? It would still be worth it to tell someone that not only are they free, but that the Father could teach them to live like free men here and now.