Tom Kelley said...Steven Stark said...
3. I come back to this idea. If everyone really understood the situation, then why would anyone reject Christ? It is incoherent - the action of one who is not of sound mind, or of one who does not have all the facts before him.
Steven,
I've enjoyed reading your comments. I appreciate the clarity with which you present your thoughts and the respect you demonstrate to those who have different views. Very refreshing.
Not to get into a lengthy point-by-point response to your comments (though it might be enjoyable to think through these things together), but I do have a thought on your question above. The only way in which I see it as coherent that anyone would choose hell over heaven (assuming they understood the significance of their choice, which is itself an interest point to consider) is if they would genuinely prefer hell. I'm reminded of the words of Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost, "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."
My point is that, strange as it may sound, what if the nature of mankind is so corrupted by sin that our reason and affections are warped in such a way as to make us actually prefer to be separated from God for eternity? After all, if God is exactly as the Bible and Christian theology portrays Him, and that kind of God seems horrible and evil to those who do not know Him, would not those people perhaps actually prefer not to be around Him? Perhaps the most loving thing such a God could do with those who hate how He is and all He stands for would be to allow them to stay as far away from Him as possible.
Just a thought.
Steven Stark said...Tom Kelley,
Thanks for the words, I really appreciate them!
I am familiar with the idea that perhaps some people would actually prefer Hell. It's like the idea that everyone actually goes to the same place, only some perceive it as Heaven and some perceive it as Hell. It is interesting, although it does take away from the idea that Hell is punishment.
And the person who prefers Hell, if it is an unpleasant (or sadistically horrible) punishment would be quite delusional.
Of course a Christian Universalist's idea of Hell is that fire and brimstone serve only two purposes - to change and to purify. Once again, punishment is only relevant if it instructs - if it makes better. If there is no hope of this, then punishment is pure sadism.
Given an infinite amount of "time", surely everyone would eventually come to God. And if sinners are truly delusional, then God would surely break those chains.
Tom Kelley said...Steven,
I don't know much about the true nature of hell (or heaven), having never been there. :) I do think they are separate places, and that there is a metaphorical aspect to descriptions of hell (such as "fire"), just as there are of heaven ("the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass" -- I've yet to see transparent gold, though I remember something called "transparent aluminum" from a Star Trek movie).
But I'm not certain that punishment is always about correction or instruction. We send murderers to jail or to death not to teach or improve them, but to exact retribution. Their punishment is not a matter of making them a better person, but of settling the score, so to speak. That is central to the concept of justice -- that things weigh out.
Also, I'm not so certain that the primary idea of hell is that of punishment, rather it seems to be more about torment. A person can be tormented by feelings of guilt, regret, remorse, hatred, revenge, etc. And a person can be tormented from within like that without desiring to change anything about themselves, but they blame all their problems and feelings on someone else.
Could a person actually prefer hell? I think this goes back to what Wade said about how big a deal sin is. If sin has so utterly corrupted human nature as to make us truly believe that what is in reality evil is good, and what is in reality good is evil, then a person would only be following their nature and ultimate desire to want to be separated from God (which is what hell is ultimately all about). No amount of time would change their true nature, and taking such a person out of hell and placing them in heaven would be to that person a greater torment, and genuinely cruel.
Steven Stark said...Tom,
I must differ with you on the view of punishment. While I agree with you that punishment is about retribution, this only makes sense in the context of it being a deterrent.
If a person murdered one close to me, yet I somehow knew that there was absolutely no chance of this person committing the same act again, and I also knew that the "deterrent effect" would have zero impact on other potential murderers, then there is no reason for punishment.
If this violates something in my spirit, as it certainly would, I chalk it up to the human desire for revenge rather than for justice. Justice would be my loved one not having been murdered in the first place. But nothing changes that. And justice is not served by more suffering if there is no benefit to be derived from the suffering.
Now, you might be thinking that there is another desire at play. The desire for the murderer to realize what he has done, to repent, to find remorse. This may be true as well, but this is punishment as instruction, with the hope of change for the better - which an eternal hell would not provide.
I can understand your idea of an "utterly corrupted" human. But if a person prefers suffering to "not suffering", which we see everyday here on earth, because it is in some sense what we are used to, what is comfortable - I associate this with delusion.
I think your idea of "torment" is right on. We all know that feeling in different degrees. But when we experience that, when we blame our problems on someone else, we are delusional. It does not mean we are not accountable - we suffer for our delusions.
But I cannot see it as merciful to leave a lost human to an eternity of delusion, when God would have the power to show the person love and joy, to clear the mind, to show the true nature of reality, to break the spell of the sinful nature.
I want to see (or not see) some transparent aluminum!
very good discussion,
Steven
Tom Kelley said...Steven,
Good comments. I guess we'll just have to disagree about punishment -- I think that pure retribution, without regard to correction, is a valid aspect of both punishment and justice.
And sometimes the delusional are quite content with their delusions. :)
Steven Stark said...Hi Tom,
"I think that pure retribution, without regard to correction, is a valid aspect of both punishment and justice."
I am curious how you make this work alongside the Christian ideas of forgiveness and mercy.
I think "pure retribution" can only validly exist as a deterrent -in order to keep a society orderly. I am wondering what purpose "pure retribution"serves. It does not correct the initial wrong. If no positive effects are achieved through punishment, then the retribution only adds to the net wrong that has occurred. I guess this is a fancy way of saying "two wrongs don't make a right."
" And sometimes the delusional are quite content with their delusions. :)"
I suppose if you weren't, you wouldn't be delusional. But I agree, that we often choose the path of comfort over the path of greater overall happiness. The question is - if a person is delusional, does he have the power on his own to overcome the delusion? And if not, would a loving parent, or creator who certainly has the power, do something to intervene?
I am going to post our conversation on my blog. I think it is really, really interesting. Thank you again!
Just to bring it up to date, I'm posting here the rest of our conversation so far from Wade's blog.
ReplyDeleteTom Kelley said...
Steven,
Thanks! I'll try to stop by your blog if I can think of anything else worthwhile to say.
For now, I'll just note two things:
(1) I see retribution as a good in itself, a matter of doing the right thing. My notion of justice is that a bad deed deserves a bad consequence. Mercy and compassion can and do exist alongside justice. In the case of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the retributive aspect of justice (an eye for an eye) is met via Christ taking the punishment of others onto Himself, and mercy is met in God's choice to accept what He has done on our behalf, rather than requiring we ourselves be punished.
(2) It doesn't seem to me to be such a horrible notion that a loving God would give people exactly what they want, even if what they want is not what is best for them. Perhaps He chooses to allow them to remain in that state because it most fits their desires and it most demonstrates His nature and character.
Peace.
Sun Feb 14, 12:07:00 AM 2010
Steven Stark said...
Hey Tom,
I keep thinking we will come to a stopping place, but it's just a really interesting topic!
"the doctrine of substitutionary atonement"
God sacrifice himself to himself?
If a murder is done, no one would see justice as having been served if another person were allowed to do the jail time, and the killer was allowed to walk. An innocent person sitting in jail does not satisfy justice - whether it be instructive punishment or mere retribution.
But I will adopt the idea of the substitutionary atonement for the rest of my comment:
"It doesn't seem to me to be such a horrible notion that a loving God would give people exactly what they want, even if what they want is not what is best for them."
Can a person really, actually want what they think is not best for them? Interesting topic. I think people are deluded into thinking the wrong things are what is right for them. If we asked people, "do you want what is best for you?" wouldn't they all answer "yes" unless they were just being contrary in the moment?
Also, if God is giving people "exactly what they want" then Hell is removed from the notion of punishment or retribution - since the sinner will not experience it as such, but rather as exactly what they want. An "eye for an eye" would not work if the offender actually wanted his eye to be plucked out all along.
I also think the idea that some people prefer Hell and some people prefer Heaven MIGHT suggest a meritorious salvation - that "I am a saved child of God because of the preference for Him that I have chosen." Is salvation a partnership or is it 100% the work of God?
The Christian Universalist marries these ideas well. God never shuts the door on a sinner, and eventually all hearts will turn to Him. His will will be done. But people are still responsible to make that choice. Yet given an infinite amount of time, and the unfailing love of God, no person could resist perfect goodness and love forever. As St. Augustine wrote, "Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it repose in Thee..."
Sun Feb 14, 01:20:00 AM 2010
I don't want to get too sidetracked by a discussion of substitutionary atonement, but to respond to your comment, it doesn't seem strange or unjust to me to think of one person paying a penalty for another. It just seems like mercy. The is the category of justice and there is the category of "not justice" -- within the category of "not justice" there is injustice and there is mercy. The opposite of justice is injustice, but mercy is not injustice, it is simply "not justice"; it is another thing altogether. I hope that makes some sense.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
I think people are deluded into thinking the wrong things are what is right for them. If we asked people, "do you want what is best for you?" wouldn't they all answer "yes" unless they were just being contrary in the moment?
I think we can all know inwardly that something is not best for us, but we still want it anyway. Too much sugar or fat, speeding, sleeping with a neighbor's wife -- all the time we make choices on the basis of emotion or desire that we rationally know are not the smartest choices. It isn't that we think it is right at the moment, we just don't always care about what's right.
Also, if God is giving people "exactly what they want" then Hell is removed from the notion of punishment or retribution - since the sinner will not experience it as such, but rather as exactly what they want. An "eye for an eye" would not work if the offender actually wanted his eye to be plucked out all along.
That depends on the alternative. A person may choose a horrible thing because it seems to them to be the lesser of two evil choices. A sinner may choose an eternity apart from God and every good blessing that he bestows, knowing it will be a despicable situation, because the idea of hanging out with a God they hate and consider evil is even more despicable to them.
I also think the idea that some people prefer Hell and some people prefer Heaven MIGHT suggest a meritorious salvation - that "I am a saved child of God because of the preference for Him that I have chosen." Is salvation a partnership or is it 100% the work of God?
That is one of the reasons I hold to a Reformed soteriology, which teaches that salvation is based on God's prior choice of us, arising from His good purposes, rather than based on our prior choice of Him. I can claim no merit in my choice, as I only made it because He chose to graciously enabled me to choose Him.
The Christian Universalist marries these ideas well. God never shuts the door on a sinner, and eventually all hearts will turn to Him. His will will be done. But people are still responsible to make that choice. Yet given an infinite amount of time, and the unfailing love of God, no person could resist perfect goodness and love forever.
Like the Seventh Day Adventist's view of "hell" that I commented on in your previous post, the Universalist's view has emotional and intellectual appeal (especially in that it helps mitigate the problem of the existence of evil), but I don't see it as lining up with the full counsel of Scripture. If I select certain passages of the Bible regarding the nature of God and statements about the future state of humans, while ignoring others, I can put forth a rational argument for universalism. But I don't feel that is being faithful to all Scripture as God's Word.
Yes, people are responsible to make the choice to love God, but we come back to the essential nature of humans as sinful, and thus unwilling to surrender their own will to God's. If the corruption is indeed entire (as I believe the Bible teaches), no amount of time will change it. Only God has that power, and, as I said, perhaps God chooses to allow some them to remain in that state because it most fits their desires and it most demonstrates His nature and character.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for reposting those comments here. I meant to do the same thing, but then I forgot last night. And thanks for a very well-thought out response.
I think our conversation on the substitutionary atonement is getting close to our conversation on punishment. I don't think that demanding blood makes much sense if it is from anyone. But I agree with your idea of mercy being "not justice". I just disagree that justice is an end to itself. It has little value if it does not serve an overall purpose of making things better - which means creating a situation where initial evils are less likely to be committed. However, I am open to interesting interpretations of it which we could get into sometime.
I completely agree with you that we often suspend our rationality and make mistakes when balancing different desires - for instance - the immediate pleasure of stealing all the cookies vs. the longer term pleasure of preserving community by sharing the cookies with others. I think a suspension of rationality is a pretty good definition of delusion. Sin is getting something good in a bad way. It results in a net loss of pleasure despite the more immediate, or easier nature of the ill-gotten reward. Sin is not good for you. Right and wrong are not arbitrary distinctions. There must be real reasons for those terms.
"because the idea of hanging out with a God they hate and consider evil is even more despicable to them."
I think this idea is possible, because if God were evil from my point of view, or yours, we would perhaps not want to spend eternity with Him. But if God is love, then it is difficult to imagine a person rejecting that forever. Most people I know who reject religion do so because they do not associate it with love (and therefore God).
But I still think this idea of hell is counter to the traditional view of it as punishment, where the damned understands exactly what is going on and is sorry about it.
"I hold to a Reformed soteriology, which teaches that salvation is based on God's prior choice of us, arising from His good purposes, rather than based on our prior choice of Him"
"God chooses to allow some them to remain in that state because it most fits their desires and it most demonstrates His nature and character."
In this case, much of our conversation is moot. God has created certain people for Himself, and certain people for damnation. This means that God is evil. He has intentionally created most of the people who have ever existed for the purpose that they suffer.
I agree that there are problematic passages with a Universalist view. But there are also problematic passages with a Calvinist view.
Thinking right off the bat here:
Concerning Christ - 1 Tim. 2:6 "who gave himself a ransom for all"
Concerning God - 1 Tim 2:4 "who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Any amount of exegesis employed by a Calvinist to explain these passages would be equal to the amount employed by a Universalist to explain the eternal Hell passages.
In this case, much of our conversation is moot. God has created certain people for Himself, and certain people for damnation. This means that God is evil. He has intentionally created most of the people who have ever existed for the purpose that they suffer.
ReplyDeleteYes, I suppose the conversation is moot at this point. I see no point in continuing if you wish to equate my position with attributing evil to God.
Thanks for the exchange.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry if my previous comment came off as offensive. I hope this is not the case. Could you please explain how God could not be evil, by any definition of that word that we use, and still create people for the person of suffering?
If not, I understand, but I am very interested in your view.
Also, I did not mean that our conversation was moot from a perspective of meaning. I have really gotten and lot out of it. I meant that perhaps the subjects pursued are not relevant if God has preordained our thoughts and attitudes towards Him.
thanks!
Steven
Hi, Steven,
ReplyDeleteNo, your previous comment wasn't offensive -- I've had my views (and myself) called worse. :) And many times the person was probably right.
The truth is I can't adequately explain how it is that God can elect some to salvation and not others while Himself not being evil or responsible for evil. I believe that He is good because it is what the Bible teaches. I believe He chose whom He wishes because I see that taught in the Bible, too.
I recognize the tension that creates, and that it is not easily (if ever) fully rationally apprehended. But I can live with not understanding things about God, as I would expect there to be things about a Supreme Being that are beyond my comprehension. I know that probably isn't a satisfactory response; it is just a matter of faith for me.
However, the same basic objection could be raised simply based on the existence of evil, no matter what a person's view of election is. How can there be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, and loving God, if evil is allowed to exist? Does He not know? Can't He prevent it? Doesn't He care? If He knows the pain and suffering caused by evil, and if He had the power to stop it (or never allow it to exist), but He chooses not to, isn't He either responsible for it, or evil Himself, or both? Faith in God, in the face of such questions, is not something I consider irrational, but it is also not purely a matter of reason.
Hey Tom,
ReplyDelete"I believe that He is good because it is what the Bible teaches. I believe He chose whom He wishes because I see that taught in the Bible, too.
I recognize the tension that creates, and that it is not easily (if ever) fully rationally apprehended."
We both agree that the Bible contains different ideas that are not easily reconciled. I think that another possibility to consider is that the Bible is the work of mankind. This doesn't mean it isn't extremely special. It is one, if not the, most special record of mankind that we have. But the Bible is man's attempt at understanding history and what is "divine", rather than the product of a separate deity just beyond the clouds dictating his precise words to us.
" I would expect there to be things about a Supreme Being that are beyond my comprehension"
This is true. But we should recognize that this claim could be used for anything. There is nothing that God couldn't do where we couldn't claim the mystery of God. Therefore, claims that God is good or evil are fairly meaningless - unless God's actions can be understood to fall into one of these categories - as we use them.
"However, the same basic objection could be raised simply based on the existence of evil"
I agree that the existence of evil is difficult to reconcile with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. However I think the prospect of eternal damnation is different than ephemeral evils. We might construct a theodicy justifying evil, if in the end, everything comes out all right. I won't get into it, but it's the marriage of determinism with freewill - We all end up in the same place regardless of our choices, but our choices severely impact how enjoyable or unpleasant our journey is. This is a good description of Christian Universalism, atheism, and many different ideas.
"Faith in God, in the face of such questions, is not something I consider irrational, but it is also not purely a matter of reason. "
Tom, I agree with you here. My only addition would be that faith is not justified if it becomes an abuse of faith. I define the abuse of faith this way - ignoring observation. Although faith is a big part of life, is has to be harmonized with facts.
But I agree that there is not a one to one ratio between how we experience life and how we understand it! :)
BTW, Tom - I am not suggesting that you disagree with any of my points on faith - I have just been thinking on faith lately, and those are some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWhat I might ask is this: Why do you make the leap of faith that the Bible is entirely reliable? Or do you?
good stuff,
Steven
Steven,
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts, all.
I guess we all draw the line at where reason ends and faith begins as our own understanding and conscience dictates.
Yes, I do believe the Bible is entirely reliable, if properly understood. That's a big "if", and I don't claim to have much understanding of it. Some knowledge, but not a lot of understanding.
I don't consider my trust in the Bible it a leap of faith in that I see a need to suspend or deny reason; I just think reason only takes us so far, and that true knowledge of the divine requires divine revelation.
In the end, I am more inclined to a presuppositionalist position than an evidentialist view. As a Christian, I accept the truth and reliability of the Bible as an a priori matter. I believe that both my faith in God and my faith in His Word are gifts from God.
All that may not be very satisfactory intellectually for anyone else, but it works for me. :)
-----
Tom