The difficultly (for me) is that there are answers. The problem is that they are not generally emotionally satisfying. I mean, which feels better? "I worked hard and got into heaven" or "By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9)? Well, of course it feels better to think you've made it yourself. Or how satisfying is it to hear "God allows pain and suffering and evil so that His glory will be fully displayed"? Because, after all, it's all about us and what's with this megalomaniac God of yours?
I was particularly struck by this "It's not fair!" complaint. As if God is obligated to save people. As if there is some reason that God would need to save anyone. As if anyone at all goes to hell because they didn't trust Christ1. Fair? You want fair? Fair would be eternal damnation for every single one of us. Fair would be receiving what we have each and every one of us earned -- a one way ticket to hell. Don't talk to me about fair. I do not want fair. I want grace -- receiving favor I don't deserve. I want mercy -- not receiving the punishment I so greatly deserve. Fair? Don't give me fair.
But, again, that's not an emotionally satisfying answer. It doesn't make the skeptic feel better. And in the Age of Empathy in which we live, how we feel defines reality (most of the time). So truth is out, fair is defined by however we choose, and God is still in hot water. I don't know how He's going to work His way out of this mess He's in. I don't know how because I can't see any of it myself.
________
1 Note: No one goes to hell because they didn't trust Christ. They earn eternal death. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). Like a person who is bitten by a snake but doesn't take the anti-venom. They don't die from failing to take the anti-venom. They die from the snakebite.
36 comments:
I'm sure the incisive critique at you know where will shock you and astound you with it's profundity. But, I think that there are a few things that cut right to the heart of the differences.
"Now, this is standard evangelical teaching and there is a point to it... the point being, we want GRACE, not justice, not fairness."
Not how the focus shifts to what we "want", not what we deserve or what God wants. It's all about "me".
"The problem with this reasoning is that it is not speaking of justice, as we know and understand justice."
I'll leave aside the fact that his version of "this reasoning" is not an accurate summary and stick to what was said. So, the problem is not the we are sinners, it's not even that we commit sin, it's that God doesn't understand justice. Because obviously justice and fairness should be defined by how "we" "understand" and "know" it. There are so many problems with this one sentence it just boggles my mind. But it all comes down to thinking that everything must be filtered through our Reason, "knowledge" and experience. If it doesn't line up with that then it must be wrong.
"Part of the notion of justice includes proportionate punishment for sins/mistakes/crimes."
I guess I missed the part of the Bible where God defined justice that way.
"So, while human beings are all sinful or imperfect in nature, do most of us do something so monstrous in our life as to merit an eternity in torment as an equitable "just" punishment? Most of us do not kill, do not cheat, do not steal that which isn't ours, do not rape, do not commit genocide... so, is a lifetime of mistakes that include lying, being less than honest, gossiping, speeding in our car, etc... are these rightly considered awful enough to justly merit a punishment of eternal torment? Is that rational? Moral?"
Since Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully is equal to adultery and that hating someone was equal to murder, it seems silly to suggest that the worst we do is tell a few white lies and maybe gossip a bit. The problem is with the last little bit. "Rational", by whose standard? "Moral", by what standard? Since Dan can't even demonstrate the existence of a transcendent universal standard of morality, it seems as if he is attempting to inflict his construct of morality or Rationality on everyone else.
"Or, consider that we have been created imperfect by God..."
This is another biggie, I guess once you relegate Genesis to myth, you just get to make stuff up. There really isn't anything else to say about this except that I'm amazed that someone with 70 years of intense Bible study and such a profound live for the Bible would so grossly mis-state the Orthodox Christian position.
"The obvious answer is "insane...""
I'm not quite sure i Dr. Trabue is diagnosing the mental health of Orthodox Christians or of God, but either way it's quite a large bite he's taken.
This is a bit longer and more detailed than most comments so feel free not to post it.
I am personally astounded when a person who claims to love God and His Word can assert that we haven't done anything to deserve Hell. What book are they reading? What god are they transgressing? Because Jesus said, "He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) And Paul is abundantly clear both that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (which explains the magnitude of the transgression) and "the wages of sin is death."
"It's okay," they claim. "We're not that bad. Certainly not deserving of Hell ... for our Cosmic Treason against the Most High." Okay, so they don't put in that last part because they don't recognize that last part since the standard, as you pointed out, is "me".
And -- I'm just curious here -- why is it that these views are never backed by anything more than "We know better"?
Actually, that first quote you have Craig, I think we'd agree with. We want grace, not justice or fairness. Stan even said it in his post. The problem comes in that they define grace as more of a right for being "God's children" than the meritless gift it really is.
Actually, David, I think Craig was quoting someone who was quoting me and was (at that very small point) agreeing. From there they diverged. Something like, "This is the standard line (that Stan used), but we don't need to worry about justice because no just God would send pitifully minute sinners like us to any sort of real punishment."
My quotes are from an esteemed theologian and psychologist who took the time to write an incisive critique of Stan's piece.
My problem with the quote is that it places the focus on "we", instead of on God. I see this a common thread through progressive theology which is more and more about filtering everything through the lens of human experience than trying to follow God.
So, Craig, because you pointed me there, I went and looked. I can't figure out what's the point of Christianity at all if we're all good enough. All of the sudden it seems rather cruel of God and stupid of Christ to come and die for people mostly good enough to make it on their own. I'm completely lost.
At the risk of too much repetition, the point is that it's completely up to us and our ability to use our Reason and experience to grope blindly hoping we haven't made any mistakes in what things are sinful while assuring ourselves that God won't hold a tiny little mistake against us.
It is a homocentric theology instead of a theocentric theology.
I saw your exchange over there and I doubt you'll be getting definitive answers.
It seems like it boils down to "Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners?"
I like the term, "anthropocentric". ("Homo" is getting a new meaning, you know.)
I'm OK with either but I feel like homocentric is a proper term and I feel like not using it because " homo" has been hijacked is kind of a surrender. But certainly either are appropriate.
As it turns out, Craig, "homocentric" is defined in the dictionary as "having the same center." Where "homo" is a prefix meaning "same" (thus, "homo"-sexual refers to "same"-sex). Just FYI because I understood what you meant.
I can't wait until I have time to quote mine this recent bit of wonderfulness at Dan's. But, lets look at a few more.
"I'm just pointing out the reality that, in English, when we speak of Justice, it includes the notion of proportionate punishment."
The obvious problem is that there is no way to draw an equivalence between the concepts embodied by the English word "justice" with the the notion of a God who is Just. To do so is nothing but an attempt to shoehorn God into a form that minimizes His true nature.
"Stan, is that your questions are based on faulty premises,..."
Of course, your questions are based on faulty premises, but his are based on his "Reason and experience". It's interesting that I've been trying to get Dan to deal with the flaws in his underlying assumptions with no luck, but now he expects you to do what he won't.
I wish you luck if you continue over there.
I suspect that this idea ("We've done nothing bad enough to deserve Hell") is much more prevalent than one might think. It's based on human standards and fails to take into account the violation of the Most High. And, of course, I cannot begin to imagine what makes "Christianity" an actual thing if sin just doesn't rise to the level of condemnation. (I mean, can you be a Christian if you don't see that Christ's sacrifice was necessary?)
I agree. At one point I was trying to explore the who "King"/"Lord" dynamic that occurs all through the Gospels and the response was "King is metaphorical language.". No support, no citations of the text, nothing but the assertion. So, if one can remove God from His throne as King, and minimize sin to "I haven't been that bad", and dismiss the atonement as nothing, yet still consider one's self a christian, I guess all bets really are off.
BTW, you do notice that there is no actual definition/Biblical support for the supposed "Way of Grace", also that in the midst of arguing against the notion of rules we see this "WOG" which has all the appearances of being a rule or set of rules. Either that or it is simply a tarted up version of universalism.
Back when Rob Bell released his book explaining there was no such thing as hell, John Piper tweeted, "Goodbye, Rob Bell." It got some coverage. Seemed mean. Piper was just saying, "When you dismiss the biblical version of Hell, you dismiss Christianity." I suppose enough said.
I believe it was Francis Chan who did a pretty thorough demolishing of Bell's book. My problem with that theological position is that the concept of hell is so entwined with the message of Jesus, that to do away with it you have to relegate the "red letters" to some sort of myth or metaphor. Where that seems problematic is when you already dismiss the OT as myth or legend, and the rest of the NT as unreliable, then you dismiss the parts of Jesus words that you don't like, you aren't left with much. Which is the point I guess.
And to end up where "he" is requires the same dismissal and ends up with the same "not much". Yes.
I think I finally have Dan's position figured out, or at least narrowed down.
Based on his most recent comments he is advocating one of these three options.
1. A works based righteousness. As long as you don't commit too many of the really bad sins then you are going to be fine.
2. Universalism
I just don;t see any other options. It's certainly not Orthodox Christianity.
It's grace, Craig. Really, you should stop gossiping and slandering.
Where have I ever called for a works based righteousness as a means of salvation? I have not, this is a false claim (and Stan, you really shouldn't allow or encourage gossip and false claims at your blog, especially when I am not allowed to defend myself... you guys should be better than this...)
Nor have I argued for universalism, not as it's understood, generally.
So, if you ever want to actually know what my position is, why not ask me? I do tend to answer questions, unlike you guys.
On the other hand, I get it: Your position (that god is a monster who would condemn someone to eternal torture for one minor sin - and thus, you slander God by saying God is neither just nor perfect, but childish and whimsical and immoral as hell) is not one that can be defended rationally. So, when reasonable questions arise from your insane sounding argument, you absolutely CAN NOT defend your position or answer the questions because, well, your position is insane and immoral. So, I would run and hide and refuse to answer questions, too, if I were called on such a crazy argument.
May God soften your heart and open your eyes, brother.
Well, thanks. Does this mean answers are forthcoming? Or just a small softening of the heart at a time?
Peace, pal.
Answers? They would do you no good. You don't understand the terms. You don't understand the point. You don't understand the questions. I'm just giving you the opportunity to explain yourself. Because what you are proposing is not Christian doctrine, so I figured others would like to see it. (And it is neither gossip nor false claims to say, "This is all I can figure he believes." Besides, it's more than I can figure. Beyond that, if Craig's comments are gossip and false claims, do you not classify your representation that he believes God to be "a monster who would condemn someone to eternal torture for one minor sin" of the same caliber? I don't see you apologizing for your "false claims" even though you just did what Craig did.) I do have to say that the massive arrogance required to say that "Every single Christian who believed from the beginning in the doctrine of the Atonement and in the Justice of God and in the doctrine of Hell was absolutely wrong, but I, in my great wisdom, have figured out that all of you for all time were insane and immoral. And all without a single Scriptural reason for it. Truly astounding.
But,l rest assured, I have no plans to fence with you. We don't even speak the same language. I'm just putting it here because you were directly referenced (for once).
If I am holding an open conversation with you or Craig, one where you are free to respond, that is not gossip. It is conversation. Beyond that, I am saying "This is what it sounds like you are saying, would you clarify?" THAT is not gossip. Additionally, if I am talking about ideas, not people, then that is not gossip.
Do you understand or do I need to explain myself further?
As to your unwillingness to defend your position, it's no skin off my nose. However, I, for one, apparently believe in you more than you believe in yourself... I believe you are entirely capable of explaining yourself if you wanted to. If you came across a word that you are using in a non-standard way, you are entirely capable of giving the definition.
So, when you say "YOU don't understand," you are correct. You are using "justice" in a non-standard English way. I DON'T understand your use of the word. It's why I asked you to define it, to explain yourself. Now, I may not be the brightest bulb, but I am entirely capable of understanding IF someone explains. But you are correct that I can't understand if you are unwilling to explain.
But don't flatter yourself to think that you are speaking about something that is beyond my comprehension IF someone explains their self. I'm sure you're smart and all, and I'm aware of my limitations, but how can I know unless someone tells me? Especially if you want to insist on using non-standard definitions.
Your call. But I'm on record as saying I believe in you.
But perhaps you can explain: Why CAN'T I understand (in your opinion)? What is stopping me other than your unwillingness to explain?
I already explained why. We don't speak the same language.
And you're deceitfulness is showing. You didn't even choke when you said, "I believe in you" even though you're happy to deluge me with messages telling me I'm crazy, insane, immoral, unable to defend my views, without logic, without basis ... must I continue?
No, I'm not using "justice" in a non-standard way. But "sin" appears to be a new concept to you. You're thinking "stealing cookies" or "not always completely honest" while I'm thinking "Cosmic Treason against the Most High". Nor is it a matter of "I'm too smart for you." As I said ... as I've always said ... we're defining terms differently. "Love", "sin", even "Christian" mean different things to me than to you. You "love the Word of God" and then explain it away based on your own experiences and perceptions and I "love the Word of God" and use it to figure out where my experiences and perceptions need to be corrected. Not the same concept. I concur with David (Psa 51:5) and you concur with Deepak Chopra. Different worlds, man.
Now, if you're planning to continue a dialog with me, you can stop. I'm not going to do it. If you want to try to comment to someone else, I'll leave that possibility open. Here.
I hate to get drawn in, but it's not that you can't understand, but won't. It is a willful refusal. Stan's position has been clearly stated repeatedly. But because you disagree with his position, you demonize him, or call him names, or insult him. There is no, "I see where you're coming from and disagree". You give no Biblical basis for your beliefs, and then expect someone that stands strictly on the Bible to agree with you. The only Scriptural "proofs" you've ever given are, "that's what it says, but that's not what is means" with no Biblical basis to back it up.
Also, you're minimizing sin. In your eyes, one sin is less heinous than another. But according to the Word, all sin merits the same punishment, because all sin is just as heinous. That impure thought you just had is just as bad as the blaspheming-serial killing-baby rapist. In God's eyes, all sins are a violation of His law, and there is only one punishment for violating the word of the Most High. And because you believe not all sin is meritorious of death, you are accused of minimizing the Word of God and for preaching a works based salvation, since doing less wrong will merit you favor, where doing more wrong will merit you...less favor.
I'm sorry, the troll wins again. I just can't stand by and watch God, God's Word, and my dad be vilified by someone that professes to like them all.
Look, you ARE using "justice" in a non-standard way. You are saying that ONE "sin" (more on that later) is worthy of an eternity of torture. Your children DESERVE to be tortured for an eternity because of only one "sin" in their life. Whatever that sin is, that would be a disproportionate punishment for the crime.
Now, you have attempted to define "sin" (which you are also using in a non-standard English way) to explain yourself. So see, you CAN explain yourself. You ARE able to define words you are using in a non-standard way and thus, make at least a little more sense.
So, as to this "sin," "cosmic treason..." hmm. That of course, is not the standard understanding/definition of the term. It is not how the word is used biblically (at all, not one time is anything of the sort mentioned ever) or defined in the Hebrew or Aramaic. I guess you just "feel" like that is not the definition, so you are asserting it is reality. Which is fine if that's how you feel, but do you have anything reality-based to support that feeling?
So, in your mind, your child, when they were of an age of accountability, decided to deliberately commit "cosmic treason" against God, is that what you're saying? When was that? Do you have any data to support that? I rather doubt you do. In fact, I would bet you absolutely do not have any data to support that claim. I, for my part, have never, not once decided, "I'm going to commit 'cosmic treason' against God." So, your claim, your "feelings" about that idea appear to be unsupportable by data in the real world, but you tell me.
But, let's suppose that some child somewhere actually DID decide to commit "cosmic treason..." What does that look like, exactly? I'll have to guess, unless you're speaking of Sproul's reference to the term that he apparently coined from thin air (certainly not from the Bible)...
It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself. Have you ever considered the deeper implications of the slightest sin, of the most minute peccadillo? What are we saying to our Creator when we disobey Him at the slightest point? We are saying no to the righteousness of God. We are saying, “God, Your law is not good. My judgement is better than Yours. Your authority does not apply to me. I am above and beyond Your jurisdiction. I have the right to do what I want to do, not what You command me to do.”
Cont'd...
So, for someone to decide (if it actually happens in the real world, which I rather doubt) that "My judgment is better than God's," and decide to do something that, in THEIR mind, is the right thing to do, even if it is opposed by God... What are they doing in that case? They are trying to do the right thing, as best they understand it in their mind/psyche/soul. They are deciding that, even if they have to disagree with God, they will still strive to do this right thing.
And let's further assume that they were mistaken. In trying to what they thought was correct, they were wrong and "rebelled" against God. A sin, then, from error, it would appear. In their fallen human nature, they made a mistake and chose the wrong instead of the right.
And for that, you think that an appropriate and "just" punishment is an eternity of torture.
How so? Okay, so they "rebelled" against God, they chose incorrectly. They are HUMAN, of COURSE, we choose incorrectly sometimes. Is being imperfect (which is our very nature, unfortunately) justly punished by an eternity of torture? How so?
You ARE able to define your words when you use them in a non-standard way, Stan. You've demonstrated that with your "cosmic treason" definition. You CAN explain yourself. Apparently, this is a very important issue, if people are possibly going to be tortured for an eternity for even one mistake/"cosmic treason..." Why would you not explain yourself?
I'll take this comment to my blog, since I'm not very hopeful you will actually try to defend your feelings about this idea, fyi. Maybe someone there will try to defend your rather silly-sounding and wholly unsupported claims.
And Stan, "silly-sounding claims" is not an attack on YOU, Stan, it is a mocking of the idea you are not willing to even try to defend, nor is it contrary to me believing in you, which I do. Believe it or not, I honestly love you as a brother in Christ, you are a good man, loving father and husband who is trying to do the right thing, I can see that and appreciate it. You are very much like myself at an earlier time in my life and you are beloved by God and by me. That I disagree with your opinions, that I find some crazy-sounding claims to be crazy-sounding does not affect that love or mean that I don't love you. I do.
In Christ, our Lord,
Dan
Dan,
In your comments at your place you continually reference some magic number of sins that will tip the scales toward hell, you also refer to minor sins. It seems clear that you either believe that it is possible to commit a small enough number of minor sins and still avoid hell. This is clearly a form of salvation by works.
The other option that your comments support is a form of universalism where "Grace" covers everything with or without repentance or atonement.
Now, you might be able to come up with some way to explain yourself that will eliminate those possibilities, but you haven't so far.
Stan,
It also seems dishonest for Dan to frame your position as "Stan believes that if you commit one teeny tiny accidental sin you're going to hell.", without placing that in the larger context of the entirety of salvation. Of what use is the Gospel to people who haven't sinned enough? It seems as though there must be sin for salvation to have any meaning.
See, Dan? A complete failure to communicate. I can't seem to express things in terms you can understand. I am not engaging you in further dialog. (And that's some sort of self-control given the massive holes you stepped in with your arguments.) You continue to dialog. I wonder what I could have said that would cause you to understand that I don't intend to engage you in further dialog? And that's a simple, relatively straightforward, unambiguous term like "dialog". What happens when we get into "sin", "justice", and "God"? (Rhetorical question, not dialog.)
And that's some sort of self-control given the massive holes you stepped in with your arguments
That's easy to claim, Stan, but it's duly noted that you can not point to ONE single hole in any of my arguments.
Were you to try, it would most likely be in the same vein as Craig, where you point to ideas I have not advocated and try to argue against a strawman. But to your credit, you're not doing that. Instead, to your dishonor and shame, you are making a claim (he has holes in his arguments) without supporting those claims.
In other words, a false witness and a slander.
Thou shalt not, Stan.
I continue to dialog because I believe in dialog. You ignore my arguments and the actual holes in your case so I take it to my blog in order to discuss the ideas, rather than to engage in personal slanders and attacks.
Should I give up on dialog, Stan, because you won't participate? If someone is communicating false claims and bad reasoning and slandering God, should I ignore those crazy and false charges or should I contend for the truth, as I understand it? Should I say, "Stan is hopeless! He can't understand nothin'!" or should I, as one who loves Stan and believes in him, continue to try to communicate? Which idea sounds more rational? More Christian?
I say communication over non-communication, acceptance and dialogue over dismissal and question dodging, love and grace over slander and gossip. But that's me.
I bet you agree, somewhere in your heart. I have no doubt, despite what the evidence you keep providing says.
I do believe in you, my dear beloved brother.
You know, Dan, I tried ... I really tried. "Let Dan represent himself to whomever wished to take him on." I made it clear "but not me." I repeatedly made it clear. And you repeatedly fail to seem to grasp the concept. I will now block any further comments. Not my original plan. You forced it. You forced it by your failure to grasp something simple like "Don't talk to me about it." You forced it by your deceptive approach. "You are lying about me, but I'm not misrepresenting you!" Even "I believe in you" alongside with your explicit and implicit claims that I'm a liar. I can't meet your standards, Dan, because yours are double. No, I don't agree. No, we can't discuss. No, you're not going to see anymore of your comments here. It was your call, your decision, your choice, and you made it.
In the words of John Piper, "Goodbye, Dan."
I have to wonder what the "wages of sin" means now. If Paul meant some specific number of sins or severity of sin, he didn't make himself clear. Sin is something more than breaking any one of God's laws apparently. Or, death means something else. I don't know how the Bible could be any more clear about what sin earns us.
And how anyone can defend that sins from ignorance aren't punishable haven't bothered to look at our laws. Their is no clause that says, "if you didn't know, you get a pass". If you didn't see the speed limit change, you can't tell the officer you didn't know. You are still guilty of speeding. You still have to pay the fine.
What would be the point of Christ's death of only the most heinous or most frequent sinners were even eligible for atonement, since everyone else just did good enough to make it on their own, or at least God has given up His wrath and justice and holiness for the sake of grace and just ignores sin, still leaving the death of Christ unnecessary. I mean, who wants to see the worst of us in heaven? Let 'em burn. They don't deserve heaven if they lived so horribly on earth. God is simply more gracious than He has claimed to be in the Bible. He has claimed death for sin, wrath for vessels of destruction, a narrow gate for few to enter. He really meant specific sins are worthy of death, there are no vessels of wrath so He was just trying to meet a length quota in the Bible, and the gate is actually wide and most people will find it all on their own.
David,
Perhaps "the wages of sin" uses "sin" to refer to "sin piled up to a particular level"? No, seriously, it becomes meaningless to me, too. The "ignorance" claim is equally problematic. If "ignorance" means "It's okay; it doesn't count", then the worst thing we could do is tell anyone what sin was. As long as they don't know, it's okay.
I think, in the end, that Craig is right ... that we're looking at a form of Universalism here where "the Way of Grace" works out to saving everyone somehow. And it solves lots of questions like the one I gave in the post: "How is it fair for God to send those to hell who never heard of Christ?" Easy. He doesn't. No one has to worry about that because God is not troubled by any sense of "justice" when He can perfectly easily forgive and do so across the board. Indeed, how could any "loving God" not simply forgive? Of course, you're still left with the sheer bulk of Scripture that says otherwise, but, hey, that's someone else's problem (SEP), right?
"Thou shalt not, Stan."
This sounds like Dan is invoking some sort of rule or something, that can't be since we all know that the Bible is not a rule book, and certainly pointing out one line in the Bible doesn't make something wrong.
Stan,
It seems as if there are hints that over there that indicate that the problem is the eternal nature of hell, and that it's about how the consequences of sin make this life "hellish", but that in the end "The Way of Grace" swoops in to somehow make it all better.
Personally it seems incoherent to argue that there is no hell, but that there is a heaven. It also seem incoherent to suggest that "The Way of Grace" might possibly offer grace to the unrepentant or to those who don't want it.
I agree with you and David that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to read the Bible and to minimize the seriousness of sin and the scope of salvation.
Yes, Craig, a lot of double standards. That's why I can't compete. I try to only have single standards. :)
Post a Comment