Stephen J. Graham@sjggrahamSuppose God sent to Hell everyone who was born in South America before 10am. The rest of us go to heaven. Is there any reason on Calvinism to think there is anything wrong with God holding people morally accountable for being born in South America before 10am?Secular Outpost RetweetedStephen J. Graham@sjggrahamCan South Americans born before 10am complain to their creator "Why did you make me thus?" Who are they that they should talk back to God? (cf Romans 9:20)Stephen J. Graham@sjggrahamI'm asking whether it makes any moral sense for God to hold someone accountable for something beyond their control. I don't think the issue is about divine command ethics.
I wouldn't normally comment on some random tweet by an atheist, by since this was retweeted by Jeff Lowder at the Secular Outpost, I'll bite:
i) God wouldn't be holding folks morally accountable for when and where they are born, but for their sin. For instance, if an arsonist trips a silent alarm, and the police arrest him before he had a chance to get away, he wasn't held accountable for his poor timing. That's an incidental circumstance.
ii) Since many South Americans are Christians, it would be morally wrong for God to damn them. For one thing, God would be breaking his promise to save those who trust in Jesus.
ii) In addition, it would be wrong for God to damn those whom Christ redeemed. Since Christ atoned for the sins of Christians (i.e. the elect), there's no judicial basis for damning them. Admittedly, some professing Christians are nominal Christians, but I'm referring to the elect.
iii) Hence, Rom 9:20 doesn't apply.
iv) Sometimes we're responsible for things beyond our control and sometimes not. Depends on the example. If a mother leaves her newborn baby on my doorstep, I'm not responsible for the child in the sense that I'm not its father. And I didn't create that situation. But having been thrust into a situation not of my own choosing, I'm responsible to see to it that the newborn doesn't die on my doorstep from exposure or predation.
Another question to ask is, does God have an obligation to save every South American (or whatever other national group one wants to insert here)? If so, on what basis or grounds?
ReplyDeleteFaith in Christ :P
DeleteIf only every South American did have faith in Christ...!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow...look at you guys hanging out talking about me! (I'm just trying to remember who the hell "Jonathan" is and is there more to his story as to why I unfollowed him...)
ReplyDeleteSorry for the personal remarks, Stephen. I can see now that they are gossipy.
ReplyDeleteMy original post w/o the gossip:
DeleteStephen J Graham is a Christian philosopher.
He self-identifies as a skeptic who's edging into agnosticism.
DeleteI identify as a sceptic PRESBYTERIAN. My "agnosticism" is related to the fact that I'm less willing to take firm positions on many doctrines. In the same context I mentioned this I also said I adhered to "mere Christianity." Did you miss that part or are you deliberately/carelessly misrepresenting me? Steve, you can ask me questions about this, I'm not your enemy and will gladly provide you with correct information without you having to speculate on your blog.
DeleteLet's just say it's not exactly ideal when there are a lot of people who can't tell if you're more skeptic or Christian or something else.
DeleteIt's not too difficult to find out as long as you are committed to reading the work of a person rather than basing your opinion on a few tweets. I have no idea if you're an atheist or a Christian, but I could easily find out before writing inaccuracies. That's my point. But perhaps this blog isn't where the principle of charity is to be found.
ReplyDeleteI've read your blog as well as your tweets.
DeleteAnyway, it sounds like you're trying to turn this around and make it into some kind of a personal attack against you. But whether you're a Christian or an atheist or something else is hardly the main point of the above post.
Rather, the main point of Steve Hays' post is his responses to your objections. Thus far you haven't dealt with the substance of Steve Hays' responses to your tweets.
I don't have any interest in responding to Steve's musings. My tweets have lead to an interesting exchange with an academic Calvinist and I'm content to pursue that. I don't regard Steve's comments as a "personal attack," just inaccurate and in need of correction. That's all. Peace.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's your prerogative not to respond.
DeleteHowever, your choice not to respond to Steve's points means either you don't want to respond or you aren't able to respond. If the former, then a good reason might be because you don't like to engage in online debates. But in that case it's odd to say the least because you initiated an online debate with the questions in your tweets. Not to mention you've expended some time and effort to "correct" Steve on a peripheral point as well as to interact with others here.
You said you're content interacting with an "academic Calvinist" in lieu of this. Perhaps you prefer to respond to academics, not non-academics. If so, that's too bad, because good arguments are good arguments regardless of who made the good arguments. In addition, Steve Hays is an "academic Calvinist" if publications in academic journals and books mean anything.
Hence, this would seem to leave the best explanation for why you don't respond to Steve's points being because you aren't able to respond - or least that's not an unreasonable inference to make.