VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
In short, the damnation of millions of souls is a means to an end that God could produce by, figuratively, snapping his finger. Or by showing everyone pictures of fictitious denizens of hell and saying that, of course, he could have done that to the blessed (who, given universalism, would now be everybody). I am inclined, paradoxically, to ask the Calvinist "What part of sovereign don't you understand?"
And:
This is a non-sequitur. Christ doesn't have to implant false memories, he just has to tell the blessed the truth. As if they don't already know it, since they are, after all, the blessed.
Why would Christ have to deceive the blessed if he wanted to impress on them the graciousness of their salvation? He could do it with no deception, without out all those "object lessons" frying in hell to help them appreciate the grace of God. They're the blessed in heaven, for gosh sakes.
And:
No extraordinary Cartesian explanation is required here. You have people who have received the Redemption of Christ. They are hanging on every word Christ has to say. They don't need object lessons writhing in the flames. It's not as if Christ has to say "You have been saved by my grace. But, in case you doubt me, look over to your left and see what happened to all those people to whom I did not bestow that grace. Now do you appreciate being here? It just isn't necessary.
**************************
Well, this gives me a whole new outlook on Christianity. Who needs real world events when we can have pictures? For gosh sakes, it isn’t necessary that God come to earth and be born to a Jewish girl. All we need is a Hallmark card with a fictitious crèche scene, fictitious baby, fictitious mom and dad, fictitious angels, fictitious animals, and fictitious wise men.
As long as the picture has a nice warm pastel glow, like a Vermeer painting, as long as the fictitious baby has a fictitious halo and a beatific smile, we can dispense with a real Incarnation.
A real Incarnation is kind of messy, now that I think about it. Not to mention a real Crucifixion. So let’s go Gnostic. Who needs real blood or real thorns–when a coloring book will do? Break out the crayons!
Seriously, why is God making us go through this horrible suffering that we presently experience? I mean children are starving in Africa.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't God just show us a picture of what suffering might look like or tell us a story as we all sit around a campfire roasting smores?
Brilliant. Why not merely create the Blessed Ones in heaven to begin with, skip the whole earth thing altogether, and then gather them around and have Jesus tell them what a fallen world would've been like, and how blessed they are to be here instead.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're at it, open to a blank page and draw me like God.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, we already did that, in the Garden.
So, if there are six people trapped in a mine, it is better that four be rescued than all six, because then the ones who were rescued can appreciate their rescue more knowing that there were two that didn't make it?
ReplyDeleteRed Monkey: Seriously, why is God making us go through this horrible suffering that we presently experience? I mean children are starving in Africa.
Why didn't God just show us a picture of what suffering might look like or tell us a story as we all sit around a campfire roasting smores?
VR: That's a serious question. It's called the argument from evil. It is the best argument for atheism out there, and numerous Christian philosophers have taken it with the utmost seriousness.
Gordan: Brilliant. Why not merely create the Blessed Ones in heaven to begin with, skip the whole earth thing altogether, and then gather them around and have Jesus tell them what a fallen world would've been like, and how blessed they are to be here instead.
VR: The problem of evil once again.
Look, people in heaven are in fellowship with God. They know what fellowship with God is like. They know what it was like to lack that fellowship with God, since they experienced that before conversion. And they can tell the difference between the degree of fellowship with God they now experience and the more limited fellowship with God they experienced on earth. I mean, these are people who are seeing God face-to-face. What they once saw through a glass darkly, but now they know fully. These people need everlastingly suffering object lessons?
By the way, even on a Calvinist read of Rom. 9:22-23, this this doesn't emerge. What is supposed to show the riches of his glory to the objects of mercy is supposed to be God's bearing with great patience the vessels of wrath, not the punishment of the vessels of wrath.
Look at what this is an attempt to justify. It is an attempt to justify the action on the part of God to commit millions of people to everlasting suffering of the worst kind, when a different choice on the part of God would have resulted in no such suffering at all. Nor can it be argued that God couldn't save everyone because that would be unjust, or that it would violate human freedom. And this is the justification we are given?
Victor, this is exactly what I find amazing. You argue like an atheist. The arguments you give against Calvinism are not confined to Calvinism, these are questions that everyone has to answer. The critique you give cuts against all Christian theodicies. I think we are all aware that this is a problem of evil. It is just amazing that, as a Christian, you would argue this way.
ReplyDeleteVictor: "By the way, even on a Calvinist read of Rom. 9:22-23, this this doesn't emerge. What is supposed to show the riches of his glory to the objects of mercy is supposed to be God's bearing with great patience the vessels of wrath, not the punishment of the vessels of wrath."
ReplyDeletePaddle: Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
Victor: "It is an attempt to justify the action on the part of God to commit millions of people to everlasting suffering of the worst kind, when a different choice on the part of God would have resulted in no such suffering at all."
Paddle: God "commits people" to hell in light of their sin. Are you instead asking about why God didn't choose to have mercy on all the people deserving of the death penalty? Did he have to? Is he morally obligated to? Are you asking why he chose one person, x, over another person, y, when he could have chosen the other? I don't know. What I do know is that he didn't choose based on anything good or bad in that person. I do know that he is under no obligation to save y or x. Frankly, I don't see the problem here, Victor.
Victor: "Nor can it be argued that God couldn't save everyone because that would be unjust, or that it would violate human freedom."
Paddle: What if I retort that I don't think "human libertarian freedom" is that important to warrant that God wouldn't violate it if it meant that the person would spend eternity in hell? So your "free will" defense has no traction with me. If you think that Universalism is the case, then you bear the burden in the debate. You're the one positing something that goes against the grain of 2,000 years of church history. No, it is argued that God "commits" sinners to hell because of their sin. It is argued that when God views sinners as sinners and chooses to save some out of the mass, by an act of pure grace, that this does not commit God to an immorality for not choosing all, since the deserved to go to hell. It is argued that the only complaint you have left is that you just don't understand why God didn't choose to save all of the sinners. Besides arguments already given you, your complaint with Calvinism is just an expression of psychological frustration, and a confirmation of your cognitive limitations, not a moral indictment. Where's your argument, Victor?