Pages

Monday, July 28, 2008

Girly-girl universalism

I’ve been allowing the comments to pile up over at Gregory MacDonald’s before I respond. Let’s look at what his commenters have to say:

Bobby said...

“The way Steve treats Rachel...he'd better be glad Christian Universalism is true!”

Actually, I treat Rachel the same way I treat Jason Pratt or some of the other commenters. So why does Bobby single out Rachel? Because she’s a woman?

In other words, he’s a sexist. He thinks that women are the weaker sex. Need to be handled like a fragile piece of porcelain. Women break so easily, ya know! Does Bobby belong to one of those polygamist Mormon cults where women know their place?

This also illustrates the chasm between universalist rhetoric and universalist practice. Why would Bobby be posting supportive comments on a universalist blog unless he’s a universalist? If so, what does that thesis entail?

What if something really bad happened to Rachel? What if Rachel were gang-raped? Then left in a dumpster for dead? According to universalism, God would be unjust or unloving or both if he didn’t save each and every one of her assailants.

If Bobby is this hypersensitive to mere words, what does this say about his universalism if it ever made contact with real evil? Personal, palpable evil?

The average universalist is about as convincing as Angelina Jolie as a kickboxing superheroine.

The Christian Heretic said...

“I went to read his response to your response but his attitude and name calling turned me right off.”

Here’s another case in point. Christian Heretic is put off by my tone and attitude. He wants to have a nice, dainty, lady-like dialogue about universalism.

Yet he thinks that God is going to save everyone. God is going to save all the serial killers.

If he’s put off by my tone and attitude, don’t you think he’d find the tone and attitude of the average serial killer a tad off-putting?

The universalist professes to be infinitely tolerant and loving in theory, but the very same universalist is remarkably intolerant in practice. He talks in loving abstractions about loving everyone, but his threshold for actually dealing with all the people he talks about so lovingly is amazingly low when he actually has to talk with them.

Imagine if the Christian Heretic were a POW in the Bataan Death March. If he’s put off by my tone and attitude, how would he ever cope with his captors? You know, Japanese soldiers who sodomized, bayoneted, beheaded, or disemboweled their prisoners?

If you’re going to be a universalist, then you’re not entitled to be such a sissy about how people address you. You don’t get to pick and choose. You have to love everyone, remember? You have to forgive everyone, remember? No exceptions!

The universalist extends a plenary pardon to everyone who—conveniently enough—never harmed him, but bursts into tears at a verbal pinprick. It would be instructive to see our yuppie universalists leave their gated communities and spend some quality time with Vlad the Impaler.

If they react this way to merely verbal abuse (as they deem it), how would they ever apply their touchy-feely rhetoric to a real world situation should they ever found themselves strapped to a table surrounded by sharp implements?

Oliver Harrison said...

“Well I always thought the OT had a patchy and/or developing theology of the afterlife, let alone of an eschataological soteriology. Therefore for the OT not to contain an explicit account of the final revelation of universalism is surely to be expected?”

It’s not a question of what we’d expect. In making his case for universalism, MacDonald has a chapter on the OT. He brought it up, not me. And his chapter ends with the admission that the OT doesn’t teach universalism. I’m merely drawing attention to his own admission at this point. It’s relevant because he made it relevant by including a chapter on the OT in a book designed to prove universalism.

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Harrison or MacDonald. I don’t think the OT is silent on the question of universalism. Rather, it’s negative on the question of universalism. But I was accepting MacDonald’s admission for the sake of argument.

Harrison’s comment is also deceptive. In my review, I did more than merely point out MacDonald’s concession. Rather, I also noted examples in which the OT uses universalistic language even though, in other places, the scope of salvation is clearly limited to a subset of humanity. Therefore, you can’t infer universalism from universalistic language. The language is hyperbolic.

“Anyway, I savaged ‘Pierced For Our Transgressions’ (a massive pro-penal substitution magnum opus peddling the li(n)e: ‘Jesus was punished for our sins and bore the wrath of God on the cross’ ), and only got good mail from that review (which was also in Anvil, so also read by evangelicals).”

That’s a very revealing window into universalism, don’t you think? Harrison boasts about “savaging” the belief that “Jesus was punished for our sins and bore the wrath of God on the cross.”

I mean, what more do we really need to say?

gene said...

“Concerning the response that the worst thing you can do is make soemone think they can be saved when they can't seems to me a bit problematic. I never devoloped from the EU (througout the book), the idea that you can do whatever you like and God is ok with it… So his premise to me seems to be a bit off target.”

Gene’s response is so illiterate that it’s hard to tell what he’s trying to say, but his reading level seems to be on par with his writing level. Did I impute to universalism the position that “you can do whatever you like and God is ok with it”? No.

This is what I actually said: “Convince him that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the world to come.”

Continuing:

“In other words Mcdonald said this w/o scoping that God would torture your children in front of you. Scripture simply states nothing of the sort.”

Did I ever say God would torture your children in front of you? No.

This is what I actually said: “Here’s a question: what’s the worst thing you could possibly do to a person? Torture one family member in front of another family member? That’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. But not the worst thing.”

Nothing here about “God” torturing anyone.

“So when scripture reads God deals with the individual then yes mcdonald is right, the worst thing he could do is totrue you.”

I wasn’t discussing the worst thing that “God” can to you. I was discussing the worst thing that you can do to your fellow man.

And the worst thing you can do to your fellow man is to nurse in him the false hope that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the next.

For sheer cruelty, nothing matches that damnable illusion. Instead of warning your fellow man of the worst possible fate, you encourage him to pursue a hellbound path until it’s too late to reverse course. No earthly atrocity comes close to such a vicious and malicious lie.

“Classic tranditionalism.”

I didn’t appeal to “tradition” in my review of MacDonald’s book. And it also depends on how you define “traditionalism.” Dante has a “traditional” view of hell, but that’s not the view that I’m defending.

“In steves response questioning ‘divine justice’ it seems to me to be very problematic on how God punished an innocent man. The classic view on the atonement plays a role in that most christians (that I know of) hold the view that God took his wrath out on Jesus so we (who approach by faith) might not receive his punishement of sin. So on divine justice I feel steve owes a clearer definition on ‘divine justice’. If God's divine justice means it's perfect and always right then when does divine justice act in a way that a just person gets punished, namely Jesus on the cross. Seems to me that ‘divine’ needs to be defined and defended in order to accuse one of not holding to divine views. If you are guilty of not embracing divine justice and divine mercy (not embracing law of gospel) then how does it fit his paradigm of justice.”

Several issues:

i) Both Gene and Harrison are right about one thing: There’s more to univeralism than merely extending penal substitution to everyone. Rather, universalism presents a very different theory of the atonement. It commits you to making many fundamental readjustments in your theological system.

ii) I was responding to MacDonald. MacDonald professes to be a Christian. And he tries to defend his position from Scripture (as well as reason).

When I’m responding to a professing believer who claims to honor the authority of Scripture, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to defend a Biblical doctrine like penal substitution. It should be sufficient that Scripture teaches penal substitution.

Now, if you want to challenge the exegetical basis for penal substitution, that’s a different issue. But Gene isn’t raising an exegetical objection. He’s raising a moralistic objection.

iii) Of course, Jesus is more that just an innocent man. Jesus is also the divine judge and lawgiver. It’s remarkable when the judge and lawgiver assumes the role of the defendant.

iv) Even on intuitive grounds, I don’t find anything objectionable about the vicarious principle. That’s the fundamental element of human friendship.

A friend does something for a friend of a friend as a favor to his friend. The friend of the friend is not his friend. But he does it for the sake of his friend, as if the friend of his friend were his friend.

v) How can a universalist be so squeamish about penal substitution? Here’s a guy who tells us that God is duty bound to save every psychopath who ever skinned his fellow man alive. Why is he offended by penal substitution when he’s not offended by universal salvation?

vi) Finally, I’ve always thought there was something uniquely ungrateful about sinners who impugn penal substitution. It’s like a gunshot victim who challenges the paramedic to explain what right he has to treat the victim. Why should a paramedic feel that he’s under some obligation to justify his treatment of the victim to the victim? If the victim doesn’t feel that the paramedic is entitled to treat him, then let him bleed to death.

When sinners presume to impugn penal substitution, they aggravate their guilt. Ingrates like Gene and Harrison richly deserve the worst. Nothing could be more damnable than to impugn vicarious atonement. You might as well shoot the paramedic.

5 comments:

  1. I wonder if the universalists in Knoxville TN will state that the guy that shot up their "church" will be granted eternal salvation whether he repents or not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1 Peter 3:7. Yes, women are the weaker vessel, and as such should be treated differently.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonah, it's somewhat unkind to use the suffering of others to merely make a point, isn't it?

    In any rate, Universalists are in one sense the counter to Calvinism. Both seem to insist that God will act upon man in a way that overrides his freedom: in fact, both theologies deny that man has any freedom whatsoever.

    Universalism insists that whatever man wills is irrelevant, that God will eventually override his will, make him good and drag him into heaven whether the person is naturally inclined toward such an environment or not. Calvinists says the same thing, but only about the elect. Calvinists simply assert the flip side that, even if one really wanted to be good to avoid Hell, if it's not in the cards, God isn't going to will it and the person's "wanting" to go to Heaven is irrelevant.

    So you see, Calvinism "completes" Universalism.

    Both deny that man has any real freedom (although both use some rhetoric in allowing for what they call free agency, since justice is not justice if the condemnation is leveled against people who are not freely choosing to do what is evil and cannot do otherwise).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought I would share some really good news with everyone.

    I just finished this article my fellow truth-seekers as I see it today.

    “THIS IS THE WILL OF HIM WHO SENT ME”—JESUS

    John 3:35 "The Father loves the Son
    and has given ALL things into his hand."

    What has the Father given to the Son? ALL things!!!

    Now, look at what the will of the Father is:

    John 6:39 "And this is the will of him who sent me,
    that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

    So, WHAT is the WILL of the FATHER concerning Jesus???
    LOSE NOTHING of what HE had given him, which was ALL!!!

    So, Jesus' commission is to lose nothing
    of all that the Father has given him, and the Father gave him ALL, therefore NONE will be lost!!! That means
    (drum roll please!!!)~~~~~~(that was a drum roll—really!)
    (if you can’t get excited about this with me, your pulse is zero)

    ALL WILL BE SAVED!!!

    This means no eternal torment and no eternal death!!! Remember, the Word says death will be eliminated, and guess what that means; it means that after that, there will only be LIFE!!!

    This means salvation of ALL!!! (yeah, I know it’s repetitious, but that is what you want to do with really good news)

    Some of you may be thinking, well what about
    THIS verse, or THAT verse, or this OTHER verse???

    What I have shared with you is undeniable, straight-forward, easy-to-understand TRUTH, so, THIS, THAT, or the OTHER verses need to be understood in terms of this TRUTH.

    Since what God through his Holy Spirit through his servant John has said is obviously true, then the Holy Spirit must not have yet revealed to you the true meaning of all those hell, fire, and damnation verses. Hell, fire, and damnation are actually all part of God’s plan to reconcile all created beings back to Him.

    Don't explain it away, just believe it!!!

    Believing IN God, puts you in no better position than the demons. But where the rubber meets the road is
    DO YOU BELIEVE GOD WHEN HE STATES HIS TRUTH SO PLAINLY!!!

    If you do not believe that these two verses in John are saying that none will be lost, consider this possibility.

    Satan has made you believe that “all” does not really mean “all”, which is a common deception.

    Or, Satan is just not allowing you to believe this truth.

    YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES:

    BELIEVE GOD OR BELIEVE SATAN!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. ben douglass said...

    “1 Peter 3:7. Yes, women are the weaker vessel, and as such should be treated differently.”

    Hi Ben. “Weaker” in what sense? Intellectually inferior? Would Rachel appreciate my treating her as intellectual inferior—just because she’s a woman?

    james said...

    “Jonah, it's somewhat unkind to use the suffering of others to merely make a point, isn't it? “

    Depends on who’s suffering. If we captured Bin Laden and made him suffer as a deterrent to other jihadis, that might be unkind to him, but he doesn’t deserve to be treated with kindness, and the deterrent value might outweigh any imaginary duty to be kind to everyone.

    “In any rate, Universalists are in one sense the counter to Calvinism. Both seem to insist that God will act upon man in a way that overrides his freedom: in fact, both theologies deny that man has any freedom whatsoever. Universalism insists that whatever man wills is irrelevant, that God will eventually override his will, make him good and drag him into heaven whether the person is naturally inclined toward such an environment or not. Calvinists says the same thing, but only about the elect.”

    Calvinism doesn’t “override” the human will. Rather, it restores the human will (in the case of the elect). Like administering psychotropic drugs to the clinically insane to restore an imbalance in their brain chemistry. That’s an act of healing. Likewise, regeneration cures the unregenerate of a mental illness. That liberates them to be what they were naturally designed to be.

    “Both deny that man has any real freedom (although both use some rhetoric in allowing for what they call free agency, since justice is not justice if the condemnation is leveled against people who are not freely choosing to do what is evil and cannot do otherwise).”

    All you’ve done is to beg the question in favor of libertarianism. Try not to be a philosophical simpleton.

    don said...

    “I thought I would share some really good news with everyone…ALL WILL BE SAVED!!!”

    Yeah, don, that’s really great news. Why don’t I celebrate by murdering you and your kids, and raping your wife (if she’s pretty), and hacking into your bank account and savings account.

    After all, I’m heavenbound no matter what I do.

    ReplyDelete