Why Calvinists should be universalists or Arminians
Over the years as I have engaged in extended discussions with Calvinists over election and the divine nature I have often found the same two red herrings being pulled out just as things start to heat up.
And so it is in my recent discussion with a Calvinist named Kerry over my critique of another Calvinist (Andrew). Given that I think the discussion is illuminating I have reproduced it below with some commentary. Then I conclude by returning to the first red herring (justice). The drift of my argument shall be this: demonstrate why Calvinists should either be universalists or Arminians.
Red Herring One: Appeal to God’s Justice
The first red herring is God’s justice. Kerry, would you please speak clearly into the microphone:
Kerry: “It seems to me you are measuring God’s love on the basis of his actions towards people without any other consideration. What I mean is God does not just love people in isolation. He loves justice as well. Your maximally loving God must also consider justice.”
Randal enter from stage right. Turn the spotlight. And go:
Randal: “Kerry, I’m not sure what you’re claiming here. Are you saying that God was unable justly to elect all people to salvation from eternity in Christ? If you do believe that, what is your reason for believing it? If you don’t believe it (and thus believe that God could have justly elected all to salvation), then why didn’t God elect all people to salvation from eternity in Christ?”
Kerry: “What I am asking- is your definition and measure of maximal love accurate? If God is love then whatever he does proceeds on the basis of love. God loves justice so some are justly condemned that is also a measure of his love, it is just that in this case his love is expressed in justice while sometimes it is expressed in mercy. God is no less loving either way and the integrity of his love for both justice and mercy are met perfectly on the cross.”
Randal: “Kerry, are you suggesting that God wouldn’t have been just if he had elected all to salvation by imputing the righteousness of Christ to all? After all, whether God reprobate some or saves all, his wrath and justice are still satisfied on penal substitutionary theology by the death of Christ. So the only remaining question is how many people would God will to save by the infinitely effective death of his beloved Son. If God is omnibenevolent (meaning that he desires all creatures to achieve shalom) then it follows necessarily that he would desire that all achieve shalom and thus he would elect all in Christ such that none would be reprobate. Insofar as you deny that this is the case and continue to affirm that some are reprobate you thereby reject the divine omnibenevolence. The question is why?”
So the defense of the decree of reprobation by appealing to justice is shown to be the red herring that it is. Time to introduce the next red herring.
Red Herring Two: Eschew “Speculation”
This brings us to the second red herring a heady brew of ”Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (Romans 9:20) spiced with a dash of “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9) Kerry once again:
Kerry: “Ultimately I don’t have to suggest anything about a hypothetical world. This is the one I live in- and I seek to understand it in terms of experience and in the light of scripture. It is apparent that people reject the Gospel, some accept it. Choices have consequences. I seek to understand this world through the lens of scripture, if I were to be more convinced that libertarian free will reflected scripture better I would follow that. I think that what is damaging is the extremism of both sides. We have a will, it is meaningful- but not absolute.”
Okay, turn up the house lights. Now for some additional commentary on this second red herring in the exchange. This one is centered on Kerry’s reply to the dilemma I presented for his invocation of justice. As we saw, he replies: “I don’t have to suggest anything about a hypothetical world.”
This is an attempt to marginalize my critique of his position as being unduly speculative (perhaps irreverent) and altogether irrelevant.
But it isn’t irrelevant. If Kerry wants to defend his Calvinism he does have to respond to this problem that his position entails that God cannot elect all to salvation. Why can’t God do this? I already showed that appealing to justice is a canard. So what is Kerry’s reasoning for thinking God cannot redeem all?
Consider for a moment that Kerry staked his claim on the position of christological peccability meaning that while Jesus didn’t sin he nonetheless could have. I would respond as follows: “Are you saying that God can sin?” It would hardly do for Kerry to respond “I don’t have to suggest anything about a hypothetical world.” Of course you do. If your view entails that God can sin then you have to defend that implication. Similarly, if your position entails that God cannot elect all to salvation then you have to defend that implication as well.
Back to justice
Ultimately the defense of Kerry’s assumption that God cannot elect all will bring us back to justice, but not in the way Kerry initially thought. At this point I’m going to offer clarification on how a Calvinist might appeal to justice to explain reprobation and why I am not persuaded by that appeal.
First off, I already explained why explaining the divine decree of reprobation by appealing to justice simpliciter does not work. The reason, as I said, is that Christ’s death satisfies the divine justice (according to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement typically assumed by the good Calvinist). Consequently, to appeal to justice as the explanation of reprobation makes no sense. It is akin to a police officer attempting to explain his use of a lethal gun to detain a suspect when he could have used a non-lethal taser to the same effect.
The only way the Calvinist can appeal to justice is if there is something overall better or more fitting about the damnation of some. But what does that mean and what would it look like? What I suggest is that the Calvinist switch the focus from justice simpliciter to the demonstration of justice. To make the difference clear we can distinguish two different principles:
Justice reprobation (JR) principle: God’s justice precludes him from electing all to salvation.
Demonstration of justice reprobation (DJR) principle: God’s need to demonstrate his justice precludes him from electing all to salvation.
Keryr initially appealed to the JR Principle. I’m arguing that the Calvinist cannot appeal to the JR principle to explain reprobation since Christ’s death satisfies divine justice. However, they could appeal to the DJR principle. That is, they could argue that God’s need to demonstrate his justice in a maximal sense requires that some people be reprobated. One could argue that the DJR Principle is assumed in Romans 9:22-23:
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory
Thus the claim goes like this: Paul is arguing that the reprobation of some manifests more fully God’s glorious justice than it would have been manifested if none had been reprobated. Thus, God reprobates some not because justice requires it but rather because his need to demonstrate his justice as fully as possible requires it.
Now why am I not persuaded by the DJR Principle? Here’s why:
Fuller Justice (FJ) Assumption: The DJR Principle assumes that the death of Christ plus the reprobation of some more fully manifests God’s justice than the death of Christ alone.
But why think that? As best I can surmise, the assumption that drives the FJ Assumption is a Diversity of Justice Principle. We can state this as follows:
Diversity of Justice (DJ) Principle: Divine justice is more fully appreciable by finite agents if that justice is manifested in the election of some in Christ and the reprobation of others to their sin.
Finally, I’m going to complete this depth analysis by suggesting that the DJ Principle is driven by a contrasting justice principle:
Contrasting Justice (CJ) Principle: Divine justice is more fully appreciable by finite agents if that justice is manifested in contrasting outcomes which are all consistent with divine justice.
I know what you’re thinking: this is getting a bit ridiculous. Perhaps. But I’m in the mood for over-analysis and the positing of principles today. Anyway, it seems there is some accuracy in this analysis. So to summarize, the CJ Principle grounds the DJ Principle which in turn grounds the FJ Assumption that drives the DJR Principle.
All this leads me to ask the following three questions.
Question 1: Assuming the CJ Principle and DJ Principle are true, is the additional understanding of divine justice through the reprobation of some sufficient to override the divine love that would otherwise redeem all?
In other words, while God may desire to manifest his justice to finite creatures, he also desires to redeem creatures. Why think the desire to manifest his justice to some would outweigh his desire to save all?
Question 2: Assuming the CJ Principle and DJ Principle are true, is the additional understanding of divine justice through the reprobation of some sufficient to override the additional understanding of divine love that would come through the redemption of all?
It seems to me that if there is an argument that human beings have a heightened sense of divine justice through the reprobation of some, they would have at least a commensurately heightened grasp of divine love through the election of all. So if God has two possible conflicting outcomes (greater sense of divine justice; greater sense of divine love) why think the grasp of justice trumps love?
As important as these two questions are, I’m going to focus on Question 3:
Question 3: Why think that the CJ Principle and DJ Principle are true?
I see no reason to accept these, unless of course you believe that they are somehow entailed by your reading of Romans 9. But that is, to say the least, a leap. And if we have good reasons to reconsider a particular exegesis of a text then we ought to take those reasons seriously. So in conclusion I’m going to offer just such a reason.
Let’s imagine that only 1000 people have ever existed. (That’s okay. The numbers are irrelevant to the point being made. Sticking to a thousand just makes things simpler.) This means that only 1000 people are possible objects of election or reprobation. The Calvinist believes that things work out approximately like this:
Calvinist Scenario: God elects 500 (more or less) and reprobates 500 (more or less) because this more fully manifests his justice than does saving all 1000.
But hold on. There is a serious problem with this analysis and it is that the manifestation of justice that comes through election and reprobation is radically disproportionate. Here’s why:
An elect individual has the full righteousness of Christ imputed to him or her. Christ has fully satisfied the wrath and justice of God on the cross and since that elect individual is counted in Christ that individual is a complete token of that infinite justice.
By contrast,
A reprobate individual must suffer eternally to satisfy the demands of justice apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ. Since it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series of temporal moments it is impossible for this reprobate individual ever to satisfy fully the demands of divine justice and thereby become a complete token of that infinite justice.
To sum up, the Calvinist is proposing that a possible world in which divine justice is perfectly satisfied in some and only potentially satisfied in others is more illustrative of divine justice than a world in which divine justice is perfectly satisfied in all. But this is clearly false. To provide an analogy, that is like claiming that 500 infinite deposits into a bank account coupled with 500 finite deposits is worth more than 1000 infinite deposits.
Consequently, the consistent Calvinist will either embrace universal salvation or reject Calvinist election.
Q.E.D.
84 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
pete says:
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 11:17pm
Randal,
On election, I see the matter as reflective of God’s atemporality
I think the issue gets conflated with a Calvanist pushing the notion of irresistable grace too far.
If a Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian charge is going to be leveled each time a believer “does something” towards actualizing/applying the redemptive work of Christ, as taught by the Holy Spirit, then I think your argument has good traction, and Calvanism can be rejected as showing God to be capricious and contrary to biblical/apostolic confession.
However, I have to ask, how do you put the doctrine of free will and the freedom which follows creation in the divne image in the mix?
Does a human possess the intrinsic ability to tell the Holy Spirit to “go pound sand”?….. I think the evidence is clear.
So then what are the consequences when somebody outright rejects salvation?
Is God accountable to Humans, on any model, to elect somebody who categorically and permanently tramples on his Son, after the ultimate atonement has been made?
I think not.
Snardiff says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 2:07am
This can really only be settled by exegesis. The “God must reprobate in order to demonstrate justice” is just a theory, so even if you disprove it, that does not really disprove Calvinism.
But there might be problems with your argument against it in any case. Perhaps the usual form is “God must reprobate in order to demonstrate justice” is equivocal, since the justice that was satisfied in the elect through Christ is different from justice suffered by the reprobate in hell. From the point of view of the elect, they receive mercy and not justice, so it’s not just a case of electing everyone, since that justice is of a different type.
I think it’s also a subjective value judgment to say that justice in the process of being executed, that cannot be evaded, is somehow inferior to the sentence having been fully carried out (as in Christ’s atonement). Once all parties are properly judged and suffering their punishments that they will not be able to evade, you can still say justice has been done.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 3:32am
“Perhaps the usual form is “God must reprobate in order to demonstrate justice” is equivocal”
Well it wouldn’t be equivocal if there are two different kinds of justice. Regardless, there is in fact one kind of justice which is expressed in two different states of affairs and you are claiming that the good that derives from the state of affairs of some being damned to the utmost agony eternally is even greater than the good that derives from the state of affairs of those same people being reconciled to the Lord of the universe. That has to be about the most implausible theological claim I’ve run across (though I’ve heard Calvinists make it often enough).
Snardiff says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 5:08pm
“there is in fact one kind of justice which is expressed in two different states of affairs and you are claiming that the good that derives from the state of affairs of some being damned to the utmost agony eternally is even greater than the good that derives from the state of affairs of those same people being reconciled to the Lord of the universe”
Yes, yes, I see your objection. I’ve seen your objection. That theory has always bothered me on a subconscious level. But as I say, this was always just a ***theory***, and only exegesis can settle it.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 5:14pm
” That theory has always bothered me on a subconscious level.”
What theory? What do you mean? This is vague.
As for your appeal to exegesis, if scripture states A in one place and not-A in another place, exegesis alone cannot settle the matter. Scripture affirms that God loves and desires to save all creatures. It also says that he will reconcile all creatures to himself. It also has passages that seem to deny both of these claims. So exegeting the passages in question is not sufficient. After you’ve gone as far as you can go exegetically you need to systematize by bringing them into a coherent whole. The argument I present is directed against the Calvinist’s attempt at providing a coherent whole.
snardiff says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 6:17pm
By theory I mean that a Calvinist attempt to explain God’s decision and reprobation is that God must demonstrate “justice” (which is admittedly ambiguous here) by reprobating some, in addition to mercy/justice by electing some.
As for the “All” case – where do you deal with the objection (or consider it dealt with compellingly – I’m open) that “all” refers to all kinds, not necessarily to all individuals? This distinction between Jews/Gentiles seems to weigh heavily on the minds of the NT writers, so I don’t see this interpretation of all can just be dismissed simply. Ex. John 12:32, says he is raised that all men may drawn to him, yet John 12:20 mentions lots of “Greeks” were there, so all means all kinds.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 6:25pm
I think the “all kinds” of people rather than “all people” rejoinder is worthwhile enough to respond to in a blog post. (I’ll probably do it tomorrow.)
Kerry says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:57pm
That post would be interesting. On the back cover of John Owens book “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” (in which he deals with this issue) is a claim that his thesis has never been defeated.
Jag Levak says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 2:52pm
Regarding the second red herring, I’ve seen you make the limited perspective appeal when punting on the matter of reconciling apparent evil with God’s ultimate goodness (eg. your example of the child’s perspective of the doctor who rebreaks a bone that is not healing properly). So if it’s okay for you, why isn’t it okay for Calvinists?
And I don’t see why your arguments would favor Arminianism over Calvinism. As I understand it, the Calvinist position is that anybody may be among the elect, while the Arminian position constrains the grace of God, making it conditional on belief (which is just tough for those who never got to hear the word). The Calvinist position is that grace is enduring and irresistable–once saved, always saved–while the Arminian position is that anyone can fall from grace (a notion which would appear to be incompatible with belief in God’s perfect foreknowledge).
To me, it looks like all your arguments from benevolence would favor Calvinism over Arminianism. It would also appear your arguments much more strongly favor universalism over either Calvinism or Arminianism, but if that’s your position, I have to wonder what sort of weird sect of Baptism you belong to which preaches universalism while simultaneously excluding people who haven’t had the right sort of baptism.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 3:50pm
“So if it’s okay for you, why isn’t it okay for Calvinists?”
Limited perspective is not a plausible appeal to explain just anything. For example, I have consistently spoken out against biblical genocide. I don’t buy for a second claims that genocide can sometimes be a good thing and we just lack the perspective to see how. On the contrary, the evidence strikes me as overwhelming that genocide is always a supremely wicked act.
I agree that the Calvinist can make an appeal to God’s ways being higher than ours. But I don’t find that appeal plausible at all. There is simply no reason at all to think that damning some people to the utmost horrific tortures for eternity is necessary for the rest of us to grasp God’s glory more fully. That is horrendous, disgusting and stupifyingly implausible. So while I can see the plausibility of the evil allowed for greater good that you reference, I find no initial plausibility to the Calvinistic claim.
Jeff says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 4:04pm
“There is simply no reason at all to think that damning some people to the utmost horrific tortures for eternity is necessary for the rest of us to grasp God’s glory more fully. That is horrendous, disgusting and stupifyingly implausible.”
Amen to that.
Jag Levak says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 4:36pm
So, you would say the limited perspective argument is entirely reasonable and plausible in cases like where God pops the cork on a volcano and wipes out cities or even an entire civilization (eg. Minoan Crete) –no problem for the omnibenevolence of God there–but you think it unimaginable that God could ever have condoned genocide because you find the evidence overwhelming that it is always a supremely wicked act.
I don’t really see the basis of your distinction, other than your view that you find one plausible and the other not. But if you are justifying what you believe on the basis of what you find plausible, then it looks like that would leave the door wide open for anyone to believe anything they find plausible. Even Calvinists.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 5:11pm
There is a difference between God foreknowing that certain natural events will lead to suffering and God commanding people to engage in acts of butchering entire populations of non-combatants. Here’s one obvious difference: God importunes human agents to engage in genocide, but God does not importune human agents to engage in acts of volcano erupting.
Jag Levak says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 7:39pm
“There is a difference between God foreknowing that certain natural events will lead to suffering and God commanding people to engage in acts of butchering entire populations of non-combatants.”
One difference, at least, seems clear. If God rains millions of tons of searing hot pyroclastic death down on the heads of people, the outcome is certain and irresistible, whereas delegating the job of mass killings to supposedly freewill humans could result in a failure to do the job, and would give those marked for death at least some chance of fighting back. But presumably, in both cases, God would have foreseen and approved the slaughter as part of his grand plan (unless you want to posit that “certain natural events” happen which are contrary to what God wanted). And in both cases, the doomed wind up equally dead. So really, it looks like the biggest moral difference would be the possible psychological distress which the poor butchers might suffer as a result of all their killing, pillaging, and general mayhem. But it isn’t clear why a God who can approve of mass death could not similarly approve of mass discomfort.
“Here’s one obvious difference: God importunes human agents to engage in genocide, but God does not importune human agents to engage in acts of volcano erupting.”
That was humor, right? From the outside, it all looks rather silly, so sometimes it’s hard to tell what bits were meant seriously.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:09pm
“If God rains millions of tons of searing hot pyroclastic death down ….”
God is not directly raining down… Creation operates by natural laws which Christians believe that God established. It is a very different thing for God to establish natural laws that result in sentient casualities from the picture of God to act as the primary acting cause of a natural disaster, as if he were like Zeus hurtling thunderbolts from on high.
“That was humor, right?”
No, it was the difference between moral and natural evil. In the case of the volcano no finite moral agent acts to cause the event that leads indirectly to great suffering. That’s an enormous difference from individuals being commanded to engage in morally evil acts like genocide.
Jag Levak says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:50am
“God is not directly raining down…”
If God does something indirectly, does that make it any less certain, any less according to his plan, or any less his responsibility?
“Creation operates by natural laws which Christians believe that God established.”
Maybe some Christians believe that. Some believe in a “ground of being” God wherein God is the ongoing sustainer of all processes in the universe. Some believe in a Creation which operates by some hybrid of natural laws and divine interventions. But what most Christians seem to agree on is that, whether in the planning stage, or in the ongoing operational process, or by direct intervention, God would have had the capacity to prevent any volcanic massacre that was not according to his wishes.
“It is a very different thing for God to establish natural laws that result in sentient casualities from the picture of God to act as the primary acting cause of a natural disaster, as if he were like Zeus hurtling thunderbolts from on high.”
The difference is that Zeus was basically a fallible superman god, competing with other gods, so even at close range, it would have been possible for him to miss. Whereas God the ubermost is supposedly infinitely more powerful, and exacting to the point of anticipating absolutely every aspect of the universe he created. If it is in God’s plan to drop death on your head at exactly time T, then that is precisely what will happen, with zero deviation from schedule, and it doesn’t matter whether the plan was set into motion a week ago, a year ago, or many millions of centuries ago.
“it was the difference between moral and natural evil.”
It was a difference of means only. If I set up, and set in motion, some Rube Goldberg contraption to kill Joe, and all goes according to plan, I would have at least as much responsibility for the death of Joe as I would have if I had hired a hitman to rub out Joe.
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:43pm
“If God does something indirectly, does that make it any less certain, any less according to his plan, or any less his responsibility?”
If God wants to create free creatures that can enter into relationship with him and the only worlds with a significant number of those free creatures are worlds which also bring a significant degree of sin and pain, then God could have good reasons for creating those worlds even though the worlds bring with them much evil for which the free agents that commit them are culpable.
Jag Levak says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 4:22pm
I have to wonder how serious a god can be about wanting to be in a relationship with us if it hides and does a pretty convincing impression of not being there at all. And that’s without even getting into the question of why a perfect ultimate god in particular would want or feel need to be in a relationship with corrupt and infinitely inferior speck primates, virtually indistinguishable from the other primates compared to this supergod. And from an omniscient god’s perspective, what, really, would be the difference between creating free agents which will do exactly that which it has always known they will do, and creating non-free agents which will do exactly that which it has always known they will do?
You also seem to be staking out the position that free will is necessarily and inextricably linked with corruption and suffering, and there is no possible world that has the former without the latter. That would seem to imply that your heaven either has both, or lacks both.
And by the way, your objection was to my suggestion that it doesn’t matter whether God drops volcanic death on people directly or indirectly, so it isn’t clear how talk about culpable free agents lets God off the hook–unless you are proposing that volcanic eruptions might be in response to human sinfulness. (I know many Christians say so, but I thought you didn’t agree.) But you may have touched on a possible answer, if you are suggesting that when God was considering all the logically possible universes he could have created, he found that not a single one of them could cleanly deliver everything he wanted because all of them necessarily included elements he specifically did not want. Is that what you are suggesting?
Jeff says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 4:00pm
Interesting, in-depth analysis Randal! I agree that Calvinists ought to be universalists (really, I think all evangelicals should be), and I wonder if that can’t be demonstrated a bit more simply:
Why, on the evangelical view, might it be that anyone is saved? Haven’t all of us chosen sin and death? If God values justice so highly, shouldn’t all of us be damned? Of course, here Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection come into play. Jesus took the punishment for our sins upon himself and fulfilled the demands of God’s justice.
Alright, but why then isn’t everyone saved? At this point, the Calvinist typically brings the doctrine of limited atonement to bear. Jesus’ sacrifice is said to have been on behalf of (or effectual for? maybe my terminology here is a bit off?) the elect only, so it is only in the case of the elect that God’s desire for justice has already been satisfied. But the teaching of limited atonement flies so far in the face of the consistent biblical message on the subject that even some Calvinists reject it. Certainly there’s far, far more textual support for universalism than for limited atonement.
But what about the biblical hell references? Well, yeah, what about them? Find some other understanding of hell and judgment, other than eternal conscious torment or annihilationism. The universalist can simply say that whatever the biblical references to hell and judgment mean, they CAN’T mean ECT or annihilationism.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 5:08pm
“But the teaching of limited atonement flies so far in the face of the consistent biblical message on the subject that even some Calvinists reject it.”
While I don’t accept limited atonement, there certainly are a number of passages that offer prima facie support for it as well as others that emphatically don’t. So in a standoff like that where we have “A” and “not-A” we need to choose sides. And I agree that the side supporting an unlimited atonement (even if not one that is unlimited in effect) is the overwhelmingly preferable option.
Of course that does force us back to theories of atonement. Depending on one’s preferred theory the categories of limited and unlimited atonement may not actually have much purchase, for if a person believes Christ did not literally diefor anybody (as several theories entail) then the point is moot. Discussions of limited atonement are generally set against the backdrop of satisfaction and penal substitutionary theories and it is within the framework of those theories that they are meaningful.
Jeff says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 3:01am
“Of course that does force us back to theories of atonement.”
Certainly. I was assuming a penal view of the atonement, or at least, some sort of broadly substitutionary view. But a substitutionary model is overwhelmingly the position of Calvinists, correct? So if one is attempting to woo Calvinists to universalism, one can pretty safely assume a substitutionary model, correct?
“While I don’t accept limited atonement, there certainly are a number of passages that offer prima facie support for it as well as others that emphatically don’t. So in a standoff like that where we have “A” and “not-A” we need to choose sides.”
Yep. Seems to me this would make us realize that one of two things must be true. Either we’re asking the wrong questions of scripture, and that’s why we’re getting confusing/conflicting answers. Or, scripture isn’t infallible/totally internally consistent. Or perhaps both. I’d for sure go with the second option, and probably with the first as well. In any event, if the limited/universal atonement question is a proper question to ask of scripture, it seems to me that the voice of universal atonement is undeniably the dominant voice.
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:49pm
“So if one is attempting to woo Calvinists to universalism, one can pretty safely assume a substitutionary model, correct?”
I think that’s a safe bet. Karl Barth’s your man there.
“Seems to me this would make us realize that one of two things must be true.”
Perhaps scripture is ambiguous for providential reasons such as the transformative communal benefit of having just these kinds of conversations.
Jeff says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 4:34am
“Perhaps scripture is ambiguous for providential reasons such as the transformative communal benefit of having just these kinds of conversations.”
Perhaps.
PM says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 9:45pm
Randal,
Why doesn’t the Calvinist have a rebutting or insulating defeater against your argument. That is: 1. The Bible teaches election. 2. The Bible teaches irresistible grace. 3. The Bible teaches some will be in hell. And, 4, whatever the Bible teaches is true.
?
Simply knowing *that* 1-4 is true is enough to insulate the Calvinist from your defeater, even if he doesn’t know *how* or *why* it all works out.
Also, even if Christ’s death *satisfies* God’s justice, this doesn’t logically entail that it *maximally exemplifies* God’s justice. It is possible that the latter may only be achieved through the punishment of a *truly* guilty person, which Christ was not. Moreover, it may be that God brings upon himself certain contingent obligations, like: “If God creates, then in any created theater, God must maximally exemplify all of his attributes.” All I need is the *possibility* that this is true. I can’t see a successful argument that this is *impossible*.
This shouldn’t be too hard to grant. For on Arminianism, God contingently obligates himself if certain affairs obtain. On Arminianism, total depravity is affirmed. However, if man is totally depraved, he is unable to do good or resist temptation to do evil (so says the Articles of Remonstrance). But, man will still be under moral obligation. Thus, man *ought* to do things he cannot do. Hence, ought-implies-can is false. Thus, Arminians must give up a popular critique of Calvinism. But (!), Arminians might say that God’s loving nature *compels* him to try to save any fallen creature. This implies that God *must* dole out prevenient grace in any fallen world (kinda removes the graciousness from it, but leave that aside). The point is, God, absent a fallen world, doesn’t have the obligation to dole out prevenient grace (otherwise we have a modal collapse). But he “takes on” this obligation once other states of affairs obtain.
Now, what’s the relevant moral difference between knowing that some evil will take place, being able to stop it, and allowing it to happen, and your claim about Calvinism and God determining it? Who’s more evil: Bob, who determines that Pete will murder Mary; or, Frank, who knows Pete will kill Mary, can stop Pete from murdering Mary, permits Pete to murder Mary, and also upholds Pete’s strength so that he can go through with the crime?
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:21pm
“Randal, Why doesn’t the Calvinist have a rebutting or insulating defeater against your argument. That is: 1. The Bible teaches election. 2. The Bible teaches irresistible grace. 3. The Bible teaches some will be in hell. And, 4, whatever the Bible teaches is true.”
You should add something like “5. Those who enter hell never leave it.”
Of course there are two different issues here. To begin with your response is ineffectual for “insulating” those who are not already committed to 1-5 from my objections. Second, are you suggesting that your “insulating defeater” is ultima facie? If so, what would you do with “6. Human beings are fallible” and “7. Even those who are elect have no guarantee that they will get all their beliefs right, including 1-5″? I think I just ripped a gaping hole in your insulation.
“It is possible that the latter may only be achieved through the punishment of a *truly* guilty person, which Christ was not.”
Based on what do you say this? It sounds terribly ad hoc. So do you have a reason for making this claim apart from attempting to prop up the belief in question against the problems I’ve raised?
“it may be that God brings upon himself certain contingent obligations, like: “If God creates, then in any created theater, God must maximally exemplify all of his attributes.” All I need is the *possibility* that this is true. I can’t see a successful argument that this is *impossible*.”
Do you mean logical possibility? That may be logically possible. But you need to establish that it is not just logically possible but also feasible. After all, it seems very plausible to believe that even if what you suggest is logically possible, the fact that it might result in the damnation of some would mean that an omnibenevolent God would never actualize such a world.
As for Arminian views of the ought/can principle, there has been some water under the bridge since 1610.
“Now, what’s the relevant moral difference between knowing that some evil will take place, being able to stop it, and allowing it to happen, and your claim about Calvinism and God determining it? Who’s more evil: Bob, who determines that Pete will murder Mary; or, Frank, who knows Pete will kill Mary, can stop Pete from murdering Mary, permits Pete to murder Mary, and also upholds Pete’s strength so that he can go through with the crime?”
I addressed this before when I talked about God having forced options. Insofar as the Calvinist believes God doesn’t have forced options and could have freely elected everyone but chose not to, they face a dilemma not faced by the Arminian.
PM says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:23am
Randal, yes, and “stay there forever” was assumed.
Of course there are two different issues here. To begin with your response is ineffectual for “insulating” those who are not already committed to 1-5 from my objections.
Yes, as I said, it insulates the *Calvinist who holds to them*. I certainly didn’t intend to say that those for whom Calvinism is already defeated have a defeater-insulator! In any case, your argument is that *Calvinists* should become Arminians or Universalists, so presumably you’re trying to defeat *Calvinists’* beliefs. Don’t tell me this post was simply preaching to the choir!? I could easily write a post that Arminians should become Universalists or Open Theists, and mean it for Calvinists eyes only, from whom I’d receive a rousing round of applause.
“Second, are you suggesting that your “insulating defeater” is ultima facie? If so, what would you do with “6. Human beings are fallible” and “7. Even those who are elect have no guarantee that they will get all their beliefs right, including 1-5?? I think I just ripped a gaping hole in your insulation.”
LOL. Dr. Rauser, please, you would need something like this: 8. The possibility that you could be wrong about ? means that you cannot be insulated from defeat of ? by defeater, D.
If S believes ? with more warrant than D, then the defeating potential D has is antecedently neutralized by the degree of warrant of the original belief. For example, suppose I have been accused of stealing a letter. Suppose I had motive, and a reliable source claims to have seen me around the office where the letter was. However, I distinctly remember that I was on a walk in the woods at this time. So, my *colleagues* might be justified in believing that I stole the letter, but *I* have a defeater-insulator. Now, imagine the response of my colleagues that: “Yes, but you could be mistaken! Hence, you can’t possibly have a defeater-insulator.” This is epistemic Tomfoolery.
So, I just gutted your rebutting-defeater and my suit is in tact since your knife was made of paper.
“Based on what do you say this? It sounds terribly ad hoc. So do you have a reason for making this claim apart from attempting to prop up the belief in question against the problems I’ve raised?”
Well, everyone makes ad hoc adjustments to “save the phenomena.” So this in and of itself isn’t a problem. Moreover, all I need is the *possibility* that it’s true to undercut any claim to logical inconsistency, which is what you’re trying to argue (we’re logically committed to universalism or Arminianism). Second, I say this because it seems obviously true. Christ did not actually commit any crime. He is actually *innocent*. He was not a lawbreaker. Indeed, he fulfilled the law! He was *undeserving* to die. Since I believe that the a full display or manifestation of justice have some connection with *desert*, then Christ’s death is not a full manifestation of the attribute of justice. So, it may be that some of those for whom divine justice is visited on are actually *deserving* of that visitation.
“I addressed this before when I talked about God having forced options. Insofar as the Calvinist believes God doesn’t have forced options and could have freely elected everyone but chose not to, they face a dilemma not faced by the Arminian.”
I have no clue what you’re talking about. First, we’re talking about every single occurrence of evil. Second, it’s my view that if God is to create a world where the greatest love is shown, he must create a fallen world. Then, once he does, since I hold the Augustinian principle of complete manifestation of all his attributes in any created theatre, he cannot save everyone but must show mercy to some. The persons are not fixed, so those who actually receive mercy can be said to truly receive grace. So I got some “forced options” in there.
PM says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:24am
sorry, the ? marks were supposed to be symbols, but Randal’s blog didn’t translate them.
PM says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 1:10am
BTW, I’ve developed my views from Augustine, Shedd, Helm, and Oliver Crisp, among others. For Crisp, see
An American Augustinian: Sin and Salvation in the Dogmatic Theology of William G. T. Shedd (Paternoster Press/ Wipf and Stock, 2007)
‘Augustinian Universalism’ in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 53 (2003): 127-145.
‘Divine Retribution: A Defence’ in Sophia 42 (2003): 35-52.
‘Is universalism a problem for particularists?’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 63.1 (2010): 1-23.
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:32pm
“If S believes ? with more warrant than D, then the defeating potential D has is antecedently neutralized by the degree of warrant of the original belief.”
Sure. But everything depends on the degree of warrant you have for your original belief. Is your position that a Mormon can appeal to their own equivalent of 1-5 whatever reasons are presented against their belief because of a burning in their bosom?
“Well, everyone makes ad hoc adjustments to “save the phenomena.” So this in and of itself isn’t a problem.”
I agree that to a certain degree an ad hoc posit can be warranted. But there are limits! You claimed the following: “It is possible that the latter may only be achieved through the punishment of a *truly* guilty person, which Christ was not.” Supposedly God needed to sacrifice his son and then punish x amount of other people eternally in order for the rest of us to enjoy the divine glory more fully. That is the difference between a “oh how convenient” ad hoc postulate and a “are you kidding? That’s crazy!” ad hoc postulate.
“it’s my view that if God is to create a world where the greatest love is shown, he must create a fallen world.”
So God requires evil to manifest his glory? Sounds rather Manichaean.
PM says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 6:26pm
Dr. R,
“Sure. But everything depends on the degree of warrant you have for your original belief. Is your position that a Mormon can appeal to their own equivalent of 1-5 whatever reasons are presented against their belief because of a burning in their bosom?”
As you know, there’s other factors involved. And here we’d wade into matters of internal rationality and external rationality. I also did not make an insulating claim about *whatever reasons* are offered. I made it about the reasons *you* offered. Reasons that are very debatable, and reasons which many intelligent and respected people reject. In any event, your response is insufficient, for the reasons you offered from the mere possibility that I am wrong, are not reasons that defeat my (1) – (5); and, yes, I’d say the same for the Mormon (for more on this see James Anderson, paradox in Christian Theology). The question is, why wouldn’t you? I’d also add that I’m not sure the Mormon has the resources to make these moves. In any case, I think these Great Pumkin rejoinders to Plantinga fail, and so I think your version of it fails too.
However, matters get worse, for not only did I rightly appeal to insulating defeaters, I also offered rebutting and undercutting defeater-defeaters. In fact, you now have undefeated-defeaters to deal with. And no, calling my arguments “crazy” isn’t a recognized defeater-defeater-defeater.
To my remark about ad hoc adjustments (and note I haven’t admitted that I have given an ad hoc adjustment, indeed, I indicated that my position can be seen (at least implicitly) from Augustine down to Crisp, so continuing on this is charity) you wrote:
I agree that to a certain degree an ad hoc posit can be warranted. But there are limits! You claimed the following: “It is possible that the latter may only be achieved through the punishment of a *truly* guilty person, which Christ was not.” Supposedly God needed to sacrifice his son and then punish x amount of other people eternally in order for the rest of us to enjoy the divine glory more fully. That is the difference between a “oh how convenient” ad hoc postulate and a “are you kidding? That’s crazy!” ad hoc postulate.
1. Why do you think I said or am committed to saying that there are no limits on ad hoc adjustments?
2. I gave an *argument* for my view, and your response here is merely to grandstand. Also, “I’m not as crazy as you think.”
What’s more, you attribute to me a view I never postulated. And moreover, I’d put Christ’s death more in the realm of *mercy* than exhibiting his justice; however, in order to show mercy to sinners justice required their sins be punished. This doesn’t entail (and if you think it does, provide us with the derivation), that justice has been maximally exemplified.
PM says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 6:28pm
“So God requires evil to manifest his glory? Sounds rather Manichaean.”
Did I say that? No. I simply said what Jesus did. He said that there is no greater love than a man who dies for his friends in order to save them. Perhaps this was just one of those times Jesus was wrong, though
In any event, Plantinga gave a response similar to this, perhaps you could email him your “that sounds Manichaean” defeater?
Adam Omelianchuk says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 4:42pm
Paul,
You wrote: It is possible that the latter may only be achieved through the punishment of a *truly* guilty person, which Christ was not.
But doesn’t the imputation of the elect’s guilt to Christ make him *truly guilty*? This has always been my understanding of PS theory as it explains why God was just in pouring out his wrath on Christ. If Christ fictitiously guilty for our sins, then doesn’t he bear a fictitious wrath? If not, then, how was God’s justice satisfied in punishing Christ for our sins?
PM says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 5:00pm
Hi Adam, no, I don’t think it does. Imputed guilt does not mean *actual* guilt, and I’m not sure who has suggested that. Christ is sinless, and no sinless person can be actually guilty of sins. Moreover, the historic protestant position has been both that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the elect (through faith), and, contra Catholicism (so the argument goes), they do not thereby become *actually* righteous. That confuses justification with sanctification. And yes, protestants have understood legal fictions here, that is, God treats Christ *as if* he were guilty, but he bears non-fictional wrath. Yadda yadda. (As an aside, Crisp argues for non-penal substitution, and also for Augustinian realism. I’m not (yet
) convinced of these, but they seem possible, and they may come into play in the argument. Crisp’s reasons for this don’t, at least I don’t think, undercut anything I just said.)
PM says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 5:13pm
Qualify: some prots have thought in terms of legal fiction, not all. I do mean matters in legal terms though. So the sin is legally imputed to Christ and righteousness is legally imputed to the elect, which changes their legal standing. But neither are ontologically what is imputed. Christ *deserved* none of this. He didn’t *deserve* to “become sin”, and he didn’t *deserve* God’s wrath. The connection between justice and *desert* is what I’m after. (Likewise, we don’t deserve to have Christ’s righteousness, that’s *mercy*).
Also, think about the OT sacrifices. We had imputation there, but did the lamb truly or actually become guilty, or was it treated as such. And, it was *really* killed.
Kerry says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 10:00pm
Randal the red herring thing, is that what you really think? If so that would be the first time that I’m aware of that justice should be excluded as a consideration when talking of the measure of God’s love, salvation and election. I thought we needed saving because he is a God of justice. I thought it was a reasonable statement to say that our overall view of God’s love must include and be tempered by his love of justice. You no doubt have heard the saying “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. It looks like that with Pharoah doesn’t it?
But then I see further down you have already anticipated that.
“Kerry, I’m not sure what you’re claiming here.” Really Randal, in your focused rebuttal you just finished saying you have spoken with Calvinists over the years and they always bring up this red herring? You knew exactly what I was claiming. Perhaps the red herring was put there by you for bait?
“This is an attempt to marginalize my critique of his position as being unduly speculative (perhaps irreverent) and altogether irrelevant”.
This talk of red herrings makes it sound as if I was deliberately obfuscating the issue. You pour scorn on the idea of bringing justice into the question and then bring my motives into question. Was that really necessary; is your argument so weak?
But enough tattle.
You say you “already showed that appealing to justice is a canard.” *, no you have told us it is; I have yet to see it demonstrated either philosophically or scripturally.
Are you saying that God was unable justly to elect all people to salvation from eternity in Christ? If you do believe that, what is your reason for believing it?
I am not saying God was unable, what I am saying is that He chooses not to, and I cite Pharaoh as a case in point.
You have not answered my question: “What I am asking- is your definition and measure of maximal love accurate?” Does maximal love mandate that not a single one need answer for the evil they have committed? Please explain.
If the definition of “maximal love” need not consider justice then wouldn’t maximal love have created an amoral universe? But that is clearly impossible since love cannot be comprehended in an amoral universe; our consciousness is given us as a reflection of being made in God’s image- love is our privilege to know but with it comes the correlatives of evil, justice and mercy.
How God weighs up what is “maximal love” is a mystery to me. Evidently it necessitated evil coming into the world, justice is an empty meaningless term without evil, and so is mercy. We have a moral universe, evil exists, God had pre-empted the incursion of evil with the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.
You may make talk of electing all but that negates the idea of electing or choosing (like talk of making square circles): Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else. G.K. Chesterton “Orthodoxy”. By that standard if you posit that God elects all then you destroy the idea of election. He would have then simply said- “all are saved”, there would then be no more talk of election. Inherent in the idea of “election” (choice) is selection, distinction, separation. They are necessary corollaries to the word. The reality is God speaks of “election” you have to do something with the word without destroying its meaning.
Jesus said: Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matthew 18:7)
I take it that the mystery of evil (for all it’s abhorrence) is a necessary evil, and that a “maximally loving” God is just that, not despite the evil but through it. The reformed view acknowledges human responsibility and culpability.
So what is Kerry’s reasoning for thinking God cannot redeem all?
I have made no statement at all about whether God can or cannot redeem all. As far as I can see He chooses not to save all and God being the maximally perfect being has made the best world possible. This also includes the fact that he chooses to “knock some off their high horse” (St Paul) while he continues to let others ride on blissfully unaware through self delusion.
I am not saying that God is unable justly to elect all people to salvation from eternity in Christ; on the other hand are you saying that God (because of libertarian freewill) cannot save whom he chooses from all eternity? Is God free? Are we more free than God? If God is not the referent for freedom then must we look to ourselves?
I have no doubt that whatever moral obligations or duties God may have (obligations or duties which are rooted in the necessity of his own nature) he has met.
Well we can surely agree on that.
If you don’t believe it (and thus believe that God could have justly elected all to salvation), then why didn’t God elect all people to salvation from eternity in Christ?”
Randal you are attempting to put me on the horns of a dilemma but I suspect the dilemma is yours. I neither confirm nor deny the possibility of God justly electing all people to salvation from eternity in Christ. This reminds me somewhat of the cosmological argument. In days gone by it was thought the universe was infinite and eternal and thus neatly dispensed of a need for a creator. Then there was a big bang and suddenly a creator is looming on the horizon again. Now we have to think of multiverses (for which there is no evidence) in order to find yet another excuse for denying a creator. Why can’t we stick with the world we do have?
*Wow! Canard I confess I had to look that one up… I can ’ardly wait to see what comes next… canard: a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor. Dictionary .com
I didn’t know Calvinism had sunk this low.
Walter says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 10:51pm
I take it that the mystery of evil (for all it’s abhorrence) is a necessary evil, and that a “maximally loving” God is just that, not despite the evil but through it.
It’s hard for me to see how a maximally loving God would sovereignly determine that man will fall into sin, then hold man morally culpable for something that he was incapable of not doing, all the while so He could exhibit some “loving” mercy on a select few, who are no better or worse than the multitudes He sends to eternal hell for crimes that He determined that they would do in the first place.
It never ceases to amaze me some of the crazy things that people will believe.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:38pm
“I thought it was a reasonable statement to say that our overall view of God’s love must include and be tempered by his love of justice.”
This is completely ignoring my point. His love of justice is already manifested in the penal substitionary death of Christ.
“You no doubt have heard the saying “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”.”
It was seen to be done. Look to the cross Kerry!
“This talk of red herrings makes it sound as if I was deliberately obfuscating the issue.”
That’s not my intention. I think the points are a distraction from the main issues, but I don’t think you’re trying to direct us away from the main issues. I could have said “rabbit trail” perhaps but that lacks bite.
“I am not saying God was unable [to elect all people], what I am saying is that He chooses not to.”
As you know, there are several texts in scripture that are interpreted by universalists (Calvinists among them) to suggest otherwise. At least their view is coherent. Why is it, on your view, that God, the God who is supposed to be infinitely more loving and compassionate than any human being ever could be, chooses not to?
“Does maximal love mandate that not a single one need answer for the evil they have committed? Please explain.”
I already defined love: to love another is to desire that the other achieve shalom. To love maximally is, minimally to desire that all achieve shalom. How do you define maximal love?
“To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else.”
Sure. So by electing to save all God would have given up the option fo electing to save only some.
“The reality is God speaks of “election” you have to do something with the word without destroying its meaning.”
You’re playing a semantic card? Insofar as we understand “election” as chosen for salvation it is perfectly meaningful to ask how many (and possibly all) are elect to salvation.
“I have made no statement at all about whether God can or cannot redeem all. As far as I can see He chooses not to save all and God being the maximally perfect being has made the best world possible.”
If God chooses not to save all then God could have saved all. As for “best world possible”, I think that’s an incoherent concept like “highest number”. God could always create a world with a few more daffodils and gum drops.
“I neither confirm nor deny the possibility of God justly electing all people to salvation from eternity in Christ.”
Read over the comments you made that I quoted above. Twice you actually said (the first time explicitly) that Christ could have elected all to salvation but chose not to. So then if you believe God is omnibenevolent or perfectly good you need to explain why this is. If you have a child contemplate that child suffering forever the most unspeakable torments for the glory of God and his saints. Does that make any sense to you?
PM says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 10:01pm
Calvinists are to libertarians Christianity what conservatives are to liberals. They serve as an outlet. The liber… side can say whatever they want, spew whatever hatred they want, attack whatever strawmen they want, mock however they want, demean and belittle however they want, and it’s all okay because the other side is simply EVIL and full of HATE and defends of position of HATE and INJUSTICE.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:39pm
I’m not sure what you mean by this. There is a lot of mud throwing from both sides. Indeed, since there are not really two sides but rather several overlapping positions, what you really have is a free-for-all food fight.
PM says:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:50pm
I mean that when Calvinists do it, they’re condemned as “angry Calvinists,” indeed, there’s a meme going around the internet regarding “the angry Calvinist;” but when libertarians do it, they’re fighting evil, just like when political liberals utter the most degrading things about conservatives. If a concervative dares critique Obama, he’s a racist, but when liberals call Cain an uncle Tom and a useful idiot to mask conservative racism, they’re cheered and lauded, and no one says, “Boo.” In any case, I do have some respect for the “two wrongs make a right” comeback.
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:00am
I agree there’s some truth to your complaint. It traces back to a selection bias. When one buys into the notion of the angry Calvinist one will look for evidence of it while screening out evidence for anger and intolerance on the other side. So if I call the Calvinist view of x appalling I’m expressing righteous indignation, but if the Calvinist responds in kind about the Arminian view of x, he’s just another angry Calvinist.
PM says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:29am
LOL. That’s right!
Kerry says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 1:10am
“A reprobate individual must suffer eternally to satisfy the demands of justice apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ. Since it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series of temporal moments it is impossible for this reprobate individual ever to satisfy fully the demands of divine justice and thereby become a complete token of that infinite justice.”
By this stroke of genius you have not only robbed God of exacting justice, you have robbed anyone of “eternal life”. Why stop there! God himself (whom I believed to be eternal) mustn’t exist either by your definition.
Quite Easily Done
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:47pm
“By this stroke of genius you have not only robbed God of exacting justice, you have robbed anyone of “eternal life”. ”
Kerry, I don’t think you’re understanding the point. Let’s assume that eternal conscious torment is just. On the Arminian view God allows those who freely reject him to suffer eternally because they will not choose otherwise and he respects their choice. That is, on this view, a fully just response to hell.
But things are very different for the Calvinist. On his view God could have willed that an individual freely repent and become a token instance of the imputed righteousness of Christ. But instead, God chooses to make that individual reject Christ’s righteousness and become a token example of an individual suffering finitely and in perpetuity for sins committed. In other words, God has inexplicably chosen a less complete means to exemplify divine justice.
So Calvinism has a problem here not faced by Arminianism and certainly not by eternal conscious torment per se.
Kerry says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 3:59am
“On the Arminian view God allows those who freely reject him to suffer eternally because they will not choose otherwise and he respects their choice.”
You may claim that as an exclusive Arminian view but isn’t that the Calvinist position also?
“On his view God could have willed that an individual freely repent and become a token instance of the imputed righteousness of Christ. But instead, God chooses to make that individual reject Christ’s righteousness and become a token example of an individual suffering finitely and in perpetuity for sins committed.”
No I disagree, on the point that- “God chooses to make that individual reject Christ” as before- that person freely rejects him and God chooses to allow that to happen. In the elect God chooses to make the Gospel real enough to one’s heart that she accepts it. Isn’t that what grace is all about? Where Randal is your idea of grace? We acknowledge not only the sacrifice of Christ but the work of grace in the heart.
You haven’t answered my incredulity:
I may be thick as a plank but where do you get the idea to equate eternal with it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series of temporal moments it is impossible for this reprobate individual ever to satisfy fully the demands of divine justice A reference like that pertains to time- we are talking outside the time/space realm are we not?
I am not committed to any particular view of existence for the unregenerate after death.
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:21am
“You may claim that as an exclusive Arminian view but isn’t that the Calvinist position also?”
I think it is very misleading for a Calvinist to say that God respects the choice a person makes since that would naturally be read as implying libertarianism.
“No I disagree, on the point that- “God chooses to make that individual reject Christ” as before- that person freely rejects him and God chooses to allow that to happen. In the elect God chooses to make the Gospel real enough to one’s heart that she accepts it.”
Your statement, particularly the last bit, is sufficiently unclear that it would be consistent with Arminianism. I am not sure how you’re understanding Calvinism Kerry. Put very simply, on Calvinism God’s decree is the ontological ground of election while on Arminianism God’s foreknowledge of human choice is the ontological ground of election. So I provided a correct description of the Calvinist position.
“Where Randal is your idea of grace?”
Grace is unmerited favor and it is found in God’s creating and redeeming actions, above all in Christ.
“A reference like that pertains to time- we are talking outside the time/space realm are we not?”
No we are not. Where did you get the idea that eternity is atemporal? Boethius? Even if you think divine eternity is atemporal that doesn’t mean human resurrection eternity is atemporal. We are embodied beings who will live in a temporal, redeemed heaven and earth. That’s the biblical view. It sounds like you drank a little too much of Plato’s punch at the reception. You know that stuff is spiked with bad metaphysics and will give you a wicked hangover.
Kerry says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 9:19am
on Arminianism God’s foreknowledge of human choice is the ontological ground of election.
Isn’t that really saying God saw in the future that we would choose Christ, so God chose us on the basis of that? Which means what you chose and what I chose is really ultimate. And God ratifies our choice- his election of us becomes in effect a contingent cause. Here again this view denies the omnipotence and sovereignty of God not to mention the initiation of our faith. In my book- God is the author and finisher of our faith.
Does God direct History from the perspective of eternity? That is to say does he bring to pass events, and more specifically, move people, heaven and earth to orchestrate those events according to a plan that he purposed before the foundation of the world? Or does God merely report back from the future to his prophets like a roving journalist sourcing newsworthy stories that will give him a greater circulation? I mean doesn’t it strike you as being just the teeniest egotistical to be in the pole position?
Human freedom is real enough to make us responsible for our decisions and yet not so ultimate that God needs our permission to move our wills. Human autonomy must also be real enough for it to be truly possible to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” A love that was not spontaneous is not love at all- but here it must be stressed- that the love with which we love God is a derived love, not- in the purest sense- a native of human origins.
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:21pm
“Isn’t that really saying God saw in the future that we would choose Christ, so God chose us on the basis of that?”
Exactly.
“Which means what you chose and what I chose is really ultimate.”
It depends what you mean by “ultimate”. We are only saved because prevenient grace has enlivened the fallen human sufficiently to be able to choose the salvation freely offered in Christ.
“I mean doesn’t it strike you as being just the teeniest egotistical to be in the pole position?”
God created everything from an infinite number of possibilities with full knowledge of every event that would occur. He upholds it all in existence every moment. And he will bring the entire state of current affairs — everything in heaven and on earth — to reconcilation in Christ (Col. 1:20). And you think that means that we’re in the pole position?
Kerry says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 10:15pm
I said “Isn’t that really saying God saw in the future that we would choose Christ, so God chose us on the basis of that?”
You (Randal) said “Exactly.”
What do you do with Paul’s anticipation of that very issue with regard to election?
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (Romans 9:11)
You have said that our act of believing is the basis on which God elects us; whereas Paul affirms election stands not only prior to any acts on our part, but irrespective of any acts on our part. That must include any act foreseen by God. This follows by what he says shortly after: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.(Romans 9:16) That is not to say “irrespective” means that we need not believe, but that election is the determining factor.
“We are only saved because prevenient grace has enlivened the fallen human sufficiently to be able to choose the salvation freely offered in Christ”.
Prevenient grace: prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. (Wikipedia)
On that view God’s election can only stand subordinate to human will- that is patently not what Paul intends. God did not merely offer salvation to an entire humanity that was fallen in trespasses in sins and effectively dead to the call of the Gospel. What God did was to mandate to Jesus the Christ the power to give eternal life not, just proffer eternal life. If eternal life was merely presented to the fallen and capricious nature of mankind then it destroys the basis on which we are to look forward to the promise you referred to: “And he will bring the entire state of current affairs — everything in heaven and on earth — to reconcilation in Christ (Col. 1:20).”
(John 17:2) As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him I have written a piece which you can find here: http://struth-his-or-yours.blogspot.com/2009/08/power-over-all-flesh.html And I would value your comment.
“It depends what you mean by “ultimate”.” Come, come now, you know that what I mean is that on the Arminian position the last and final say as to whether one is saved is dependent on human will not divine will.
“And you think that means that we’re in the pole position?” You know, or at least ought to, that I refer to this supposed superior position of Arminians with regard to the human will and salvation.
“And he will bring the entire state of current affairs — everything in heaven and on earth — to reconcilation in Christ (Col. 1:20).”
I think that really is the point of Calvinism. Arminians concede this promise with lip service but deny Gods ability to achieve it through their system of theology which leaves election to chance and the capriciousness and ultimacy of human will. We know a house divided against itself cannot stand, Arminianism presents a view of human nature which if it were true would deny the power of God to fulfill any of those promises in any absolute sense.
You have certainly shaken my tree as regards to some issues peripheral to this one but I remain at this point committed to the view I have tried to demonstrate.
randal says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 5:01pm
Of course volumes have been written about Romans 9. But one of the pertinent issues to be decided is whether Paul is talking about election for particular tasks in history or election as an eternal destiny. Another problem is that you are counting foreseen faith as a good work. But that merely begs the question against an Arminian since they don’t see a response to an offer of salvation as a good work in itself. To use an illustration I’ve used before, let’s say a man is passed out on a rock in the middle of a raging river. The rescue guy descends from the helicopter and places oxygen over the man’s mouth to bring him back to consciousness (prevenient grace). After he has come to the man grasps the rescuer’s arm and is saved. Did he contribute a good work to his salvation? That’s a bizarre way to think. He was saved from first to last by the rescuer.
Kerry says:
Saturday, November 26, 2011 at 7:22pm
Randal:But one of the pertinent issues to be decided is whether Paul is talking about election for particular tasks in history or election as an eternal destiny
In terms of the historical context this is probably the most difficult thing for Paul to explain to the Jewish people, he had come to a new understanding of God’s purposes but what was the Jewish mindset? If you ask a Jew today what (historically) is so special about the Jewish people you would most likely get the same answer that had been common “knowledge” hundreds of years before Christ. “We are the Chosen People”. Perhaps the difficulty Paul faced could be likened it to the difficulty of persuading a Muslim that God is three persons. Paul was bringing a new view of what it means to be “chosen” by God. The Jews were right about the doctrine of election; no-one had to tell them about God’s right to choose a people for himself.
(Deuteronomy 14:2) For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
(Psalms 135:4) For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.
Though the Jewish people were correct in that God has a doctrine of election what they got wrong was their application of it. And this is what the difficulty was for Paul. The Jews trusted in basically two things as the basis for being elected: ancestry and the fulfillment of the law. Paul’s argument is that all those that went before (Abraham, Moses etc) that were saved, were saved on the basis of faith. If we are talking about historical context “faith” entails faithfulness. This is the distinguishing factor and still is today, irrespective of whether you can trace your lineage back to Abraham, regardless of circumcision and so on. This is why Gentiles are able to be grafted in; it is on the basis of faith, but that is not the whole story. Paul also tells us: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8) Paul is careful to tell us this faith in Christ originated in God, because it feels or appears to be our own independent choice. So as Augustine said: God crowns his own gifts.
Kerry says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 10:28pm
So it is misleading because a Calvinist might agree with an Arminian on some issue? The hard Arminian errs because he makes the human will ultimate on the issue of salvation. My view of Calvinism is that when God sovereignly chooses (as in the elect) the extent of his revelation to that individual is enough to make his grace irresistible. Just as in the case of the ordinary course of nature God may choose to bring a miracle which by definition is a suspension of the laws of nature.
If I might make a distillation of your argument against limited atonement. Do I understand correctly that you posit that a “maximally loving” God cannot but help saving all (if possible) since that is what He is by nature? He is not free to choose to elect only some (you say) otherwise it effectively makes the Calvinist God a lesser God with regard to love. I find that interesting because that is essentially my beef with the Arminian God. On that view the Arminian makes a lesser God (I say) with respect to his power. The Arminian God voluntarily, by an act of will withstands or negates to some degree what He is necessarily by nature (omnipotent); something you say that (in the case of love) he cannot or ought not to do.
Jag Levak says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 6:08pm
“God created everything from an infinite number of possibilities with full knowledge of every event that would occur.”
If he chose to make the universe in which you chose A instead of the universe in which you chose B, how does his choice for you to choose A not nullify your ability to choose something other than A?
Or can it be said that God “chose” anything? After all, how does that happen if there was never a point at which he decided anything (since a decision point would imply a transition from a state of being undecided to a state of being decided).
“He upholds it all in existence every moment.”
This view looks like God is the machine on which our Matrix universe runs. But God is also the machine on which every hypothetically possible universe was run. So what makes this universe any more “real” than any of the others which ran on the same machine?
Jag Levak says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 5:27pm
“Even if you think divine eternity is atemporal that doesn’t mean human resurrection eternity is atemporal.”
You were talking about divine notions of justice, and Kerry was responding to your contention that because it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series of temporal moments, it is impossible for the reprobate individual ever to satisfy fully the demands of divine justice. But from the atemporal perspective of God, he would not have to traverse the actual infinite series. He would only have to have perfect foreknowledge of the entire, infinite series. And surely you would consider that possible, no?
Jag Levak says:
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 5:45pm
“No I disagree, on the point that- “God chooses to make that individual reject Christ””
Is the Calvinist view that you can truly accept Christ into your heart, and still not be among the elect? Because if not, then it seems like it would at least be fair to say God chooses who will not accept Christ.
“I am not committed to any particular view of existence for the unregenerate after death.”
Would that include the possibility of simple non-existence?
pete says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:34am
The “God chooses people to reject Christ” wouldn’t be an accurate representation.
cf. James 1:13
While Calvanism is a model I’ve chosen to systemize my theolgy, I have no problem with the Arminian View that God respects the human choice to reject Christ which = damnation.
But the only reason rejection of Christ = damnation is that God chose for it to = damnation. And since I reject open theism (for a number of reasons), God can’t be said to have “messed up” or “goofed” when he determined the “set times and places people would live”.
Recognizing the chasm of understanding is helpful, and that God chooses to harden hearts (Pharoah) is part of sepcial revelation.
I think that the view of election can be assisted by reference to the Torah
(Deuteronomy 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live)
However, God could have so arranged it that each of his “agent provocateurs” (Satan and the gang) have been incited against certain creatures, who bear the responsibility for the actions that they take.
This seems to be in accordance with special revelation in the Bible.
Judas appears pre-destined to damnation (cf. John 17; Acts 1:25).
Paul says that some are chosen for damnation, “perhaps” so mercy can be experienced by the elect (Rom. 9:19).
And all of humanity is responsible (Rom 1:20 pericope; Rom. 3:23)
God’s nature is such that he is perfectly good, perfectly merciful, and perfectly judgemental.
The neat part is that we humans get to pick what path we take.
The better question is: “Can we still love and worship God, who has revealed himself, his decrees, and desires, despite how we may fallibly interpret Him?”
Or are our “hearts being hardened” right this very instance?
Ed Babinski says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:21am
Randal,
Your efforts to save the world from “Calvinism” do not hide the fact that you agree with them that the Bible speaks of “everlasthing punishment.” So really, what you are ranting about? Climb in the “hell bed” with these guys and be buddies! Jesus or hell! Jesus or hell!
In fact you work for a Seminary whose statement of faith contains the line, “The unrighteous will be consigned to the everlasting punishment prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41, 46; Revelation 20:10).” http://www.taylorseminary.ca/about/statement
Do you personally accept that line in their statement of faith? In what sense?
Do you accept it in the sense of C. S. Lewis’ “hell lite?”–everlasting-grey-dreary-ville? (Lewis by the way, in his novel about heaven and hell, The Great Divorce, did not make people’s sojourn in hell depend on their religious beliefs or statements of faith, but on their egotistical or manic personality defects, defects that I’ve witnessed even in some believing Christians. Ha.)
On the other hand if you assume that Jesus was only preaching annihilationism, then why threaten people with being sent to a place “prepared for the devil and his angels?” Sounds like a place of genuine “everlasthing punishment” to me, as it did to a host of inter-testamental writers prior to the first century.
Or maybe the people who wrote the statement of faith at your seminary could use a bit of an update to clarify that they’re not really speaking of everlasting punishment, but of multiple possibilities?
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:03pm
“that you agree with them that the Bible speaks of “everlasthing punishment.”
I reject eternal conscious torment. You quote the North American Baptist Statement of faith. That, of course, is simply quoting Matthew 25:41, 46. But the use of aionios in those verses has to be interpreted, and I don’t interpret it in accord with eternal conscious torment.
Jag Levak says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 7:00am
“I reject eternal conscious torment.”
Presumably, that leaves the door open for temporary conscious torment. And for that to be the case, at some point, either the torment will end, or the consciousness will end. So for those of us who don’t want to live forever, do you think we’ll get our wish?
Ed Babinski says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 9:35am
Randal, Putting the question of “eternal conscious torment” in its historical context, can you please point out in the inter-testamental literature and other first century literature where it says “hell” is not eternal conscious torment? Where in the Book of Enoch for instance? Where in the Book of Daniel?
And if you’re going to translate aionios as merely a long time of finite length please keep in mind that the same word is used of “eternal life,” as “eternal punishment.”
Robert says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:39am
You know I work with people whom have profound cognitive disabilities, near drowning victims, children beaten so severely they have brain damage, hydrocephalus children who were now adults whose heads were almost as big as their bodies, autonomic nervous system have failed so their temperature goes from 90 to 104, they push through their hands with their fingers do to contractions etc. I understand as a true follower of Christ this is all part of the fall, basically we all have this coming and should just be grateful that God did not tag us with these illnesses.
As I understand it we are all evil, vile, filthy, disgusting, God hating waists of air and the fact we live even one second longer is do only to God’s common grace. I will admit to my shame I have not been able to muster that much contempt for the human race. But all my rhetoric aside the people I worked with on those wards, and still work with, are the heart and soul. Like vets, firefighters, and other above and beyond types God will honor their suffering and their sacrifice and any God that does not, well its not God and we need not be afraid.
Oh Mr. Hayes if I can ask you a question you actually think God ordained the fall?
Dr. Rauser I read your blog, there were times I would have walked away from the Christian faith because of what I have seen/experienced but it is questioning hopeful souls like yourself that keep me close to him. Look I know I am should be a hell bound sinner, nothing I do, say etc would make a difference but I cling to the idea that God is love and justice. I do hope for that Love and Justice for those I have had the honor to work with, for myself, I am not important and I mean that.
PS Dear Lord Jesus I know I have failed you I really do, Please God help me, no save me to be a servant to others. That to is the prayer of my soul.
pss thanks for the editing function I have horrible eyesight and it helps
Robert says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 8:00am
Mr. Babinski
I do hope you and yours are well, what you posted about the age of the Earth on another blog was quite helpful to me. I cannot speak for other “Christians” on this or other bogs (I use the quotes because I understand I am outside the pale of orthodoxy in the Historic christian religion). I am a universalist so I do not hold to that position. I am not really a universalist because I want to live for ever but because I want to see a reconciliation of the many I have worked with, been involved in etc have a restoration do to what they struggled with in this life.
This may sound weak and emotional and maybe it is but I do hope. I will admit I dont understand why that is such a horrid sin in my experience of the christian faith, why hope is a sin.
Ed Babinski says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 5:01pm
Robert, nice to hear from you. You can also reach me at my blog or Facebook page under Edward T. Babinski. It looks like your job gives you an up close look at human suffering, and like you some prominent health care workers of the past have been universalists. Or perhaps such people already had a universalistic side that moved them toward working with people who were suffering.
Florence Nightengale (the woman who revolutionized nursing, and tore down the barriers formerly erected by secatarian religious hospitals, and taught that the patient should be allowed to see whichever people they wanted, not just ministers from the church funding that hospital) was a universalist.
So was Clara Barton, the founder of the Red Cross in the United States.
Speaking of which, I read something you might agree with by Shana (First-Grade Teacher, Therapist for Autistic Children, and creator of a universalist Christian website http://www.webspawner.com/users/nicky0/index.html
Shana wrote: A Christian brother told me that when we are in heaven we will have no concern for those who will be burning in what he believed to be eternal hell. But if we are to “love our neighbors as ourselves,” how can this be true? God has said that He will have “all” come to Him. Is any heart so dark (and without the slightest flaw or crack) such that the light of Christ could never penetrate it? Does not emptiness abhor a vacuum, and what could be more vacuous than a heart trying to keep itself pumped up with lies and deceit which have no substance of and by themselves. Surely such vacuous hearts cannot avoid being eventually filled with the only solid and substantial Truth that is, was or ever will be?
Something written by the 19th-century univeralist Christian, George MacDonald, recently encouraged my own heart. . . Jesus said for us to love even our enemies. We were His enemies at one time and He came down into our hell.
“And what shall we say of the man Christ Jesus? Who, that loves his brother, would not, upheld by the love of Christ, and with a dim hope that in the far-off time there might be some help for him, arise from the company of the blessed, and walk down into the dismal regions of despair, to sit with the last, the only unredeemed, the Judas of his race, and be himself more blessed in the pains of hell, than in the glories of heaven? Who, in the midst of the golden harps and the white wings, knowing that one of his kind, one miserable brother in the old-world-time when men were taught to love their neighbor as themselves, was howling unheeded far below in the vaults of the creation, who, I say, would not feel that he must arise, that he had no choice, that, awful as it was, he must gird his loins, and go down into the smoke and the darkness and the fire, traveling the weary and fearful road into the far country to find his brother?–who, I mean, that had the mind of Christ, that had the love of the Father?”
Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Will He not continue to seek out and save all of the lost? Will we have the love of Christ in heaven? MacDonald’s words were a blessing for me to read.
EXCERPT FROM “I BELIEVE” BY GEORGE MACDONALD (C. S. LEWIS’ “SPIRITUAL MENTOR”)
I believe that justice and mercy are simply one and the same thing… That… hell will… help the just mercy of God to redeem his children… Such is the mercy of God that he will hold his children in the consuming fire of his distance until they pay the uttermost farthing, until they drop the purse of selfishness with all the dross that is in it, and rush home to the Father and the Son, and the many brethren, rush inside the center of the life-giving fire whose outer circles burn.
SOURCE: George MacDonald (19th-century universalist Christian), excerpts from “I Believe,” Unspoken Sermons
snardiff says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:28pm
“But all my rhetoric aside”
You admit there’s no substantive argument on your part?
” the people I worked with on those wards, and still work with, are the heart and soul. Like vets, firefighters, and other above and beyond types God will honor their suffering and their sacrifice and any God that does not, well its not God and we need not be afraid.”
What sacrifice is there on the part of people who merely suffer from illness? It’s not like they took it on so that someone else wouldn’t have to be stricken with it. Even granting it is a sacrifice, does this excuse sin? If I do something wicked, then should I be allowed to evade punishment simply because I rescued a puppy or helped a little old lady across the street?
“I understand as a true follower of Christ this is all part of the fall”
Well you say that, as a matter of form, but you seem to be whining about it in a self indulgent manner. Do you really believe that? Have you ever really felt guilty or felt the horror of yourself as sinful? If not, then why say you “understand” it? Just admit that you’ve heard it and don’t buy it.
“Oh Mr. Hayes if I can ask you a question you actually think God ordained the fall?”
Instead of asking someone that question (triablogue? He just answered “Yes” to the Atheist Missionary on that very question), why does it never occur to you to read the Bible to find out the answer to that?
“This may sound weak and emotional and maybe it is but”
I suppose if you qualify your opinion beforehand by saying, “I suppose my reasoning is fallacious”, that somehow makes your argument sound? Why did you even say this? If a felon said in his defense, “I suppose I done bad things…” should that admission lessen the severity of his sentence? If I reply, “I suppose my reply sounds harsh and Calvinistic” does that cancel out your suppose? You insert this boilerplate phrase in order to give the illusion that you have considered all sides impartially, but the skewed, one sided case you try to make seems to belie this.
“I do hope. I will admit I dont understand why that is such a horrid sin in my experience of the christian faith, why hope is a sin.”
Do you really want to understand, or perhaps you understand already and are trying to play on people’s sympathies with your self indulgent, inaccurate skeweing of the matter.
If you are confused I’d genuinely like to help you to understand: the sin is not hope. In fact, why would you even lack hope that those you have cared for died in their sins? The sin is that in believing in universalism, you reject God’s revealed word. So your statement is inaccurate: universalism is not sinful because it involves hope, but because it involves you making up your own religion and rejecting the God who inspired the scripture you *claim* to believe in. This is separate from the question of not whether universalism is true, but I’m just pointing out the confused or dishonest way you have framed the issue.
If you are really as honestly interested in “understanding” as you claim, I’d be interested in hearing whether you would at least be willing to rethink your position on these matters, or if you have made up your mind, whether or not you have anything beyond your own stubborn, self indulgent emotions for thinking that we should all accept the religion you seem to be in the process of making up in your own head.
snardiff says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:38pm
In addition if you are really a universalist, and not merely a hopeful universalist, the “hope” part is a lie. You really do claim to know that evil actions have no consequence and that faith or lack thereof has zero results or accompanying consequences. Hope doesn’t enter into it.
Jeff says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:53pm
“You really do claim to know that evil actions have no consequence and that faith or lack thereof has zero results or accompanying consequences.”
That’s horrible caricature of universalism. Certainly a horrible caricature of evangelical universalism, and even a horrible caricature of a pluralistic universalism.
randal says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:05pm
“Dr. Rauser I read your blog, there were times I would have walked away from the Christian faith because of what I have seen/experienced but it is questioning hopeful souls like yourself that keep me close to him.”
That’s one of the most gratifying and humbling things I’ve read all year.
Robert says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:31am
That really means a great deal to me. You have a skill I admire, you write well, so you can sow the seeds of the Gospel into uncharted worlds. That is gold in my book. I actually admire the bloggers / authors who do not agree with you for the same reason. Physical/learning disabilities truly impacted my ability to read and write. I have always saw this grace filled ability as one reason that “separates” us from the “animals”, but because of the type of work I am involved in I have dealt with people who lost the ability to read and write, even reason do to disease, traumatic brain injury, stroke etc. This is where I cling to grace because there is no difference between those that struggle with these issues and myself outside of the grace of God. Of course I do not mean God favors me over them.
You had a post on Tourette syndrome, I have worked with folks with this issue. The first few dozen times being told I should FO you blankity blank so and so you sort of well see the person through the cussing. These fine folks struggle daily with these issues and they over come I admire the heck out of that.
One lady I worked with was an elderly patient who was dealing with dementia etc. To say she blasphemed would be a mild representation of some of the things she said. God blank blank Jesus blank blank bla bla. I wont post the stuff this fine person said. When she was healthy she was a Christian women that served God from what I was told though I did not see it. But the glimpses of grace through the illness I heard such wonders of a soul grasping at the Savior in a bond I could not understand. This Lady loved Christ, when she was not plagued by her physical issues. Issues all of us could suffer in a second with brain damage, stroke, accident, virus, fill in the blank.
I know God should preserve us from “blasphemy”, evil doctrine etc. But in my experience so many fine humans were and are cast into the abyss because they cant keep up with the apologetic. My point if God could keep them, why does He not? Personally I think He does, He always keeps them with a great passion. It is not His grace we struggle with but our understanding of that grace.
Dr. Rauser it is these subtle shades of gray that you and many others of your ilk capture that hold many of us to this faith. I could not reject the Lord Jesus, I have tried to my shame in fits of anger and frustration but His Holy Grace has always seemed to prevail. But if my soul was a price for even one of those I have worked with to enter heaven, I would consider that an honor because these fine people have let me see the face of God.
I hope that makes some sense, basically I am saying this, thank you Dear Lord Jesus for your kindness to us and for understanding the desires of our hearts.
With deep respect Robert.
snardiff says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:17pm
“Physical/learning disabilities truly impacted my ability to read and write.”
And apparently your ability to think critically.
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:24pm
Why would you write something so nasty?
snardiff says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:23pm
Please note that he is being very sly, so I don’t buy the “disability” claim. He is trying to use a corner case (the woman with tourettes) in order to establish a normative claim, which I doubt he would do in any other area of life. No one knows what this woman’s state is/was. Does that abolish that most people are usually in a rational frame of mind and can be held accountable for it, as Paul holds people in Galatians 1?
When people try to make arguments based on innuendo and attempts to play on people’s sympathy, rather than making explicit statements, it’s a danger sign.
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:17pm
Thanks Robert.
Kerry says:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 8:33pm
“Why is it, on your view, that God, the God who is supposed to be infinitely more loving and compassionate than any human being ever could be, chooses not to?”
The answer to that is that he is not only infinitely more loving he is also infinitely more wise and therefore he chooses (as far as I am able to see) not to give the gift of eternal life to all.
There is a problem with your view of God and I have been wracking my little brain to see what it is. Under your scheme God is bound by love to save all, where then is there room for grace? You would turn “amazing” grace into something obligatory, grace then is no longer grace.
You make God subject to a law of love in order to bind him to saving all. You think that it is expedient for God to be reduced to a being with no free will in order that you may keep your perception of human free will. You actually believe that because God can do no wrong humanity is more free than God! You seek to use the love of God as a means by which to bind Him in order to preserve your own sense of freedom. When it comes to love- God must be a maximally loving God who cannot but be bound by that nature and therefore elect all justly. You maintain that freewill entails that we must be free to choose either good or evil and you see that as a higher good. Therefore the ridiculous consequence (from that thinking) follows that humans are more free than God! I cannot (for what it’s worth) agree with this. How can we be more free than God? But that is the necessary consequence of thinking that way. It is a contradiction in terms to think of freedom in the context of a nature bound to sin.
This whole warped idea of freedom arises by believing that “free will” (as assumed and defined by the libertarian) is the highest good. People think that the ability to do evil shows freedom, it is not, it is the result of bondage. He is most free who is bound by a good nature to do no evil. This must be so; he is most bound who is, by an evil nature, free to do no good.
pete says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:51am
Here is a thought that is passing through my head:
Do you think it possible that a rightous man might put their prize 1966 Pontiac GTO on display in a neigborhood of punks, rapists, and hoodlums, so that upon catching the thief or vandal that stole or vandalized it, he might justifiably been the culprit down with the most righteous of ass-whoopings in accordance with justice?
Take it a step further: creation – humanity – prophets – Jesus the Only Son of God
All of these gifts have been put in our midsts, and we have all responded one way or another.
Did God “force” us to desecrate these gifts…. no. That would be like saying he “forced” us to honor him for these gifts.
Clearly noone has been forced to do one or another.
However, in accordance with the sin we have inside of us, we choose to act on our hellish nature.
Some of us however, choose not to willfully suppress the truth of the awesomeness and goodness of the one who set these gifts before us, and cherish/respect/serve the Provider and those he loves (people, creatures, nature)
This truth, that is wilfully supressed, is being communicated, at all times through nature generally, and the Holy Spirit specifically.
Maybe God simply chose to have mercy on some, and give them the “eyes to see” and the “ears to hear”
For those who he didn’t, perhaps they were just punks in the first place, and deserved what they got coming to them.
If this sounds particularly harsh (which it is lovingly meant to), it marks the dichotomy between how we see ourselves in our North American entitlement sensibilities, vs. how God sees sin and those who wilfully commit it after the final atonement.
There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with admitting we are a fallen people.
randal says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 5:16pm
“For those who he didn’t, perhaps they were just punks in the first place, and deserved what they got coming to them.”
According to Calvinist theology we’re all punks because God decreed from eternity that we would be punks and then decreed to save a subset of these punks for his greater glory. The situation is quite disanalogous to the GTO bait car you describe.
pete says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:52am
sustained….. but Calvanist theology isn’t perfect
The bait car analogy speaks to accounting for the biblical witness of judgement/mercy on a perfect goodness/justice platform.
It needs work
pete says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:53am
Here is a thought that is passing through my head:
Do you think it possible that a rightous man might put their prize 1966 Pontiac GTO on display in a neigborhood of punks, rapists, and hoodlums, so that upon catching the thief or vandal that stole or vandalized it, he might justifiably been the culprit down with the most righteous of ass-whoopings in accordance with justice?
Take it a step further: creation – humanity – prophets – Jesus the Only Son of God
All of these gifts have been put in our midsts, and we have all responded one way or another.
Did God “force” us to desecrate these gifts…. no. That would be like saying he “forced” us to honor him for these gifts.
Clearly noone has been forced to do one or another.
However, in accordance with the sin we have inside of us, we choose to act on our hellish nature.
Some of us however, choose not to willfully suppress the truth of the awesomeness and goodness of the one who set these gifts before us, and cherish/respect/serve the Provider and those he loves (people, creatures, nature)
This truth, that is wilfully supressed, is being communicated, at all times through nature generally, and the Holy Spirit specifically.
Maybe God simply chose to have mercy on some, and give them the “eyes to see” and the “ears to hear”
For those who he didn’t, perhaps they were just punks in the first place, and deserved what they got coming to them.
If this sounds particularly harsh (which it is lovingly meant to), it marks the dichotomy between how we see ourselves in our North American entitlement sensibilities, vs. how God sees sin and those who wilfully commit it after the final atonement.
There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with admitting we are a fallen people.
On one hand, we bitch and moan about the problem of evil, but then shake our fists at God when he states he will correct it, all the while denying that we are responsible for it in the first place.
pete says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:56am
Oh…. and being a recent convert to evolutionary creationism, I can’t help but notice the parallel between natural selection and final judgement.
Those who do not evolve to the nature of Christ are “selected out” and discarded.
(I’m still working on mutating my sin genes to Jesus genes…. its a process.)
Walter says:
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 12:58pm
pete says:
Did God “force” us to desecrate these gifts…. no. That would be like saying he “forced” us to honor him for these gifts.
Clearly noone has been forced to do one or another.
Calvinism teaches that certain select individuals come to God because they are touched by *irresistible* grace. Not being able to resist this grace means that human desires are being altered by an external force, the Holy Spirit.
pete says: However, in accordance with the sin we have inside of us, we choose to act on our hellish nature.
Who placed that sin nature within us in the first place?
pete says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:35am
maybe God made us in his incomplete image.
Mixed with divine hidenness, and an original general revelation, this may be a plausible attempt to reconcile our sin and responsibility thereof, while countering the morality attack that God made sin.
I’ll have to work on it propisitionally, but I accept it tacitly at this point.
pete says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 12:43am
and as far as tempting/deception, scripture witnesses to the temptation and deception from Satan/demons.
While their eternities are already confirmed (Matthew 25 – sheep and goats), it still does not absolve humanity.
That’s the biblical account anyways.
TruthOverfaith says:
Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 11:03am
Does the ability of a supposedly sane person to actually believe in this asinine, Dark Age bullshit begin after the very first lobotomy? Or are several required?
Kerry says:
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:37pm
Randal said: “If God is omnibenevolent (meaning that he desires all creatures to achieve shalom) then it follows necessarily that he would desire that all achieve shalom and thus he would elect all in Christ such that none would be reprobate. Insofar as you deny that this is the case and continue to affirm that some are reprobate you thereby reject the divine omnibenevolence. The question is why?”
The strength of Randal’s argument lies in the apparent obligation of God to save all based on God’s omnibenevolent nature. Randal says: “it follows necessarily” that he would desire that all achieve shalom and thus he would elect all in Christ”. In other words because he is omnibenevolent by nature then he cannot but act according to that nature.
G.K Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy said: “Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature.”
I will try to be more formal with the proposition.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand” therefore in a perfect nature one facet of that nature cannot militate against another. His omnibenevolence is in harmony with his omnipotence.
This is how it is for the Arminian:
God is omnibenevolent by nature.
The laws of his own nature preclude God from choosing anything that would violate that nature.
Therefore “he would elect all in Christ such that none would be reprobate.”
Now let’s see how it is for the Calvinist:
God is omnipotent by nature.
The laws of his own nature preclude God from choosing anything that would violate that nature.
Therefore he would elect to create a being that could not violate his nature. Libertarian freewill does not exist.
If we concede a limitation in the nature of God with respect to power (so that men are able to refuse God) then it legitimately follows that:
we may concede a limitation in the nature of God with respect to love (so that God is able to refuse men)
If there are good grounds (like sin) to refuse men then God need not save all.
Mankind has a will – being made in the image of God we concede God has a will.
Man’s nature is imperfect- he is a creature subject to space and time with finite knowledge and limited power, therefore his will is imperfect (not to mention the fall)
God’s nature is perfect- he is not subject to his own nature in the same way we are because he is the ground of those perfections therefore his will his power and love is perfect.
TruthOverfaith says:
Friday, November 25, 2011 at 9:28am
Our Savior is speaking to us!!! See the link below!!
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
2011/11/18/jesus-appears-in-a-dog-butt/