tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5417380723554681786..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Loving evil peopleRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79940246145455607302016-08-31T12:30:58.946-04:002016-08-31T12:30:58.946-04:00"You've neglected a significant component..."You've neglected a significant component of God's revelation of Himself. He isn't simply the transcendent Creator of the universe...He's also the immanent Father. You've framed the question of whether He must love anyone without considering His relationship to the objects of His love and wrath."<br /><br />You completely miss the point of the argument. It's not an issue of how I frame the question but how Jerry frames the question. He takes the position that for God to be "good" in any meaningful sense, his goodness must be recognizably good. What humans regard as good. Divine goodness must be analogous to human standards of goodness. He claims that God would not be good unless he loves everyone. And he appeals to moral intuition and general revelation.<br /><br />But where's the evidence that humans think a person can't be good unless he loves absolutely everyone, included sadistic killers? That's hardly a universal moral intuition. <br /><br />So there's a contradiction in Jerry's argument. Is God the standard of goodness–or the human perception of goodness? If divine goodness (as he defines it) is a corrective for our defective notions of goodness, then divine goodness isn't recognizably good. Rather, divine goodness is disanalogous to human goodness. Yet he attacks Calvinism based on the alleged disanalogy between divine and human standards of goodness. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36489786811851726362016-08-30T12:27:42.522-04:002016-08-30T12:27:42.522-04:00Is his position on hell some variant on "heav...Is his position on hell some variant on "heaven would be hell for someone who hates God, so he says to them 'Not my will, but your will be done." ?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230576503431727315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47635888102843049352016-08-29T15:46:35.523-04:002016-08-29T15:46:35.523-04:00Good points Steve. But do Arminians like Walls re...Good points Steve. But do Arminians like Walls really believe God loves all people in the same way? If they are consistent with their Arminian beliefs, don't they deep down really believe that God only loves people conditionally. That is he only loves those who meet the condition of faith and the rest he casts into hell? For example, if he had a rebellious child run into oncoming traffic would he wait at the curb for his child to meet a condition before he would help his child or would he run out into traffic at the risk of his life to make certain the child was safe, in spite of the child's will at the time because the parent knows better than the child what is good for him? Even in an everyday life example you can see that what he proposes as love is not what we think of as love at all. <br /><br />Yes God gives us conditions but in love, Jesus meets the conditions for us by giving us a new heart that believes, something we could not do for ourselves. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05188552152542948474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39527406617175252062016-08-29T13:14:59.823-04:002016-08-29T13:14:59.823-04:00You need to learn how to follow an argument. Pay a...You need to learn how to follow an argument. Pay attention.<br /><br />I was responding to Walls on his own grounds. His argument isn't based on the Gospel (as he construes it). Rather, his argument is based on his appeal to moral intuition and general revelation. Indeed, he uses that as a criterion to assess whether the Bible is true. <br /><br />So his position is inconsistent. On the one hand he appeals to extrabiblical moral intuitions. If, on the other hand he says that we need to reforming our faulty moral intuitions by realigning them with the Gospel, then those two principles tug in opposing directions. <br /><br />Consider what he says in Good God:<br /><br />We think of our argument as unapologetically appealing to general revelation… (67).<br /><br />Whereas biblical authority trumps in the realm of theological norms, there are more basic philosophical processes at play that hold logical priority in the realm of basic epistemology (67).<br /><br />The Bible is taken as authoritative in the realm of theological truth. But before we can rationally believe such a thing, as human beings privy to general revelation and endowed with the ability to think, we must weigh arguments and draw conclusions, that is, do philosophy (68).<br /><br />At a minimum, for example, scripture must be understood in a way that's consistent and coherent, not just internally, but also with what we know outside of scripture (76).<br /><br />What violates our reason or nonnegotiable moral intuitions in contrast, is beyond the pale and so irrational to believe (77).<br /><br />If the Bible did indeed teach such a doctrine [i.e. "unconditional reprobation"), wouldn't it be more rational to believe that it's not morally reliable? (78)?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19870432645304458792016-08-29T12:49:25.258-04:002016-08-29T12:49:25.258-04:00>> Isn't there a prima facie tension bet...>> Isn't there a prima facie tension between goodness and loving someone who embodies evil?<br /><br />This may be true of us, in our fallen state. We tend to be performance-driven, judging others based on their utility to ourselves and others. It seems a mistake to view God in the same way.<br /><br />You've neglected a significant component of God's revelation of Himself. He isn't simply the transcendent Creator of the universe...He's also the immanent Father. You've framed the question of whether He must love anyone without considering His relationship to the objects of His love and wrath. Adam loved Cain. David loved Absalom. Jesus loved Judas. When we consider His love in light of His self-identification as Father, it becomes clear that He *can* and likely *does* love everyone, irrespective of their actions toward Him and others.Tony Scialdonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05591896272326283950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31256973561041146132016-08-29T05:31:03.163-04:002016-08-29T05:31:03.163-04:00FWIW, he's written about Heaven, Hell, and Pur...FWIW, he's written about Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, and how they all fit together (from a philosophical perspective). John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23134801624671597242016-08-28T22:34:12.824-04:002016-08-28T22:34:12.824-04:00Very good point. Very good point. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77295473243681087772016-08-28T21:39:19.581-04:002016-08-28T21:39:19.581-04:00Why does God have hell at all according to Jerry? ...Why does God have hell at all according to Jerry? Why punish people you love, even if they reject you? Can't God just give them an eternity of the things they want, let them fill their sinful appetites with fleshy pleasures for all of time?<br /><br />I don't understand how someone like Jerry Walls accounts for hell at all, given his rhetoric on divine love.JeremiahZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021879988630319753noreply@blogger.com