Freewill theists typically regard libertarian freedom as a precondition of moral responsibility. And many of them regard libertarian freedom as equivalent to counterfactual freedom. The ability to do otherwise (i.e. choose between alternate possibilities).
That, however, raises the specter of counterfactual culpability, including counterfactual damnation. If they think, for instance, that God ought to judge a benighted pagan not by what he actually believed, given his heathen surroundings, but by what he would have believed had he been raised in Christian surroundings, then that cuts both ways, does it not?
If God should save him had he responded favorably to the gospel, given the opportunity, then God should judge him, not merely for his actual misdeeds, but for his counterfactual misdeeds. For all the evil he would have wrought had the opportunity presented itself.
Of course, Reformed theism and freewill theism have different ways of grounding alternate possibilities. For now I’m just addressing the broader principle of whether it’s ever fair to judge someone, not merely in light of his actual history, but his alternate history.
"I’m just addressing the broader principle of whether it’s ever fair to judge someone, not merely in light of his actual history, but his alternate history."
ReplyDeleteWow. I really don't know.
This broader discussion has implications for the discusion on infant salvation or infant damnation, doesn't it?
Great point Steve!
ReplyDeleteThere's actually an interesting text in this regard:
ReplyDeleteMt 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31“So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32“Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
God be with you,
Dan
If your actual history is sufficient to damn you and if heaven is not yours by right, appealing to alternative histories is unnecessary. You need Christ because you are a sinner and you need Christ because it is only through Christ and his merits that you could go to heaven.
ReplyDeleteAsking "What if?" and writing alternate "histories" used to be the province of historians (What if... the Confederates had taken Washington after the first battle of Bull Run? What if... NAZI Germany had captured Moscow at the beginning of Barbarossa? ect.) Now, it seems, some theologians want to get in on the fun.
ReplyDeleteWell, here's one: What if... we base our theology on what the Bible actually says, instead of on some sort of philosophical musings of What if...?
Squirrel
Squirrel,
ReplyDeleteSince this phenomenon has apparently eluded you, the Bible itself is chock-full of hypotheticals. All those conditional if/then threats and promises.
Well, both alternatives can't be simultaneously realized. So to what does the unexemplified alternative correspond?
STEVE SAID:
ReplyDeleteGene,
Since this phenomenon has apparently eluded you, the Bible itself is chock-full of hypotheticals. All those conditional if/then threats and promises.
Well, both alternatives can't be simultaneously realized. So to what does the unexemplified alternative correspond?
BTW, considering alternate outcomes is a necessary factor in moral deliberation. We weigh the consequences of our actions if we do A instead of B.
THE SQUIRREL SAID:
ReplyDelete"Asking 'What if?' and writing alternate 'histories' used to be the province of historians (What if... the Confederates had taken Washington after the first battle of Bull Run? What if... NAZI Germany had captured Moscow at the beginning of Barbarossa? ect.)"
As a matter of fact, generals do have to juggle alternate futures. What are the strategic consequences if they take Moscow? What are the strategic consequences if they defend Moscow? What are the strategic consequences if they let Moscow fall to the enemy? What are the strategic consequences if they try to take Moscow, but fail?
Generals must also have contingency plans in case of unforeseeable developments.
Likewise, there's such a think as learning from past mistakes.
Well, here's one: What if... we base our theology on what the Bible actually says, instead of on some sort of philosophical musings of What if...?
ReplyDeleteOf course, Steve isn't doing anything contrary to the above as stated. What Gene needed to include was, "What if we based our theology only on what the Bible stated?", but of course this would destroy much of our theology, bound up in extrabiblical knowledge as it is, it is also self-defeating if meant to be a theological statement. If it's not, what kind of statement is it? Philosophical speculation? Stipulation?
Moreover, proposition presuppose and entail other propositions, these presuppositions and entailments are mostly left unstated in Scripture. But if a theological proposition (or set of propositions) presupposes other propositions, or entails other propositions, then those propositions are worthy to be brought into discussion.
There's nothing untoward in what's Steve's doing; rather, the anti-intellectual tone of some of the comments are what's worrisome. That tone is why Christians are caught with their pants down when new challenges arise.
If freewill theists suppose that people can be saved based on the counterfactual, but deny that they can be condemned based on the counterfactual (since both are equal decisions in their mind), then we have a case where freewill theism is presuppositionally visceral rather than rational. I consider it so based on scriptural support, but here is merely more evidence on this regard.
ReplyDelete