Pages

Monday, June 08, 2009

"Hell, Calvinism, and those wretched Dwarfs"

I'll begin by quoting Reppert's entire post (for the sake of context) before commenting:

***************************************************************************************

You die a faithful believer, you are ushered into heaven, and as you begin to sing your song in the heavenly choir, you notice the people in the fires of hell, suffering eternal torment wailing and gnashing their teeth. Your initial reaction is to

A) Feel sorry for them, and ask, as Lucy did concerning the Dwarves in the Last Battle, what can be done for the poor wretches.

B) Sing louder, praising God that while God's glory is demonstrated in the just punishment of the wicked, you reflect on the wonderful graciousness of your own salvation, that you were spared, by grace, the punishment that you otherwise would have received.

I'm A all the way, which makes me a lousy Calvinist.

This is the passage from the Last Battle.


“Aslan,” said Lucy through her tears, “could you — will you — do something for these poor Dwarfs?
“Dearest,” said Aslan, “I will show you both what I can, and what I cannot, do.” He came close to the Dwarfs and gave a low growl: low, but it set all the air shaking. But the Dwarfs said to one another, “Hear that? That’s the gang at the other end of the stable. Trying to frighten us. They do it with a machine of some kind. Don’t take any notice. They won’t take us in again!”
Aslan raised his head and shook his mane. Instantly a glorious feast appeared on the Dwarfs’ knees: pies and tongues and pigeons and trifles and ices, and each Dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right hand. But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking greedily enough, but it was clear that they couldn’t taste it properly. They thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things you might find in a stable. One said he was trying to eat hay and another said he had got a bit of an old turnip and third said he’d found a raw cabbage leaf. And they raised the golden goblets of rich red wine to their lips and said “Ugh! Fancy drinking dirty water out of trough that a donkey’s been at! Never thought we’d come to this.”
But soon every Dwarf began suspecting that every other Dwarf had found something nicer than he had, and they started grabbing and snatching, and went on to quarreling, till in a few minutes there was a free fight and all the good food was smeared on their faces and clothes or trodden under foot. But when at least they sat down to nurse their black eyes and their bleeding nose, they all said:
“Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs.”
“You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.

This is the only conception of hell that has ever made any sense to me. But perhaps there is another option Aslan isn't considering here. Maybe Aslan can perform and act of irresistible grace and convert the dwarfs into dwarfs who are for Aslan as well as for the dwarfs, and can release them from the prison of their own minds. Or predestined that they never get into that state of mind in the first place. If either of those is a plausible alternative, then Aslan's reply to Lucy collapses.

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/06/hell-calvinism-and-those-wretched.html

1.It isn’t clear to me why Reppert singles out Calvinism on the attitude of the saints towards the fate of the damned.

I don’t think Calvin had a fundamentally different view of hell than Wesley or Moody or Charles Fuller or Charles Stanley or W. A. Criswell or Robert Bellarmine, &c.

A Calvinist believes that God predestined the damned to be in hell, but Calvinism doesn’t have a distinctive view of what hell like. Supralapsarian Calvinism has a theodicean explanation for hell, but that doesn’t affect what hell is like.

As for the attitude of the saints towards the damned, does Reppert think that Calvinism has a unique position on this issue? To my knowledge, that’s not the case.

Mind you, it’s fine with me if Reppert wants to use Calvinism as the standard of comparison. But if, in this case, he’s picking on Calvinism because he thinks it represents a unique and uniquely repellent view of hell, then I’d be curious to know his source of information.

2.There’s the addition question of what damnatory model Reppert is targeting. Literal flames? Actual gnashing of teeth?

In my opinion, this is picture language.

3.Is hell a torture chamber? Is that the model he’s targeting?

I don’t think you can infer that from the picturesque descriptions of Scripture.

4.As far as I can see, what makes hell hellish is not the place, but the people. If there is an element of “torment” in hell, it’s not because the damned are tormented by their hellish surroundings, but because the damned are tormented by their hellish companions.

5.I’d add that people who have the best of everything can be perfectly wretched.

6.Apropos (4)-5), I have no particular reason to think that hell is uniformly one way or the other. I think it’s unending, and I think that it’s a terribly despairing way to spend eternity–but beyond that I don’t assume that all the damned have the same experience.

7.Then there’s the further assumption that the saints are specifically aware of the damned. Once again, though, I think that gets carried away with picture language.

Which view of hell is Reppert targeting? A kind of zoo which the saints go on tours for the entertainment value?

If we clear away the figurative window-dressing, to what extent would the saints even be aware of the damned? Speaking for myself, I doubt they have any direct awareness of the damned.

And I think their specific knowledge of the damned would be severely limited. Of all the billions of human beings who ever lived and died, the fraction that you and I are individually aware of is infinitesimal. It comes down to two tiny little groups: celebrities and personal acquaintances.

In their case, I’d only be obliquely aware of them in the negative sense that I’d be aware of their absence. I wouldn’t see them in heaven. I’d register the fact that they are missing.

8.I’m also not sure why I’d have to have the same attitude towards the handful of the damned I even know about.

There’s no antecedent reason, as far as I can see, why I should feel exactly the same way about Josef Mengele as I would about the classmate I barely knew in high school.

So the initial problem with Reppert’s question is that it’s staggering under a load of dubious assumptions–assumptions which skew the preferred answer.

9.Having said all that, I’d add that one of the refrains running through the pages of Scripture is “How Long, O Lord?” Throughout the Bible there’s a yearning for divine justice.

If some of us can’t identify with that yearning, it’s because we’ve been blessed to lead a pretty charmed existence. But if, instead of sweet, girlish little Lucy, we’re talking about a survivor of a concentration camp–and if, instead of cute little dwarves, we’re talking about Josef Megele, then the tearful sentiments expressed by Lucy are a decadent luxury which only the pampered few can indulge while they stroll through the gardens of Versailles.

22 comments:

  1. Steve said...


    2.There’s the addition question of what damnatory model Reppert is targeting. Literal flames? Actual gnashing of teeth?

    In my opinion, this is picture language.

    3.Is hell a torture chamber? Is that the model he’s targeting?

    I don’t think you can infer that from the picturesque descriptions of Scripture.



    But R.C. Sproul makes a good point about how the images of hell in Scripture, while not necessarily literal are attempts to show the severity of the punishments in hell. That is to say, Jesus used one of the worst experiences people can have in this world (the excruciating pains that can result from physical burning) to give us a glimpse of how uncomfortable and painful hell will actually be. Also that whatever hell is like, it'll probably be worse than the pain of physical burning because Jesus couldn't think of a greater pain in this world that we can relate to that could give us a comparison to the pain one will suffer in hell. Steve, I really enjoy the fictional stories you post here, except for the ones that have to do with hell. Many of them portray hell as a place of boring monotany. Which seems to have no Biblical basis. In every instance that our Lord pictures hell, it's always a place where He implies that we ought to do our very best to avoid it because it's a seriously unpleasent place (to put it mildly).

    Steve said...

    4.As far as I can see, what makes hell hellish is not the place, but the people. If there is an element of “torment” in hell, it’s not because the damned are tormented by their hellish surroundings, but because the damned are tormented by their hellish companions.



    But didn't Jonathan Edwards argue that it's not merely the negative absence of the beneficent presence of God that makes hell unendurable, but rather the positive presence of the Just God in His Holy wrath against sinners?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I might add:

    If Reppert is targeting hell as a torture chamber with the saved watching the tormented like tourists walking through the zoo, so to speak, then Reppert is conceding the atheist/skeptic objection to the nature of hell. If that's so, then this isn't unique to Calvinism. It's not like Calvinism has a corner on the market on this particular view of hell.

    On the other hand, if he doesn't view hell as a torture chamber, then he's interpreting the language of Scripture in a manner that is, how, shall I say, less literal then his understanding of John 3:16 use of kosmos (eg. "everybody")....but if that's so, then this doesn't target Calvinism, because Calvinism has no unified view of hell as Steve points out.

    So, this strikes me as terribly incoherent as a criticism of Calvinism. This man is a philosopher? Wow

    Indeed, it strikes me that atheists/skeptics often seem to interpret John 3:16 in the same manner, either because they are clueless or because that's how they were taught when they were nominal Christians.

    So, in attacking Calvinism Reppert seems to in some measure concede certain (aspects of) atheological objections.

    ReplyDelete
  3. annoyed pinoy i think you misconstrue steve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Annoyed Pinoy wrote:

    "But R.C. Sproul makes a good point about how the images of hell in Scripture, while not necessarily literal are attempts to show the severity of the punishments in hell. That is to say, Jesus used one of the worst experiences people can have in this world (the excruciating pains that can result from physical burning) to give us a glimpse of how uncomfortable and painful hell will actually be. Also that whatever hell is like, it'll probably be worse than the pain of physical burning because Jesus couldn't think of a greater pain in this world that we can relate to that could give us a comparison to the pain one will suffer in hell. Steve, I really enjoy the fictional stories you post here, except for the ones that have to do with hell. Many of them portray hell as a place of boring monotany. Which seems to have no Biblical basis. In every instance that our Lord pictures hell, it's always a place where He implies that we ought to do our very best to avoid it because it's a seriously unpleasent place (to put it mildly)."

    Jesus also refers to degrees of punishment in Hell and "few lashes" (Luke 12:45-48). One of the earlier Biblical passages to explicitly address the concept of an eternal Hell, Daniel 12:2, focuses on the concepts of disgrace and contempt, not something like physical burning. The variety of terms and images used in the Bible to describe Hell is itself evidence that the Biblical authors had a more nuanced view of the subject than many modern critics suggest. A physical fire might suggest to some people equal or nearly equal suffering, but Jesus taught unequal suffering, that different people suffer to a wide range of degrees in Hell. We should recognize the forceful nature of the fire imagery, as you explain above. But Jesus and the Biblical authors use that imagery in a more nuanced manner than your comments suggest.

    If anybody is interested, I wrote on this subject in a post a couple of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason,

    I understand all that. I did acknowledge that hell might not involved literal fire. The most common argument used to suggest it's not literal is the seemingly cotradictory nature of the descriptions of hell. On the one hand hell is said to be a place of fire, while on the other hand it's described as a place of darkness. Yet in our experience, darkness ad fire don't mix.

    Also, even Sproul makes a special point in highlighting the fact that there are degrees of punishment in hell. The point I was making is that Jesus, who speaks more of hell than any other person in the Scriptures, constantly connects pain with the punishments of hell. The book of Revelation connects it with "torment" and having "no rest day or night" (Rev. 14:11). Jesus uses the image of stripes and scourgings to represent hell, and we know that that's painful. According to our Lord, hell is such a terrible place that it would be better not to have been born than to go there. I don't think that comports with a view of hell where boredom is the ultimate punishment people will have to endure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Annoyed Pinoy,

    One thing that may help you when you consider the possibility of non-physical trauma in hell is to look at someone who is going through depression. I don't mean someone who feels "sad" but someone who is actually depressed.

    Depression often manifests itself as physical pain. When I went through it, it literally felt like I was burning internally, with sharp intense pain through my entire intestinal tract. In fact, I once woke with an image from a dream/nightmare in my mind that demonstrated exactly how it felt: I dreamed that someone had gotten a chain-link fence that had hooks in all the joints and had dragged it across my abdomen and chest, ripping it open.

    Again, I point out that none of this physically happened; but that's what it felt like. And I think that the reason there are "cutters" (those who cut themselves with razor blades, etc.) is because they decide that physical pain is better than emotional pain.

    Additionally (and this is pure speculation, mind you), I have often wondered if perhaps Jesus' own death on the cross was so physically painful exactly because it would provide a modicrum of relief compared to the pain of having God forsake Him.

    In any case, the pain I went through in depression (which was a relatively minor case, all things considered) had nothing to do with my external surroundings, where I was, who I was with. I believe it's the closest thing to hell I'll ever experience, precisely because there was no escape from it--aspirin doesn't fix pain caused by your brain.

    And when you consider the everyone was created so that we would be in a relationship with God--that that is our PURPOSE--then imagine what an eternity of being unable to do ANYTHING related to our purpose, and I say such a person needs no whips, chains, fire, or physical torment at all. He will already be in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Annoyed Pinoy said:

    I don't think that comports with a view of hell where boredom is the ultimate punishment people will have to endure.

    Well, it's obvious you've never driven through Nebraska. That was the most mindnumbingly painful experience I've ever had to endure. At one point, I was driving on a straight highway that seemed to go on and on and on. Forever! Then, as it was getting really late, at least midnight if not later, unfortunately I ended up falling asleep behind the wheel. I don't remember how much time had elapsed by the time I awoke but it was certainly much more than seconds. However, when I woke up, I was still going straight. For me, this was hell!

    Okay, seriously, though, at least as I read him, I don't think it's Steve's point that "boredom is the ultimate punishment people will have to endure." Again, as I read him, I think his point is more like "different strokes for different folks." Steve's fiction has been pretty diverse on this point. Check out "Holodeck heaven" for instance:

    "There was a holodeck where the Black Panthers and the Ku Klux Klan spent eternity together on the same island. There was a holodeck where Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump were bunkmates in a 5x10 cell. There was a holodeck occupied by Josef Mengele and his victims—who took turns returning the favor."

    In any case, I believe Steve has pointed out in the past that his stories are speculative.

    BTW, isn't it possible for (say) some psychological or emotional pains to be worse than some physical pains, even in this life?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, I sure do hope you ain't from Nebraska!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. I never denied (rather affirm) that emotional pain is involved in hell.

    2. I do know that Steve's fictional stories on hell were both speculative and metaphorical.

    3. If mere emotional pain were necessary for hell, why then the need for the resurrecion of the bodies of the wicked? Evidentally, there will be a physical element to their punishment.

    4. Peter, your testimony sounds like there might have been a demonic dimension to your experience. The devil (i.e. demons) doesn't play fair and he kicks us when we're down. If we're sick in one area (emotionally, or physically, or spiritually etc.) he will often take advantage of that and double his efforts by attacking us in the other areas as well.

    5. Patrick, I never denied that boredom might be part of the punishment of hell. I denied that it was the primary punishment, and affirmed that the Scriptural descriptions imply that physical pain is a/one of the primary aspects of the punishment of hell.

    Patrick, I recommend that next time you expect to drive a long distance, that you bring along a lot of music, or books on tape, or lectures/sermons to listen to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "If mere emotional pain were necessary for hell, why then the need for the resurrecion of the bodies of the wicked?"

    Well, first of all because human beings aren't simply human spirits or minds, but we were designed to function with bodies too. Secondly, I didn't say it would ONLY be emotional pain. But what there won't be is Dante's Inferno.

    "Peter, your testimony sounds like there might have been a demonic dimension to your experience."

    1. First of all, I'm not sure why that would be relevant. Surely there are demons in hell, yes?

    2. I'm fairly confident there wasn't much demonic oppression during my ordeal. At least no more than occurs every other day of my life. I know what caused my depression (sleep deprivation induced by sleep apnea; once I got a CPAP I was "cured"), and I know I have the Spirit and at no time did I feel like there were demons involved. I suppose God COULD have kept that from me, but see no reason why He would have done so, especially since I could tell quite easily that my old apartment was demon possessed (long story for a different time).

    Which isn't to deny that demonic oppression occurs--indeed it has happened to me at other times. But I also think we give the devil far too much credit, which is just as dangerous as not giving him enough credit at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ANNOYED PINOY:

    “But R.C. Sproul makes a good point about how the images of hell in Scripture, while not necessarily literal are attempts to show the severity of the punishments in hell.”

    But that’s ambiguous. “Severity of punishment” is consistent with different modes of punishment.

    Take a womanizer. He sleeps with a different woman every night. Sex is all he thinks about. He lives for sex.

    Suppose he were stranded on a desert island for all eternity. All by himself. That would punish him by depriving him of the one and only thing he values in life.

    “That is to say, Jesus used one of the worst experiences people can have in this world (the excruciating pains that can result from physical burning) to give us a glimpse of how uncomfortable and painful hell will actually be.”

    You’re assuming what you need to prove–that this imagery is intended to show that hell will be a place of excruciating, physical pain.

    “Also that whatever hell is like, it'll probably be worse than the pain of physical burning because Jesus couldn't think of a greater pain in this world that we can relate to that could give us a comparison to the pain one will suffer in hell.”

    i) There’s a point beyond which excruciating pain becomes numbing. It already consumes all the conscious space of the sufferer, so that it becomes meaningless to ratchet up the pain factor.

    ii) In addition, when someone’s total awareness is consumed by pain, then he can’t feel guilt or regret.

    But guilt and regret can also be punitive. Moreover, there’s an element of retributive justice to guilt or regret which is absent from mere physical suffering–for these states involves a recognition on the part of the individual that he brought this on himself. He’s getting his just deserts.

    Excruciating pain blots out the possibility of that acknowledgement.

    “Steve, I really enjoy the fictional stories you post here, except for the ones that have to do with hell. Many of them portray hell as a place of boring monotany. Which seems to have no Biblical basis.”

    i) To begin with, many of my short stories have a satirical element.

    ii) In addition, your objection suffers from a selective and lopsided appeal to Scriptural descriptions of hell. Let’s take to different descriptions from Isa 14:4-21 and Ezk 32:17-32. There the emphasis in not on positive physical pain and suffering but the loss and deprivation of all the goodies that made life enjoyable for the damned here on earth.

    ”But didn't Jonathan Edwards argue that it's not merely the negative absence of the beneficent presence of God that makes hell unendurable, but rather the positive presence of the Just God in His Holy wrath against sinners?”

    i) Edwards is not an appendix to my canon of Scripture.

    ii) Moreover, that sidesteps the question of how, exactly, God is “present” in hell. Of how his retributive justice is concretely manifested in hell. What you’ve given us is a programmatic statement. You still have to fill in the blanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “In every instance that our Lord pictures hell, it's always a place where He implies that we ought to do our very best to avoid it because it's a seriously unpleasent place (to put it mildly).”

    Things can be “seriously unpleasant” in different ways to different people depending on what they find pleasant or unpleasant–which is person-variable.

    What is unpleasant to you and me may be pleasant to a pain-freak.

    “The point I was making is that Jesus, who speaks more of hell than any other person in the Scriptures, constantly connects pain with the punishments of hell.”

    That’s simply untrue. Weeping and gnashing of teeth are hardly synonymous with physical pain. Outer darkness is hardly synonymous with physical pain. So the descriptions vary.

    “The book of Revelation connects it with ‘torment’…”

    That’s because the “torment” is connected to the fiery imagery.

    “And having ‘no rest day or night’ (Rev. 14:11).”

    Which has reference to the endless duration of their punishment.

    “Jesus uses the image of stripes and scourgings to represent hell, and we know that that's painful.”

    Physical scourging is painful. The imagery is figurative.

    “According to our Lord, hell is such a terrible place that it would be better not to have been born than to go there.”

    People can feel that way in this life, too. That’s why some of them commit suicide. And that’s despite the fact that many of them are doing quite well at a material level.

    “I don't think that comports with a view of hell where boredom is the ultimate punishment people will have to endure.”

    i) That’s a gross oversimplification of my position. You have to be a very careless reader to say that.

    a) I don’t present a one-size-fits-all view of hell. Just the opposite.

    b) I’ve pointed out that the popular stereotype of hell goes beyond responsible exegesis.

    c) I’ve also pointed out that there are different ways in which different people can be wretched.

    d) There’s no reason that Christian theology should cement itself to a popular stereotype. And there’s no reason Christian apologetics should make this a hill to die on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “If mere emotional pain were necessary for hell, why then the need for the resurrecion of the bodies of the wicked? Evidentally, there will be a physical element to their punishment.”

    i) That may well be the case. However, you can’t graft the doctrine of the general resurrection onto figurative passages of Scripture.

    ii) Take a wealthy socialite who gets drunk every day because she’s trapped in a loveless marriage. She’s miserable, and her misery has a physical dimension.

    iii) Keep in mind, too, that many Biblical descriptions of the Netherworld are depicting the intermediate state of disembodied souls. Physical pain is impossible in that context.

    But their lack of corporeality is, itself, punitive. They can’t do things as discarnate spirits which they could do as embodied beings.

    You’re overlooking the fact that, in Scripture, the lack of physicality can be a deprivation. As such, it can also be a penal deprivation.

    “Patrick, I never denied that boredom might be part of the punishment of hell. I denied that it was the primary punishment…”

    I never said if it’s primary or secondary.

    “And affirmed that the Scriptural descriptions imply that physical pain is a/one of the primary aspects of the punishment of hell.”

    Once again, that begs the question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    “Well, it's obvious you've never driven through Nebraska. That was the most mindnumbingly painful experience I've ever had to endure. At one point, I was driving on a straight highway that seemed to go on and on and on. Forever! Then, as it was getting really late, at least midnight if not later, unfortunately I ended up falling asleep behind the wheel. I don't remember how much time had elapsed by the time I awoke but it was certainly much more than seconds. However, when I woke up, I was still going straight. For me, this was hell!”

    Patrick, for future reference you might wish to hedge your bets. It’s a bit shortsighted to tip your hand this way.

    What if you turn out to be another John Loftus or Bart Ehrman? Assuming that the damned are sentenced to the infernal counterpart of their least favorite spot on earth, you might want to consider a contingency plan just in case. Use a bit of reverse psychology. Announce to the world that Venice is your idea of hell on earth. That way, if you do turn out to be another John Loftus or Bart Ehrman, you will be sentenced to spend eternity in virtual Venice rather than virtual Nebraska!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter said...

    1. First of all, I'm not sure why that would be relevant. Surely there are demons in hell, yes?


    It was a side note.


    At least no more than occurs every other day of my life...[E]specially since I could tell quite easily that my old apartment was demon possessed (long story for a different time).


    Okay, that makes sense. Anyone who has experiened demonic oppression can tell when it's especially opressive.



    Steve said...

    Suppose he were stranded on a desert island for all eternity. All by himself. That would punish him by depriving him of the one and only thing he values in life.


    True.


    ii) In addition, when someone’s total awareness is consumed by pain, then he can’t feel guilt or regret.


    Yeah, I didn't think of that. I've experienced prolonged continuous pain for days and I couldn't think of or desire anything else than the removal of the pain. It made it very difficult to even pray for the removal of the pain. However, could it be that in the resurrection state, the wicked will have heightened awareness and mental capacities?


    But guilt and regret can also be punitive.


    I agree, and have always believed that.


    i) That’s a gross oversimplification of my position. You have to be a very careless reader to say that.


    I guess I did carelessly read your stories. Also, I haven't read too much of your non-fictional statements about hell. I made my comments because I got the impression from your various stories on hell that you were possibly downplaying the physical aspect of the punishment in hell. Now I realise that you're emphasizing the other aspects of punishment in hell.


    a) I don’t present a one-size-fits-all view of hell. Just the opposite.


    Okay


    I never said if it’s primary or secondary.


    Okay. You guys have convinced of the plausibility of your position.


    Steve, do you believe that hell, in the sense of Gehenna, exists now and is "populated" by the wicked? I'm of the tentative opinion that prior to the cross, there was a compartment in sheol/hades for the righteous (called "Abraham's Bosom" in Scripture and inter-testamental writings) and a compartment for the wicked (what the OT calls the "lowest sheol"). Sometime after the resurrection of Christ the righteous in sheol/hades went to heaven, while the wicked wait for their resurrection and they final punishment in Gehenna.

    Steve, this is off topic, so I understand if you would rather not answer. But in the past few months I've heard James White assert that God has libertarian free will. Is that a standard or common position among Calvinists or not? Dr. White is a great exegete, but even he would say that the philosophical side of theology and apologetics is not is forte. I've read you stay on various occasions that you believe that God has counterfactual freedom. Is THAT "a" or "the" the standard Calvinistic position? Or is there no standard (or popular) position and that just happens to be what you hold to?

    ReplyDelete
  16. i) Strictly speaking, hell is a part of the final state. It presupposes the general resurrection.

    Prior to the general resurrection, the damned exist in the intermediate state, which is a disembodied state.

    ii) A disembodied state, like a dream state, can either be pleasant or unpleasant–depending on how it's structured. I assume the intermediate state of the damned would be like a nightmare.

    iii) God's freedom is sui generis. In some ways, God obviously had more freedom than we do. God is omnipotent. In terms of sheer power, he can do anything that's logically possible.

    In other ways, God has less freedom. God cannot do anything unwise or unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  17. it seems to me that annoyed pinoy is always wrong with regard to the things he posted here on triablogue like the will of God and now hell, i am getting annoyed with this pinoy:) just kidding kabayan

    ReplyDelete
  18. The reason why Calvinism has this accusation, is that non-Calvinists believe that those in hell are intrinsically different because on some level, they are exactly where they want to be and choose to be.

    Whereas Calvinists believe that those in hell are intrinsically no different to those in heaven, except that those in heaven were forcibly reformed so that they believe, not because they intrinsically preferred to be in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kim said:
    ---
    ...non-Calvinists believe that those in hell are intrinsically different because on some level, they are exactly where they want to be and choose to be.
    ---

    Actually, Calvinists would agree that those in hell are there because they want and chose to be there (and indeed continue to choose to remain there).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whatever our picture of hell, the fact is that God could do something to prevent the damned from suffering this fate, and God does not do it, at least on the Calvinist view. The picture of hell provided by Lewis's portrayal of Aslan and the Dwarfs is a picture where God presumably has given the Dwarfs freedom, and therefore cannot cancel out the use of that freedom to put themselves in a state of mind where they cannot receive what Aslan gives them. Aslan cannot break into their depraved hearts and convert them, because to do so would, presumably, violate their freedom. This conflicts directly with the doctrine of irresistible grace.

    Now maybe the blessed aren't aware of the punishments of hell, or are only minimally aware. Whatever the awareness, the question "Can't God do something about this?" still arises, so long as someone is aware that some people are suffering eternally.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, we yearn for justice. I want the Serial Shooters and the Baseline Killer, who terrorized the Phoenix area a few years back, to be severely punished, to face the consequences of what they have done.

    But do I want that punishment to be the last word? No, I now also want them to fully and completely repent. In fact, in order for them to repent, they've really got to look in the mirror and see what dreadful harm they have done and suffer for it.

    It does change things in my mind if it turns out that the Serial Shooters and the Baseline Killer were doing exactly what someone else caused them to do. If someone other than themselves was the ultimate cause and predestiner of their behavior, then the idea that any punishment for them can be just strikes me as problematic. But that just means I am a lousy compatibilist.

    Pleasure in the just punishment of the wicked and the earnest desire for a sinner's repentance are compatible. That's what's getting overlooked.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Actually, Calvinists would agree that those in hell are there because they want and chose to be there "

    That wasn't the distinction.

    ReplyDelete