It’s become increasingly popular for Arminians to say the Calvinist God is worse than Hitler. Let’s examine this accusation for a moment.
The accusation depends, in large part, on the (alleged) moral distinction between doing or causing evil, on the one hand, and permitting evil, on the other hand. Arminians typically act as if the moral relevance of that distinction is self-evident.
Let’s take a comparison:
i) Jim murders one innocent bystander
ii) Jim allows John to murder ten innocent bystanders
Which is worse?
Even though, in (i), Jim is the actual murderer, while in (ii), Jim merely allows a second party to commit murder, it’s far from obvious that permitting the murder of ten innocent bystanders is morally superior to directly murdering one innocent bystander.
So it doesn’t follow that permitting evil is ipso facto exculpatory while doing (or causing) evil is culpable.
Let’s take another comparison:
i) Jim causes John to murder one innocent bystander
ii) Jim allows John to murder ten innocent bystanders
Once again, is (ii) morally preferable to (i)?
Curious: Why the one vs ten distinction? Why not just state the two options in equal terms?
ReplyDeleteBecause the numerical constrast makes it more difficult to say (i) is worse than (ii).
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't murder anyone, or cause or allow anyone else to murder anyone. That said, as violators of Mat 5:22 our sinful state makes this point merely academic. It's not like non-Calvinists are particularly good at exegesis enough to recognize this, but if we choose to sin by the same will that we choose salvation, how is God justified in both ignoring the eternal effects of our willful sin and actualizing the eternal effects of our willing faith? How free is our will if we are not allowed the natural and supernatural consequences of all of our choices?
ReplyDeleteAh, but this cuts at the heart of the issue with non-Calvinists. If it can be argued that I have missed the point of their libertarian freewill theology by apprehending it through the lens of Calvinism, then the same could be said of them when they think that the Calvinistic God is worse than Hitler. They miss the reason why we believe God does no evil as a righteous first cause where evil is accomplished by the actions of men as sinful second causes; for evil is in the intent. They replace this with a non-Calvinistic understanding of God and a non-Calvinistic understanding of sin. So it's a subtle form of straw-man. (Such non-Calvinistic understandings tend to be more visceral rather than soundly exegeted from scripture, but that's a different argument.)
"Because the numerical constrast makes it more difficult to say (i) is worse than (ii)."
ReplyDeleteSure, but isn't that stacking the deck? Shouldn't the point be equally as valid/true at a 1:1 ratio where they have no excuse of deck-stacking to use?
Perhaps I'm just missing something obvious.
(by "they" i mean the opponents who would point to that as an excuse not to agree with your point.)
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not stacking the deck. It's a pressure point. Making the position of the Arminian more costly. Less intuitively plausible.
ReplyDeleteIs there ever a point, in principle, beyond which it's not plausible to say permission is always better than commission? It's a way of stress-testing the principle.
Jacob, it's not stacking the deck. For all we know, less evils have been committed on divine determinism than on giving-up-rights-and-permitting-indeterministically-free-agents-to-run-wild.
ReplyDeleteIt's entirely possible that many *more* evils have been committed on the assumption of libertarianism than determinism. God controls the amount on one, but not on the other.
So what is the answer? Is there a moral distinction between doing evil and permitting evil? Can a Scriptural case be made for or against a moral distinction?
ReplyDeleteJim said, “First, I didn't murder anyone, or cause or allow anyone else to murder anyone.”
Would you consider failing to block entrance to an abortion clinic this week allowing someone else to murder?
"It’s become increasingly popular for Arminians to say the Calvinist God is worse than Hitler."
ReplyDeleteThat alone should tell you something about the quality of Arminian arguments.
Ito, it's not *just* permitting. It's permitting when you knew in advance about it, could have stopped it, are within your rights to stop it, and supposedly think it should be stopped.
ReplyDeleteSo suppose you have a neighbor who you know will kill his wife unless you step in. Suppose you have the power to stop him if you wanted to. Suppose further than you're there in the room while the murder takes place (since God is omnipresent). Moreover, suppose the killer cannot raise a muscle without your help, without your giving him the power to do so. You then permit the neighbor to murder the wife. That's the Arminian God.