Pages

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Morg and Nivlac Luap

{Note: This is taken from Tom Talbott's parable "Morg and Nivlac." It is available here. I have copied and pasted it almost verbatim, changing rather inconsequential details. That is, the essence is the same, and so the critiques implied against Nivlac by the parable work equally against Luap. Vic Reppert had said that Talbott's parable was a "challenge" for Calvinists. Unfortunately Calvin simply repeated what the Apostle Paul wrote, and thus whatever can be leveled against Calvin can be leveled against Paul. So, this is a challenge for Paulists.}


The Parable of Morg and Luap

Consider the following parable:

Long ago in ancient Atlantis, a series of prophets appeared among the Atlantans and spoke in the name of Morg, whom they proclaimed as the one true God of the universe. In the name of Morg, these prophets performed many mighty deeds: They healed the sick, brought sight to the blind, and even raised a few men and women from the dead. They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience. They called for economic justice, for peaceful relationships between the states, for children to obey their parents and parents to love their children, and for the people to engage in certain prescribed forms of worship. They also produced many writings: letters, sermons, historical accounts, and the like; and in later centuries, these were collected into a set of sacred scriptures called, The Older Way. Though the scriptures included a rich variety of religious writings, not all of which were easy to harmonize, especially the sayings of later prophets (called The Newer Way, which would eventually join with The Older Way to become the Book of Morg)) converts to Morgism nonetheless came to regard them all as the inerrant word of Morg.

Now the Atlantans were generally a dark skinned people, but it so happened that about one in five was albino, totally devoid of any skin pigmentation. There was no discernible pattern to this phenomenon. An albino parent was no more likely than a dark-skinned parent to have an albino child; and though approximately 20% of the population was albino, no one could predict when an albino child would be born. But the Book of Morg had some important things to say about this phenomenon; certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg. To be sure, the interpretation of these texts, sometimes classified among the "hard sayings," was controversial, in part because they seemed incompatible with other texts. But Azeb 8:22 explicitly used the term "abomination," and many other texts seemed to imply that albinos would have no place in the Kingdom of Morg. According to Morgist fundamentalists, therefore, there was no salvation for albinos; and so the fundamentalists excluded albinos from the holy temples, and they supported laws against intermarriage between albinos and the dark-skinned majority.

As you might expect, however, these practices produced some great theological controversies. Those whom the fundamentalists castigated as liberals pointed to other texts in the book of Morg that seemed to declare Morg's love for all Atlantans; they even pointed out that, according to Epaga 13:5, there are no color distinctions at all in the Kingdom of Morg. And philosophers among the more liberal party supplemented these exegetical considerations with the following philosophical argument: If Morg is truly holy and just, they contended--and if his very essence is perfect love--then he could not possibly hate the albinos and exclude them from his Kingdom simply on account of their white skin. But the fundamentalists had a whole arsenal of arguments against such considerations as these. They found some fifty texts in the Book of Morg in which the word "all" did not literally mean all, and they therefore argued that the more universalistic-sounding texts imply only that Morg loves all Atlantans of color. After all, one must harmonize one text with another. If there are no color distinctions in the Kingdom of Morg, for example, that is only because the albinos have already been excluded. The fundamentalists also responded with great anger towards the more philosophical arguments: The liberals, they claimed, had elevated human reason above the Book of Morg, which should be the ultimate standard of truth. But the liberals had no right to judge Morg; it was Morg who would eventually judge them.

And so the controversies raged among the Morgists until Luap, a prophet of the order of the Newer Way, put an end to all such controversies by the power of the sword--which, he claimed, Morg had placed in his hand. According to Luap, Morg did not hate the albinos on account of anything they had done, good or bad; he did not even hate them on account of their white skin. To the contrary, their white skin was but a visible sign that Morg had already hated them from the foundation of the world. Against the liberal party--"I wish they would emasculate themselves!," Luap wrote:

And not only so, but also when Hakeber had conceived children by one man, our forefather Caasi,though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that Morg’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, 'your dark-skinned children have I loved, but your Albino I have hated.'

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on Morg’s part? By no means! For he says to Sesom, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on Atlantan will or exertion, but on Morg, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Hoarahp 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

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 Morg? 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 Morg, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the albinos prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called.”



Luap went on to make two additional points: first, that Albinos have a futility of minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of Morg because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart, becayse they were not chosen in Morg's Son - the Savior - before the foundation of the world. And second, that nothing in Morg's nature prevents him from hating the albinos. Accordingly, Morg's hatred "has its own justice--unknown, indeed to us but very sure." Luap thus concluded that any argument from a human conception of justice is fundamentally misconceived: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to Morg?” Luap thus mocks human understanding: Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not Morg made foolish the wisdom of the world? And so Luap left his followers with this: “Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness.” And so of the liberal philosophers Luap says, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” This great theologian laid down the law and the great antithesis by saying, “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards.” By saying that he made sure that he would control the minds of his followers.

11 comments:

  1. As ridiculous as this little Morg analogy is, it makes one point rather nicely. If God is so concerned with us knowing that he is not a respecter of persons racially and economically and as far as gender, with such statements as that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, there is neither male nor female, etc. and "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" then why would God override this principle by respecting certain persons on some other equally frivolous basis? Peter sets forth here in Acts 10:34 that God respects those who work righteousness but not on any other basis than that. Not on racial basis, not on economic basis, not on how much philosophy you can spout, not on some random eeni-meenie-miney-moe before the world began, but on doing righteousness. In context, Cornelius is under discussion, who although a non-proselyte Gentile and not in covenant relationship with God, feared God and prayed and gave alms. God heard his prayer, and according to the angel that God sent "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God," and God gave Cornelius the chance to hear the gospel because Cornelius was a godfearing man who worked righteousness as best he could even out of covenant relationship with God. As I noted on another blog, those who seek God as did Cornelius, God will get the gospel to in his providence. Note how Peter does NOT say "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that was ennie-meeny-miney-moed before the world began is accepted with him" but rather "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is totally off topic, but there are a series of posts against sola Scriptura that Steve or someone might like to respond to seeing that we're nearing Reformation Day:

    http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd2cg4kp_2fw7q6c

    http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-privileging-private-judgment-is-sin.html

    http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/scripture-meaning-and-interpretation.html

    http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/theory-ladenness-case-study.html

    http://examinelife.blogspot.com/2007/10/authorial-intent.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found all of those links here:

    http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/10/prof-carson-vs-protestants-on-plain.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Has anyone read "Principles of Science" by W.S. Jevon? Any thoughts on the book or the man? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "As ridiculous as this little Morg analogy is, it makes one point rather nicely. If God is so concerned with us knowing that he is not a respecter of persons racially and economically and as far as gender, with such statements as that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, there is neither male nor female, etc. and "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" then why would God override this principle by respecting certain persons on some other equally frivolous basis?"

    The incompetence meter has surely been smashed by now. This kinda stuff isn’t even on Dave Hunt’s level.

    Your misunderstanding of Calvinism is bleeding through everything you write. What’s worse, you demonstrate an unwillingness to learn--rather, you are bent on discrediting Calvinism. Far from ad hominem, this is a simply an assessment of what you are bringing to the table.

    Can you really not tell the difference between these two bases for election? One is a basis that derives from something intrinsic to man. The other—the Reformed view—is based upon God’s sovereign choice not in any way influenced by any characteristic within man whatsoever. So one finds its basis in man, the other in God’s will.

    What God means to communicate to us through this verse is that he doesn’t save on the basis of man’s character, effort, or composition, but on the basis of his own goodness in sharing himself with people who didn’t deserve it. How about reading Romans 9 for a change (especially the part about Jacob and Esau).

    But I am forgetting that you are already reading the Bible, yet not to accept God's words, but to discredit its plain message. For example, the distinction between the two bases is an elementary one that you should’ve made quickly. Yet instead you tried to distort it because it didn’t accommodate your aprioristic commitment to libertarian freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saint and Sinner said:

    "This is totally off topic, but there are a series of posts against sola Scriptura that Steve or someone might like to respond to seeing that we're nearing Reformation Day."

    I don't have time this week to do a full-blown critique. I would note in passing that Scott doesn't bother to specify his target. His objections might have some purchase on Tim Lahaye, but it's a straw man argument as far as, say, the hermeneutical posture of someone like Vern Poythress (e.g. Understanding Dispensationalists; God-Centered Interpretation).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    I understand. I'm always in need of time myself. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ego objurgates:
    ---
    If God is so concerned with us knowing that he is not a respecter of persons racially and economically and as far as gender...then why would God override this principle by respecting certain persons on some other equally frivolous basis?
    ---

    You will say to me then, "For what frivolous basis does he still find fault? For who can resist his frivolous will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to a frivolous God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you frivolously 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 for his own frivolous reasons? What if God, frivolously desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has frivolously endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known (frivoulously) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has frivolously called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24, in the upcoming Egomakarios Version, the official Bible of the Arminiobot 3000. Remember, if it doesn't say "Egomakarios" it could be right.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The context of Romans 9 is that Paul is defending God's decision to take the gospel to the Gentiles against Jews who were all upset about it. This is what he ends with "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but (feigned) as though it were by works." In other words, they pretended to keep the Law when in reality they did not keep it but actually relied on Abrahamic descent to save them. Paul is arguing God's right to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and he is arguing this against people who thought that salvation could only come to Abraham's fleshly descendants and that God had no right to save anyone who didn't spring from Abraham.

    To prove that God has such a right, he shows that before Esau or Jacob were born, God chose which of the two nations represented by them would receive the physical blessing and bring the Messiah into the world of their flesh. God could have chosen Esaue as well as Jacob, in which case, the Abrahamic descent they trust so mightily in for their salvation would have belonged to the Edomites rather than them!

    He further argues that God "raised up" Pharoah to harden his heart and show his power in him, using a word that indicates raising from the dead. The meaning is that God extended Pharoah's life in order to show his wrath against sinners. So also, Paul argues, God can extend the life of the fleshly nation of Israel to show his wrath against their breaking of the Old Covenant, for he says "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" That is, what if rather than punishing the sinful nation right now, which he could do, he waiting and did it later? to make it even more spectacular? "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" For had he destroyed the sinful nation so soon, the gospel would have been extinguished and none would have been left to take the gospel to the gentiles! "As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved." Note that the scope of his message is God's fairness in bringing the gospel to the gentiles, not in electing and reprobating individuals based on a dice roll. The goal of this chapter is to show that God has just cause to destroy all of Israel outright, since they brake his covenant, yet has determined not to do so, because he will use some of them to take the gospel to another people. These same will be saved along with that other people. Then, eventually, he will destroy the unbelieving portion of Israel, but will await that day with longsuffering. Furthermore, he specifies that the modus operandi, the method by which God would destroy those who would be destroyed is the rock of offense, Christ (not dice rolls). "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Why will much of Israel not be saved and only a remnant saved? Because God rolled the dice on them? Nay, but because they are offended at Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Egowakoriot said:
    ---
    "The context of Romans 9 is that Paul is defending God's decision to take the gospel to the Gentiles against Jews who were all upset about it."
    ---

    Yeah, that's why Paul said "I'm taling about nations, not individuals" instead of saying: "One of you will say to me, why does God still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

    Did you ever wonder why Paul addressed your exact objection, Ego, and told you "Who are you to talk back to God?" if he really meant what you think he meant?

    Paul must have been extremely stupid. Thank God he sent Ego around to correct it for us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ego,

    Can I ask you for your basis in saying that we believe God "roles dice?"

    Second, Paul is arguing about God *saving* the gentiles, not simply "bringing them the gospel." In fact, the "gospel" was preached to Abraham. It had been around for quite some time. The Jews engaged in missionary endeavors. Not like we do today, to be sure, but even you note of Cornelius that he was "a non-proselyte Gentile." Thus you tacitly imply that some gentiles had been given the mercy of God. Been allowed to be saved by trusting in what the sacrifices represented!

    This all assumes that "the gospel was given to gentiles."

    Furthermore, "the gentiles" is not "a nation." You have Paul equivocating, then.

    So, the context is *salvation.* Thus the context is personalized. How could *someone* be saved.

    Indeed, in Romans 8 Paul *just spoke* about the *salvation* believers have in Jesus. That it is so sure that he can speak of it as past tense.

    Then, *right after* he speaks of *salvation* he says, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh." It is manifestly clear that Paul is saying that he wishes he could be "cut off from Christ" - which as Romans 8 teaches us is to be cut off from salvation - for the sake of his brothers, the Jews. he wishes that they could be "joined to Christ." This implies *salvation* and NOT "hearing the gospel."

    So, sorry, Ego, you have not even come close to correctly stating "the context" of Romans 9, which includes Romans 8 (and even earlier chapters!).

    Lastly, we must ask *why* people are offended at Christ? For *no reason?* Is it an *accident?* Therefore, your libertarianism is more like your "dice rolling" than is our view of predestination. I think you must be projecting, therefore.

    ReplyDelete