“In summary: he still disagrees with me and still things I am a bad and dangerous person.”
http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/2008/07/steve-hays-responds.html
Of course, I haven’t said that about “Gregory MacDonald.”
He’s indulging in a rhetorical ruse. Pretend that I’ve cast him in the role of a comic book villain so that readers can fluff of the gravity of the issue.
Here’s a question: what’s the worst thing you could possibly do to a person?
Torture him to death?
That’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. But not the worst thing.
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.
Molest a little boy or girl?
That’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. But not the worst thing.
Play a cruel, practical joke—like impersonating physician and telling someone on the phone that his loved one was just brought into the ER after a ghastly traffic accident?
That’s one of the worst things you can do to a person. But not the worst thing.
We could keep dreaming up fiendish, vicious examples. But what’s the very worst thing you could ever do to a person?
Simple: Convince him that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the world to come.
On the scale of inhumanity, there’s nothing more harmful you could do to a person. That diabolical lie is without rival.
http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/mark-driscoll-church-and-family-idolatry/
ReplyDeletesteve, do you agree with the above blog post that says one's church family is more important than a biological family?
"Simple: Convince him that no matter what he thinks or does in this life, God will save him in the world to come."
ReplyDeleteYou're a Calvinist, right? What difference does it make WHAT someone thinks? God is either going to save them or not save them, regardless of what the person happens to think. They may think God is going to save them despite the fact that they're callous, insensitive clods who despise their fellow humans. Or, they could spend their lives cowering in terror that God is going to throw them in a lake of fire to be sodomized by red-finned water demons for all eternity (I'm sure none of the triabloggers are in any danger of thinking the latter).
In either case, they might be right. What one "thinks" has no relevance.
- James
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“You're a Calvinist, right? What difference does it make WHAT someone thinks? God is either going to save them or not save them, regardless of what the person happens to think.”
An utterly ignorant characterization of Calvinism. If you die an unbeliever, you go to hell.
Yes, it does matter in Calvinism what you think or do in this life. Those whom God is going to save he regenerates and sanctifies. As a result of regeneration, they repent of their sins and exercise saving faith in Christ.
Here’s a little tip for you: what a person “thinks” includes what he “believes.” Beliefs are thoughts.
You’re also confusing saving faith with the assurance of salvation. They are not synonymous. Saving faith is faith in Christ.
The assurance of salvation is a self-reflective belief about the believer. That is inessential to salvation.
What Reformed theologians have you ever bothered to read?
Okay, so beliefs matter only insofar as they are an indicator that someone is saved ("by their fruits ye shall know them").
ReplyDeleteHowever, no self-respecting Calvinist will insist that Christ saves anyone BECAUSE they believe in Him, as if the believer's act of believing initiated the salvation.
So this post makes no sense to me. Why warn someone to think or do the right things? Doing the right things and thinking the right things may only result in delusion, yes? "God's going to save me because I believe 'x' and do 'y'".
Calvinism doesn't allow for that. If they naturally do and think the right things, great. If not, there's no sense trying to do anything. It can't appease a God who will save on His own initiative for His own reasons which cannot be known to mortals.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“Throw them in a lake of fire to be sodomized by red-finned water demons for all eternity.”
It doesn’t lend intellectual respectability to your pitiful infidelity when you constantly resort to these comic book parodies of hell.
james said...
ReplyDelete“Okay, so beliefs matter only insofar as they are an indicator that someone is saved (‘by their fruits ye shall know them’).”
No, not merely as an “indicator.”
Contrition for sin and faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. Likewise, sanctification is a necessary condition of salvation.
“However, no self-respecting Calvinist will insist that Christ saves anyone BECAUSE they believe in Him, as if the believer's act of believing initiated the salvation.”
Faith is a result of monergistic regeneration. But justification is still contingent on faith.
“So this post makes no sense to me. Why warn someone to think or do the right things?”
I didn’t “warn” anyone to think or do anything. That wasn’t the point of this post.
I was merely drawing attention to the aggravated evil of universalism.
“Doing the right things and thinking the right things may only result in delusion, yes? ‘God's going to save me because I believe 'x' and do 'y'’.”
Aside from the fact that that’s irrelevant to the post, the reprobate don’t have the same spiritual experience as the elect.
Moreover, even if this post were about warnings, the possibility of self-delusion doesn’t negate the value of warnings.
A man who’s high on acid may be self-deluded about his safety or his peril—as the case may be. That doesn’t negate the value of warnings for those who are not high on acid. A warning may not do a man on LSD any good. That doesn’t mean it’s equally useless for the sober-minded.
“Calvinism doesn't allow for that.”
Doesn’t allow for what? Calvinism allows for saving faith, on the one hand, and nominal faith, on the other hand.
“If they naturally do and think the right things, great.”
Saving faith is not a natural thing to do.
“If not, there's no sense trying to do anything.”
To the contrary, saving grace is ordinarily coordinated with the means of grace (e.g. hearing/reading the Bible). While the means of grace don’t guarantee salvation, neglecting the means of grace pretty well guarantees damnation. So, yes, there are things that even the unregenerate can do.
“It can't appease a God who will save on His own initiative for His own reasons which cannot be known to mortals.”
Saving faith does appease the wrath of God. And while his reasons may be inscrutable, saving grace has discernible effects.
Steve wrote, “[T]he reprobate don’t have the same spiritual experience as the elect.”
ReplyDeleteIf the reprobate and the elect can believe the exact same propositions (e.g., the Westminster Shorter Catechism) and have similar emotional/volitional experiences with those propositions (i.e., they care about them and perceive them to have impact in their lives), how, at any given moment in time, can a person know whether theirs is the subjective experience of the reprobate or the subjective experience of the elect?
Thanks.
interested spectator,
ReplyDelete"Spiritual" experience is not synonymous with "subjective" experience.
Anyway, we've been over this ground multiple times on another thread. Give it a rest.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "'Spiritual' experience is not synonymous with 'subjective' experience."
I did not mean to suggest that it necessarily was. I'll rephrase the question: If the reprobate and the elect can believe the exact same propositions (e.g., the Westminster Shorter Catechism) and have similar emotional/volitional experiences with those propositions (i.e., they care about them and perceive them to have impact in their lives), how, at any given moment in time, can a person know whether theirs is the experience of the reprobate or the experience of the elect?
Just FYI, the "Universalism" which appears in modern liberal protestantism is ENTIRELY different than the Apokatastasis that appears in the Greek Fathers. Most Christians who hold to a doctrine of free will would condemn the first and debate the second. Calvanists would of course reject both.
ReplyDelete"It doesn’t lend intellectual respectability to your pitiful infidelity when you constantly resort to these comic book parodies of hell."
ReplyDeleteI COULD describe the torments of Hell in iambic pentameter, but while poetry may lend plausibility to these doctrines, it doesn't make them any more palatable or less worthy of contempt.
SH - "Faith is a result of monergistic regeneration. But justification is still contingent on faith."
Implied here is faith as an effort of the mind originating with the believer? Faith is 100% a pure gift from God, yes? It can involve no "effort" on the part of the believer. One is either given faith or they are not.
SH - "A warning may not do a man on LSD any good. That doesn’t mean it’s equally useless for the sober-minded."
I'm not sure what use there is for warnings for ANYONE in the Calvinist theological model: a true believer CANNOT stray from his eventual salvation and sanctification (no matter how much he may desire to stray) and the reprobate cannot but NOT heed the warnings. He is, as you suggested, just playing a role for which he was created.
In fact, one might say that warning the reprobate might run contrary to God's will: He did create them, after all, to be merely vessels of wrath. Why get in the way of His fun?
- James
Implied here is faith as an effort of the mind originating with the believer? Faith is 100% a pure gift from God, yes? It can involve no "effort" on the part of the believer. One is either given faith or they are not.
ReplyDeleteFaith arises due to grace, defined as regenerating grace. So, it is the gift of God, insofar as it arises due to regeneration.
I'm not sure what use there is for warnings for ANYONE in the Calvinist theological model: a true believer CANNOT stray from his eventual salvation and sanctification (no matter how much he may desire to stray) and the reprobate cannot but NOT heed the warnings.
For the elect, the warnings are the means by which the elect are kept from apostasy. So, yes they do have a function.
The warnings inculpate the reprobate.
So what's the problem?
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“I COULD describe the torments of Hell in iambic pentameter, but while poetry may lend plausibility to these doctrines, it doesn't make them any more palatable.”
Of course, hell was never supposed to be “palatable.” Hell is not a confectionary.
“Or less worthy of contempt.”
It’s your straw man argument that’s worthy of contempt. You lack the moral and intellectual integrity to exegete the doctrine from Scripture before you attack it. Instead, you attack a parody based on comic books and B-movies.
So spare me the sanctimonious posturing. That’s reserved for people who, unlike you, bring a modicum of honesty to the discussion.
“Implied here is faith as an effort of the mind originating with the believer? Faith is 100% a pure gift from God, yes? It can involve no ‘effort’ on the part of the believer. One is either given faith or they are not.”
Once again, you burn a straw man. For some reason you think it’s okay for you to wing it without first acquainting yourself with the doctrine you assail.
Did I say faith was an effort? No. But faith is a human mental act. It depends on divine grace, but God is not the believer. God doesn’t believe for us.
So, to go back to the original point, it does matter what you believe in this life. If you die an unbeliever, you go to hell.
Therefore, your attempt to create a parallel between Calvinism and universalism is inept.
“I'm not sure what use there is for warnings for ANYONE in the Calvinist theological model: a true believer CANNOT stray from his eventual salvation and sanctification (no matter how much he may desire to stray).”
Yet another straw man argument. Perseverance is not unconditional. A Christian doesn’t persevere no matter how much he desires to stray.
“The reprobate cannot but NOT heed the warnings.”
The reprobate can heed many sorts of warnings. They won’t be saved, but that doesn’t mean they can’t ever heed a warning.
“In fact, one might say that warning the reprobate might run contrary to God's will: He did create them, after all, to be merely vessels of wrath. Why get in the way of His fun?”
Since Christians don’t know for a fact who the reprobate are, their reprobate status is no impediment to our issuing indiscriminate warnings.
Moreover, warnings that do go unheeded aggravate the guilt of the reprobate.
You also fail to distinguish between God’s preceptive will and his decretive will.
Steve writes: "Did I say faith was an effort? No. But faith is a human mental act. It depends on divine grace, but God is not the believer. God doesn’t believe for us."
ReplyDeleteFrom the Calvinist Society (http://www.calvinistsociety.org/pages/essentials.htm):
SOLA FIDE:
(faith alone) This term refers to the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone, apart from any human works (Rom 3:20-22; Gal 2:16). Calvin explains the doctrine:
If a price is to be put upon works according to their own worth, we hold that they are unfit to appear in the presence of God: that man, accordingly, has no works in which he can glory before God, and that hence, deprived of all aid from works, he is justified by faith alone. Justification, moreover, we thus define: The sinner being admitted into communion with Christ is, for his sake, reconciled to God; when purged by his blood he obtains the remission of sins, and clothed with righteousness, just as if it were his own, stands secure before the judgment-seat of heaven. However Calvin goes further. He states, "… faith itself is produced only by the Spirit." He also refers to "the gift of faith" and says, "faith is a special gift." Even further, "election is … the parent of faith" and "faith is aptly conjoined with election, provided it hold the second place." So salvation by faith alone for the Reformers was bound up with the idea of election. Faith is a gift God gives to his elect (Acts 13:48; 16:14; Eph 2:8). Thus it could truly be said, "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).
As I said: faith is given.
"You lack the moral and intellectual integrity to exegete the doctrine from Scripture before you attack it."
Okay, then. What's YOUR vision of Hell, exactly? I'm sure you've thought about the tortures that are reserved for a large portion of humanity that will apparently not include yourself, yes?
These people seem to have an idea:
http://apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/HateChrist.htm
My explanation is perfectly consistent with the definition of the Calvinist Society.
ReplyDeleteI don’t need to explain my vision of hell. You’re the one who’s attacking the doctrine of hell. The onus is on you to exegete the doctrine of hell from Scripture as a preliminary step before you presume to attack it.
The notion that hell is some sort of “torture chamber” is not something one can responsibly exegete from Scripture—unless you read the Bible at the level of a backwoods snake-handler.
Mr. Bridges,
ReplyDeleteWould you mind responding to my question above? Thanks.
IS:
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed this a number of times under the topic of assurance. Read through the archives first, then ask questions based on what was stated.
You can give links to the articles that you read so that we can refer to them in response.
Mr. Bridges, Thanks for the reply. As far as I can tell, only two articles pull up on Triablogue under the label “assurance”: “Love on the Rocks” and “Assurance: The Basics” (a repost of a Piper article). Neither of these addresses the question I asked. I will print out some more articles from the Hay’s Topical Index with the word “assurance” in the title (there is no particular topic of “assurance” in the Hay’s Index) and read (or perhaps in some cases reread) them over the weekend (Deo volente). In addition, I will hopefully read your “The Warrant To Believe” and related comments over the weekend as well, which I believe is supposed to pull up under the label assurance but does not (evidently due to the lack of a comma in the label section). Are there any other particular articles that you recommend on this subject from the archives?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the most loving thing you can do for another person?
ReplyDeleteBob said:
ReplyDelete"What is the most loving thing you can do for another person?"
Present the gospel.
Steve writes:
ReplyDelete"What is the most loving thing you can do for another person?"
Present the gospel.
Actually, according to Calvinism, this could potentially be the most cruel thing to do. If God has not already decreed that person for eternal bliss, you are only "heaping hot coals" on their head, increasing their punishment and magnifying the degree to which God uses the people as "vessels of wrath".
The fact that they heard and did not believe will only increase their punishment.
They are better off if you had never opened your mouth. Not that they're still not going to Hell, anyhow, but perhaps it will be less horrible than if they had actually heard a 5-minute spiel about Jesus from a missionary.
James,
ReplyDeleteYour irrational loathing of the Christian faith has warped your judgment. Suppose a lifeguard saves a drowning swimmer. Unbeknownst to the lifeguard, the swimmer will become a hopeless drug addict a year later,and die on the streets. Had the swimmer drowned, he would have been spared that wretched fate.
Had the lifeguard known that, it might be more loving to let the swimmer drown. But since the lifeguard doesn’t know that, it’s perverse to say the lifeguard was cruel to save his life. The lifeguard was acting with best interests of the swimmer in mind.
Moreover, it’s not the lifeguard’s fault that the swimmer becomes a junkie. The swimmer had a second chance at life, and blew his opportunity.
Since an evangelist doesn’t know in advance who will or will not respond to the gospel, there’s nothing “cruel” about presenting the gospel to someone who, unbeknownst to the evangelist, will spurn the gospel.
Since, moreover, belief in the gospel is a condition of salvation, he’d be consigning everyone if he refused to preach the Gospel—which would be very cruel to all those who would otherwise believe if given the opportunity.
By your logic, a lifeguard shouldn’t try to save anyone because some swimmers won’t take advantage of their reprieve. But that would be very cruel to all the swimmers who would take advantage of their reprieve.
At best, you can only claim that God isn’t doing the most loving thing, not that an evangelist isn’t doing the most loving thing.
But I don’t care whether God always does the most loving thing. I don’t care if God refrains from doing the most loving thing for Josef Mengele.
Furthermore, justice isn’t synonymous with cruelty. There’s nothing inherently “cruel” about exacting retribution on an evildoer.
To the contrary, a world without justice is exceedingly cruel. An unjust world is a merciless world.
Perhaps the damned are cruel to one another. If so, that would be poetic justice. Hell is horrible because it’s full of horrible people. That’s horrible company.
Steve writes: "Hell is horrible because it’s full of horrible people. That’s horrible company."
ReplyDeleteI actually don't protest that idea. I think it's reasonable to hope that people who are malicious and hateful and desire to remain as such should be forced to share each other's company.
That's not the Christianity preached from most pulpits though. Hell isn't filled with "horrible" people, just people who had the wrong thoughts about God (or insufficient thoughts or insufficiently ACCURATE thoughts). One's errant views on the Trinity or not worshipping Jesus at all will send one hurtling towards Hell, even if one's Buddhist faith lent one towards a life of self-denial and charity (the Christianity that Christian are SUPPOSED to live, that is).
I think you're working from the presupposition that ALL people are horrible. I don't disagree with you that there are monsters who roam the world. I just don't think everyone fits that description, Steve.
james said...
ReplyDelete“That's not the Christianity preached from most pulpits though.”
I don’t think there’s a lot of hellfire preaching from most pulpits.
Anyway, I’m not responsible for what’s preached from most pulpits.
“That's not the Christianity preached from most pulpits though. Hell isn't filled with ‘horrible’ people, just people who had the wrong thoughts about God (or insufficient thoughts or insufficiently ACCURATE thoughts). One's errant views on the Trinity or not worshipping Jesus at all will send one hurtling towards Hell”
That fact that faith in Christ is a prerequisite for salvation doesn’t mean that unbelievers are damned because they fail to believe in Christ. Rather, they’re damned because their sinners.
And one doesn’t have to be an inerrant theologian to exercise saving faith.
“Even if one's Buddhist faith lent one towards a life of self-denial and charity (the Christianity that Christian are SUPPOSED to live, that is).”
A Samurai could be a devout Buddhist. Not to mention pederasty among the Shogunate.
“I think you're working from the presupposition that ALL people are horrible. I don't disagree with you that there are monsters who roam the world. I just don't think everyone fits that description, Steve.”
How people behave in this life is a poor index to their true character. People will do horrible things with precious little provocation. As long as they feel they can get away with it.
All it takes is the right temptation, along with having no fear of the consequences. People can be very nice to their own kind, but brutal to an outsider.
Or consider the market for increasingly explicit slasher/splatter films. Tells you that a lot of moviegoers are closet serial killers.
What about men to travel to S.E. Asia to take advantage of the child prostitution industry? Not something they do here because it’s illegal. But as long as there’s a legal outlet…
Hell is where all the damned show their true colors. Where there’s no common grace to restrain them.
Perhaps our definitions of morality are not so very different, or at least the hierarchy of moral values, than I had first thought.
ReplyDeleteYou do distinguish between someone who has evil impulses and doesn't act on them out of a respect for moral norms and someone who doesn't act on evil impulses purely out of self-preservation, correct? It seems you're implying that only the latter type of person exists.
I can assure you that there are people who do the right things and avoid evil things not only out of hope for a reward and a fear of punishment. Some of them are even atheists.
This doesn't mean that their motives are always pure, but that, generally speaking, they seek to do what is right out of an attempt to adhere to a moral vision, not just out of an attempt to avoid personal inconvenience or suffering.
Mr. Bridges,
ReplyDeleteI asked, “If the reprobate and the elect can believe the exact same propositions (e.g., the Westminster Shorter Catechism) and have similar emotional/volitional experiences with those propositions (i.e., they care about them and perceive them to have impact in their lives), how, at any given moment in time, can a person know whether theirs is the experience of the reprobate or the experience of the elect?”
In response, you requested that I read the archives first.
In the comments of “The Warrant to Believe” entry you wrote, “To know that you are elect, you need a personal revelation from God - violating Sola Scriptura, and that's necessarily subjective.”
Is that your answer to my question, i.e., a person cannot know that they are elect without a personal revelation from God?
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“You do distinguish between someone who has evil impulses and doesn't act on them out of a respect for moral norms and someone who doesn't act on evil impulses purely out of self-preservation, correct? It seems you're implying that only the latter type of person exists.”
I’m merely pointing out that behavior is an unreliable index of character. What most people do or refrain from doing owes a great deal to their moral environment. You can see that when you transplant them from one moral environment to another.
“I can assure you that there are people who do the right things and avoid evil things not only out of hope for a reward and a fear of punishment. Some of them are even atheists.”
I don’t need your advice on human nature. I’m not a drop-in from the planet K-PAX. I’ve seen everything you have. My experience is equal to yours.
I’d add that contemporary atheists have been influenced by Christian civilization—try as they might to repudiate that influence.
“This doesn't mean that their motives are always pure, but that, generally speaking, they seek to do what is right out of an attempt to adhere to a moral vision, not just out of an attempt to avoid personal inconvenience or suffering.”
I don’t deny that, due to common grace, unbelievers sometimes do the right thing for the right reason. Common grace preserves a measure of common decency among most unbelievers.
But that’s for the sake of the elect. The elect couldn’t survive among the reprobate unless the reprobate were restrained by common grace.
In hell, such restraint will be unnecessary. Common grace will be withdrawn.
"But that’s for the sake of the elect. The elect couldn’t survive among the reprobate unless the reprobate were restrained by common grace."
ReplyDeleteSo, the whole reason the reprobate is here on earth is because they are somehow "needed" for this big, cosmic chess game (and perhaps to serve useful functions for the elect and to entertain them). Their "function", so to speak, is merely to be yins to your yang, as examples of God's punishment to your reward, even though you are technically no better than they (which being a son of Adam you must concede).
God could just has easily created only the elect, yes? Why do these multitudes have to suffer just so YOU can enjoy more happiness in Heaven?
Do you define this as a moral outlook? To me, it's the same concept as a man being unable to enjoy his meal of filets, lobster and Chateaux Margaux without knowing that just outside the doors, there's a starving toddler with a distended belly from malnutrition.
I'm just not sure I understand this as a moral vision. It just seems that at the end of the day it's a bit selfish. Just a wee bit.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“So, the whole reason the reprobate is here on earth is because they are somehow "needed" for this big, cosmic chess game (and perhaps to serve useful functions for the elect and to entertain them). Their ‘function’, so to speak, is merely to be yins to your yang, as examples of God's punishment to your reward, even though you are technically no better than they (which being a son of Adam you must concede).”
Reprobates like, say, Frank Sinatra (to take one example among many) seem to be more than happy with the function they perform on the big, cosmic chessboard. They wouldn’t want it any other way. Who are you to spoil their fun?
“To me, it's the same concept as a man being unable to enjoy his meal of filets, lobster and Chateaux Margaux without knowing that just outside the doors, there's a starving toddler with a distended belly from malnutrition.”
Historically, it’s generally been poor, persecuted believers on the outside, watching the reprobate feast at their expense. The afterlife represents a reversal of fortunes. That's justice.