Does God hate those he does not save?
This article was originally published at The Christian Post in January, 2010.
***
Many Christians assume that God loves all people. This is hardly surprising since scripture declares that God loves all creation (John 3:16-17) and desires to see all people saved (1 Tim.2:4; 2 Pe.3:9). Indeed, the notion that God is loving to all, a doctrine known among theologians by the fancy name “omnibenevolence”, would qualify for many as a basic axiom, a starting point for all further theological reflection.
As such, it may be surprising to discover that theologians within the Calvinist tradition reject the doctrine of divine omnibenevolence. There are two ways that they do this. To begin with, some affirm that God loves all people but that he has a special love for the elect, or those he has chosen for salvation. (Thus, he is not maximally benevolent toward all, as omnibenevolence declares.) This position affirms a passage like John 3:16-17, but clarifies that the general love God has for all creation is different from the saving love he has for his elect creatures.
The other position stakes out a more unambiguous position by declaring without qualification that God does not love those he does not save; indeed, he hates them. And why does he hate them? I will argue in a subsequent post that the reasons are arbitrary. That is, he could just as easily have loved those he hates and hated those he loves as hated those he hates and loved those he loves. That, I would submit, is a deeply disturbing implication, both theologically and pastorally. But more on that later.
Let’s focus here on the first view that God loves all but loves some with a special love. Consider the words of Reformed theologian and New Testament scholar D.A. Carson:
When he says he loves us, does not God rather mean something like the following? “Morally speaking, you are the people of the halitosis, the bulbous nose, the greasy hair, the disjoined knees, the abominable personality. Your sins have made you disgustingly ugly. But I love you anyway, not because you are attractive, but because it is my nature to love.” And in the case of the elect, God adds, “I have set my affection on you from before the foundation of the universe, not because you are wiser or better or stronger than others but because in grace I chose to love you.” [The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), 63.]
Note the Carson is claiming here that God loves all people, and then places a special love on those he has chosen for salvation.
There is no problem understanding the second part. If a particular individual is unlovable and not worthy of salvation and God chooses to save them anyway, then that would indeed seem to testify to God’s benevolence toward and thus love of them.
But what about the rest, those left unchosen or (conversely) those chosen not to be saved? In what sense does God love them? Carson begins with the observation that the unchosen (and the chosen too) are morally abominable.
This leads us to the first problem: according to Calvinism, the primary reason that people are morally abominable is because God willed that it would be so. Thus, those who are ripe for damnation (that means all of us) are damnable because God willed that we would fall. God could also have willed that we not fall and so not be damnable, but he did not.
(Amazingly, this point is sometimes missed by Calvinists. Thus you can have Calvinist flag bearer Mark Driscoll talking about the “free will defense” of God’s goodness over-against evil when this theodicy contradicts his Calvinist theology.)
Second, having left the unchosen in a damnable state, God then proceeds to damn them for eternity. According to a traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment, this means that God subjects them to the most unimaginable, excruciating punishments, and he does so for eternity.
So to sum up, the unchosen are fallen because God wills as primary cause that they reject his perfect will (or what theologians sometimes call his preceptive will). Second, when they (freely) act in accord with God’s primary determining will, he then subjects them to the most horrifying suffering imaginable for eternity.
But then how can Carson seriously propose that a God who elects all to fall and only some to be saved can then declare, “But I love you anyway, not because you are attractive, but because it is my nature to love”? What love is it that could will a creature to fall, and then will that that creature suffer the most unimaginable torment forever? Would it not make more sense to call this hatred?
Tags: Calvinism, causation, free will, God, love, omnibenevolence, providence
40 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] Rauser levels a question for the Calvinists: Does God hate those he doesn’t [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
pete says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7:21am
Tacitally, it is reasonable to question a Calvinist construct of God’s morality as posited above.
However, this construct only addresses one side of the equation, which is notably a human construct of the evidence in question.
The other part of the equation has to be practically adjudicated: namely the actions of moral agents within the world who:
a) Reject God’s gift of salvation through Christ
b) Continue to actively, rebelliously, and unrepentantly sin, causing untold suffering to both God, man, and creation.
Perhaps part 1 of the equation fails to account for theocentric teleological design.
What are God’s motives in creating humanity?
Genesis 1 teaches twice (vv 26 and 28) that humans were created in God’s image for the purpose of ruling.
Next, we know that Jesus is the fulness of God in human flesh.
Next, we are exhorted on multiple occassions, most notably in the Pauline corpus, to conform to the image of God.
Finally, Jesus teaches in the letters to the churches of Asia Minor, that those who overcome (as he did) will have the right to rule with him.
While Prime Mover status attributed to God makes moral reconcilliation on this topic somewhat problematic for the ECT doctrine, I think it is lessened in through the following mediums:
-free will
-natural revelation
-special revelation
-objective moral law/inate faculties of guilt and shame
-knowledge of our own mortality/fear of death
As morally culpable agents, we have responsibility to conform to objective moral benchmarks: perfection
This perfection is substitutional in Jesus, and is spriritually fashioned in the Elect by God, to which we have real time experience with concomitant will towards the same teleological design.
While I don’t want to appeal to mystery or silence, I do accept that there is an alement of mystery to how the Biblical Authors were inspired by God, but penned scripture using their own thoughts.
Conversely, when humans exercise selfless faith and sacrifice, this too is a merging of both divine and human will.
Perhaps too, when the reprobate reject God and glory in the crapulence of filthy sin, this is a merging of both human and demonic will.
I don’t offer a reductionist explanation of the moral/practical coherence of this doctrine. However, much like Trinitarian theology, I do affirm the tacit awareness of Decretive will merging somehow with human will…. both for election and reprobation.
Jerry Shepherd says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7:45am
Nothing to say yet. Just want to subscribe to the discussion.
randal says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 2:54pm
Hmmm, just what is going on behind that emoticon’s smiling face…?
Jerry Shepherd says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 3:42pm
Hmmm . . . probably just some Calvinissst sssininsssster ssscheme!
randal says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 5:44pm
Ahh, the emoticon is hiding the forked tongue.
Eric Reitan says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 6:00pm
Here is, for me, the big problem: God’s preordaining some sinners for reprobation is supposed to reflect God’s justice, which tempers His mercy and love (or the other way around?). The idea is that sin is such an intolerable affront to God’s holiness and majesty that divine justice demands that it be repudiated. And so God casts some sinners away forever as a display of His just wrath against sin, even as he elects others for salvation to display His mercy and benevolence.
The problem is this: In casting sinners away from His presence, He casts them away from the only thing that (according to the very theology underlying this theory) can overcome sin. Thus, God guarantees that this intolerable affront to His majest continues eternally in the souls of the damned. In short, the view essentially amounts to this: sin is so terrible that God decisively acts to guarantee that this intolerable thing continue in all its intolerability forever and ever. “What you’re doing is so inconceivably unacceptable that I am going to make absolutely sure that there is no way for you to ever stop doing it!”
And making sure that this intolerable affront to His holiness never stops is supposed to be God’s justifying reason for not electing all, and so for truncating the scope of his benevolence? Is that a coherent understanding of divine justice?
I think a variant of this problem obtains not only for Calvinists, but for any adherents to that understanding of hell according to which the God-justifying purpose for damnation is to justly punish sin. It is not a problem for those understandings of hell more like C.S. Lewis’s, in which damnation is a regrettable outcome of divine respect for the free choices of rational creatures.
But if I go on, I’ll end up summarizing John’s and my entire book in a blog comment, and then no one will buy it even when it comes out in the affordable paperback version…
randal says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7:41pm
Feel free not to respond to my comment if it will compromise further the marketability of your book.
You write: “Thus, God guarantees that this intolerable affront to His majest continues eternally in the souls of the damned. In short, the view essentially amounts to this: sin is so terrible that God decisively acts to guarantee that this intolerable thing continue in all its intolerability forever and ever.”
Your comment assumes that those who go to hell continue to sin there. Of course that is one common view which is suggested by the reference to “gnashing of teeth” (e.g. in Acts 7 the Pharisees gnash their teeth in rage at Stephen). But the doctrine of hell doesn’t require that we view the final state of the lost as consisting of ongoing active rebellion.
While there is some advantage in claiming that the reprobated get to a point where they no longer sin (perhaps they are inert, maximally remorseful but not repentant creatures), this view raises more sharply the morality of hell as eternal conscious torment.
pete says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7:54pm
“gnashing” always struck me as the eternalized reality of the earthly “they hated me without reason” (John 15:25)
Eric Reitan says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 9:03pm
Randal,
My failure to reply to this earlier had nothing to do with marketing concerns and everything to do with the fact that the day after this was posted my mother came to visit for the holidays and promptly decided to fall and break both of her arms.
In any event, if you’re interested I’ve now returned to this issue on my blog with a series of three posts addressing the argument sketched out here. The third directly addresses your questions.
randal says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 5:30am
Omigoodness, two broken arms?! That’s a pretty ratty Christmas.
Well I’m sure the posts were worth the wait. I’ll read them with interest.
pete says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 6:54pm
Calvinism is a large theological collection, so I’ll only put forth my theological understanding of the “hell” problem.
1) Hell exists as per God’s decrective will
2) At least 1 person is identified in scripture as going there: Judas (Acts 1:25)
3) Those whose names are not recorded in the Lamb’s Book of Life, at the post-millenial resurrection, are also declared to suffer the second death/lake of fire.
4) Those who receive “the mark of the beast” are also declared to receive the same fate.
I think at this point it is useful to detach the “whys” and “wherefores” of God, from the declaration of God.
I take the sovereignist’s approach for the declaration (“because God said so”)
I may/can take the position that “God does it for justice”, or as I am currently working on “God does it to liberate the universse of sin and death”.
Obviously, a healthy free will theology entails.
However, I am only trying to reconcile reasons for ECT, with special declaration of God’s nature/person and declaration.
My reconcilliation may be wrong, and I pray that I don’t fall into the error of Job’s friends. However, I can still, devoid of any theological construct of Calvinism or Arminianism, affirm that God is perfectly good, and ECT is his righteous punishment to the unrepentant wicked.
pete says:
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7:33pm
I also don’t think that “hate” is contrary to God’s nature.
He hates sin and divorce (explicitly stated in Malachi)
Now to say that God is cooly indifferent, somehow like Allah of the Koran or the Deist god of the humanists, would be contrary to the special revelation of his nature.
The Seeking Disciple says:
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 2:23am
Good post brother.
J.D. says:
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 9:57pm
Randall, I am starting to think you are a Grade A loser.
John is bragging about his book with you beng a “tour de force” and that you get trounced.
If you actually lost to that lying manipulator, you will be know known as one of the great Quslings of the decade.
And after he suckered you in with promises of collaboration!!!
You poor pitiful sap. Bahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pete says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 3:16am
“You poor pitiful sap. Bahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
J.D.:
Sound’s kinda like, “Baaaaaaaaaah”
Matthew 25:19
randal says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 3:23am
Pete, don’t worry about J.D. He used to be the chapter vice president of the Randal Rauser Fan Club for Walla Walla Washington, but they booted him out because of his poor grooming habits and he’s been taking it out on me ever since.
pete says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 4:30am
nice
David J. Houston says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 4:17am
Are there any good reasons to believe that God does NOT love everyone?
(1) The Bible explicitly teach that God hates evildoers:
(i) Psalm 5:5 says,‘The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.’
(ii) Psalm 11:5 says, ‘The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence’
(2) The Bible explicitly teaches that God hates specific individuals:
(i) Malachi 1:3
(ii) Romans 9:13
(3) The Bible says that the wrath of God rests upon not just the sin but the sinner.
(i) Romans 1:24–32; 2:5
(ii) John 3:36
(4) God cannot love everyone in a saving sense this the Bible says that God has ordained some to destruction:
(i) Proverbs 16:4 says, ‘The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.’
(ii) Romans 9:22-23 says, ‘You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…’ (Randal has already thrown in the towel when it comes to interpreting this verse – check out the comments section in this post: http://randalrauser.com/2011/12/could-god-be-other-than-maximally-loving-yet-another-response-to-jerry/#comments-wrap)
(5) We could say that God ‘loves’ everyone in the sense that he blesses everyone in some way even if it is simply with life. But then it becomes indistinguishable from hate in many cases since this ‘love’ would apply to those in Hell, the reprobate, and to Satan himself. It would be nothing like the more robust kind of love that Randal seems to have in mind.
Are there any good reasons to believe that God DOES love everyone?
(1) John 3:16-17 can not be used to say that God wants every person to be saved. That would contradict what is said in his high priestly prayer in John 17 where he says that he is not praying for the world but rather for the disciples (v9) and for those who believe in their teaching. (v20) The referent of the term kosmos, that we translate as ‘world’, in this case is the elect but the sense of the passage is universalistic so as to emphasize that whosoever – not simply Jews or Pharisees or whatever – believes in Christ is not condemned (v18).
(2) In 1 Tim 2:4 we find the word ‘all’ and we generally assume that this means everyone. However, we need to read these verses in the light of the Jewish tendency to ignore the promises of God for the nations. Paul is referring to the scope of kinds of people. The Lord Jesus Christ was not a ransom only for Jews but for Gentiles also who are often referred to as ‘the world’ (Rom. 11:12, 15; 1 John 2:2; Mark 16:15).
(3) 2 Peter 3:9 is often said to teach that God is not willing that any should not be saved. But that can’t be right since some are not saved so he must, at least in some sense, desire that some won’t be saved (unless you’re a universalist). It is better to follow the grammar of the passage. The passage says that God is patient toward ‘you’. But who is ‘you’ referring to? It’s quite easy to find out since Peter tell us that who is writing to: true believers who have a faith equal to that of an apostle and that he consistently refers to as ‘beloved’ (1:1; 3:1, 8, 14, 17). The passage is an effective means of encouraging believers undergoing hardships in life because God is patient with them and is not delaying his judgment of their oppressors because he doesn’t care about them but because he is not willing that any of his chosen sheep should be lost by bringing by judging the world before the appoint time of their effectual calling.
I don’t subscribe to Carson’s version of omnibenevolence (I’m a much pricklier kind of Calvinist =P) so I won’t bother defending it but I will voice my agreement that Driscoll is clearly confused concerning his understanding of providence. That much was clear from listening to his video on predestination. However, he is still hilarious. I hope that we can all agree on that point! =)
David J. Houston says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 4:23am
PS: Sorry for all the grammar and spelling mistakes… I just finished a REALLY long shift!
randal says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 2:11pm
Thanks for your comments David. I don’t think you’re pricklier than Carson. Just more consistent. You nicely demonstrate the lamentable end of Calvinist theology. Needless to say I don’t accept your quick exegesis of passages like 2 Peter 3:9 not least because God is described as willing all sorts of things in scripture that do not obtain. The solution is not to say he didn’t really will it. But I’m gping to use your opening comments as a springboard to further discussion.
David Houston says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 4:16pm
Glad to be of service in any way I can! =)
Concerning your comments about my interpretation of 2 Pet 3:9… this is one of the big differences between our respective views on God. I hold to divine impassibility (a classical doctrine that, lamentably, has been dropped by the majority of Christians today) so I read those places in Scripture which speak of God as having an ineffectual will or, to use some old jargon, a ‘bare wish’ as being anthropomorphic. God isn’t eternally disappointed with aspects of his work. That would be most unfitting. Especially when he declares the end from the beginning and is, therefore, never frustrated and does all that he pleases. (Isa 46:10; Ps 115:3)
To ordain all that comes to pass and then pout about it would be quite silly. That kind of God seems hardly worthy of worship.
pete says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 4:54pm
maybe the Greek scholars of the biblical text could help in discerning 2 Pe 3:9.
I wonder if there is anything in the text that would contextually point to the author addressing all of humanity (ie. none of humanity to perish) vs. the select believing audience (ie. none of you disciples to perish)
In any event, John 17′s “High Priestly Prayer” gives a good check agains the former interpretation as he (God in the flesh) does not pray for the world.
Can we speculate then that Jesus has no desire for the “world” to be saved, or that he does will for the world to be saved, but that the Father’s will is not for the world to be saved, and thus will not pray for it?
Either way, a universal reading of the Petrine text is problematic, especially when destruction of the ungodly is a present theme on either side of the text in question (2 Pe 3:7 and 2 Pe 3:16)
David Houston says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 5:14pm
Pete said: “Can we speculate then that Jesus has no desire for the “world” to be saved, or that he does will for the world to be saved, but that the Father’s will is not for the world to be saved, and thus will not pray for it?”
Only if you’d like to sever the unity of the Godhead thus turning Christianity into a polytheistic religion… but if you’re down with that be my guest! =P
In all seriousness, you might say that Jesus qua human has a desire that everyone he encounters be saved (since he doesn’t know who the elect are) but that can’t work qua divine nature for the reason given above. You can’t have Christ working at cross purposes with the Father (at least not in this sense!).
randal says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 5:43pm
“you might say that Jesus qua human has a desire that everyone he encounters be saved (since he doesn’t know who the elect are) but that can’t work qua divine nature for the reason given above.”
No, you can’t say that. If Jesus was ignorant in the way you describe then he surely should have withheld any opinion about whether to desire the salvation of a specific individual.
Consider this analogy: the king’s daughter has five suitors, four of which are great and one of which is a closet serial killer. The king knows that one of them is a closet serial killer but he knows not which one. Obviously in that situation the king should withhold any particular belief about the suitability of a particular suitor until he knows which one is the serial killer.
David J. Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 2:55am
Absolutely. In this situation there would be horrible consequences for going with the innocent until proven guilty approach. Especially when the king could simply avoid all of them and eliminate the risk all together! But that’s not an option in our situation. We have to deal with people whether they are reprobate or elect. We’re not in any position to know who’s elect and who’s not so we simply live according to the law that God has provided us with. So I don’t see how your example is relevant.
pete says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 6:56pm
I hope its clear that I do not advocate the latter possibility, and affirm the first.
I think with statements such as John 17, and “do you think I came to bring peace on earth(q), Jesus, as God`s eschatalogical agent, who curb stomps all evil in Revelation 19, does long for the destruction of the world and its wickedness.
The question is, no matter what theological position you are inclined towards should be as follows:
How do I reconcile the totality of special revelation without creating any heresies, old or new(q)
I don`t think that saying God hates some people is a heresy…. remember that hate is the inverse of love, and not its absence.
Hate comes about due to rejection, abuse, and malicious harm by an object of love to the one who loves it.
David Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 3:26pm
It’s very clear, Pete. =)
randal says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 5:46pm
“To ordain all that comes to pass and then pout about it would be quite silly. That kind of God seems hardly worthy of worship.”
Nice caricature of another theology. (Actually not so nice.)
You sound like the Arminian saying “The kind of God who decrees x seems hardly worthy of worship.” I suggest we exercise caution when judging a theology that has a broad representation in the Christian tradition and saying it describes a God “hardly worthy of worship” is not cautious.
David J. Houston says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 10:28pm
Randal said: ‘Nice caricature of another theology. (Actually not so nice.)
What do you object to? God being disappointed with how his creation has gone? Or God being pouty? Surely you agree that God is disappointed with how his creation has turned out. Surely, on your view, he wanted everyone to refrain from sin and be saved. But you’re a Molinist, right? So he had to work with the cards that he was dealt. He got a pair of 2’s when he wanted a Royal Flush. That is disappointing. I’d pout about it if my bad luck resulted in people going to Hell.
Randal said: ‘You sound like the Arminian saying “The kind of God who decrees x seems hardly worthy of worship.” I suggest we exercise caution when judging a theology that has a broad representation in the Christian tradition and saying it describes a God “hardly worthy of worship” is not cautious.’
Perhaps you should take your own advice since Calvinism is certainly broadly represented in the Christian tradition and yet you refer to it as ‘lamentable’. Or – an exciting possibility – we could accept the fact that we don’t like each others views of God and not get snippy when the other person voices their opinion. I could care less if you find Calvinist doctrine lamentable. I try to convince people like you that it’s true, glorifying to God, to be preferred over any and all other views, etc. but I don’t get all offended every time someone disagrees with me.
randal says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 10:56pm
“What do you object to? God being disappointed with how his creation has gone? Or God being pouty?”
No being who is essentially omniscient, where omniscience is defined as including truths about all future contingent events, can ever be disappointed about anything. I’m surprised you couldn’t figure that out on your own.
David J. Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 2:17am
Alright, so God infallibly foreknows that the future is disappointing. I’m not sure how this is supposed to be an improvement. Perhaps you mean to suggest that God, having maximal moral fibre and courage in the face of a difficult situation, will not allow himself but will soldier on?
David J. Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 2:57am
EDIT: “Will not allow himself to be pouty but will soldier on”
pete says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 3:10am
not to mention being omnipotent
The “bad deal of cards” analogy is very problematic.
Who exactly is said to have dealt those cards?
David Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 3:31pm
Pete, the cards language is often employed by a leading defender (and popularizer) of Molinism, William Lane Craig. He speaks of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs) as cards and God having to play the hand he is dealt since he, necessarily, has no control over what CCFs are available to him. For the record, I think that this kind of language is inappropriate as well. God is never disappointed because he has planned everything.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 3:35pm
Dr. Jerry Shepherd: “Nothing to say yet. Just want to subscribe to the discussion.”
For the sake of discussion completeness, here’s an excerpt from Steve Hays in response to Eric Reitan’s comment above:
“i) First off, I’d like to thank Reitan for sparing us the need to read his book. Given the quality of his summarized argument, it would be poor stewardship of time and money to invest in the book.
ii) I’d also like to make a general observation: in theory, philosophers ought to be more logical than folks who lack formal training in philosophy. A large part of philosophy involves spotting fallacious arguments.
Yet, in practice, philosophers frequently use their training to retroactively justify their prejudice. This is often the case in political philosophy, but it spills over into other branches. They use their training to rationalize positions they didn’t arrive at rationally. Reason in the service of emotion.
iii) As for Reitan’s argument (such as it is), he tries to contrive an artificial dilemma by casting the issue in terms of tolerance. As he frames it, the Calvinist God tolerates the intolerable. Hence, Reformed theism is self-contradictory.
iv) But he’s burning a straw man. In Calvinism, “sin” is not “intolerable” to God. “Sinners” are not intolerable to God.
What’s “intolerable” (if you wish to put it that way, which may not be the best way to put it) isn’t sin, but injustice. Isn’t sin, but allowing sin to go unpunished. What’s “unacceptable” isn’t the existence of sinners, but justice denied. Sooner or later, the scales of justice must be righted.”
Read the rest at Sloppy Philosophers.
(If you want to interact with Steve directly, I suggest you comment on his post.)
Merry Christmas to all!
Richard Coords says:
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 6:34pm
Quote: “Carson begins with the observation that the unchosen (and the chosen too) are morally abominable.”
When I hear the word “unchosen,” I think of the word, “untouchable,” as in the Hindu religion’s segment of the lower caste, which is fixed and unchangeable. In this respect, the comparison between Calvinism and Hinduism is remarkable. Calvinists are simply humble enough to recognize the fact that they are the elites.
David J. Houston says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 2:59am
Suppose I take my 5-year-old daughter to the pet store to buy a puppy dog. She instantly falls in love with all of them. She can’t bring herself to pick out just one to take home.
So I guess I have to buy all the puppies in the pet store. To leave a single puppy “unchosen” would be elitist.
pete says:
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 3:14am
your Hindu caste analogy is only consistent if Biblical Christianity teaches that believers are the elites of this world in its fallen state.
Clearly this runs contrary to scripture, and humility and preseverance through suffering is the mandate.
The only thing in Hinduism (and post-classical specifically) that closely represents any Christian thought is the “Trimurti” of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu as the three “faces of god”
However, we would recognize that as modalism.
In fact, Christianity (and Buddhism) are seen as great opportunities to escape the caste system/”Law of Manu” by the Dalits, with conversion numbers on the rise amongst these classes.
Jerry Shepherd says:
Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 7:10am
Hi Randal,
I see that this discussion has continued on into other posts. I’ll try to catch up and read them and respond as soon as possible. But as far as this article is concerned, I think it is important to note that David has indeed given you scriptural reasons as to why Calvinists hold the position they do. I also note what David said above with regard to Romans 9:22-24, that “Randal has already thrown in the towel when it comes to interpreting this verse.” After David’s pressing you to deal with this passage, your only reply was, “I’m not exactly sure how to read Romans 9:22-24, not least because it is part of an extended argument from Romans 9-11 and I’m not sure how to read that extended argument into which the verses to which you refer fit.” While I appreciate your honesty in saying you’re not exactly sure; I nevertheless find it incredible that you continue to philosophize and theologize on the whole Calvinist/Arminian discussion, without having done the requisite, serious wrestling with the biblical text — not only Romans 9-11, and all the passages David mentioned above, but numerous narratives, speeches, prophetic texts, and epistolary texts, which both operate on the assumption, as well as making plain themselves, that God’s love is not undifferentiated. How can you possibly do either philosophical or systematic theology with such a truncated canon of scripture? This only serves to illustrate what I said earlier: Arminians, as a rule, work with only half a canon, and they don’t seriously wrestle with the biblical text or do credible exegesis. To be sure, this is a generalization; but as a generalization, it seems to hold up quite well, and the discussion over the last month has done nothing to suggest that it is incorrect.
Blessings,
Jerry
randal says:
Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 3:24pm
I’ll respond to more of your comments in a blog post tomorrow.