According to JD Walters:
But what if the following conditions held: suppose the perpetrators of genocide were to become fully aware of the enormity of their crimes and were overwhelmed with remorse (again not just because they were caught but because they realized how deeply they wronged and violated their victims), all the hurt and suffering of the victims were completely erased so that the dead came back to life and wounds healed, including their memories so that they did not even remember the pain and anguish of their persecution, and a new society appeared in which it would be impossible for any further abuses to take place? Would we still demand that the perpetrators suffer?...In such a condition, the only compensation that those who lose a loved one to murder can get is the satisfaction of knowing that the murderer is being punished. And in order to maintain its authority, the state has no choice but to uphold the law and mete out punishment. Note however that this is only partial compensation: it is not justice, because the loved one is still dead, and the murderer may still be unrepentant. True justice would be for things to be made right: the dead loved one restored to life, and the murderer repentant.
Suppose a mad scientist kidnaps children and tortures them to death. Every time he tortures them to death, he feels sorry for his crime. Every time he dismembers them, he weeps.
So he brings them back to life, repairs the physical damage, and erases their memories of the ordeal. Then he repeats the cycle ad infinitum.
Is the fact that he restores the status quo ante each time true justice? Is the fact that he feels bad about his crime true justice?
This distortion of my argument is laughable, but also serious because I state very clearly in my proposed scenario that it involves "a new society appear[ing] in which it would be impossible for any further abuses to take place." You're also conflating in your scenario the perpetrator of the crime with the just judge who will undo the consequences of that crime and restore victim and offender to fellowship.
ReplyDeletei) And why should we accept your ad hoc caveats? And does the absence of future injustices rectify the presence past injustices?
ReplyDeleteii) How does the judge "undo" the consequences of the crime?
iii) Why stipulate that the restoration of fellowship between victim and offender is a prerequisite of restoring the victim? I daresay many victims find that requirement as traumatic as the original crime.
You have this one-size-all approach to victims. And you dictate to the victims what they need and what they must do.
"And why should we accept your ad hoc caveats?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it seems clear from the Bible that that's what God is going to do: the former things will be passed away, and there will be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain.
"And does the absence of future injustices rectify the presence past injustices?"
Past injustices are rectified by undoing the harm they caused. The absence of future injustices upholds God's justice by making sure that forgiveness without retribution would not allow for the absurd scenario that you present.
"How does the judge "undo" the consequences of the crime?"
By restoring the children to life and health, healing the torture wounds and by making sure their memories (if they remain) are never a source of anguish or despair ever again.
"Why stipulate that the restoration of fellowship between victim and offender is a prerequisite of restoring the victim? I daresay many victims find that requirement as traumatic as the original crime."
Because we are all made in God's image and were made to enjoy community with God and one another. That was the 'design plan'. And it is only traumatic in this life, before God makes full restoration. Who said the way of the cross would be easy?
And while we're on the subject of what's traumatic to victims, imagine telling a rape victim that if the rapist is among the elect, all his sins including this one were atoned on the cross, that Christ suffered the punishment of the rapist, and will thus be welcomed into the kingdom. Meanwhile, if the victim is not one of the elect, she will be justly damned to hell for her sins, and the fact that she herself was victim of terrible injustices is beside the point.
On your scheme there are (former) murderers and oppressors among the elect, and there are victims of gross injustices among the reprobate. If that doesn't violate your own standard of justice I don't know what would.
JD WALTERS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Because it seems clear from the Bible that that's what God is going to do: the former things will be passed away, and there will be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain.”
i) It’s hardly clear from those statements that God is going to induce amnesia, or reconcile victims with perpetrators, &c.
For instance, in many cases God will eternally separate victims from oppressors, or, in many other cases, damn both parties to hell.
I don’t deny that in some cases God will reconcile victims with perpetrators, but that’s not a condition of eschatological justice.
ii) How God deals with traumatic memories is an interesting question, but scarcely answerable this side of the grave.
iii) If, moreover, you define eschatological justice in such terms, then many victims will be denied justice since they will not be restored (as you define it). Yet to be denied eschatological justice would be the ultimate miscarriage of justice–for the final judgment is supposed to rectify the injustices of this world.
“Past injustices are rectified by undoing the harm they caused.”
That doesn’t atone for the *guilt* of the crime. At best, it makes restitution for the consequences of a crime.
“The absence of future injustices upholds God's justice by making sure that forgiveness without retribution…”
Forgiveness without retribution is unjust. That’s why Christ made vicarious atonement for the elect.
“By restoring the children to life and health, healing the torture wounds and by making sure their memories (if they remain) are never a source of anguish or despair ever again.”
That’s not really “undoing” the consequences of the past. Rather, that’s providing compensation.
Take my example of the murdered fiancé. The consequences of that action can’t be undone. It can be offset in certain ways (even better ways, in some instances), but not undone.
Cont. “Because we are all made in God's image and were made to enjoy community with God and one another.”
ReplyDeleteYou can’t infer from what Scripture says about the imago Dei that to be made whole means reconciliation with the perpetrator. In many cases the perpetrator was a stranger to the victim. So it’s not as if reconciliation would restore a valued, preexisting relationship. The victim doesn’t miss the perpetrator. That’s no loss to the victim.
“And while we're on the subject of what's traumatic to victims, imagine telling a rape victim that if the rapist is among the elect, all his sins including this one were atoned on the cross, that Christ suffered the punishment of the rapist, and will thus be welcomed into the kingdom. Meanwhile, if the victim is not one of the elect, she will be justly damned to hell for her sins, and the fact that she herself was victim of terrible injustices is beside the point.”
i) To begin with, it’s possible to say the right thing at the wrong time. Some things are best left unsaid, however true.
There are things you might not say at a wake or funeral, even though it’s true. There’s a time for silence. A time to listen. A time to hold one’s tongue.
ii) As a matter of fact, some victims are hellbound while some perpetrators are heavenbound. That’s not distinctive to Calvinism.
iii) I don’t apologize for God’s administration of the world. And it’s really none of my business.
“On your scheme there are (former) murderers and oppressors among the elect, and there are victims of gross injustices among the reprobate. If that doesn't violate your own standard of justice I don't know what would.”
No, that doesn’t violate my standard of justice, for God upheld his justice in the vicarious atonement of Christ.