But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish (Lk 16:25).
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom 8:18).
For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison (2 Cor 4:17).
The reversal of fortune is a common biblical motif. The aforementioned verses scratch the surface. However, I'm going to briefly consider an objection to eschatological compensation from a prominent atheist:
Keith Parsons
In one of my two debates with William Lane Craig I addressed his claim that heavenly bliss will compensate for earthly suffering. I used the example of an eccentric billionaire who would randomly choose victims, beat them bloody, but then compensate them with a ten million dollar check. My point was that even if the victim later agreed that he was better off after the beating plus the ten million than he would have been with no beating and no ten million, the beating was still, obviously, unjustified. My point was that future rewards, however lavish, and however deserved, do not make an injustice right…In principle, NO degree of compensation can make a wrong right. To think otherwise is like thinking that a lie can be made true if the liar is perfectly honest the rest of his life.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/02/05/youre-just-being-obstinate-no-you-you/#comment-1238460373
There are several glaring problems with this argument:
i) He's using an example of gratuitous evil. A sadist who chooses innocent victims at random because he gets his kicks by inflicting pain on others. But that's disanalogous to Biblical theism. In Scripture, the suffering of the innocent has a worthy purpose in the plan of God. And God is well-motivated, not ill-motivated.
ii) There's a failure to distinguish between being wronged and suffering wrong. Even if I am wronged, that doesn't entail that God wronged me. Joseph's brothers wronged him by selling him into slavery. Their motivation was sinful. They resented him. But God's motive in orchestrating the chain of events was quite different than theirs.
iii) I can imagine situations where compensation is a justifying factor. Suppose a hostile state launches an unprovoked war of aggression against a neighboring state. The neighboring state has a right, indeed, an obligation, to defend itself. A duty to protect its citizens against attack.
Suppose a citizen of the neighboring state has a strategically valuable property. The neighboring state seizes his property, both to keep it out of enemy hands, and to use it as a base of operations. The value of the property is degraded due to warfare. However, after the neighboring state wins the counteroffensive, the citizen is generously compensated for his loss.
It was unjust, yet justifiable, to seize his property, then compensate him. Seizing his property was necessary to defend the country against the aggressor. So even though the citizen suffered an injustice by losing his property, the seizure was justifiable under those circumstances. Even so, justice demands restitution for his loss.
I'm not saying that's exactly parallel to eschatological compensations. Rather, I'm using this to illustrate the fact that, as a matter of principle, heavenly rewards can rightly compensate for earthly suffering or injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment