“Gregory MacDonald” has done a 4-part response to something I wrote. I already replied to part 1. This is just a mopping up operation.
I waited for him to complete his miniseries, as well as waiting for commenters to weigh in.
http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/
MacDonald said that I had leveled an exceptionally serious charge against him.
I pointed out that “there are no exceptionally serious charges in universalism. Universalism trivializes every evil. If universalism is true, I could flay you alive with a penknife, say three Hail Marys after I die, or do 1000 hours of postmortem community service, then head for heaven. In universalism, all is forgiven since all are forgiven.”
MacDonald’s comeback is to say:
“My view is that there is no forgiveness except through the atoning death of Christ and heart-felt repentance and faith on the part of the sinner. This forgiveness comes at the cost of Christ's death on the cross. There is no trivializing of evil in that. The sinner is ashamed at what they have done and repudiates it. There is no sense in which their evil ‘doesn't really matter’."
But, of course, that misses the point. If no matter what I say or do in this life, I’m heavenbound, then there are no serious charges. There’s no danger in my saying or doing anything whatsoever. Hence, universalism trivializes evil.
MacDonald’s comeback is irrelevant since it fails to address the question of what would constitute an “exceptionally serious charge” given the outcome.
Rachel said...
“What I am getting from his arugement here is that forgiveness pre-mortem is called ‘grace’ and forgiveness post-portem is called ‘trivializing evil’."
You can always count on Rachel to pipe in with some clueless comment. Rachel doesn’t follow the logic of the argument or pay attention what people mean. She simply reacts.
The point at issue is what would qualify as an “exceptionally serious charge” given the outcome. Invoking universal postmortem salvation underscores my point, not hers.
I also don’t have any considered position on “post-portem” forgiveness. Is that a tertiary type of forgiveness in-between postmortem forgiveness and postpartum forgiveness?
“I think the bigger problem here, though, is that he seems to be in fact trivializing Christ's work on the cross. If there is some subset of people that absolutely have to suffer for their sins, then does he think Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough to take away the sins of the world?”
Once again, Rachel is incapable of accurately representing the opposing position. Is Hell predicated on the assumption that some people “absolutely have to” suffer for their sins? No.
Rather, it’s predicated on the fact that every sinner deserves damnation, and God gives some people what they deserve to illustrate the gratuity of grace.
And, of course, it would be asking too much of Rachel to actually study the connotations of “kosmos” in Johannine usage.
Back to MacDonald:
“I must confess to being somewhat surprised that Steve, who does not know me at all, feels so confident in his analysis of my inner life as to be able to make such claims.”
My observation wasn’t based on his inner life, but on his public statements.
“The revelation of God as triune - Father, Son and Spirit - is far more fundamental to my faith than universalism was, is, or ever will be. It is the heart of my Christianity and I would surrender universalist theology any day before surrendering trinitarian theology…I hope that helps.”
No, it doesn’t help. As MacDonald made clear in the first chapter of his book, if God consigned any sinners to everlasting judgment, such a God would be unworthy of worship. Therefore, if the Trinity were to consign some sinners to everlasting judgment, then MacDonald would deem the Trinity to be unworthy of his worship.
Jason Pratt said...
“Ah; I see that Steve has upgraded to calling you (in effect) an intentional murderer who by accident fails to murder.”
One can count on Jason Pratt to misrepresents his opponents. Pratt is a philanthropic universalist on paper, but in real life he resorts to underhanded tactics when dealing with his opponents. Abstract love for everyone combined allied with selective love in action.
What I did was to present an argument from analogy. Pratt pretends that analogy is identity. Pratt knows better, but he says it anyway.
Pratt espouses his back-patting brand of universalism because that’s so much nicer than the “Satanic” doctrine of everlasting punishment, but, in practice, Pratt’s commitment to nicety is purely theoretical—to be suspended whenever he must deal with somebody who doesn’t endorse universalism.
Josh said...
“I'm beginning to wonder if a Christian Universalist beat up Steve on the playground in grade school.”
I take it that Josh is still on the playground in grade school since he can’t muster an actual argument for his position.
Anonymous said...
“Bobby. While I probably stand somewhere between your position and Gregory´s on the trinity, I think Steve are nonetheless wrong to assume that universalism always or logically comes with other heresies (like anti-trinitarianism), and I understand why Gregory can be orthodox on some points and "heretical" on others.”
Of course, I never took the position that Lundström imputes to me. Apparently, Lundström relies on the filtered version of my position he sees on MacDonald’s blog it rather than mousing over to Tblog to see what I actually wrote.
Back to MacDonald:
“A doctrine of the unity/integrity of God's attributes: God is a unity in perfect harmony with himself. Consequently God's justice must be compatible with his love. All God's actions are loving and just. His love is a just love. His justice is a loving justice. So I claim that all God's acts of just punishment of sinners - including Hell - must be compatible with his love. And God's merciful treatment of his people - inclusing forgiveness and salvation - must be compatible with his justice.”
Of course, I already addressed this argument in my initial review of his book. MacDonald doesn’t believe in the unity of God’s attributes. Rather, he ranks them. He treats them as asymmetrical. He begins with his definition of love, then subordinates the other attributes to the priority of love.
“I suspect that this is where Steve and I disagree. It seems to me that any doctrine of Hell that is incompatible with God's love for the ones punished falls foul of the theology of divine integrity. I imagine that Steve solves that problem by arguing that God does not love those in Hell (except in the weaker sense of having shown them common grace in this life). But my problem with this move is that it is, to my mind, fundamentally problematic (see my post on ‘Calvinism, the Trinity, and God's Universal Love’).”
To begin with, there’s such a thing as exclusive love. The monogamous ideal of marital love is a paradigm-case. And that analogy is used in Scripture for God’s redemptive love.
Moreover, to love good is to hate evil. Therefore, God’s love for sinners, any sinners, is unexpected. It’s not something we can simply infer or deduce from the attribute of love.
Furthermore, love is not the only consideration. Justice is a divine attribute as well. Indeed, the exercise of justice is necessary in a way that the exercise of mercy is not.
(Yes, MacDonald tries to get around that, but I’ve addressed that move in my review.)
“It would be very interesting to hear Steve himself answer your argument about God´s unity. To me, this is one of the strongest arguments for universalism.”
I already did—in my initial review. Once again, Lundstöm acts as if MacDonald’s blog is the only source of information about my position.
What is "good"? What is "evil"? I challenge you to define these terms in light of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteGod told Abraham to bring his son kicking and screaming, lay him on the altar and slit his stomach open with a crude knife. Abraham didn't flinch. Is a willingness to murder one's family (when they have done no wrong) "good"? You tell me.
In Numbers 31:7-18, Moses tells his military commanders to keep the virgins for themselves after killing all the boys and any woman who has slept with a man. How would one determine this unless these men brutally examined the women's privates for signs of their hymens being broken? Now, the women the commanders were to "keep" may or may not have any say in the matter. So clearly, rape is not necessarily something one should feel any guilt about.
Repent of what, I ask, because I can't make heads or tails out of the moral code of the Bible.
I expect the typical exegetical tap-dance and avoidance, but I thought I'd ask, anyhow.
James,
ReplyDeleteTake a deep breath and chill for a bit. I'm worried about your blood pressure.
We've been over all the ground you're talking about already. Search the archives. Look up the Euthrypo dilemma for example. You'll find plenty on here. Forgive me for not wanting to reinvent the wheel just because a new person comes hyperventillating into my universe.
And you're not asking because you want to know the answer; if you wanted to know the answer, you would have already done the search. So don't pretend that your questions are "honest" either.
{{Pratt pretends that analogy is identity. Pratt knows better, but he says it anyway.}}
ReplyDeleteStrange that I parenthetically included "in effect", then, as a qualifier.
You're certainly free to explain what you really meant by the analogy, and how what you really meant wasn't nearly as negative and condemnatory as the analogy itself. Which you haven't bothered to do yet. But you were the one who used the analogy; you needn't complain about me noticing you used it. (Also, analogies invite identity of principle application. Though possibly you weren't aware of that.)
{{in practice, Pratt’s commitment to nicety is purely theoretical—to be suspended whenever he must deal with somebody who doesn’t endorse universalism.}}
Interestingly, in the comments to the same four part series I wrote, "I'm less concerned about any injustices inflicted on me (such as by, to take a small example, Steve Hays {wry g}), and far more concerned about injustices I am inclined to inflict on people (probably including, to take a small example, Steve Hays. {self-critical g})"
I'm not particularly interested in 'niceities'; but I am interested in fairness. So, was "Like being accidentally innocent of murder because the gun misfired" a fair analogy of Gregory by you, would you say? Or, would you say you wildly overshot the rhetoric there and didn't in fact mean for readers to think that Gregory was doing something principly "like" that?
I would be much happier to accept the latter. But if you insist on the former, then the next question is going to be: if you think that that's a fair principle illustration by analogy, then, analogically speaking, what kind of 'murder' do you think Gregory is intentionally committing but accidentally failing at (by being a trinitarian, too)? And why is 'murder' a fair analogy for this intentional action on Gregory's part?
JRP
james said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is ‘good’? What is ‘evil’?
God is good and you are evil. Next question?
“I challenge you to define these terms in light of Scripture.__God told Abraham to bring his son kicking and screaming.”
Is that what God told Abraham? Where in the divine command (Gen 22:2) does God tell Abraham to bring his son “kicking and screaming”? What translation are you using?
Actually, the account says that Isaac carried the firewood uphill (22:6). Doesn’t sound like he was kicking and screaming all the way.
In fact, Isaac would have been in his late teens by this time. He could have easily overpowered his elderly dad.
Indeed, that’s why Abraham had Isaac carry the firewood. Isaac was big and strong enough to shoulder the load and heave it uphill. Abraham was too old and enfeebled to do that himself. So one of the conspicuous features of this account is Isaac’s pious submission.
You’re not making the slightest effect accurately depict Gen 22. Instead, you simply emote and react like a drunken lout.
“Lay him on the altar and slit his stomach open with a crude knife.”
Would you be less upset if he used a stainless steel knife?
And where does it say he was going to slit his “stomach”? That’s not a very efficient way of killing someone with a knife.
If you’re going to be a demagogue, at least be an accurate demagogue. Of course if you were accurate, it would be harder for you to demagogue the text.
“Is a willingness to murder one's family (when they have done no wrong)”
Isaac is a sinner. All sinners deserve to die. Be thankful that God hasn’t given you what you deserve—yet.
The ordeal is supposed to be emotionally demanding. That’s the point of the ordeal.
And, of course, God intervened.
“How would one determine this unless these men brutally examined the women's privates for signs of their hymens being broken?”
Really, you’re not very observant. There’s such a thing as puberty. Sexually mature females have certain telltale signs like…uh…breasts and round hips.
Most males, from adolescence upwards, can tell the difference. Indeed, they positively appreciate the difference. Were you in a coma during junior high and high school?
I’ve sorry that you’ve never noticed the difference between a prepubescent girl and a sexually mature female. You should consider reparative therapy to rectify your abnormal condition.
“Now, the women the commanders were to ‘keep’ may or may not have any say in the matter.”
That’s called an arranged marriage. The prepubescent girls were reserved for future marriages. Arranged marriages were the norm in the ANE.
Do you equate an arranged marriage with “rape”? Most cultures don’t. By what standard do you impose your cultural mores on another culture?
“So clearly, rape is not necessarily something one should feel any guilt about.”
To the contrary, by being married off to Israelites, they enjoyed many rights under the Mosaic covenant which they would not enjoy under paganism.
Indeed, if Israel hadn’t defeated the Midianites and taken the girls captive, they would have been forced into cultic prostitution, just like the older women. That’s gang rape.
Is there something brutal about Num 31? Yes. It was a brutal world. Brutal, in large part, because it was a heathen world.
There’s no ouchless, painless solution when contending with a pagan warrior culture. Cultures which have been civilized by the gospel aren’t confronted with such stark options.
You should be grateful that you were born in 20C America. You’ve been immeasurably blessed by your Christian forebears.
But, if you had your way, we’d return to the harsh conditions of the ANE.
“Repent of what, I ask, because I can't make heads or tails out of the moral code of the Bible.”
Because you don’t even try.
“I expect the typical exegetical tap-dance and avoidance, but I thought I'd ask, anyhow.”
In other words, you’re not asking sincere questions. You’ve already dismissed any explanation in advance as an “exegetical tap-dance.”
Don’t come back here if you’re going to demand explanations, only to dismiss them before you’ve heard them.
jason pratt said...
ReplyDelete“Strange that I parenthetically included ‘in effect’, then, as a qualifier.”
That’s a tacit admission that you’re misusing the analogy. So you have to add that throwaway disclaimer.
“You're certainly free to explain what you really meant by the analogy, and how what you really meant wasn't nearly as negative and condemnatory as the analogy itself. Which you haven't bothered to do yet.”
I don’t need to explain it because what I said was self-explanatory:
“It’s just a coincidence that you’re theism happens to be as nominally orthodox as it turns out to be. The Trinity doesn’t conflict with universalism, so you just so happen to affirm the Trinity. Your universalism is heretical, and where your remaining theology is orthodox, it’s orthodox by chance. Like being accidentally innocent of murder because the gun misfired.”
What did I use the analogy to illustrate? It’s right there in my original statement: chance, coincidence.
“But you were the one who used the analogy; you needn't complain about me noticing you used it.”
You’re such a chronic liar. Is the point at issue that you “noticed” my analogy? No. Rather, you misrepresent it.
You make a false charge. Then you back it up with another false charge.
“(Also, analogies invite identity of principle application. Though possibly you weren't aware of that.)”
More of your dissimulation. Every analogy involves an element of disanalogy. That’s why I isolated and identified the point of analogy.
You are not attempting to identify the principle. Just the contrary. You are applying a principle which was not the stated principle of the analogy.
“I'm not particularly interested in 'niceities'; but I am interested in fairness. So, was ‘Like being accidentally innocent of murder because the gun misfired’ a fair analogy of Gregory by you, would you say? Or, would you say you wildly overshot the rhetoric there and didn't in fact mean for readers to think that Gregory was doing something principly 'like' that?”
You’re not the least bit interested in “fairness.” You ditch fairness the minute you get into a debate with someone who rejects your universalism. At that point you resort to demagoguery.
That’s fine with me. If you can’t defend universalism by honest means, then universalism is indefensible. So, by all means, keep demagoguing the issue.
“I would be much happier to accept the latter. But if you insist on the former, then the next question is going to be: if you think that that's a fair principle illustration by analogy, then, analogically speaking, what kind of 'murder' do you think Gregory is intentionally committing but accidentally failing at (by being a trinitarian, too)? And why is 'murder' a fair analogy for this intentional action on Gregory's part?”
Of course, what you’ve done here, like any good little demagogue, is to build your deliberate misrepresentation into the question, so that any answer will assume your deliberate representation.
A better question is whether there’s something about universalism that selects for followers as mendacious as yourself.
http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/mark-driscoll-church-and-family-idolatry/
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but Steve, what do you think about this blog post?
Steve,
ReplyDelete{{That’s a tacit admission that you’re misusing the analogy.}}
No, it was a tacit recognition that you were using an analogy. One of your complaints was that I was “pretending anology is identity”. If I was building-in a signifier that you were using an analogy, though, then I wasn’t pretending analogy is identity.
{{Is the point at issue that you “noticed” my analogy?}}
One of the points at issue was whether I was “pretending” your analogy equals identity. Indicating (which I did) that you were using an analogy, is evidence against my having merely pretended your analogy equals identity.
As to which of us was misusing the analogy, I guess we’ll see in a minute...
{{I don’t need to explain it because what I said was self-explanatory:}}
So... I’m a little vague over whether this means what you said (before the analogy) was or wasn’t nearly as negative and condemnatory as the analogy itself. Which is what I was asking about: why did you use so strong an analogy as an intentional murder attempt that accidentally fails? The three sentences previous to the analogy, as you agree, are quite self-explanatory. So you added that strong an analogy for what purpose...?
{{What did I use the analogy to illustrate? It’s right there in my original statement: chance, coincidence.}}
So, to be clear, you used an analogy about intentional murder accidentally failing, merely to illustrate chance, coincidence. And then are annoyed when people apply parity of principle beyond mere “chance, coincidence”.
Let’s look at the analogical parallels:
universalism == like intentional murder
orthodoxy and universalism == like accidentally failing intentional murder
And you think that this is an appropriate illustration simply of chance, coincidence. No one is supposed to really pay attention to the intentional-murder portion, because... um... aiming a gun to murder someone and failing to murder them due to the chamber being empty after they pull the trigger, is clearly a minor image of no appreciable strength compared to the strength of the other imagery in the analogy? (The other imagery being what?) Because every sensible person knows that people of your obvious temper regularly mean very little when they use murder imagery? Because when people who promote the idea that salvation from a permanently hopeless maximal torment fate is at least exhibited by (if not depends on) doctrinal accuracy, proceed to talk about murder analogically when discussing a doctrine they consider to be heresy, then obviously the murder imagery should be considered minor and of no consequence?
Or for some other reason? Halps? {s}
{{Of course, what you’ve done here, like any good little demagogue, is to build your deliberate misrepresentation into the question, so that any answer will assume your deliberate representation.}}
Actually I was building your own stated analogy into the question. All you had to answer was, “Obviously I think the ‘murder’ (analogically speaking) that Gregory is intentionally committing but accidentally failing at, is universalism.” And then explain why murder is a fair analogy for the intentional action, by Gregory, of promoting universalism.
Unless you think murder isn’t a fair analogy for Gregory teaching universalism. (Or perhaps universalism wasn’t what you were analogically linking to the intentional murder imagery but something else Gregory was intentionally doing.)
JRP
Steve:
ReplyDeleteI think your rhetoric is inflated, the confidence you exhibit in your own argumentation is exceedingly overdrawn for what you've offered, and in general, since you evidently want to represent conservative theology, a rather vanilla attack with little substance on Gregory's arguments. It might float well in your circles, but in the real world of critical inquiry, isn't compelling.
I think, likely because you haven't wrestled with the data well enough, offering tacit dismissals of others views as "purely emotional" do little to credit your own arguments.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteYour own comment illustrates everything you find fault with in mine. Your own comment is pure rhetoric, devoid of substance, data, or argumentation. You simply resort to adjectives.
I've done several posts on MacDonald's book, addressing his arguments at several levels, including his exegetical and philosophical arguments.
When are you going to engage those posts and offer something resembling a counterargument in lieu of your inflated rhetorical dismissal?