“I would add that Scripture offers a very powerful object lesson from the point of view of ‘equal respect’ in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The essence of Christian ethics is to love your neighbor as yourself, and that our attempt to distinguish between neighbor and non-neighbor is bound to fail. Yet God chooses some to be treated one way, and others to be treated in the opposite way? Isn't Scripture responsible for creating some cognitive dissonance here if Scripture if it at the same time teaches Calvinism?”
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/exchange-with-paul-manata-on-kant-and.html
Well, the supposed cognitive dissonance is hardly confined to Calvinism. If Reppert is going to apply the parable of the Good Samaritan to God himself, then why doesn’t God act more like the Good Samaritan?
On that view, how does Reppert account for vast disparities in the earthly distribution of blessing and bane? Why does God cause some men and women to be born into privileged families where they have every conceivable advantage while he causes other men and woman to be born into underprivileged families where they have every conceivable disadvantage?
Couldn’t God snap his fingers and make everyone filthy rich?
Isn’t Reppert a philosophy prof.? Why does he habitually disregard so many screaming counterexamples to his facile, repetitious objections?
"Why does God cause some men and women to be born into privileged families where they have every conceivable advantage while he causes other men and woman to be born into underprivileged families where they have every conceivable disadvantage?"
ReplyDeleteI think this fails as an analogy. It equates God's favor with worldly blessings, and I think you know better than that. Material abundance may or may not lead to the ultimate "good" of the person in question.
The question is more why God desires and ensures that ultimate good for some and not others.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I think this fails as an analogy. It equates God's favor with worldly blessings, and I think you know better than that. Material abundance may or may not lead to the ultimate 'good' of the person in question."
I'm responding to Reppert on his own terms. He framed the issue in relation to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Well, that's not about eschatology. That has a this-worldly orientation.
Even if you extend it to the afterlife, that hardly eliminates the mundane application, which is front-and-center.
I'd also add, as I pointed out in another post, that if this is a problem for a Reformed eschatology, then there's a parallel problem for Reppert's eschatology. So I've answered him on every front he's chosen to fight on.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, what happens to people in this life can directly affect what happens to people in the afterlife, viz. access to the gospel, a socially-conditioned predisposition to accept or reject the gospel, &c.
ReplyDeleteIt should also be pointed out that if God really wanted to be 'fair' and treat everyone alike, then He would have destroyed the entire human race a long time ago.
ReplyDelete"It should also be pointed out that if God really wanted to be 'fair' and treat everyone alike, then He would have destroyed the entire human race a long time ago."
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, you're correct. All people would be treated "equally".
The problem is that apparently God desires to save "some". They are then, in a very real sense, favored over those who are not.
So then what does it mean to say that God is "just"? He gives everyone what they deserve? Well, no, not if everyone deserves Hell, as you suggest. He treats everyone without favoritism? Well, no, because apparently He does favor some.
So what does the word "just" mean when we apply it to God? As it stands, the words seems to not really have meaning, at least not one that's readily apparent to me.
John said:
ReplyDeleteSo what does the word "just" mean when we apply it to God? As it stands, the words seems to not really have meaning, at least not one that's readily apparent to me.
Well, as R.C. Sproul has pointed out, there is Justice, Injustice, and Non-Justice. Mercy is a form of non-justice. Does that mean that when God shows mercy it's a form of injustice because justice wasn't served?
From the Protestant perspective (that holds to penal substitutionary and vicarious atonement) Jesus endured the punishment due to sinners on their behalf so that they don't have to. That way both things can be the case. 1. God doesn't violate His own justice by not punishing sin. Since sin IS punished in the substitute. and 2. God is able to show mercy and grace in a way that isn't an expression of injustice.
Also, since "mercy", by definition is undeserved and unobligated, God is able to show mercy to some (rather than all) without being unjust toward those whom He doesn't show mercy to. Though, admittedly, this solution seems to fit better with Sproul's Infralapsarian position, rather than the Supralapsarian position I lean toward.
The questions then that are brought up (by many atheists) is, "Is it just for an innocent person (Jesus) to suffer for (i.e. in the place/stead of) the sins of others who are guilty?" Conversely, "Is it right for those deserving of punishment to escape it because someone else endures the punishment for them?"
My answer is that in God's economy and dealing with His creatures, it is. And that settles it for me. However, that's not to say there aren't answers to this issue. Many Calvinistic theologians have dealt with this very issue (e.g. many of the Puritans). But their arguments are too complex to recount here.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"So what does the word 'just' mean when we apply it to God? As it stands, the words seems to not really have meaning, at least not one that's readily apparent to me."
There's nothing unjust about inequitable treatment if the parties concerned are not entitled to equal treatment. Since sinners don't deserve mercy, God is not denying a sinner something he had coming to him when God shows mercy to some, but not to all. Discrimination is only unjust if the interested party had a right to better treatment.
Steve: "Isn’t Reppert a philosophy prof.?"
ReplyDeleteWell, there's a large spectrum of capability in every profession.
But yes, I can see sometimes why some of Professor Reppert's reasoning abilities cause you to scratch your head about the standards to become a philosophy professor these days.
John said:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that apparently God desires to save "some". They are then, in a very real sense, favored over those who are not.
So then what does it mean to say that God is "just"? He gives everyone what they deserve? Well, no, not if everyone deserves Hell, as you suggest. He treats everyone without favoritism? Well, no, because apparently He does favor some.
So what does the word "just" mean when we apply it to God? As it stands, the words seems to not really have meaning, at least not one that's readily apparent to me.
As already mentioned, I would highly recommend that you read RC Sproul's treatment of this subject in his book, Chosen by God.
Consider two prisoners who are both condemned to death for capital crimes. While both are on death row awaiting their fate, the Judge comes in and pardons one of them and sets him free. The other, after some time, is put to death.
One got what he deserved--justice.
The other got what he did not deserve--mercy.
There is the Gospel. No one deserves mercy, nor can anyone demand it. In the Gospel, mercy is a verb. It's something God does that produces His desired result on those whom he is mercying. That is, it's not a generic "helping hand" that is extended passively to all men. The latter idea is anti-Biblical.