Is God a monstrous madman?

Furthermore, Washington does not in any way benefit from the execution of Andre…

 

On the other hand, consider this analogy. Imagine a parent who is able to control each and every action of his children, and furthermore is able to do so by controlling their thoughts and inclinations. He is thus able to determine each and all actions taken by those children. He is also able to guarantee that they desire to do everything that they do, and this is exactly what he does. He puts them in a special playroom that contains not only toys but also gasoline and matches, and then he gives them explicit instructions (with severe warnings) to avoid touching the gasoline and matches. Stepping out of sight, he determines that the children indeed begin to play with the gasoline and matches. When the playroom is ablaze and the situation desperate, he rushes in to save them (well, some of them).

 

When they ask about the situation, their father tells them that this tragic occurrence had been determined by him, and indeed that it was a smashing success–it had worked out in exact accordance with his plan. He then reminds them of his instructions and warnings and he reminds them further that they willingly violated his commands. They should be grateful for their rescue, and they should understand that the others got what they deserved.

 

The children are puzzled by this, and one wants to know why such a compassionate father does not rescue the others (when it is clearly within his power to do so). His answer is this: this has happened so that everyone could see how smart he is (for being able to know how to do all this), how powerful he is (for being able to control everything and then effectively rescue them), how merciful he is (for rescuing the children who broke his rules), and how just he is (for leaving the others to their fate in the burning playroom).

 

Surely the fact that such a man is a monster is beyond dispute…And if he were to add that he did it for the good of his children, we would rightly consider him a madman as well as a moral monster.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/McCall.%20We%20Believe%20in%20God's%20Sovereign%20Goodness.pdf

Thomas McCall, “I Believe in God's Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper,” TrinJ 29.2 (Fall 2008): 241-42.

By way of reply:

i) McCall is critiquing John Piper’s two-wills model of Calvinism. I myself don’t subscribe to that model.

ii) Piper isn’t a philosopher, so there may be some weaknesses in Piper’s formulations. For instance, Jeremy Pierce is critical of how Piper formulates the self-glorification of God.

iii) I don’t know why McCall imagines that God is the beneficiary of election and reprobation. The elect are the beneficiaries.

Perhaps McCall is misled by the ambiguities of God doing something for his own glory. But God has nothing to gain. Rather, the elect gain from the manifestation of God’s glory.

iv) If McCall is alleging that the father in this scenario is monstrous simply because he determined the outcome, then that begs the question. In that event he’s treating as libertarianism as a given. But that’s something he needs to argue for.

v) His illustration is compromised by the parent/child metaphor. That’s designed to push the reader’s buttons. It’s ironic that a libertarian would try to coerce the reader through emotional manipulation.

And he isn’t consistent with the metaphor, for within the confines of his illustration, the children have, in fact, done nothing to deserve their fate.

vi) Even parent/child metaphors can backfire. When the Menendez brothers murder their parents, we shouldn’t feel sorry for the orphaned brothers!

vii) But if we trade the parent/child metaphor for a judge/felon metaphor, like a judge who sentences a trigger-man to death by hanging, that ought to provoke moral satisfaction in the verdict.

viii) Finally, McCall’s illustration is an extended metaphor, but it has a literal counterpart. In the real world there are real tykes who play with matches and accidentally set themselves on fire. Some of them burn to death while others survive, but are horribly maimed for life.

McCall’s Arminian God can see that coming. He knows what will happen unless he steps in to prevent it. McCall’s God has complete control over that situation. He can rescue every child who’s on the verge of self-immolation.

Indeed, he ultimately put them in that situation. He created a world in which he foresaw that outcome. By but going right ahead, he guaranteed the outcome. It’s inevitable that they will set themselves on fire unless he intervenes–which is clearly within his power to do. Why does he stand by and let the screaming child go up in flames?

Surely it’s not because McCall’s God must defer to their freewill. Aren’t young children in a condition of diminished responsibility? Isn’t that a presupposition of McCall’s hypothetical scenario? The children don’t know any better. Ther lack the cognitive development to appreciate the danger. Hence, it’s the duty of the father to protect his kids from playing with matches around gasoline. Hence, the father is culpable for exposing them to harm.

Well, shouldn’t McCall’s God be at least a conscientious a father as a human father ought to be under those circumstances? Shouldn’t McCall’s God look out for the welfare of little kids who are about to unwittingly commit self-immolation? So why isn’t McCall’s God a monster?