Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
Sorry for dropping out — I was busy helping my newest (third) son into the world.
Congratulations, William!
What a blessing, William! May your family enjoy this new one greatly.
I’d like to understand what you mean by this. Do you mean an “exclusive club” in the sense that the members can select or reject applicants? Do you mean “nothing more” in the sense that accepting TULIP means that you reject every other Christian doctrine? (Forgive me, I’m sure neither of these are what you actually mean, but I wanted to point out that your actual meaning was obscure…)
The biggest error here is a false dichotomy: you assume that either heaven is determined by election, or folks must believe in Christ. But both can logically be true at the same time — one can be selected by God and then specially treated in some way to allow one to believe. John 6 is an example of a passage which strongly supports that.
Let’s don’t mince words: that’s schismatic of them. Who precisely is making that statement, and in what words? You’re making a strong accusation of a very serious error.
Why would TULIP be especially bad for one such as that? The corresponding discomfort in Arminianism is that one might not believe strongly enough, or might have forgotten about a sin before confessing it. The problem here isn’t in TULIP or Arminianism, but in an unbiblical misunderstanding thereof. The solution isn’t to switch to the other “side”, but to see what the Bible teaches.
Rhetorical question: What if someone comes to Christ, but the Father didn’t draw him? Will he be raised up on the last day?
Straight answer: Your question is based on the false premise that someone can have saving faith without being chosen for heaven.
-Wm
So near, yet so far. You still think that “our efforts” aren’t caused by God. The good fruit is caused by our willing and our doing, and the Bible explains that we should be full of awe at this, because God is the one working in us “both to will and to do His good pleasure.”
So: He causes the good fruit by means of our efforts, which in turn He causes.
-Wm
Re post 54 comment on Arminianism
Tanskley wrote, “corresponding discomfort in Arminianism is that one might not believe strongly enough, or might have forgotten about a sin before confessing it.”
However, neither of those two points are a true and so they are not a correct description of Arminianism.
Regards,
#John1453
William,
I don’t know, maybe you have never thought about this. But honestly, what do you think it would be like to fear, as the person in the above comment mentioned, that maybe you were not one of the elect? To know beyond doubt that you are a sinner and that as such you deserve hell and that maybe God has destined you to go there with no hope of what Jesus did ever applying to you? To know that if that is true, there is absolutely no hope for you and that you will never get to heaven? That you only have an absolutely terrifying eternity in hell ahead of you? And that absolutely nothing will ever, ever change that fact? That maybe nothing you have experineced so far in your life that you have thought to be genuine Christian experience was real after all because maybe you are not one of the elect? Those thoughts are terrifying and I will admit that I experienced at least some of them when I was first exposed to Calvinism. And they still cross my mind at times.
How can someone who believes in Canvinism ever to assured of their salvation? After all, part of TULIP is perseverance of the saints. How will they know if they are elect or not until they die and stand before Him? How can any one of you now know that you will actually persevere until the end? I just don’t get it.
And as the person above mentioned, TULIP can be a problem because of these very issues.
Someone might confess to God sins in particular but salvation is not dependent on ceremony, as in the OT regulations. If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive and to cleanse us from unrighteousness.
I don’t know any responsible parents who allow their baby to cry for hours with a wet diaper. We care for our babies from the heart: so does God – he cleans us up every time and perhaps we are a little wiser the next time around. If not, we will encounter His discipline, but He does NOT withdraw salvation or forgiveness because of our efforts or lack thereof.
Also, the epistles from John were addressing gnosticism which had crept into the church, so that John’s mention of confession of sin, and that Christ came in the flesh, were targeted at specific heresies coming from the gnostics. Even though John’s words have general value to us today his words about confession, I presume, cannot be expanded into a general doctrine of conditional forgiveness.
Also, the Bible tells us repeatedly that God does not reject anyone who comes to Him; this is evidence that the narrowest definition of predestination is incorrect.
John, I apologize for not mentioning _first_ in my post that the reason these correspond is that they’re not true. You listed two common misunderstandings of Calvinism and blamed Calvinism for them; I explained that there are also misunderstandings of Arminianism.
-Wm
Please don’t put words in my mouth, William. You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions. It will be sufficient to state your case without the personal asides. I am simply asking questions about why so much of Calvinism seems to hinge upon election/ predestination, and why and how that fits in with Christ dying on the cross for our sins, and how it all ties in with the subject of this post.
As for me, I have been in various forms of ministry for over 25 years, so I do have some understanding of the Bible, so please try not to be quite so harsh and condescending in your answers. We are all simply trying to understand your position here, while trying to keep on topic. Thanks.
FYI, I know that I am saved because I have accepted Christ as my Savior, regardless of what Calvinism or Arminianism or anyone else says.
And BTW, congrats on your new family addition.
mbaker, I was trying to ask what you meant, not trying to put words in your mouth. I truly don’t know what you meant. I know it’s not one of those things, and I said so.
If you don’t want to explain yourself there, more power to you. Could you interact with the rest of my post?
-Wm
William,
Not to start a problem here, but I’m wondering why you always seem to go through other’s posts and argue with them line by line, but never clearly state your own position. I’m sorry you didn’t/don’t understand my meaning, but apparently some of the others here did. I really don’t understand how I could make the questions any clearer.
mbaker, I don’t know why you don’t know what my position is… But by and large, this isn’t the right place to hash my position out. We’re here to interact with each other over the original post. I have to admit that responding “line by line” is something I do, and it’s not the best mode of replying; but it’s easy to do. And when you make a reply that covers a lot of topics, replying line by line helps make an otherwise diffuse reply much more coherent.
Finally… I did fear that I understand your meaning (for the phrase “I do not buy the TULIP theory because I believe it makes Christianity nothing more than an exclusive club”); it wasn’t an rejection of TULIP based on argument or data, but based on imagined social consequences. I’d like to recommend that you learn more about it before you reject it on those terms. Alternately, you could explain what you actually meant; I’m open to correction, and I’d rather NOT believe that’s what you meant.
Compatibilism (with which you agree) applies very well to this topic because in a compatibilist model, one’s actions stem from what one actually is, not from a hypothetical freedom. We lie because we are children of the father of lies. We sin because we are slaves of sin. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we do them as part of a rejection of God’s glory. After we’re redeemed, born again, and adopted, we love because we’re children of God, and do righteousness because we are slaves of righteousness — and our deeds are truly righteous because our desire is for God. “Telling a white lie” won’t send us to hell, but being enslaved to sin will.
-Wm
Why wouldn’t they? Why wouldn’t the sort of thing you want determine the sort of thing you get? Why should God create — for example — lambs, and then offer them meat? God didn’t ask our permission before He created us, nor did He ask before He made us humans rather than bears, teacups, or angels. As a human, we’re a type of being that has everlasting destiny; and we get to choose that destiny based on our reaction to God in this life.
I understand and sympathize that you don’t like one of the possible destinies; but God created hell as well as heaven, and it’s a good thing.
Yes. He says that, and creates you and I as the sort of human who wants that destiny more than the alternate.
This sounds exactly like Paul’s objection in Rom 9:19. Isn’t that suggestive of some similarity to what you’re hearing from us, and what Paul was trying to teach?
Also, it’s not true that we have no say in the matter. We have precisely the say in that we choose what we desire. We don’t get to set our own desires in general — but how (by what causal force) could we possibly accomplish that?
Well, you’re right; that argument is shoddy (as presented). Our final destiny, like our duties on earth, is given to us based on our capabilities and gifts. It has everything to do with us in the sense that it’s perfectly appropriate for the sort of being we are. And it has everything to do with God in the sense that he’s the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge.
There has to be symmetry, and I admit that the argument as presented lacks it. (I’ve probably given that argument myself, so I’m not blaming you for the bad presentation.)
-Wm
A philosophical encyclopedia is an excellent way to narrow and set the terms of a discussion, but it’s an awful way to tell what an ordinary speaker meant. The dictionary meaning of fatalism includes resignation, and the error of fatalism in theology means that one believes that because God is sovereign and/or provident, that one should resign oneself to that and not strive for results.
As phrased, this is a simple non sequitur. Why would being able to do otherwise make us more responsible for our actions?
That’s correct, but FAR from complete. You also missed the fact that our fate is determined through the means of our desires and actions. If my desire is to sit here resigned, that is a solid sign that I’m NOT saved.
Very nicely stated.
Indeed. Question: are you actually claiming that the universe includes more than one prime mover (consider the meaning of “prime mover”)? Do you think that objection has any meaning?
We are not our own creators. We didn’t choose our parents, our genetics, or most of our upbringing. Those factors account for some 60% of socio-economic outcomes, according to separated-twin studies. Do you think those do NOT determine desires?
I see no reason to disbelieve in randomness. God works through randomness; He said so. I don’t know whether the universe includes truly nondeterministic things, as the most plausible models of quantum theory require; if it does, God works in and through that randomness, just as He does through the nonrandom laws He’s…
In post 132, Marc:
Marc, please feel welcome to correct me quickly when I misspeak. Thank you; I was wrong, and your correction is appreciated.
-Wm
That also fits with my personal view of miracles — I believe that they’re done to speak to us, not merely because God needed them in order to finish His work.
Everyone knows we have free will. Few people actually try to distinguish between that and libertarian free will — when you actually think about it, the latter is not physically testable, and thus is impossible to distinguish from non-libertarian free will.
LFW advocates normally blur the difference, not out of dishonesty but because LFW is a sophisticated philosophical concept, not a product of everyday experience.
Note how the LFW advocate inserts the word “libertarian” when the Bible implies nothing of the sort: no “you could do otherwise.” In fact, God knew they, as a group, couldn’t. This passage shows that there was a pair of options, not that the sons of Israel were in some kind of libertarian equipoise between the two.
Reading “free will” into this is correct. Reading “libertarian free will” goes far beyond the testimony.
-Wm
Wm,
“Also, it’s not true that we have no say in the matter. We have precisely the say in that we choose what we desire. We don’t get to set our own desires in general — but how (by what causal force) could we possibly accomplish that?”
That is just one of the areas where your understanding of Scripture and mine are very different. That understanding makes people robots/puppets of God’s since they have no way to change what He has preprogrammed them to be.
It makes His statement that “God is love”, and the verses that tell of God’s pleading and desire for all to be saved utter nonsense if He has made most people with no possibility of that ever happening.
His statement that, “God is love”, becomes an ironic and bitter joke for those people. How is the world can a God that describes Himself as “Love” deliberately create a mass of humanity for the express purpose of suffering an endless, horrific, completely unthinkable torment in a place He says was created for the devil and His angels? And a place that He tells us is to be avoided at all costs? Very strange kind of love that is!
Because He has stated that He is “Love”, and that He does want all to come to repentance, pleads with us to be reconciled to Him, and says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, I continue to think that there must be some other understanding or way to harmonize Scripture than the way the Calvinist system of theology does it.
Wm,
You also said, “There has to be symmetry, and I admit that the argument as presented lacks it. (I’ve probably given that argument myself, so I’m not blaming you for the bad presentation.)”
I have read on several other Calvinist sites that have plainly stated that there is no symmetry here, that one is given undeserved mercy and the other only what He deserves. And I have had a discussion on another site with Calvinists that have stated that those that go to hell are only getting what they deserve, that God has simply, “passed them by”, and not offered them the mercy that He does the elect, who by the way, also deserved hell.
So obviously, there is a great deal of difference even among Calvinists themselves in their understanding of these issues.
Sorry for my multiple posts in a row here. I was trying to edit my last one and got interrupted by the phone and the time ran out.
I wanted to say that those other Calvinists I have read say that there is no “double predestination”. That some are chosen–predestined or elected– for heaven, but the others are not predestined for hell. They are merely getting what they deserve, which the elect also deserved. But God chose to have mercy on the elect. Hope I am presenting that correctly.
Of course, the Bible also tells us that nobody comes to God unless God draws them.
-Wm
From # 64 above:
“Yes. He says that, and creates you and I as the sort of human who wants that destiny more than the alternate.”
The destiny being spoken of here was either heaven or hell.
William, are you saying that you honestly believe that people want to be tormented endlessly in hell for ever? That God created them to desire that?
Egalitarianism is a good thing. We are all fundamentally equal as humans. But God is not equal to us; what is true about us is not necessarily true about God.
This assumes that we are coexistant with God; that God somehow violated the rules of our nature when we violated the rules of His nature. But that’s not true; God is self-existent, and we are not. God’s nature is the foundation of the universe; ours is not. And finally, God did not violate our nature by creating us; rather, He actualized it. Without Him, we would not be.
-Wm
I John 4:8 states that, “God IS love”. The definition of the word love used here according to Thayer’s Lexicon is, “1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love.”
That being the case, what kind of “love” is it to destine or decree someone to spend an eternity of utter torment in hell with no hope of ever changing that decree?!? In effect, “I love you SO much that I am gifting you with an eternity of horrible torture in hell!!”
Something seems to me to be terribly wrong with that picture.
I John 4:8 states that, “God IS love”. The definition of the word love used here according to Thayer’s Lexicon is, “1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love.”
That being the case, what kind of “love” is it to destine or decree someone to spend an eternity of utter torment in hell with no hope of ever changing that decree?!? In effect, “I love you SO much that I am gifting you with an eternity of horrible torture in hell!!”
Something seems to me to be terribly wrong with that picture.
(I’m sorry if this comment comes through twice. I tried to post it before and it said for some reason that it went to moderation. Wanted to try it again before the conversation moves on completely.)
Cheryl, first, I really appreciate the spirit of mercy and encouragement I see in this question. I have wondered, and I have helped a few others through this type of crisis, one of whom was (and remains) an Arminian.
I see that you’re vacillating a little. You say “maybe God has destined”, but then you switch to “absolutely no hope”. Maybes and absolutelies don’t mix. If you can hear the message, you can be saved.
Yes. And before I understood any doctrine of grace, I had those terrifying moments when I wondered whether I’d crossed the line from a little backsliding to total unsavedness. This is a problem of Pelegianism, of course.
A friend of mine is confident he’s a Christian (he is), but looking back he wonders what would have happened if he’d died during his period of severe backsliding. From that, he goes to wondering whether he can really be sure he’ll always be saved — he’s told me that if God offered to take him up to heaven now he’d have no choice, because he doesn’t know whether he’ll retain his salvation. This is a problem of Arminians who reject Perseverance (not all do) — and note that Paul didn’t have this problem when he said “to live is Christ, to die is gain.”
Perseverance until death is a sign of salvation, but so is perseverance until *now*. If you believed in the message of the gospel, and it bore fruit in you, and that fruit remains to this day, you are saved. Now, mark that one of the fruits is a desire for good works, so if you don’t feel that you should either yearn for it or concede that you’re not saved, and in fact don’t want to be.
-Wm
This is your misunderstanding of my belief, not either of our actual beliefs.
If you allow yourself to define “love”, that’s what it means. If you allow an atheist to define it, it’ll mean that God shouldn’t have created ANYONE (and he’s bitter about it). If you allow the Bible to define it, you’ll see that God shows His love in specific ways — for example, making us into children of God, or sending His only Son to die; all of those ways are redemptive and sacrificial.
God’s love isn’t a gooshy feeling that He has toward everything in general. It’s a living, active thing. As Lewis said: it is “fiery, sharp, bright and ruthless, ready to kill, ready to die, outspeeding light.” We don’t say that God is love because we know he feels it; we say it because He acted.
If your definition of Love holds, it would have to hold for all men, and would require God to Love them all into heaven. Why not? What is stopping Him?
In 1 John 4, where we see the snippet “God is love”, we also see the context that we should love in the same way — and who are we commanded to love? Not everyone, but rather all Christians. Isn’t John asking us to imitate God?
No, God’s love doesn’t create a debt that requires Him to save us; if it did, our salvation wouldn’t be by grace.
-Wm
I never said that God’s love required Him to save all men. What I said was that the definition of love, which is what God said He is–and yes He is asking us to imitate Him–doesn’t fit with deliberately creating people to be eternally tortured with out any opportunity of any thing else. That doesn’t mean that He has to save some one who is deliberately wicked and rejecting His message. But to deliberately create some to be such with no chance of being any other way is not acting in love.
You mentioned that you just had a new born son. Would you consider yourself a loving parent if you and your wife deliberately planned to conceive that child, carry him to term, and also planned before He was conceived to then treat him after birth in ways that could only be described as utter torture for the rest of his life?? Of course not, that is not acting in love.
I can not see how a God that says that He IS love–that love is His very essence– can possibly create a large share of His creatures for the ultimate purpose of torturing them eternally. That goes totally against ANY definition of love that I can imagine.
Saying that we are free simply because we get what we want, when, in fact, it is God who deliberately programmed us with those wants is to posit a definition of the word “free” that I think most people would reject.
And it does absolutely nothing to convince me that evil is my own fault and not God’s.
Yeah, if you program a robot to go out and kill people and be a thief and that robot doesn’t have any way to do anything else but what you have programmed it to do, how can the ulitimate cause of the robot’s criminal activity be any thing other than you who have programmed it as such?
And if God “programmed” some to be sinner’s who have no desires to do anything other than to sin, how can the utlitmate cause of that person’s sin be placed anywhere else than with God?
That is another reason that I believe the Calvinist understanding has to have gone wrong somewhere.
I said “more than the alternative.” Yes, unregenerate people would rather spend their everlasting life in the torments of hell than give due adoration to God.
I wasn’t trying to imply that they’d choose hell if given a blank slate — although the place they’d build for themselves would certainly become hellish. Some theologians have hypothesized that this is indeed the case — that the horrors of hell are actually a limit on the true horrors that we could build ourselves, if left without limits. But that’s speculation.
-Wm
“Agape” doesn’t appear in surviving Greek texts outside of the Bible (as a noun; it does occur as a verb, although it’s rare). (It first appears in the Septuagint.)
The question, therefore, is what meaning the Bible gives to it. And crucially, 1 John 4:8 seems to apply it only to loving fellow Christians. Now, we know that we’re commanded to love others elsewhere; I’m not saying that we shouldn’t or God doesn’t. But in this verse, “God is love” is only applied as a model for loving other Christians. I claim that “God is love” doesn’t mean that God can’t create as He wills, even when some of His creation isn’t destined for as much glory as the rest.
On judgment day, suppose an unrepentant atheist stands and screams that exact question at you. How do you answer, given that this person’s state — he’s now certainly facing what you declare here would be impossible for a God of love.
-Wm
William,
“On judgment day, suppose an unrepentant atheist stands and screams that exact question at you. How do you answer, given that this person’s state — he’s now certainly facing what you declare here would be impossible for a God of love.”
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that you may be missing my point entirely here. My point is not that an unrepentant atheist should not go to hell. One more time–My point is not than an unrepentant athiest should not go to hell. My point is that by any definition of love that I know of or can imagine, it is not an act of love to create a person solely for that purpose. The suffering that person will experience in hell for eternity is no less real because God decreed that he is to go there by making him the kind of person that will be an unrepentant atheist, is it?
Remember my analogy of you and your wife conceiving a child for the express purpose of tormenting and torturing him all of his life?
“Remember my analogy of you and your wife conceiving a child for the express purpose of tormenting and torturing him all of his life?”
Wm,
Cheryl is right. I think this a good analogy, and hopefully you won’t cop out by saying “God’s ways are higher than ours” since most of us already accept that.
The real question here is not being answered: why would God love someone who considers themselves an “elected” Calvinist more than someone who doesn’t know the difference? Sounds like that is based purely upon a personal belief in Calvinism than a biblical one. Please explain to us the difference.
Is our sole criteria for being condemned to hell resting on that alone? It seems to me most Calvinisists think so, because of THEIR belief in prior election.
Give us some real scriptural back up, please.
Thanks.
Why is the robot’s activity criminal (and charges are justly lodged against you)? Answer: because the robot is committing those against other humans, against whom you have no right to direct those encroachments. If you made robots commit those encroachments against other robots which you also built, would you be committing a crime?
I don’t think so.
But another point: please admit that this argument — again — echos Romans 9 with uncanny accuracy. You’re saying that God would be unjust to have mercy only on some and not on others (Rom 9:14-15), and you’re protesting that God shouldn’t find fault with us if we can’t resist His will (Rom 9:19). Paul answered those; I shouldn’t have to.
-Wm
William,
You say I John 4:8 only applies to loving fellow Christians. That is the application that he is making there, yes. However, “God is love,” is still a statement defining who God is. Just because it is applied to loving fellow Christians here, does it necessarily follow that the meaning of “God is love,” is that God only loves Christians? It seems to me that to understand the verse that way may very well be a case of eisigesis.
And by the way, Romans 13:10 uses the same word for love as is used in I John in reference to loving our neighbor. Our neighbor is not necessarily just a fellow Christian, now is he? So I think your whole argument falls apart here.
William,
“I claim that “God is love” doesn’t mean that God can’t create as He wills, even when some of His creation isn’t destined for as much glory as the rest.”
Now there is the ultimate in understatements!! Saying that some will not receive as much glory as another when one is destined for eternal blessing and the other for eternal torment seems to me to be an utterly ludicrous comparison to say the least!
I am not arguing that Romans 9 does not say what it does. What I am saying is that I am not at all certain that the Calvinist understanding of what it is saying and the way Calvinism tries to harmonize it with the rest of Scripture is correct.
And you have yet to tell me how it could possibly be that a God who describes Himself as “love” could possibly be acting in accordance with that love by decreeing that most of the humans He created will be tormented in the lake of fire that burns forever. Don’t forget my observations in #85 above.
I’ll answer the rest in a while… This you say is the “real question”, and I’m aghast.
When did anyone here say that salvation is determined by one’s Calvinistic rigor? How did this become “the real question”? When was it originally asked (since you allege I’m not answering it)? What did I say to raise it?
This is the strangest question I’ve seen here in a while.
-Wm
Nevertheless, I would like to see it answered scripturally.
mbaker: the question doesn’t appear to have a basis in scripture or reality. The question itself. It’s loaded, contrived, and incoherent. It implies that someone believes an obvious and immediate contradiction.
Oh, and you seem to be demanding that I prove this contradiction from the Bible.
What?
-Wm
Theologically, it is possible to get a very different answer from the starting point of “God is all-powerful” than from the starting point of “God is perfect love.”
I think this may be the primary error Calvin made in crafting his theology.
Wm,
Please don’t be rude, because you don’t understand why a question is being asked. It is definitely a real one that folks ask about Calvinism.
If you don’t take it seriously, perhaps someone else here could explain why some Calvinists seem so convinced that they are the elect and others are not. It just seems to me from some of the posts so far that the impression has been given that while one white lie won’t send you to hell, being a non-Calvinist will.
If you don’t think it is a fair question, by all means don’t interact with it.
Actually, I’m interested to hear more from Seth R. about Calvin’s theology in that regard.
Well, full disclaimer for readers who don’t know: I’m a Mormon.
Five point Calvinism is pretty much like theological anti-matter for Mormonism, and we basically reject the entire TULIP. Many Mormons tend to be more Arminian in outlook. But a growing number are embracing open theism (or “openness theology”).
This is just something I’ve noticed while debating other Christians. The primary motivating force behind a Calvinist’s entire theology is usually the preservation of God’s omnipotence. God must be all-powerful – “otherwise how can I trust him?”
Another disclaimer: Calvin is the most controversial theologian that people have never read. That would include me. But from what I’ve read from other about him – both pro and con – it seems that God’s omnipotence and omniscience are the most important driving concerns.
Thing is – the definition of omnipotence and omniscience that Calvinism uses are highly abstract and make a lot of assumptions about the ontology of the universe. Assumptions like creation ex nihilo, for instance. Or that ultimate power requires the power to annihilate. Calvinism proceeds from these assumptions and crafts an impressive theology that is both highly logical, and well-supported scripturally.
But since the assumptions it proceeds from are faulty, the results are skewed. Since Calvin reads the scriptures with an aim towards establishing a maximally powerful God, a different selection of scriptures stick out for him than would otherwise. And the whole thing is then just simple logic:
1. God is the most powerful being possible in any world or universe.
2. This requires that God be the first and final cause in the causation chain.
3. Meaning we, and everything else in the universe are contingent upon God.
4. So we get our being from God.
5. For God to be maximally powerful, he must be maximally knowing – he has to know both past, present, and future perfectly.
6. This means he knew what he was doing when he commanded us into existence.
7. He also had to know how we’d turn out.
8. This means that he knew exactly how we would end up when he was IN PROCESS of creating us.
9. That must mean he has predestined some for salvation and others for damnation.
10. To claim anything else would mean God is not omnipotent and omniscient. It would basically make him either an ignorant, or incompetent craftsman of humanity.
From this chain, predestination is really just good logic. I have to say, as much as I dislike Calvin, the theology is quite impressive. Logically, it works very well indeed. Arminianism has a hard time countering such logical progression – especially since it shares many of the same premises as Calvinism (like creation ex nihilo).
But if you change the premises, Calvinism loses much of its potency and just starts to look distasteful.
Forget about getting an abstract being of ultimate power. Start instead from the Bible passage “God is love.” What would be needed for God to be the perfect embodiment of love?
First – Love must be shared. It cannot be purely self-directed. We know this from how God has expressed his love in Jesus Christ – “that God gave his only begotten son…”
Second – Love must be freely given by both parties. It cannot be coerced or forced. This is something we all know. If I brew up a magic love potion to make a girl fall desperately in love with me, would you say I’d found true love? Or would you reprimand me for forcing something which cannot be forced? Coercion destroys love.
From these two observations, you ask what sort of being God would have to be, and what sort of beings we would have to be.
I think when you pursue this line of thought to its logical conclusion, most of the TULIP falls apart. Total Depravity doesn’t work because there has to be something within us capable of choosing God (a good act – in and of itself). Unconditional Election doesn’t work because it introduces force and coercion into what was supposed to be a freely entered relationship. Limited Atonement isn’t something I feel I have a good enough grasp on to say much about, so I’ll leave that one. Irresistible Grace is right out because it’s basically the equivalent of the magic love potion I was talking about. No coercion allowed. Predestination doesn’t work either for the same reason.
Keep in mind – the entire TULIP is quite logical if you are talking about a God who is maximally powerful (and you make a few philosophical ontological assumptions about existence). The Calvinist God has no greater aim or purpose than to enjoy himself. After all – “what could possibly be better than me?” Human beings must be subordinated to this ultimate aim in every way. Under such a model, we frankly don’t need to care if humans are free or not. As long as they make God look good, they serve their purpose.
But if you start from what we know of love, and posit God to embody it perfectly, then this self-centered and manipulative being just won’t do.
Yeah, Seth, as I have been discussing with William, the love issue is one of the places where it seems to me that the whole Calvinist theology breaks down. There is just no definition of love that I know of that would cover God’s actions in that theology.
However, I also believe God is all powerful. But why does being all powerful have to preclude God making the decision to allow His creation to make a choice of their own without it being completely determined for them from before creation? Isn’t that similar to a human parent with their child? They have the right to set the ground rules for that child and the right to completely enforce them. (I realize this analogy will break down, because unlike God, we can’t “make” our children do some things if they don’t want to. However, I think it is still close.). However, without losing our authority as parents to do so, we can still give that child his own choices in some matters.
Thanks, Seth for a good explanation. I think you understood my question, and presented both sides of the coin very well.
I think you’re right — you phrase it differently below, and it’s significant. My apologies, and I’ll discuss your point as I understand it now.
I have a few different responses.
First, God’s Love is not his only purpose and attribute. His holiness, justice, glory, longsuffering, and mercy are also in view, and He promises to reveal them to us. Thus, God’s love is not his only actuating motive.
Second, nobody’s talking about creating a person solely for the purpose of tormenting them. I’ve always said that there are other purposes to hell — and in fact, it’s pretty horrible to imagine that God is condemning people to hell (whether before or after their sin) “solely for the purpose of tormenting them.” There _must_ be something more.
Third, the problem of suffering is “no less real” on earth as it is in hell. Only the duration changes.
That would obviously be wrong. But God created us knowing that we would suffer — many of us VERY seriously, but all of us suffer. And yet He created us. Read the Psalms to see some of the laments of people put through suffering and crying out to their creator. See Job’s cry wishing he’d never been born.
But God came even closer to fulfilling this analogy. He sent His own Son — conceived, in fact, for this purpose — not only to suffer like we do, but with the purpose of killing him by torture in His prime years.
Your analogy includes the element of creating for the sole purpose of tormenting, but this is your own invention; Calvinism doesn’t make that claim.
-Wm
“Second, nobody’s talking about creating a person solely for the purpose of tormenting them.”
That’s true. But a logical conclusion from Calvinism is that God creates some people for the purpose of damning them.
But not solely, I will give you that. God may have a plan for them to do other things before they are damned – just like he intended in the first place.
However, while this does make God a more efficient being (getting multiple different uses from the same human), I don’t see how this makes him a loving one.
William,
Maybe I have been phrasing it wrong when I say, “creating them for no other purpose than tormenting them forever.” My point is that by decreeing that they go to hell before the creation of the world, before they were even born, and giving them absolutely no out in the matter, as far as they are concerned, THAT is the end result.
And yes, the problem of suffering on earth is far different than the problem of suffering in hell. And I don’t think by any means that it is just a problem of duration. I don’t think any suffering a person endures on this earth compares to the lake of fire that burns forever. (Unless of course they are very seriously burned–there may be some comparison there.)
And yes, we all know that God has other attributes besides love. However, I honestly don’t see that any of the ones you have mentioned above would require that God decree before the foundation of the earth that a large proportion of His creation would be doomed to an eternity in hell with no chance of anything else happening to them in order for Him to show us those characteristics. There are plenty of opportunities for us to see them all around us on a day to day basis even if God gave people choice in things. Everyone simply is not going to choose Him!
And lastly, again God has said that He is love. If you ARE something, doesn’t whatever you are permeate whatever you do even if other attributes of who you are will come into play also? How in the world does love come into play in the long run (eternity) at all for the people that, according to Calvin, are decreed before the world was even created to spend an eternity in hell? I just don’t see that as an expression of God’s love to them–an expression of that attribute of God–in any way.