The greatest truth ever known to man is quite obviously the Good News of our salvation. The Lord Jesus came to be our sinless substitute, providing the necessary payment for sin through his death, resurrecting three days later. Now, through the work of the Holy Spirit, those whom he calls may abide in him and he in them.
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9 ESV)
But this Good News is not always received as such. All who reject the gospel do so because they have some other explanation for ultimate reality. But there are those who, in the name of spirituality, reimage the gospel to make it fit a particular moral view of earthly living. Redemption in this sense takes on the form of compassion in the name of neighbor love, but that’s as far as it goes. This essentially describes the social gospel, a public ethic concerned specifically with justice and generosity. The social gospel usually finds its basis in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6) and other famed passages of scripture that reflect on peace, justice, and generosity toward others. Unfortunately, these passages of scripture are taken out of their original context and presented to both church and culture without reference to the Author of our salvation. The renowned quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi sums up well the social gospel paradigm: “Share the gospel, use words if necessary.”
Imagine if those involved in the movement to end world hunger were instructed to “use food if necessary” or those seeking to end homelessness were instructed to “use shelter if necessary.” Likely you would think these directives are ridiculous. So why are words optional for the gospel? We should never find ourselves speechless when it comes to the gospel. Even further, we should always be prepared to respond with the words of the apostle Paul, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14) In a social gospel/social justice paradigm, words are only incidental to the tangible displays of kindness and generosity, seemingly sourced in the finiteness of the human will.
Before going any further, let me be clear that the expected expression of the Christian worldview is of words and works. Ours is not a gospel without tangible mercies poured out on those in need, we are called to impact hearts, minds and lives. The book of James specifically reminds us any other practice is a dead faith. But conversely, a gospel with works and no message of faith and repentance is a sham.
Some try to reimage the gospel in the name of Christianity, holding that a truly loving God demonstrates love, not through the sacrifice of his Son but through the sacrifice of truth. This is expressed by God through intellectual generosity in the form of tolerance for religious and moral diversity. By appealing to arguments of Jesus’ marginalization during his public ministry, they seek to accommodate the “marginalized” of our time, a hermeneutical strategy instituted by churches that, for example, promote themselves as “queer inclusive.” Since Jesus was excluded from the ranks of general public acceptance, those with a moral perspective outside the moral schema of biblical Christianity claim to identify more closely with Jesus, and therefore, promote this gospel of radical inclusion. Theirs is a “gospel” concerned with an understanding of redemption that has little to do with eternity but encourages men and women to do what is right “in [their] own eyes” (Judges 21:25).The Jesus that accompanies this gospel would want to mingle with sinners simply for the sake of mingling with sinners without any eternal ulterior motives. He has no desire to challenge them to pursue holiness and experience renewal in His image. With this sort of pandering, this Jesus could make a successful run for office. Sadly, this Jesus does not call anyone to repentance and makes a mockery of the cross. This is a reimaged Jesus not found in the pages of scripture.
The truth is the Good News of scripture actually weeds out religious and moral diversity. His children are all brought, through justification and then the process of sanctification within God’s holy parameters. God’s character is the determiner of all that is good, so to tamper with the meaning and application of the gospel is ultimately to reimage the character of God according to fallen human specifications. The problem is, who wants to worship a god created in the image of fallen man, ultimately unworthy of worship?
In the recent book, Taking Flight: Reclaiming the Female Half of God’s Image through Advocacy and Renewal, contributor Linda Mader writes that
Jesus’ life exemplified unconditional inclusion, willing submission, humble service, and self-sacrificial love. His life demonstrated the way of the kingdom, not only with miraculous signs, but also with radical inclusion of those at the margins of society. (p. 18)
This raises several critical questions: Who are those on the margins of society? Is she referring to inclusion without expectation for change? While this book is asking the questions in the context of women’s leadership in the church, there are others “at the margins of society” clearly in mind for this “radical inclusion.” This book provides arguments for women’s leadership argued primarily from a cultural standpoint. From here, arguments for all kinds of positions can be made.
Christians—and those that claim to be—often find themselves attracted to the idea of religious and moral diversity because they have a romanticized view of God’s truth rooted in a frail understanding of his love. Because he is a loving God, they wonder how someone not lucky enough to be raised in a Christian culture could go to hell. Given the tendency to want to save God from his own character flaws, inclusivist practices are developed to make God appear more compassionate—the source of the social gospel—but without any sense of the spiritual damage being inflicted.
The Gospel was never intended to conform to our expectations; it is a message of unparalleled love that provides a source of hope in this life and the next—on God’s terms. The Gospel is about the cause of Christ, his work in us to make us presentable to the most holy God. We are called to renewal and to be conformed to the image of Christ. This requires a spiritual change, but what makes this radical is that the gospel anticipates changes in how we live—a radical exclusion of our former ways of living. Jesus wants us to come, but then to go and sin no more.
June 21st, 2011 | 12:13 pm | #1
A brilliant post. Well-worth reading and acknowledging.
I like this:
“The truth is the Good News of scripture actually weeds out religious and moral diversity.”
June 21st, 2011 | 5:18 pm | #2
Really well said. Thank you.
June 21st, 2011 | 5:24 pm | #3
Excellent–thank you!
June 21st, 2011 | 6:09 pm | #4
I wonder what the Dalai Lama would think of this post?
June 21st, 2011 | 6:56 pm | #5
I wonder what God would think of what the Dalai Lama would think of this post?
June 21st, 2011 | 7:46 pm | #6
1 Peter 3:1 If any obey not the word, they may be won without a word by your behavior.
I think that is what Francis was pointing at with his “preaching the gospel without words.” But I could be wrong.
However, not everyone who confesses “Lord, Lord” obeys His commands. Jesus says they won’t be saved. Salvation requires obedience. As this article concludes, “This requires a spiritual change, but what makes this radical is that the gospel anticipates changes in how we live—a radical exclusion of our former ways of living. Jesus wants us to come, but then to go and sin no more”–a very Catholic thing to say, I think. :)
June 21st, 2011 | 8:03 pm | #7
Actually Francis never said that and did not practice it. He preached a lot. It’s one of those unquenchable Christian myths…
June 22nd, 2011 | 12:58 am | #8
On God’s Terms: The Gospel and Radical Exclusion
Isn’t this such a wonderful title?
o On God’s Terms! Not our terms.
o Radical Exclusion! Whoa! Not just exclusion, but…
a Radical Exclusion!
I feel the love, baby!
June 22nd, 2011 | 10:34 am | #9
“Isn’t this such a wonderful title?
o On God’s Terms! Not our terms.
o Radical Exclusion! Whoa! Not just exclusion, but…
a Radical Exclusion!
I feel the love, baby!”
Uh…accepting it is one thing, but for the sake of good taste could you at least be somewhat less enthusiastic about other people’s potential damnation?
June 22nd, 2011 | 11:13 am | #10
You don’t think the title of this post is in “good taste”?
June 22nd, 2011 | 5:01 pm | #11
My piece isn’t intended to celebrate exclusion (except that we should always celebrate God’s standards), but I’m weary of the celebration of inclusion and Christians who compromise on it.
June 22nd, 2011 | 7:01 pm | #12
Do you believe that God sacrificed his own son so that He’d have an excuse to leave most of humanity in the last few seconds of burning to death for eternity? I object to exclusivism because exclusivists get such pleasure out of contemplating the rest of us — even if we call ourselves Christians — being tortured forever because we disagree with a point of doctrine. It’s the torture part, not the exclusive part that’s the problem.
June 22nd, 2011 | 8:04 pm | #13
I’m glad I’m saved by election alone. Three cheers for Calvinism!
June 22nd, 2011 | 9:21 pm | #14
If Christianity is true, then it must be exclusively true. I’ve been saying that on my recent posts here, too. And if God is, then “On God’s Terms” is entirely appropriate. An Episcopal priest said to a professor of mine, “You worship God your way, and I’ll worship him his.” It’s not just a cute twist on a cliché, it contains real wisdom; for it’s foolish to think we could come to God disregarding what he has told us about himself and the manner of our approach. It’s foolish to think we could come to him on our terms and call that worship.
June 23rd, 2011 | 2:56 am | #15
While I certainly commend Sarah Flashing on her well written post, I feel the need to make a few points.
Clearly, intellectual coherence demands that we realize that, Christianity being true, other truth claims that contradict Christianity, must be false. The law of noncontradiction cannot be violated.
However, it does not necessarily follow that Chrisitanity’s truth, requires anyone who’s non-Chrisitian, to be sent to Hell.
There seems to be some tension, in what Sarah states, and the freedom of the will, that many Christians, presuppose for one to become a Christian. She states:”Because He is a loving God, they wonder how someone not lucky enough to be raised in a Chrisitan culture, could go to Hell.”
If one must either choose to accept the Gospel or not, how can it make sense, to assume God will not save those who would say yes to the Gospel, if given the chance, but through no fault of their own, happen to not have the opportunity to do so?
That is, does it make any sense to argue that, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, or the countless billions of people who lived prior to Christ, should go to Hell, because they happened to have not lived in a Chrisitian culture?
Please clarify your position here. Thanks.
June 23rd, 2011 | 4:38 am | #16
I think that Christ’s work is necessary or all and any to be saved, but we need to be careful in going beyond that. Certainly there are normal means such as hearing the Gospel, being baptized, etc., but why can’t we live with the mystery of extraordinary means? There is no compromising in what I have said. Christ and His work are absolutely necessary, but how one is saved beyond that is not always clear. The thief on the Cross is a grea example. He was not evangelized, baptized, or catechized, but we have our Lord’s assurance that he is in Paradise. Many cannot hear the Gospel because they literally cannot hear. Some do not know the language in which the Gospel is being given. Nevertheless, God is offering salvation to all. And that, my friends, is how babies are saved.
June 23rd, 2011 | 5:31 am | #17
Orthodoxj: Excellent comments.
June 23rd, 2011 | 10:55 am | #18
[...] On God’s Terms: The Gospel and Radical Exclusion, Evangel (Sarah Flashing) [...]
June 23rd, 2011 | 1:01 pm | #19
Dear Orthodoxdj:
Your comments seem clear, compassionate, and orthodox.
You are in deep trouble.
June 23rd, 2011 | 4:00 pm | #20
Bret and Craig,
I think we’re agreeing too much. We should pick something to argue about.
June 23rd, 2011 | 4:08 pm | #21
You could argue about whether you’re agreeing too much.
;-)
June 23rd, 2011 | 7:38 pm | #22
“You don’t think the title of this post is in “good taste”?
I don’t think the comment “radical exclusion, I feel the love baby” is in good taste.
June 23rd, 2011 | 9:59 pm | #23
Sarah, I think you hit on a great point with this article. How much time is spent in Christian writing/thinking/churches etc on trying to redefine what God means? Why isn’t the Bible enough?
As Paul said in 2 Timothy, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. Why spend time trying to add culture in, instead of spending that time better learning Scripture?
June 24th, 2011 | 2:34 am | #24
Agreement on a blog? How boring :-)
June 24th, 2011 | 12:24 pm | #25
Orthodoxdj: “I’m glad I’m saved by election alone. Three cheers for Calvinism!“
Hip, hip, hooray for Calvinism!
Hip, Hip, Hooray for Calvinism!
HIP, HIP, HOORAY for Calvinism!
June 24th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #26
Bret Lythgoe: “If one must either choose to accept the Gospel or not, how can it make sense, to assume God will not save those who would say yes to the Gospel, if given the chance, but through no fault of their own, happen to not have the opportunity to do so?
That is, does it make any sense to argue that, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, or the countless billions of people who lived prior to Christ, should go to Hell, because they happened to have not lived in a Chrisitian culture?”
Bret,
So you affirm that the many, many people who have had a chance to accept the Gospel, but who have knowingly and willfully rejected it do go to Hell, yes?
June 24th, 2011 | 5:31 pm | #27
TUAD,
In your framework the only people who “accept” the Gospel are the only ones who can. The ones who “reject” the Gospel do so because they cannot receive it. Somehow that’s just, loving, and righteous.
June 24th, 2011 | 5:45 pm | #28
This is not what historic orthodox Christianity claims. To justify his claims that there is no hell, Bret builds a straw man of the Christian position and seeks to punch holes in it. The Scriptures are clear: everyone knows God and will be held accountable and without excuse, whether they have lived in the Christian era or not.
June 24th, 2011 | 6:16 pm | #29
“In your framework the only people who “accept” the Gospel are the only ones who can. The ones who “reject” the Gospel do so because they cannot receive it. Somehow that’s just, loving, and righteous.”
Not my framework; God’s Terms. And His Terms are indeed “just, loving, and righteous.” As Steve Drake just wrote: “The Scriptures are clear: everyone knows God and will be held accountable and without excuse, whether they have lived in the Christian era or not.”
As such, you are to be commended for sincerely writing:
“I’m glad I’m saved by election alone. Three cheers for Calvinism!“
June 24th, 2011 | 7:16 pm | #30
TUAD,
If your view of God is correct, then God is the author of evil. Have fun enjoying the author of evil for all eternity. I wonder what Hell really is if it means being separated from the author of evil. That might make Hell preferable. Not that I have a choice, anyway.
June 24th, 2011 | 7:19 pm | #31
Steve,
Will this be a valid excuse for rejecting the Gospel? “I wasn’t able to respond.”
June 24th, 2011 | 7:41 pm | #32
Orthodoxdj,
Why do you say that God is the Author of Evil?
June 24th, 2011 | 8:33 pm | #33
Ortho,
To stand before God at death or judgement, whichever comes first, and say to God, “I never had the chance and never heard, or was never able to respond’, is to mock the God that has placed the knowledge of himself in all and deny the evidence in the world around him that is plain. I can’t see God falling for this.
June 24th, 2011 | 9:12 pm | #34
Steve,
Do you believe that everyone CAN respond to the Gospel?
June 24th, 2011 | 9:13 pm | #35
TUAD,
My argument is that your view of God and salvation ultimately makes God responsible for evil.
June 24th, 2011 | 9:15 pm | #36
Ortho,
Are you trying to make a case that those born congenital invalids in mind, or something of that sort, excuses the clear implications of Romans 1:18-32?
June 24th, 2011 | 9:22 pm | #37
Orthodoxdj,
Did God create you?
June 24th, 2011 | 9:48 pm | #38
@Steve
I’m wondering if you believe that when people reject God that it’s because they were not able to by divine decree.
@TUAD
God made me through the pro-cretion of my parents. He did not make me into an evil being by virtue of my existence.
June 24th, 2011 | 9:50 pm | #39
Ortho,
Well, what does Romans 1:18-32 indicate to you? I guess you’re saying you understand it differently than I do. If so, how?
June 25th, 2011 | 1:42 am | #40
“@TUAD
God made me through the pro-cretion of my parents.”
Orthodoxdj, do you commit sin?
June 25th, 2011 | 2:50 am | #41
TUAD: thanks for your comments. My point was/is that, given the assumption that one must have a choice to accept or reject the Gospel, it makes little sense, to send someone to Hell, if he/she has not had a chance to know anything about it, but would accept it, if he/she heard about it.
But to answer your question, I don’t believe that those who don’t know about the Gospel, or if they do know about it, and subsequently reject it, will go to Hell, IF one defines “Hell” as physical place of eternal torment, or even separation from God.
I think one can interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”, as referring to a temporary place of punishment, as the Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seems to have.
June 25th, 2011 | 3:18 am | #42
Steve Drake: good to talk with you, again! I hope all is great with you.
I was merely taking Sarah Flashing’s sentence, and showing it’s implications. Specifically, she says: “Because he is a loving God,they wonder how someone not lucky enough to be raised in a Christian culture could go to hell.”
Now, this statement clearly implies that, in order to be saved, one must live in a Christian environment, so that one can accept Christ, and if one is not in a Christian environment, and therefore knows nothing of Christ, and therefore cannot accept Him, one will go to hell. You seem to disagree with this, Steve. Based on your comments to Orthodoxj, you seem to be claiming that, all people know God, and if they then reject God, then they will go to Hell. Therefore, if Plato, accepts God, he’s saved. Is this a correct interpretation, of your view?
Are you saying that one must, if one knows of Christ, or has no legitimate reason to not know of Him (they lived one He did, or after), explicitly accept Him, in order to be saved, but others, who, through no fault of their own, don’t know of Him, still can be saved, because everyone knows of God?
Do fetuses, babies, toddlers, know of God? And if so, how do they derive this knowledge? Or does one’s knowledge of God, as Aquinas pointed out, in his SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, start with empirical reality, and then one concludes that this empirical reality must be caused by God? If so, this presupposes a certain level of cognitive development, on the part of the believing human, that is nonexistent, at the fetus, baby, toddler, or with some people, any human cognitive stage of development.
Is Paul infallible? I think only God is. The notion that, everyone knows of God, is just not true. Bertrand Russell, Francis Crick, and many, many others don’t know of him. Is it presumptuous, for us to say that they “really” do?
With respect to my last comments, to TUAD, Balthasar may have believed that Hell is a temporary place, or it’s permanent, but few, if any go there, but we should hope that no one does.
June 25th, 2011 | 5:40 am | #43
Q: “Bret,
So you affirm that the many, many people who have had a chance to accept the Gospel, but who have knowingly and willfully rejected it do go to Hell, yes?”
A: “But to answer your question, I don’t believe that those who don’t know about the Gospel, or if they do know about it, and subsequently reject it, will go to Hell, IF one defines “Hell” as physical place of eternal torment, or even separation from God.
I think one can interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”, as referring to a temporary place of punishment, as the Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seems to have.”
——-
“I think one can interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”"…
“I think one CAN interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”…
Bret, why not just say “I CAN interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”, as referring to a temporary place of punishment, as the Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seems to have”
instead of “I think one can interpret scriptures that discuss “Hell”…?
Why not just own up to what you yourself personally believe and advocate?
Like this: “I can interpret Scriptures that discuss “Hell”, as referring to a temporary place of punishment, as the Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seems to have.”
Further, let’s note that you put the word Hell inside quotation marks.
Lastly, let’s remind ourselves of the first three words of this post:
On God’s Terms.
Versus
Bret: “I can interpret Scriptures that discuss “Hell”, as referring to a temporary place of punishment, as the Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar seems to have.”
God’s terms versus Bret’s terms.
——–
“Is Paul infallible? I think only God is.”
Is Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar infallible? I think only God is.
June 25th, 2011 | 6:49 am | #44
TUAD: I fully own up to the belief that God, being infinitely Good, and having infinite mercy, would never send anyone to a place where they would suffer forever. I fully believe that.
I also consider the notion, although it’s certainly more humane than the view that there’s a physical location where one is punished forever, that one is forever separated from God, to be false.
June 25th, 2011 | 8:11 am | #45
Bret,
The universalism at the heart of the theory that there is no Hell is a false doctrine that the church has fought for centuries. It’s a postmodern hermeneutic that obscures the clarity of Scripture. The error is asserting and overemphasizing one narrow point of truth, let’s say God’s love, as negating other divine truths stressed in Scripture, say God’s holiness and wrath. The Pharisees and other religious teachers in the New Testament used a similar approach to teach an opposite error. They overemphasized God’s law to the exclusion of His grace. There is no more deadly means of spiritual deception than mingling some unbalanced aspect of truth with a system of false doctrine.
Our Scriptures highlight the goodness and the severity of God–His love as well as His wrath. God’s hatred of sin is an essential aspect of His love for righteouness. And Scripture does speak clearly on these matters.
June 25th, 2011 | 8:35 am | #46
Steve,
There’s no place in scripture, where it specifies that one will go to a certain destination, away from God, FOREVER.
It talks about a place, translated as “hell”, where one will go, if one doesn’t repent. But there’s no scripture that states that one will be there, for all eternity. This is crucial.
I think it’s important to realize that, God’s “wrath”, is nothing like the emotion that we feel. Indeed, any emotion or trait He possesses, is merely analogous to ours, as Aquinas pointed out.
You’re right, God does hate sin, hence the need for a temporary place of learning/punishment. But there’s no need to argue that this place is a permanent residence for the sinner.
To clarify, something, Steve, do you believe that Hell is an actual physical location, where eternal pain, is inflicted on the damned, or separation from God, or what?
Scripture is interpreted, Steve. And many areas are ambiguous, and therefore people will come up with different interpretations. Of course, only one interpretation is correct.
It’s simply not the case that the notion of a hell, where one goes to be punished FOREVER, is the only, or even the best interpretation, of scripture.
June 25th, 2011 | 10:46 am | #47
Bret wrote:
“I was merely taking Sarah Flashing’s sentence, and showing it’s implications. Specifically, she says: “Because he is a loving God,they wonder how someone not lucky enough to be raised in a Christian culture could go to hell.”
Now, this statement clearly implies that, in order to be saved, one must live in a Christian environment, so that one can accept Christ, and if one is not in a Christian environment, and therefore knows nothing of Christ, and therefore cannot accept Him, one will go to hell. You seem to disagree with this, Steve.”
Actually, you’re not reading that correctly. A very common complaint of Christianity that I frequently hear is the assumption that one must be lucky enough to be raised in a Christian environment to become a Christian. This is often backed up by them pointing to the cultures defined by other worldviews, like Islam for example. Their assertion and observation about the make-up of other cultures is then used as evidence that either Christians have God wrong–he really couldn’t be as loving as we claim–or there is no God at all. My response to this complaint is always multi-faceted, but in general I point out the flawed understanding of God’s love (when holding his love to our standards) as well as the fact that Christians have been and continue to be raised up in other cultures defined primarily by other religious perspectives. Sometimes there are Christians (and some who claim to be Christian) who hold this perspective and obviously shouldn’t. That was the point of that paragraph.
June 25th, 2011 | 12:23 pm | #48
Bret, please read Revelation 14:11.
June 25th, 2011 | 2:29 pm | #49
“I fully own up to the belief that God, being infinitely Good, and having infinite mercy, would never send anyone to a place where they would suffer forever. I fully believe that.”
Problem: God doesn’t “send” the sinner to damnation. The sinner sends himself to hell. Hell is a choice, a choice to be away from God. I am a full-on proponent of libertarian free will, which I believe God gave to humanity, and I reject any notion that God chooses the destiny of hell for those who don’t believe. The unrepentant choose that themselves.
June 25th, 2011 | 6:26 pm | #50
Sarah J. Flashing: Thanks for your comments. Do you accept Steve’s assertion then, that all people really know God, and one does not necessarily have to explicitly accept Christ as one’s personal savior to be “saved”? The corollary of this, being that, one could live prior to Christ and still be saved?
June 25th, 2011 | 6:56 pm | #51
Tom, thanks for the biblical quote. It’s hard to decipher its meaning. It states that, those who worship the “beast”, will have “torment”. And that this will be “forever”.
It’s certainly understandable that people would interpret this to support the belief that hell is a permanent place for some.
It’s hard know what to make of this passage. Does it mean that, one must explicitly worship satan,to receive this “torment”?
Does it mean only avowed satanists will go to hell? If not, what other biblical passage supports that nonsatanists, who reject Christ will go to hell, forever?
And if hell is a matter of choice, who in his/her right mind would choose to be “tormented” “forever”.
It’s hard to know, since I’m not a biblical scholar, how much of this, if any of it, to interpret literally. But it seems that, if one interprets it literally, one must conclude that, and I’m not being facetious here, either those who worship animals (beasts, in the english translation) or the devil, are the only ones that go to hell, forever. I would like to know its exact meaning in the greek original, and if english, and other translations have been faithful to the original.
Also, I just don’t believe that the bible was meant to be infallible. It could be the case that, the author or authors of Revelations, were speaking in a particular historical context, and it’s a mistake to conclude that he/they were speaking for all people at all times, but I don’t know, I’m not an expert by any means.
June 25th, 2011 | 7:13 pm | #52
Nickolai: Thanks for your comments. I’m curious: do you accept the revelations quote, 14:11, provided by Tom, as a biblical basis for some people going to hell forever?
And if so, in light of your comments that we choose to go to hell, forever?
Would any sane person choose to suffer eternal torment, as described in this passage? And if they would, wouldn’t a merciful God intervene, analogous to someone choosing to run out in front of traffic, or kill herself with a shotgun. And certainly these latter two examples, as horrible as they are, aren’t anywhere near as horrible as suffering eternal torment.
As the philosopher Marilyn mcCord Adams, has said, God would never leave such a momentous decision, of one’s eternal destiny, to the person in question.
think of it this way: God is our Father, and like an earthly father has responsibility for the decisions of his two year old daughter, and will make them for her, because the latter lacks the maturity to know what’s in her best interests, God the Father won’t allow us to choose to go to eternal seperation from him. With our finite, fallible, brains, we cannot possibly have the maturity to know what’s in our eternal interests.
June 25th, 2011 | 7:39 pm | #53
Dear Bret: If you do not know this, I want to tell you something: My perception is that you are running smack into yourself on these blogs. Or, to put it another way, you are not doing yourself any favors.
(1) On the one hand, you are obviously thoughtful and can make interesting and helpful comments.
(2) On the other hand, you have to know that your comments regarding the Bible and Christian theology make it way too easy for folks to dismiss you altogether. Which would be a shame, because of (1), above.
I don’t know what the solution to this would be, and of course you are free to make any comments you want to. However, you should know that when you write things such as “I just don’t believe that the bible was meant to be infallible,” a whole lot of people will write off ALL of your comments, on any other subject.
If, on the other hand, you are purposefully being a bit provocative, then carry on. But from your general demeanor on these threads, I don’t think that this is your aim?
June 25th, 2011 | 7:46 pm | #54
Bret,
I do not want to try to speak for Mr. Volk, but I think it wouldn’t matter what God says or does to the unrepentant. The fact is, wanting to avoid torment is not the same as repenting. Fear can be a place to start, but it cannot be the end. Revelation uses highly symbolic and hyperbolic languge, so let’s just make things simple: would someone choose eternal torment? Why? Why would someone choose anything that has a negative outcome? Why do many drug addicts choose to stay addicted? At some point we become our choices. God cannot make us change against our wills, and at some point our wills will be actualized.
June 25th, 2011 | 7:59 pm | #55
Craig, thank you for your suggestions. No, I’m trying to be provocative. I honestly believe that. I would hope that the readers/commenters are more willing to open their minds to different points of view. And I believe that they are.
but on the other hand, for those who consider the infallibility of the Bible unquestionable, you’re right, they won’t be open to my points. Which seems to indicate that they seem to be closed, in principle, to arguments against infallibility, and other biblical issues, meaning that, regardless of how I word it, then wouldn’t be convinced anyway.
June 25th, 2011 | 8:07 pm | #56
Orthojoxj: i see what you’re saying, and I agree that, yes, at some point we become our choices. But, as I mentioned above, Prof. Adams (who incidently is a well respected scholar of william of occam) made the point that, such a momentous choice of where to spend eternity, cannot be left to mere humans.
We live in a highly libertarian culture, and there’s the propensity, among at least some, to think that anyone ought to be able to make any choice that he wishes. This seems reasonable, but when it comes to extremes, such as whether to kill oneself, use cocaine, and the choice, that trumps all, in its implications, where to spend eternity, our choices are bound to not be in our best interests. And it’s clearly in no one’s best interest to spend eternity, away from God.
June 25th, 2011 | 8:09 pm | #57
Craig, sorry, I meant to say I’m not trying to be provocative. Freudian slip? ;-)
June 25th, 2011 | 11:33 pm | #58
Hi Bret, I haven’t had time to read every comment today, but I don’t accept the assertion that Christ saves all whether or not he is acknowledged. That all people know about God is not a salvific knowledge, but it does establish a personal responsibility. I’m not sure life before the Incarnation is a fair corollary because for those who did live prior to Christ, there was among God-fearers a messianic hope and grace was imaged through the sacrificial system.
June 26th, 2011 | 1:08 am | #59
Orthodoxdj, do you commit sin?
June 26th, 2011 | 1:19 am | #60
“Orthodoxdj, do you commit sin?”
With all due respect to Orthodoxdj, I feel I can speak for him here because he is a human and not a robot: yes. All humans commit sin. Not sure what that has to do with his point.
Bret,
I think your point leads to (a) a sort of “positive fatalism” (a critique brought against Rob Bell’s latest, let’s say “book,” that he himself acknowledged yet failed to respond to) and (b) an undermining of the life we live here.
On (a), the implication of your argument is that no matter what we do, we will all be saved in the end. I think that, although it’s technically a “good” end in that no one is suffering, I think the graver implication is that none of us really have free will. To reiterate what I said earlier, I believe (as you do, it seems) that God gives humanity the choice to choose whether or not God’s love is what we want. Obviously we all agree it should be what we want, but some don’t think that is the case. I don’t think it’s free will to say, “I give you the choice, but if you choose wrongly, I step in and correct for you.”
This ties directly into (b). This contention of yours that “some choices are just out of our hands” seems rather ridiculous to me. I don’t think Jesus would send us out on the Great Commission if we don’t actually have any choice regarding our eternal salvation. Moreover, I think it cheapens the life we have here because nothing we do here ultimately matters except within this realm, because it creates this divide between good we do now and the life that we live after the fact. I don’t think those are to be bifurcated, however. I think they are innately bound, and that’s why the Christian walk is so important.
June 26th, 2011 | 10:36 am | #61
(Per Nikolai Volk)
Orthodoxdj,
You commit sin. Are you the Author/Creator of your sin or is God the Author/Creator of your sin?
June 26th, 2011 | 1:58 pm | #62
Dear TUAD: In traditional Christian theology, sin is not an actually existing entity in itself. So humans are not the Author/Creator of their sin, but on the other hand, neither is God.
Sin is a privation of the goodness endowed by God in creation. God is the Author/Creator of goodness.
June 26th, 2011 | 6:17 pm | #63
Sarah, thank you for your response. You’ve obviously considered these issues intelligently, and carefully.
I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying, but it seems like you’re claiming that, belief in God is a necessary precursor to belief in Christ, and those who believe in God, have a responsibility to seek out Christ. But I’ll let you clarify/correct your views.
I’m a little unclear concerning your views of those who lived prior to Christ. Are they saved, in your view?
June 26th, 2011 | 6:52 pm | #64
Nickolai: Thank you, for your intelligent comments. I do believe that we will all be saved in the end, but I don’t think that this implies that, what we do here is meaningless or unimportant. I understand why this could be a concern. Certainly, if we take an analogy, of someone who, regardless of what he does, he can commit all types of crimes and never be prosecuted, he will not be motivated to follow the law. But what about an even greater realm of learning here? That is, he does what’s moral, because it’s the moral thing to do, not because he’ll be punished or rewarded for doing so? A more enlightened mindset would be, to follow the law, to behave morally, because it’s the right thing to do, and his love for moral truth, and for goodness, motivates him.
Clearly, it would be profoundly niave, to believe that humans are at this place yet, or ever will be, in this life. But my point is, people should believe in God, and Christ, and behaving in the Good and Moral ways that flow from this belief, because it’s the right thing to do, not because of a reward of heaven, or fear of a punishing Hell. I don’t believe that you, or anyone else who comments on this blog, is believing for the “reward” of heaven, or the “punishment” of Hell. But for people in general, they may be doing the right things, for the wrong reasons.
I in no way accept the notion that everyone automatically goes to Heaven. Perhaps all of us, will spend some time, the amount depending on our degrees of sin, in a temporary punishment/learning area, call it “Hell”, or some other name. It would make more sense to become better here on earth.
These are highly inchoate thoughts, of mine, and I’ll respond later with more development. I’m kind of rushing things right now. Thanks, Nikolai, for your great comments.
June 26th, 2011 | 6:53 pm | #65
Orthodoxdj and Craig Payne,
When you sin, are you responsible for the sin you committed, as in you authored your own sin?
June 27th, 2011 | 12:11 am | #66
Nikolai,
To return to the good points that you brought up. Clearly the “positive fatalism”, is an understandable worry, regarding universalism. Where does freedom of our will come into the picture?
I think that, when we reflect on our freedom, we realize that it’s limited. Certainly, God has decided that we should have constraints on our freedom, already. Regardless of whether nonchristians go to hell, or all are saved, or what, God has limited what our choices are. I may wish to fly like a sparrow, but if I jump out the window, gravity limits my freedom. Similarly, let’s say God made heaven and hell, and one goes to one or the other, after death. He’s limited my freedom, in only allowing me two choices. If God decides to send me to just heaven, true, it’s more of a limitation than the two choices, but in either case, God limits my freedom.
If one’s born with a particular genetic proclivity, one’s freedom is altered. If one is born in a particular environment, one will be shaped by that environment, in such a fashion as to limit one’s choices.
One cannot choose how one’s parents will raise one, for example, obviously, indeed one cannot choose one’s parents!
The point being, our free will is already constrained by how God set up the universe: gravity, the speed of light, the configuration of our brains, where one is brought up, already constrain us.
You bring up a good point about how freedom seems not truly free if God saves us from our choices, when they’re bad. But don’t we do this already, to some degree? If someone makes a really rotten choice, such as trying to kill himself, or smoke cocaine, do we say, “that’s his choice, and he has to live with it”. No, we, for his well being, intervene. And what could be worse than choosing hell, over God? This latter choice makes killing oneself, look almost mild by comparision. So, a fortiori, if one intervenes in a case where one tries to kill oneself, one should intervene when one chooses to be without God.
Ironically, to do otherwise, takes an extreme view of freedom, where the freedom of the person takes priority, over the well being of the person. But this is backwards: freedom is good because it usually works for the good of the person, but when it doesn’t, in rare circumstances, it should not be allowed for its own sake.
June 27th, 2011 | 12:49 am | #67
Bret,
The fact that our freedom is limited is true, but is not an inherent reason why God would limit our freedom in this regard. Saying “freedom is limited” is a tautology; I’m saying that this imposition on freedom really undermines any coherent conception of freedom. Our freedom amounts to not a whole lot if our freedom doesn’t ultimately do anything, whether it be salvation or damnation. Our freedom, under your view, doesn’t really do much other than effect things in this realm, which, again, falsely divides this world and the next.
But then:
“You bring up a good point about how freedom seems not truly free if God saves us from our choices, when they’re bad. But don’t we do this already, to some degree? If someone makes a really rotten choice, such as trying to kill himself, or smoke cocaine, do we say, “that’s his choice, and he has to live with it”. No, we, for his well being, intervene. And what could be worse than choosing hell, over God? This latter choice makes killing oneself, look almost mild by comparision. So, a fortiori, if one intervenes in a case where one tries to kill oneself, one should intervene when one chooses to be without God.”
We do try to intervene. My point isn’t that we ought not try to help bring non-believers to Christ, but that our will alone doesn’t work to save the unbeliever. The unbeliever in question has free will, and if she decides to exercise her will one way over another, despite our efforts, then that means she has made her decision. If we all got together as a community and tried to save non-believer X, just wishing really hard that she would be saved doesn’t actually make her saved. We can only go so far.
June 27th, 2011 | 6:46 am | #68
[...] Truth Unites… and Divides: Orthodoxdj and Craig Payne, When you sin, are you responsible for the sin you committed,… [...]
June 27th, 2011 | 12:55 pm | #69
Dear TUAD: I still am unsure about your use of the term “authored,” as in “authored your own sin,” but sure, I’m responsible for committing the sin I commit. God doesn’t force me; it is a free choice. If you want to say God is ultimately responsible in the sense that God authored the overall creation in which all choices are made, I’m okay with that, too, but it doesn’t take away my own responsibility. My own choice would still be the immediate, proximate cause of my own sin.
Now, please: What on earth is your point?
June 27th, 2011 | 1:47 pm | #70
Craig Payne:
Craig,
Humans are not the author/Creator of their sin because sin is not an entity in itself, the same way love, justice, beauty, etc. are not human creations/authors? If humans are not the authors/creators of sin, and neither is God, then whoa, wait a minute, is there a third mystery entity that is the author/creator of sin?
June 27th, 2011 | 2:01 pm | #71
o “@TUAD God made me through the pro-cretion of my parents. (Orthodoxdj)
o “(Per Nikolai Volk) Orthodoxdj, You commit sin.”
o “When you sin, are you responsible for the sin you committed, as in you authored your own sin?”
o “sure, I’m responsible for committing the sin I commit. God doesn’t force me; it is a free choice. If you want to say God is ultimately responsible in the sense that God authored the overall creation in which all choices are made, I’m okay with that, too, but it doesn’t take away my own responsibility. My own choice would still be the immediate, proximate cause of my own sin.” (Craig Payne)
Orthodoxdj, do you agree with Craig Payne?
June 27th, 2011 | 2:08 pm | #72
“If humans are not the authors/creators of sin, and neither is God, then whoa, wait a minute, is there a third mystery entity that is the author/creator of sin?”
Dear Steve Drake: No; no third creative entity. There is a difference between something that exists “ontologically” (like, for example, dogs, angels, God, stars) and something that exists “functionally” (like evil, for example).
God is the ultimate creator of all things ontological; so everything that exists is good in at least that sense. “All things are good insofar as they exist in reality” (Aquinas; and also Augustine, I think). If something exists in reality, it is to that extent like God, Who is absolute Existence. “I am that I am.”
But every good thing that exists can also be USED (functionally) in a corrupt way, a way that misuses the thing’s original goodness. Human sexuality leaps to mind, but it could be anything; a hammer, for instance, is good insofar as it exists, but can be used to murder. In that case, the USE of the hammer is evil, the USE of the human body is evil, and the USE of the human will, emotions, intellect, and so on is evil. But in themselves, as created, they are originally good.
So as for sin: Did humans create a new thing when they sinned? I do not believe so; nor do I believe this is traditional Christian belief. They misused and corrupted the good that God created, but did not create something new.
Sin therefore exists functionally, but ontologically is simply a misuse and privation of the truly existing goods God created (such as free will, which used correctly leads to God and good).
These are fairly deep waters. If I am misstating the traditional Christian view, I would appreciate the correction. Best, cp
P.S. My other questions still is out there: How does all this connect with the Gospel and radical exclusion? In other words, where is this line of questions heading?
June 27th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #73
Craig,
The ontological question must take into account abstract ideas though, like love, justice, beauty, the laws of logic, evil, personality, etc. We cannot leave the ontological question to stand by itself, or to be dismissed, but it must be included with the epistemological question as well. The two are interdependent. To say that ‘evil’ is something that exists ‘functionally’ is to make a nonsensical statement philosophically.
June 27th, 2011 | 2:26 pm | #74
“In other words, where is this line of questions heading?”
Hopefully, it’s for the benefit of orthodoxdj.
Let’s await his response(s) to see if the benefit is forthcoming.
June 27th, 2011 | 5:00 pm | #75
“To say that ‘evil’ is something that exists ‘functionally’ is to make a nonsensical statement philosophically.”
Dear Steve Drake: Well, let me take another stab at it. If I tear a hole in my shirt, I have ruined or “corrupted” the shirt. Does the hole exist ontologically? Well, it only exists as the shirt exists; in other words, it only exists as a “lack of shirtness” where shirtness is supposed to be. Apart from the goodness of the shirt itself, there is no “badness” of the “hole” or “lack.”
Evil exists in the same way: as a lack or privation or corruption of original goodness. But it does not exist at the same ontological level as the goodness itself, which is a direct creation of God.
An interesting side note to this: If someone loses goodness by performing evil actions, thinking evil thoughts, etc., that person also loses “being” as a person, i.e., becomes an incomplete person. Think, for example, of Dante’s depiction of Satan in the “Inferno”: a mindless, thoughtless, frozen hulk. He is so functionally evil that he has lost virtually all of his original ontological goodness.
A good book along these lines is “Being and Goodness” by the Thomistic philosopher Scott MacDonald.
June 27th, 2011 | 6:16 pm | #76
God creates the potential for sin by virtue of making free moral agents who have a bona fude choice between God and not-God. Free moral agents can actualize evil. There comes a point at which there is no return. For angels that point was at the “moment” at which they fell. Non-falken angels were them actualized in their potential for good. They cannot fall now because they have a perfected nature. Humans live in time. There will be a point at which there is no return. Through it all, God is God, always willing the good. There is no darkness in Him. He cannot author evil.
June 27th, 2011 | 9:11 pm | #77
Calvinism does not say that God is Author of Evil either.
Orthodoxdj, please stop propagating and perpetuating this pernicious lie that you favor.
June 27th, 2011 | 10:01 pm | #78
I’m not perpetuating a lie. I’m making an argument. There’s a big difference. There are no authoritative Calvinist documents along the lines of Roman Catholicism. Calvinsts argue that they get their doctrines from the Bible. I argue that the uniquely Calvinist doctrines are not Biblical. Further, I argue that Calvinism, if taken to its logical conclusions, makes God the author of evil. It’s not as if I’m putting words in anyone’s mouth. This is a blog for debating.
June 27th, 2011 | 10:29 pm | #79
Further, I argue that Calvinism, if taken to its logical conclusions, makes God the author of evil.
Show your argument.
June 27th, 2011 | 10:48 pm | #80
Dear TUAD: I finally figured out your posts. So let’s turn around the argument.
Do you believe that God is ultimately responsible for all things that occur?
June 27th, 2011 | 11:05 pm | #81
“If you want to say God is ultimately responsible in the sense that God authored the overall creation in which all choices are made, I’m okay with that, too, but it doesn’t take away my own responsibility.”
If you’re okay with that, I’m okay with that too.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:59 am | #82
Calvinists argue that prior to anyone existing, God elected some to Heaven and some to Hell. Calvinists argue that the unregenerate cannot help but sin. Calvinists argue that sin is an affront to God and that all should repent. Calvinist argue that by God’s design, not all can repent. Thus, t unrepentance of some is God’s will. The nature of the unregenerate is by God’s design. God is the author of evil.
June 28th, 2011 | 7:07 am | #83
Orthodoxdj, if your prior comment is shown to be faulty, will you abandon your belief that God is the Author of Evil?
June 28th, 2011 | 2:26 pm | #84
Craig,
Let’s take a look at this statement. You claim that goodness is a direct creation of God. I claim that goodness is not a direct creation of God but is part and parcel to His character. Love, laws of logic, beauty, justice, personality and all it entails to be a person, are part and parcel of God and His character and we as the pinnacle of His creation and made in His image and the world that was created by Him, are infused with these qualities. Love is not a creation, goodness is not a creation, justice and righteousness are not a creation, the laws of logic are not a creation, but all flow from God’s character. They are essential elements of the triune Godhead. Evil however is not. Sin however is not.
This is where Augustine got it right, and Aquinas got it wrong. I realize this is at the heart of our discussion, and where as a Thomist you disagree. We are going to continue beating around this bush if we don’t understand each other’s presuppositions and starting point.
June 28th, 2011 | 2:45 pm | #85
Did anyone notice this:
@Ortho #76:
He cannot author evil.
@Ortho #82:
God is the author of evil.
Ortho,
Is there a contradiction in these two statements?
June 28th, 2011 | 3:02 pm | #86
Ortho,
Sorry, in #82 as seen in light of your comments purporting to speak to the logical conclusion of Calvinism, you state that this makes God the author of evil. But in #76 you rightly claim that God is not the author of evil. I see the distinction.
However as TUAD has stated in #77, Calvinism does not claim that God is the author of evil and any logical conclusion that He does so, does not understand the writings and conclusions of Calvin himself.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:22 pm | #87
Steve, TUAD:
I don’t want to speak for Orthodoxj, he has done a very good job of defending his position, logically, but I think what he’s saying is, Calvinism, leads to some conclusions that many Chrisitians would find troubling: if God has decided that some people will go to Hell, regardless of their behavior, and in order to go to Hell, one must engage in evil, then God is the creator of evil. That is, if God created some people, who will go to Hell, regardless of what they choose, and to go to Hell one must commit evil, then who else can be the creator of evil, than God?
June 28th, 2011 | 9:38 pm | #88
Thank you for seeing that I did not contradict myself. My concern is not with the beliefs of John Calvin. My concern is the logical conclusion of Calvin’s beliefs and what has come to be known as “Calvinism.” I don’t care what name it goes by. We can just call it theological determinism. Calvinism is a form of theological determinism. The bottom line is that Calvinism wants to have it both ways. On one hand Calvinists will say that those who end up in Hell do so because they refused to repent. On the other hand, Calvinists affirm that God is the one who made people the way they are (i.e. able to respond to the Gospel or not). Notice the U in “TULIP”. According to this, God has UNCONDITIONALLY elected some people to Heaven. Calvin teaches that God also UNCONDITIONALLY elected some to Hell. Thus, the basis of people rejecting God is ultimately bound up in how GOD MADE THEM. The rightful answer by the reprobate when asked by God, “Why did you not repent?” is “I couldn’t because you made me this way.” Unless one wants to say unrepentance is not evil, I do not see how this scheme does no teach that God is the author of evil.
Here are some quotations from Calvin:
“7. Although it is now sufficiently plain that God by his secret counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others, his gratuitous election has only been partially explained until we come to the case of single individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but so assigns it, that the certainty of the result remains not dubious or suspended.”
Find it here: http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/
“In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.”
The above is found here: http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?5042-Calvin-held-to-double-predestination.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:47 pm | #89
Bret,
Orthodoxdj’s error is much less severe than yours.
Bret, I plead with you to abandon the heresy that you’ve advocated throughout your various comments on this thread.
Your distortion of God’s Word could ultimately bode very badly for you. I hope you genuinely repent.
This is very serious.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:07 pm | #90
TUAD: Thanks for your concern. I do believe that you’re genuine, and you really care. But, with all due respect, I could easily argue that your belief, that God “predestines” some people to Hell, is heresy.
By the way, if you’re right, it really doesn’t matter what I say, or do, does it, since God has already decided who will go to Hell?
June 29th, 2011 | 3:01 am | #91
“Thanks for your concern. I do believe that you’re genuine, and you really care. But, with all due respect, I could easily argue that your belief, that God “predestines” some people to Hell, is heresy.”
All due respect, and seriously, I mean no offence here, just a humorous note, this is a deeply ironic comment coming from a guy promoting Origen-esque universalism.
“By the way, if you’re right, it really doesn’t matter what I say, or do, does it, since God has already decided who will go to Hell?”
Preface: I’m not a Calvinist. That said, I have never met a Calvinist who says God damns people to hell, as in He, before time, says, “YOU are going to hell.” He just chooses who goes to heaven. Now, the question is of course begged: “If God chooses those who go to heaven, what happens to those who don’t get chosen?” I agree with Orthodoxdj on the implications of Calvinism, and I do think that this scenario is one of those problems.
June 29th, 2011 | 3:42 am | #92
I actually have met some Calvinists who say that God does elect people to Hell. I believe they are more consistent and impossible to talk to.
June 29th, 2011 | 7:49 am | #93
“However as TUAD has stated in #77, Calvinism does not claim that God is the author of evil and any logical conclusion that He does so, does not understand the writings and conclusions of Calvin himself.”
That’s one explanation for the persistent falsehood dripping from Orthodoxdj’s lips.
June 29th, 2011 | 7:50 am | #94
Gentlemen (Bret, Ortho, Nikolai, Craig), and any others who want to join in on this discussion.
This is still somewhat of a mystery, is it not? It most likely is at the heart of Rob Bell’s book about Hell and why so many people have a problem understanding what seems to be an unfair setup. The dice seem to be loaded before the game begins. But can you honestly say that your Creator is unfair? Will you bring a charge against God? Will you stand before God as a man and indict Him?
Or like Job, will you instead be humbled at your inconsequential and finite grasping of things, as if a man or woman can understand the awesome knowledge and greatness of God?
This is why as finite creatures we must go to the only revelation from God that we have, the Scriptures, to understand His purposes, His plan, His account of things about the past and about the future. And what does Scripture say?
It says that God is not the author of evil and cannot sin. That our first parents were created complete, whole, in total surrender and submission to His Lordship without sin, but that transgressing the commandment, they sinned and fell from grace. In love, God provided the means of atonement; a way back to grace through a Promised Seed. It is this Promised Seed from Gen. 3 that was fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ that we must look for any hope; any way back to reconciliation with God
Now, in the matter of our present discussions, can anyone say that man has no choice? That God is withholding His Son to some and only granting Him to others? That in the final scheme of things, God is a malevolent and malicious tyrant because some people really never have a true choice to accept or reject the Son in the first place? I don’t think Scripture teaches this.
June 29th, 2011 | 9:49 am | #95
Steve Drake: “This is why as finite creatures we must go to the only revelation from God that we have, the Scriptures, to understand His purposes, His plan, His account of things about the past and about the future. And what does Scripture say?”
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” (Eph 1:11).
June 29th, 2011 | 2:57 pm | #96
Steve Drake and TUAD,
Aside from the few people Orthodoxdj has apparently met, Orthodoxdj and I have never said that Calvin or any prominent Calvinist thinkers say that God is the author of evil in a Calvinist purview. We’re saying that we find that, if taken to its logical conclusions, Calvinism leads to God being the author of evil. If you think that isn’t true, that’s fine. That’s why it’s an argument. You can make a counter argument to an argument.
And TUAD, don’t even make me break out the litany of verses that show that supports the notion of human of free will, and that people are saved by faith, not election.
June 29th, 2011 | 3:15 pm | #97
Nikolai,
From Nikolai @95
Wow, that’s a pretty heavy charge. What part of Calvinism are you specifically referring to? The whole thing, or something in particular?
June 29th, 2011 | 3:16 pm | #98
Nikolai Volk,
I’m a 5-Sola Christian so I certainly subscribe to Sola Fide.
Nikolai and Orthodoxdj, do you fully affirm and wholly acknowledge Scripture’s teaching in:
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” (Eph 1:11).
June 30th, 2011 | 1:14 am | #99
TUAD,
But your holding to both Calvinism and sola fide presents a logical problem to me. If “by faith alone” we are saved, then Calvinist predestination doesn’t make sense. In a Calvinist purview, one is saved by election, which is an unconditional choice, meaning faith couldn’t be a part of that. Saying faith plays a role is more akin to Arminian predestination, where God “sees into the future” and then confirms choices we made. I don’t see how faith plays a role in one’s salvation in Calvinism insofar as my salvation was made on a choice that had nothing to do with faith at all. Perhaps I’m misconstruing something, so if you could explain that I’d appreciate it.
But now onto the Ephesians verse. God does have a will, yes, I don’t deny that. While I support a position of libertarian free will, I certainly don’t support a deist position whereby God’s will is nothing and He just left us to play in the sandbox that we call earth. Still, I don’t see how the Ephesians verse affirms Calvinist predestination. In the context of the entire first chapter of Ephesians, Paul is talking about God’s election of Christ to die for our sins, through whom we are saved. Note:
“In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and his will.” [I just noticed our translations are different; mine is the NRSV, my personal favourite]
The “destiny” that is set upon us is the destiny to be saved through Christ, not that we were elected before time by an unconditional choice. The will of God is that we be saved through Christ, not through election.
June 30th, 2011 | 1:26 am | #100
Steve Drake,
See Orthodoxdj’s comment at #82.
June 30th, 2011 | 3:01 am | #101
Nikolai: I think it’s fair to say that, we enter into distinction without a difference territory, when one asserts that, in Calvinism, God predestines some for heaven, but not hell. If he predestines some to heaven, since the only other place is hell, then he predestines some to hell. I think in your comments, you concede as much, but point out that, no calvinist has explicitly said that God predestines some to hell. Perhaps you’re just too polite to explicitly say that, Calvinism advocates that God predestines some for hell?
Let’s look at the implication, that calvinism leads, logically to God being the author of evil. If God predestines some for hell, and one must be evil, to go to hell, where would this “evil” come from, except from God?
I certainly do not wish to offend calvinists, and I’m sure that they’re good people, but the calvinist doctrine, does lead to the conclusion that God is the author, or creator of evil. There’s no way aroung it.
June 30th, 2011 | 3:10 am | #102
Steve: certainly you’re right that, no mere human could legitimately charge God for being immoral. But no one is doing, or implying that, I don’t think. The charge, is that God is NOT like how Calvinists state, it’s that God is being given a false charge.
God is complete, profound Goodness, and would never predestine some for heaven, and others for hell. This absurd, and inhumane notion, is not God’s but some humans. Calvin, in his theocracy that he set up, would have some put to death, for example, for not following his religious notions. This was NOT what God wanted; it was what Calvin and his followers advocated.
God is complete Mercy and Love, and any claim to the contrary, is not an indictment against God, but the false claims against God, advocated by others.
June 30th, 2011 | 9:35 am | #103
Nikolai, Bret, (Ortho),
I suppose that the Westminster Divines got it all quite wrong then? That the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. III, ‘Of God’s Eternal Decree’ is way off the mark?
Yes, it seems from our discussions that you have a big problem with this. No matter, such is the nature of our fallen minds and finite ability to understand the unsearchable knowledge of God. TUAD and I are in the same boat, yet the argument presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the totality of the Reformed position, seem to be true to all of Scripture, taking in the whole counsel of God and not poo-pooing some doctrines of Scripture such as Hell and damnation as some are wont to do.
We could go on, each stressing the particulars of our views, faithfully defending what we hold true in terms of God’s honor, buttressing our arguments with Scripture, and I suppose agreeing to disagree in the end.
Bu I hope we’re not there yet. And I hope it can be shown that universalism, or libertarian free will, etc., have serious internal inconsistencies. More later.
June 30th, 2011 | 12:10 pm | #104
I’d like to hear the inconsistencies with the libertarian position.
June 30th, 2011 | 12:42 pm | #105
Compare
Volk: “We’re saying that we find that, if taken to its logical conclusions, Calvinism leads to God being the author of evil.”
With
“In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and his will.” (Eph. 1:11)
——
Nikolai and Orthodoxdj, suppose someone says to you:
“We’re saying that we find that, if taken to its logical conclusions, you Arminians who genuinely affirm Ephesians 1:11 in its entirety leads to God being the author of evil.”
Would you agree since you affirm Ephesians 1:11 where God accomplishes all things according to his will?
June 30th, 2011 | 4:09 pm | #106
“I’m wondering if you believe that when people reject God that it’s because they were not able to by divine decree.”
This is an example of a true statement that becomes a caricature due to lack of context.
It seems that buried in here is the idea that people somehow start out neutral with respect to God, but God decides some will be unable to believe and others will be.
That’s not Calvinism; I’m not even sure that’s hyper-Calvinism. I don’t even know if there’s a name for that.
What Calvinism says is that ALL MEN are unable to believe because our desire to oppose God exceeds any desire we might have to escape the consequences of that opposition. But God kindly, lovingly, graciously reverses that process in some people, so that they CAN believe.
God doesn’t make anybody “not believe” — nobody believes. Everybody wants to hate God. God enables some to believe and love Him, which no one would *willingly, voluntarily* do, without that help.
This isn’t going to make Calvinism any more attractive to you, I’m sure, but it’s a heckuva lot more accurate a description (because it deals with the issues more fully and not misleadingly) than the way you put it.
June 30th, 2011 | 6:11 pm | #107
Ortho,
With thanks to Pentamom.
Are you arguing that the Molinistic position as espoused by William Lane Craig in regards to libertarian free will is the right position to take?
June 30th, 2011 | 9:27 pm | #108
Pentemom: You make some thoughtful comments, but one thing you asserted, struck my eye: “What Calvinism says is that ALL MEN are unable to believe because our desire to oppose God exceeds any desire we might have to escape the consequences of that opposition. But god, kindly, lovingly, graciously reverses that process in some people so that they can believe”.
But why are all men this way (assuming for the sake of argument that they are, and I don’t necessarily concede this, except hypothetically)? Because God, CHOSE, in the Calvinist system, for men to be this way, and also CHOSE for some to be inclined to be more accepting, and therefore capable of being saved. Anyway you look at it, in this Calvinist view, God, for his own mysterious reasons, chose to make all humans more inclined to hate Him, but some less inclined to, hence their ability to be saved.
June 30th, 2011 | 9:29 pm | #109
Sorry, in my quote of pentemom, I inadvertantly used the lower case “g” for “God”, sorry about that.
June 30th, 2011 | 11:38 pm | #110
TUAD,
I (and I assume Mr. Volk, as well) am not arguing for Arminianism. My experience with Calvinists is upheld in this conversation, namely that there are two categories of theology within Christianity: Calvinist and Arminian. I think Arminianism has some flaws, but I do not think it has heretical implications. Obviously, I think Calvinism does by virtue of the logical conclusion to which I alluded earlier.
As for the answer about God working out all things according to His will, I want you to notice that no passage says that all things that happen ARE God’s will. Our assurance is that even evil will be ultimately defeated, even if that means quarantining people (Hell). The bigger context to Paul’s letter, by the way, is the nature of the Church and what God is doing in the world in this epoch, i.e. the millennial reign of Christ.
Pentamom and Steve,
Calvinism does not teach that people are blind and that God “graciously” saves some and not others by re-wiring them, as it were. Calvinism teaches that in THE ETERNAL COUNSEL OF GOD, some were elected to Haeven and some to Hell. The basis of unbelief, then, is not even sin, but elction to reprobation. After all, Calvinists do not believe that Hell is for sinners and Heaven is for saints. Calvinism teaches that everyone is a sinner. Thus, election is not based upon anything but God’s choice. Notice that: ELECTION is the basis of salvation. Faith is merely incidental. it is rightly said that Calvinists do not believe in five solas but in only one: election.
That being said, Pentamom, I’m in no position to tell YOU what YOU believe. You say you do not believe in what I have described as being Calvinism. For that, I’m thankful. However, I think your view is still deficient and sub-Christian. I have never understood the claim that God “graciously” saves some and not others. I agree that mankind needs God and that all sinners need to repent in order to be made right with God. That’s the essence of a fallen world. What I do not understand is how people can think of God as being good, holy, and loving while affirming the idea that God willingly decides that some SHALL NOT be saved. Again, the argument stresses that God chooses SOME for salvation. There is no basis for why. It cannot be faith, repentance, works, etc. Those are things that election leads to, so election cannot be predicated upon those things. At this point Calvinists usually say, “It’s up for God to know the reasons why He chose only SOME and not ALL.” Should I really love the being that does not love ALL of the persons made in His image? One can respond by saying that God loves all, but what’s the practical evidence for that? Would not the loving thing be to save ALL rather than SOME if it were solely based on God’s choice in the most strict and unilateral sense possible? We are taught in Scripture that we love God because He first loved us. Is that true for all human beings? Does God love all humans? If yes, then under the schema in question, why does He not save all? If He does not love all humans, then He is not truly God, for God is love.
Some will respond by saying that God is just and that sin cannot go unpunished. To that I argue that in the system in question, who is saved and who is not is arbitrary, anyway, so someone needing to be punished is arbitrary as well. It’s something God chose to do, but He could have done things another way. Whereas Calvinists will say that God is sovereign and can do as He pleases, it is here that we see that Calvinists do not truly hold to that because they believe that God is limited by man’s sin in that God CANNOT save all people because someone MUST BE PUNISHED.
Calvinists often appeal to justice and say that it is true that God is love, but He is also just. To this I argue that distinguishing between God’s attributes is good for clarity sake, but ultimately we cannot think of God as a set of attributes. He is one being who acts according to His character, and His character is defined by His actions. Love and justice are not polar opposites. Why would justice keep God from saving all people? Would not the very one who made all beings be pleased to save all? Is God limited by justice?
I believe the libertarian position answers all of these questions. Whereas Calvinists will put the emphasis on God’s sovereignty with regards to those who end up in Hell, the libertarian position puts the emphasis on man’s freedom, an attribute that is part and parcel of being human, an essential attribute implied in the imago dei. Yes, sin is a problem, but I think that’s the point. God is not the reason why people go to Hell. Attachment to sin IS Hell, and one day all choices will be one.
Lewis says, “It’s all in Plato.” I say, in this instance, it’s all in Aristotle. If we ask about the four causes, we see that man is made by God using dirt and a non-material component into a human being and that man has a telos in his design. That telos is union with God by choice which is happiness or rejection of God by choice which is Hell.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:33 am | #111
TUAD,
“Would you agree since you affirm Ephesians 1:11 where God accomplishes all things according to his will?”
Yes. But, again, IN CONTEXT (key word in hermeneutics), God’s will is not what you’re interpreting that it is, the Calvinist idea of predestination. God’s will was for man to be saved through Christ, not through a random (sorry, I have yet to hear a better explanation for “unconditional”) selection process that doesn’t involve faith, which the Bible says on more than one occasion is a precondition to salvation. See my comment at #98 again.
Orthodoxdj,
“I believe the libertarian position answers all of these questions. Whereas Calvinists will put the emphasis on God’s sovereignty with regards to those who end up in Hell, the libertarian position puts the emphasis on man’s freedom, an attribute that is part and parcel of being human, an essential attribute implied in the imago dei.”
I agree, but I also think that the libertarian position does justice to God’s will. What I find funny about the Calvinist position is that they say, “Since God is sovereign, he must display his power.” I think that God has the choice to act or not to act in situations, and that on occasion choosing not to act, for example, not making humans essentially robots, is a great display of both His mercy and His sovereignty.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:34 am | #112
Orthodoxdj: “As for the answer about God working out all things according to His will, I want you to notice that no passage says that all things that happen ARE God’s will.”
Sorry, I’m not noticing what you are noticing when I read the following:
“In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and his will.” (Eph. 1:11)
July 1st, 2011 | 3:18 am | #113
Well said, Mr. Volk. As I’ve long maintained, God’ will is for man to be truly free in the moral sense.
TUAD,
Show me a passage or line of reasoning that says for everything that happens, God is the true cause. I do not mean the sense in which God made man, man made car, so God made cars. Show me where God literally is sufficiently responsible for all events.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:47 am | #114
Me: “Nikolai and Orthodoxdj, suppose someone says to you:
“We’re saying that we find that, if taken to its logical conclusions, you Arminians who genuinely affirm Ephesians 1:11 in its entirety leads to God being the author of evil.”
Would you agree since you affirm Ephesians 1:11 where God accomplishes all things according to his will?”
Nikolai Volk in #110 answers: “Yes.”
Thank you. The question was specifically about Arminians who genuinely affirm Ephesians 1:11 in its entirety logically leading to God being the Author of Evil.
The answer as Nikolai Volk honestly answers is “Yes”, the logical conclusion of Arminianism is that their theological system leads to God being the Author of Evil.
July 1st, 2011 | 4:12 am | #115
TUAD,
Are you just trying to be obnoxious? I get that you are committed to your ideology, but this is ridiculous. You haven’t honestly responded to, let alone answered, any objections. Not that I thought would convince you.
July 1st, 2011 | 8:02 am | #116
Ortho, Nikolai, Bret,
In essence, Molinism.
July 1st, 2011 | 9:06 am | #117
Steve,
Although the notion that God has complete knowledge, of whatever choices we might make, one is still left with the conundrum of why God would make some people with the mental constitutions that, when faced with a given situation, would choose to exercise their free will, in a particular way.
That is, he made some who, when faced with a particular circumstance, would choose to exercise their freedom to accept Christ, and he made others that would choose not to. Both groups of people act freely, but God made them, in such a way that, when faced with a situation, any situation, they would choose to behave in a particular way.
Why would God make some humans, with the mental constitutions that, when acting freely, would choose to reject Christ, and make others, presumably a small number, who, when acting freely, would accept Christ?
This seems contrary to justice in any form. and if we derive our sense of justice, ultimately from God, then this is contrary to God’s justice, and hence false.
July 1st, 2011 | 10:15 am | #118
Hi Bret,
In essence, Molinism (philosophically intellectual Arminianism).
July 1st, 2011 | 10:57 am | #119
When we follow the argument the logical conclusion of Arminianism is that their theological system leads to God being the Author of Evil.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #120
(1) Some people are tempted by evil.
(2) All of us are “destined according to the purpose of God who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and his will.” (This, obviously, is the only verse in the Bible which means anything, and we are to live and think only by it. It is the litmus test by which to determine all orthodoxy.) (I’m kidding.)
(3) According to 1 and 2, when people are tempted by evil, this temptation is destined by God’s purpose, counsel, and will.
(4) But the Bible says that God does not tempt anyone with evil.
(5) So God Himself is not the sufficient cause of (1) occurring.
(6) The Bible says we are tempted by evil when we are led astray by our own desires.
(7) Our own desires leading us astray into wrong choices are a necessary cause of being tempted to evil.
(8) So God’s predestination must not really be the all-encompassing “cause” we think it is.
(9) In the N.T., God’s predestination is almost always directly linked to his perfect knowledge of what we ourselves freely choose.
I don’t see any problem with any of this, unless for some reason we have some sort of over-commitment to a “strong” version of predestination.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:43 pm | #121
“Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.”
(Psalm 139:16)
*ALL* the days.
ordained. Ordained. ORDAINED.
for me
*BEFORE* one of them came to be.
This Scripture is not considered a “strong” version of predestination is it?
July 1st, 2011 | 4:11 pm | #122
Dear TUAD: I would repeat this from the previous post: (9) In the N.T., God’s predestination is almost always directly linked to his perfect knowledge of what we ourselves freely choose.
Psalm 139:16 seems to me to be a good example of this. God “sees” our days before any of them come to be, and His creation permits us to live out those days. But that does not imply coercion on His part, does it? He sees everything that occurs, and His knowledge of our lives cannot be mistaken. But does that make Him the direct and sufficient cause of everything He sees?
Here’s an analogy (it just came to me, so there are probably all kinds of problems with it). Water in a fairly large quantity is necessary for drowning to occur. But if a drowning occurs, and someone asks for the cause, we wouldn’t reply, “Water!” The presence of the water is a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause; its presence is also understood.
Perhaps the situation with God is similar. Someone is eternally lost, let us say (I know Bret already disagrees, but go with me for a moment). It is understood that God knows of this loss for all eternity; it is understood that God created the universe, and free will, and every necessary background condition, while knowing perfectly of this loss.
But does that make God the “sufficient” cause of this eternal loss? That is, to say, “This person’s damnation occurs because of God’s will” is like saying, “Drowning occurs because water exists.” To which the only response would be, “That is an incomplete answer–in fact, it is so incomplete that you couldn’t really blame people for disagreeing vehemently” (as Orthodoxdj has been doing).
July 1st, 2011 | 4:56 pm | #123
I affirm Scripture. If Psalm 139:16 and Ephesians 1:11 are not examples of a “strong version” of predestination, whatever that is, then that’s good.