Pages

Friday, September 24, 2010

Reparations for the damned

According to JD Walters:

“The New Testament is unanimous in affirming that there are only two final destinies for all people: either the enjoyment of eternal life with God in a new heavens and a new earth, or the 'eternal destruction' of the lake of fire. For theological paradigms in which God's retributive justice is ultimate, this separation is entirely on the basis of one's works, in accordance with the principle of 'just desserts': everyone gets what's coming to them. Those who did well are granted eternal life, while those who did evil are sent into the lake of fire.”

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/09/sheep-and-goats-why-there-are-only-two.html

In classic Protestant theology, while the damned get their just desserts, the saints do not. Rather, the saints get Jesus’ just desserts. The saints get far better than they deserve. Indeed, the saints deserve the same fate as the damned. God’s retributive justice is exacted on the Redeemer on behalf of the redeemed.

(JD will revisit this issue below.)

“The immediate problem is that the notion of just desserts seems incompatible with there being just two ultimate destinies, because in this scenario the penalty for doing evil completely annuls any reward a person might receive for doing good.”

This assumes that someone ought to be rewarded for doing his duty. But there’s no moral obligation to reward someone for doing what he was morally obligated to do.

Of course, he could still be rewarded. Rewards can serve more than one function. But it’s not as if that’s his due.

“On some accounts, even the smallest sin, the most seemingly innocuous white lie is enough to condemn a person to eternity in hell…”

Of course, many Christian ethicists think it’s permissible or even obligatory to lie under certain circumstances.

“…while nothing good that a person does can counter-balance that sentence.”

i) If a serial killer donates to an orphanage each time he murders the parents, does his donation counterbalance the crime?

ii) JD is also confusing the general punishment of the damned with the specific punishment of the damned. It’s like claiming if all convicts are incarcerated, then there’s no distinction in their level of punishment. But there’s a difference between incarceration as a general punishment which all prisoners endure, and the specific punishment which individual prisoners may endure in prison.

“To answer this question we must first think about what it really means for God to once and for all intervene to put the world right, to do away once and for all with injustice and evil. In the eschatological kingdom there is no space whatsoever for anything destructive, anything the least bit devious or out of harmony with God's perfect justice, which in its broadest sense means the world functioning exactly as it was meant to function in the beginning. God's restorative justice takes many forms at the end of history, some benefits of which are felt in the here and now: the forgiveness of sins, the healing of diseases and illnesses, the annulment of the 'sting' of death, etc. But it also means, of course, the complete annihilation of anything that stands in the way of God's justice, as Revelation affirms of the beast, the false prophet, and even death and hell themselves. Since God means to completely do away with the old order of sin and death, no vestige can remain of that old order. Now this is truly an either/or scenario: either you are entirely on the side of God's restorative justice, passionately longing for God's will to be done on earth as it is heaven, or you are still clinging to the old order, which is destined to perish.”

Far from being an “either/or” scenario, that’s a false dichotomy. Scripture indicates in numerous places that the damned are quarantined. There is “space” for the enemies of God. There’s one “space” for the damned, and another “space” for the saints.

“There is no middle ground here, no 'neutral' island to stand on which is 'safe' from God's cleansing justice, which in addition to being a mighty stream is also a 'consuming fire'.”

i) That’s an assertion in lieu of an argument.

ii) Moreover, it equivocates. To say that God’s judgment is inescapable is not to say that God’s judgment leaves no room for how or where the damned spend eternity.

“In light of this conception I would suggest that the final judgment is based, not on people receiving 'just desserts' for the actions committed in this life, but on whether people get on board with God's program of restorative justice initiated in Jesus Christ or not. The condemnation of the damned is not that they had done evil things, but that they did not accept God's gracious offer of reconciliation and forgiveness of sins and did not participate in bringing about God's sovereign rule.”

The damned aren’t damned for disbelieving the gospel. Many of the damned never hear the gospel. They are damned as sinners whose sins go unatoned.

“Though he certainly meant to turn sinners away from their evil ways, he never approached sinners with a message of condemnation. Who did he actually condemn? Not those who merely did evil things (which is everyone), but those who refused to admit their culpability and insisted that they were blameless, and therefore did not feel that they needed God's forgiveness and mercy…”

That’s deeply confused. Unless culpability is inherently condemnable, why would the refusal to acknowledge one’s culpability be condemnable?

“This also makes sense of Jesus' pronouncements that certain towns which rejected his message would have a harder time at the judgment than even Sodom and Gomorrah! The basis of the greater condemnation was not that the inhabitants of one town had sinned more than the other, but that one town had been confronted with the gospel and had rejected it, whereas the other had not heard the gospel. There is greater accountability for those who hear the gospel and reject it, but one's final destiny is determined ultimately by one's response to the gospel.”

i) Rejecting the gospel is an aggravated sin. In that respect, the Jews who reject the mission of Jesus are guilty of a graver sin.

ii) The fate of the Sodomites isn’t predicated on their rejection of the gospel.

“But what of Paul's reference to God punishing those who do not know and obey the Gospel with eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)? But notice here again the basis of the condemnation: it is not simply that these people have done evil things, but that they reacted to the gospel with arrogance and hostility instead of with humility and repentance.”

That’s because, in context, Paul is referring to opponents of the gospel. He’s not addressing the case of OT idolaters (to take one example).

“The only eschatological scenario consistent with retributive justice would be one with an infinitely fine gradation of eternal destinies, pleasant and unpleasant in accordance with the balance of good and evil in a person's life. But this would imply that God's eschatological kingdom would feature varying degrees of evil and suffering which would persist in accordance with a person's deeds, which makes a mockery of God's promise that nothing would hurt or destroy in all His holy mountain, and that the new heavens and the new earth would be one without pain, suffering and death…”

i) The damned don’t inhabit God’s holy mountain. They don’t even take day trips to God’s holy mountain.

ii) Reference to the absence of pain and suffering has reference to the saints, not the damned.

iii) Both the saints and the damned share immortality-–but the damned are cursed with immortality, whereas the saints are blessed with immortality.

“Conversely, having just two ultimate destinies would make a mockery of retributive justice because it is impossible to imagine a person being meaningfully compensated for good deeds in the context of eternal punishment and separation from God.”

Should a serial killer be compensated for donating to an orphanage after he orphans the young children of his murder victims? Sounds like a swell racket.

18 comments:

  1. Treatment of sin must all be God-centric.

    "Of course, many Christian ethicists think it’s permissible or even obligatory to lie under certain circumstances."

    This statement doesn't deal with the issue of sin effectively because it ignores the lie in relation to God's Holy and eternal purpose.

    The issues isn't whether a small white lie is accepted by Christian ethicist or not, the issue is does the nature of this (harmless) lie result in the rejection of an infinitely gracious savour, or not.

    If it does, the rejection of an infinitely gracious saviour IS an infinitely grave sin, (and worthy of eternal punishment) and human perception of the extent of the sin is irrelevant.

    Murder is seen to be sin simply because it mares the image of God in creation, but how is that 'worse' than directly disobeying (or contradicting) an infinitely Holy and loving God?

    I'm not accusing this post of doing this BTW, but I am using this example to show how we trivialize the consequence of sin by categorizing some as harmless and others as not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This assumes that someone ought to be rewarded for doing his duty. But there’s no moral obligation to reward someone for doing what he was morally obligated to do. Of course, he could still be rewarded. Rewards can serve more than one function. But it’s not as if that’s his due."

    In what sense then does Christ deserve the honor and glory which is above every name? After all, his obedience to the father was his obligation as a son.

    And in what sense are the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy contingent on the people keeping the covenant?

    You seem to hold to a very odd notion of just deserts, in which people can deserve punishment for wrongdoing, but don't deserve reward for doing right. The standard definition of just deserts is "That which is deserved. A reward for what has been done - good or bad."

    "The damned aren’t damned for disbelieving the gospel. Many of the damned never hear the gospel."

    Another very strange notion. Just about every Christian evangelist I have encountered said the all-important factor in one's eternal destiny is how one responds to the Gospel. This includes evangelists of all denominations.

    "Should a serial killer be compensated for donating to an orphanage after he orphans the young children of his murder victims? Sounds like a swell racket."

    No, it means that he's punished for his murders, but rewarded for his donation to the orphanage. Retributive justice is based on compensating discrete deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, every lie doesn't result in the rejection of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JD WALTERS SAID:

    “In what sense then does Christ deserve the honor and glory which is above every name? After all, his obedience to the father was his obligation as a son.”

    i) The Son is under no inherent obligation to die for a crime he didn’t commit. That’s a textbook case of supererogatory merit.

    ii) You also seem to be assuming a type of subordination in the immanent Trinity which I’ve argued against.

    “And in what sense are the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy contingent on the people keeping the covenant?”

    They are contingent on God keeping his promise.

    “You seem to hold to a very odd notion of just deserts, in which people can deserve punishment for wrongdoing, but don't deserve reward for doing right.”

    You don’t deserve a reward for doing what you were supposed to do. Rather, you deserve punishment for failing to do what you were supposed to do. The asymmetry ought to be self-evident.

    “Another very strange notion. Just about every Christian evangelist I have encountered said the all-important factor in one's eternal destiny is how one responds to the Gospel. This includes evangelists of all denominations.”

    You lack a rudimentary grasp of Christian theology. A presupposition of the gospel is that sinners are already in a lost and condemnable state apart from the gospel. Scripture teaches that no man can be saved apart from believing in Christ, which you have inverted and perverted into the polar opposite: no man can be damned apart from disbelieving in Christ.

    That disregards the prior condition of sinners to whom the gospel is preached (not to mention those who die outside the pale of the gospel).

    “No, it means that he's punished for his murders, but rewarded for his donation to the orphanage. Retributive justice is based on compensating discrete deeds.”

    i) To begin with, there’s more to good deeds than the deed itself. There is also the underlying motive. Take two of your examples: “caring for the sick and selflessly sacrificing themselves for others.”

    That depends in part on who you’re caring for. If you’re nursing an injured Nazi back to health so that he can exterminate more Jews, that’s not commendable. Likewise, if one Gestapo officer dies on the battlefield to save another Gestapo officer, that’s not commendable.

    ii) Moreover, people do good because of God’s common grace or special grace. They don’t get any intrinsic credit for their good deeds, for that’s the end-result of God motivating them to do good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve wrote:

    "You don’t deserve a reward for doing what you were supposed to do."

    This isn't a Biblical notion, Steve.

    Look at how the servant is rewarded in [Matt 25:21-23][Luke 19:17] for being faithful in his duty.

    In fact, there isn't a single Biblical example of God rewarding a man, where that reward wasn't for the man doing what he was suppose to.

    God is, after all, gracious more than he is aloof.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're confusing the notion of rewards with the notion that rewards are awarded to deserving recipients. For that you need a separate argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Luke 17:7-10:

    7 “Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; [3] we have only done what was our duty.’”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Luke 17:10

    So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'

    No sign of reward for duty there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16).

    ReplyDelete
  10. That comment about boasting is being taking out of context.

    There seems to be ambiguity about 'reward' in this disagreement.

    Reward can be both merited favour and unmerited favour. A faithful servant may not merit 'unmerited favour' (rewards above and beyond wages), but even so, those wages are still treated Biblically as 'reward'.

    [John 4:36] And he that reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit unto life eternal: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together.

    Here, 'he that reaps' is not obtaining unmerited favour, but is obtained merited favour, merited through faithful adherence to duty.

    The whole idea that a good and gracious master rewards faithful servants is the basis for the for the idea that an ox simply doing its job should be permitted to eat the corn as its reward [1 Tim 5:18].

    The Ox's reward is merit for its faithfulness, its reward.

    But if we differentiate between merited reward and unmerited reward the argument is really only a semantic one.

    The Bible absolutely makes clear that God will render to each man according to his works [Job 34:11][Psalm 28:4][Psa 62:12][Pro 24:29][Ecc 8:14][Jer 32:19] etc, and it is not only talking about those who do evil works.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with ekklhsia here. Servants who do their duty do not deserve any additional praise or reward beyond what is their already established due, and they have no grounds for boasting, but they still deserve their due.

    The concept of just deserts is incoherent without people getting what they deserve both for the good things and the bad things that they do. And if one's eternal destiny is to be strictly retributive (outside of salvation through Christ), one's experience should be proportionately pleasant or unpleasant according to the balance of good and evil deeds (where good deeds are good things done for the right intentions).

    ReplyDelete
  12. ἐκκλησία said...

    “That comment about boasting is being taking out of context.”

    That’s an assertion in lieu of an argument. In context, Paul gets no credit for preaching the gospel because he does so under moral compulsion. Conversely, he is blameworthy if he fails to preach the gospel.

    “There seems to be ambiguity about 'reward' in this disagreement. Reward can be both merited favour and unmerited favour. A faithful servant may not merit 'unmerited favour' (rewards above and beyond wages), but even so, those wages are still treated Biblically as 'reward'.”

    You’re burning a straw man. The question at issue was never the existence of Biblical rewards, but the presupposition of Biblical rewards.

    “Here, 'he that reaps' is not obtaining unmerited favour, but is obtained merited favour, merited through faithful adherence to duty.”

    The text doesn’t say that or imply that. To the contrary, Jesus goes on to say in vv37-38 that they reap the fruit of other men’s labors. What others sow, they reap. Therefore, they receive the paycheck that a second party earned.

    “The Ox's reward is merit for its faithfulness, its reward.”

    Which, in context, refers to interpersonal human obligations. But the relation of a sinner to a holy God is hardly comparable to the relation of a man to his fellow man.

    “But if we differentiate between merited reward and unmerited reward the argument is really only a semantic one.”

    That says a lot about your Pelagian theology.

    “The Bible absolutely makes clear that God will render to each man according to his works [Job 34:11][Psalm 28:4][Psa 62:12][Pro 24:29][Ecc 8:14][Jer 32:19] etc, and it is not only talking about those who do evil works.”

    i) Another straw man, since that is not the question at issue.

    ii) You also disregard a fundamental asymmetry between merit and demerit. Sinners can’t merit salvation. But sinners can merit damnation. By definition, sinners are already in a demeritorious condition. Saving grace is not merely unmerited favor, but demerited favor. But by the same token, sinners richly deserve retributive punishment.

    Your ignorance of elementary Christian theology is quite appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JD WALTERS SAID:

    “I agree with ekklhsia here. Servants who do their duty do not deserve any additional praise or reward beyond what is their already established due, and they have no grounds for boasting, but they still deserve their due.”

    That’s not an argument. That merely paraphrases the very claim that’s in dispute.

    “The concept of just deserts is incoherent without people getting what they deserve both for the good things and the bad things that they do. And if one's eternal destiny is to be strictly retributive (outside of salvation through Christ), one's experience should be proportionately pleasant or unpleasant according to the balance of good and evil deeds (where good deeds are good things done for the right intentions).”

    Once again, you’re simply repeating your original contention rather than interacting with my argument to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve, careful about throwing around the objection 'assertion in lieu of an argument' too much, because most of your responses to me and others do exactly that. In response to my assertion, you put forward assertions of your own regarding the nature of justice, etc. That's fine in and of itself, but don't be hypocritical in your objections.

    "You don’t deserve a reward for doing what you were supposed to do. Rather, you deserve punishment for failing to do what you were supposed to do. The asymmetry ought to be self-evident."

    This statement is reductionistic. If you're going to frame the issue in terms of having duties and failing to perform those duties, you need to specify the context in which duties are incurred. In all relationships in which it makes sense to speak of duties, performing one's duty earns one privileges and rewards of some kind. A servant who performs his duty is rewarded with food, clothing, shelter and protection. A police officer who performs his duty is rewarded with a salary and the respect of the community. When God's people obey his laws in the OT, they earn his blessings. Yes, they do so because God keeps his promises, but it is a promise to fulfill the terms of the covenant. If God's people keep their side of the bargain, they are entitled to God's protection and favor.

    But in this conception we are moving beyond any sort of 'just deserts' understanding presupposed by classical theories of retributive justice. You appear to be trying to meld a Kantian conception of duty and just deserts with a biblical, covenantal understanding. The two do not mesh well. The asymmetry you propose is not self-evident. It remains to be shown that giving people their just deserts is compatible with there being just two eternal destinies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You said: That says a lot about your Pelagian theology.

    You realise that this assumption also isn't argument, justified with evidence or relevant?

    For the sake of argument, lets say I was Pelagian, if the argument above is Biblically sound, being Pelagianism doesn't mean one isn't capable of being Biblically correct. (Even a broken clock is correct twice a day).

    It is a nice way removing focus from the issue being disputed. For the record though, I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian.

    ReplyDelete
  16. JD WALTERS SAID:

    "Steve, careful about throwing around the objection 'assertion in lieu of an argument' too much, because most of your responses to me and others do exactly that. In response to my assertion, you put forward assertions of your own regarding the nature of justice, etc. That's fine in and of itself, but don't be hypocritical in your objections."

    JD, careful about throwing around assertions concerning my alleged assertions. You merely assert that I make assertions without documenting your assertions. Don't be hypocritical in your objections.

    "This statement is reductionistic. If you're going to frame the issue in terms of having duties and failing to perform those duties, you need to specify the context in which duties are incurred. In all relationships in which it makes sense to speak of duties, performing one's duty earns one privileges and rewards of some kind."

    That assumes what you need to prove. Moreover, you're using "earnings" and "rewards" as though they were synonymous.

    "A servant who performs his duty is rewarded with food, clothing, shelter and protection. A police officer who performs his duty is rewarded with a salary and the respect of the community."

    We normally think of a salary in terms of "earnings" rather than "rewards."

    You're also conflating different senses of the word.

    A reward can be an incentive to action.

    A reward can be a public recognition.

    A reward can be payment for service rendered.

    None of these entail merit. For instance, a loyal Klansman may be rewarded by a promotion in the hierarchy, but since the KKK is an evil enterprise, you can't very well say he deserves it.

    Likewise, the getaway driver may receive a cut of the loot, but you can't very well say he deserves it.

    Moreover, even in human situations where one party is entitled to some recompense, you can’t extend that without further ado to our relationship with God, where we owe everything to God, as our Creator and Redeemer, while he owes us nothing in return. God is debtor to no man. Everything we have we receive from his hand.

    “When God's people obey his laws in the OT, they earn his blessings.”

    Saying so doesn’t make it so, that that’s a travesty of OT theology.

    “Yes, they do so because God keeps his promises, but it is a promise to fulfill the terms of the covenant. If God's people keep their side of the bargain, they are entitled to God's protection and favor.”

    God’s adoption of Israel was an act of God’s gratuitous favor. Israel was wholly unworthy of God’s lovingkindness (e.g. Deut 9). God doesn’t bless Israel because she deserves it, but because she needs it, and God is merciful to Israel. Like the allegory of Hosea.

    ReplyDelete
  17. JD WALTERS SAID:

    “But in this conception we are moving beyond any sort of 'just deserts' understanding presupposed by classical theories of retributive justice. You appear to be trying to meld a Kantian conception of duty and just deserts with a biblical, covenantal understanding.”

    Since I documented my conception of duty from Scripture, I don’t appear to be taking that conception from Kant, now do I?

    “The asymmetry you propose is not self-evident.”

    Your denial is not an argument. Moreover, I presented an argument for the asymmetry, which you ignore.

    “It remains to be shown that giving people their just deserts is compatible with there being just two eternal destinies.”

    Saying that it remains to be shown, in the teeth of my argumentation to the contrary, is not a reason to believe it remains to be shown.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ἐκκλησία said...

    “You realise that this assumption also isn't argument, justified with evidence or relevant? “

    You do realize that you yourself supplied the evidence for my conclusion.

    “For the sake of argument, lets say I was Pelagian, if the argument above is Biblically sound…”

    Which is not the case, for reasons I gave.

    “For the record though, I am as much as Pelagian, as I am an Calvinist, as I am an Arminian.”

    For the record, you’re a theological chameleon.

    ReplyDelete