Friday, June 12, 2009

Fairly-tale eschatology


“Whatever our picture of hell, the fact is that God could do something to prevent the damned from suffering this fate, and God does not do it, at least on the Calvinist view”


“The picture of hell provided by Lewis's portrayal of Aslan and the Dwarfs is a picture where God presumably has given the Dwarfs freedom, and therefore cannot cancel out the use of that freedom to put themselves in a state of mind where they cannot receive what Aslan gives them. Aslan cannot break into their depraved hearts and convert them, because to do so would, presumably, violate their freedom. This conflicts directly with the doctrine of irresistible grace.”


“Now maybe the blessed aren't aware of the punishments of hell, or are only minimally aware. Whatever the awareness, the question ‘Can't God do something about this?’ still arises, so long as someone is aware that some people are suffering eternally.”

That not my call. Not my responsibility. None of my business.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that human beings should even have a say in the sentencing phase, it’s the victims who should have a say–not some human third party who is not, himself, the injured party.

“But do I want that punishment to be the last word? No, I now also want them to fully and completely repent. In fact, in order for them to repent, they've really got to look in the mirror and see what dreadful harm they have done and suffer for it.”

There’s a point beyond which compassion is a vice rather than a virtue. It’s decadent and effete. Indeed, there's a point beyond which it's downright evil to empathize with the plight of the wicked.

To have wholesale compassion for victims and assailants alike represents the abdication of moral discrimination. It’s an essentially amoral outlook.

Moreover, there’s a tension between your commitment to libertarian freewill and you incipient universalism. Universalism requires irresistible grace.

No comments:

Post a Comment