Thread: Irredeemable Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023850
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Is it at all possible that someone an be irredeemable? I know that in Christian theology this is not the case - or at least not officially or theologically (in terms of good theology). But what if someone is totally lacking in self awareness? What if they have proved utterly incapable of change? Can people be broken beyond repair?
.....Can we avoid Heidegger and Gadamer? They raise the question for me, but it only ever leads to universalism and i want to hear other perspectives and other peoples' way of working this out
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
ISTM that the question does not hinge on a lack of self awareness, but on whether fully knowing the good one can still choose evil.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I have met 3 people in my life who did not appear to have any spark of humanity left within. Void. Nothing. One was in prison. I remember well discussing him with my priest. The best conclusion I could come to was if redemption was possible, it was not going to happen in earthly existence.
I don't know if I'm addressing your question with this, but I have had recent indirect contact with another one of these, and I probably, in this case, cannot help but project the same interpretation of: not redeemed here, on earth, and God may have some hidden and inscrutable ideas for which we may hold God fully responsible, but as humans consider them a non-person and irredeemable.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
No Prophet, yes, I can identify with that but it begs a question - whats this life for then (for them)? Is it merely so that they know hell? Is it to know that there is a redemption hereafter? Whats the point?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
There are many people others of some sensitivity and insight might see as unreflective, nasty, possibly cruel and irredeemable shits, fletcher christian. Perhaps something may happen and they may change.
Are there people who have so consistently shut themselves off from any love or grace that their downward trajectory is irreversible? It is possible.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I would say that as far as God is concerned there is no one beyond redemption, no one for whom grace is not available.
The vilest offender who truly believes,
that moment from Jesus a pardon receives.
However, there are those who never respond to grace.
That isn't for lack of 'effort' on God's part and he can do no more than offer his grace.
I would finally like to question the premise of the OP.
The implication seems to be that some (most?) people are more easily availing of grace and mercy, whilst others are not - namely, the person 'lacking in self-awareness', the person who is 'proved utterly incapable of change.'
I might suggest that when it comes to grace, we are all equally incapable of change, all equally closed to redemption until the grace of God begins to work. Now, it may be that through background or personality, some of us are more easily accepting of grace, but I find it hard to say that there are people for whom even the grace of God is too weak.
Therefore I would suggest that even a hardened killer could be saved - and there have been remarkable conversions.
Those who present themselves to be 'beyond redemption', I would suggest, are not irredeeemable (as if God can't 'find them' as it were, but they may certainly have raised the barriers so that the grace of God is unable to work.
Such a person if they die in trespasses and sins, - as is equally possible for even the most respectable - will not find redemption after death (though the road to heaven does also lead from the gates of hell) but will instead go to the place where he has headed for the whole of his grace-resisting life. God will not intrude on his choice to reject the mercy of God.
I do n ot believe anyone on this earth is beyond the forgiveness of God and the offer of redemption and the need for repentance.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Pelinore:
quote:
Are there people who have so consistently shut themselves off from any love or grace that their downward trajectory is irreversible? It is possible.
Yes, I understand that and I've for a long time agreed with Ulrich Simon's assessment that evil people condemn themselves; but what of those who are genuinely not self aware? They are nasty scraggy little shits as Heaney puts it, but were they made that way, formed that way from their own evil intentioned decisions? Ignorant of their own evil and utterly innocent in a perverse way? And what of those for whom the language of love and compassion means nothing? The sick, mentally ill and those whose minds have been so polluted by the sins of others that they do not think in the same way as others?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
Mental incapacity would be an excuse.
Bad example; atrocious treatment etc. would certainly mitigate.
How responsible are we all really? I think many of us have serious wounds which prevent us from being the really good, kind, loving, fully human people I believe God has destined us to be.
I suppose we all cope with the hand we were dealt and leave it to the mercy of the Almighty.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
whats this life for then (for them)? Is it merely so that they know hell? Is it to know that there is a redemption hereafter
I understand this question - but doesn't it sit in the same area as 'what was it _for_ - when the earthquake wiped out our xyz / when cousin Q came into the world with no cognitive function etc etc'. In other words, there is a fallenness (sp?) which invades all sorts of stuff - our physical environment, our bodies, as well as the abuse inflicted on some of us by parents, the state etc - which wipes out the 'for', at least as far as we can understand. I'm sure FC knows this and I'm just stating the obvious / missed his point.
This isn't to deny the personal responsibility that those / us nasty little shits HAVE for their / our part in it all - nor to deny the transformation wrought in their / our lives, and in their / our societies and families when (sometimes) something shocking and redemptive occurs. It does, sometimes. And often it doesn't. Like earthquakes.
I'm troubled by the post-hoc rationalisation I feel like I'm employing when I say, later - 'oh, God was working in that man's life all along'. But, unless you want utter meaninglessness, it seems it's all we have.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Irredeemable, in the sense of "not able to be redeemed", the answer has to be no. God is quite able to redeem anyone.
If you mean "unlikely to be redeemed", or, more pointedly, "not liable to show a great return on investment", then yes there are people in this situation. They are the people who are not currently open to God, and so there is little point in trying to force the point with them.
And it is very clear that some people are irredeemable arseholes. They are generally best left to God, who has more patience with them than anyone else.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Isn't there a verse somewhere about sinning against the holy spirit being an unpardonable sin?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
IIRC the notorious US serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer converted to Christianity while in prison, and those involved in ministering to him believed his conversion to be genuine. If he was redeemable in this life, surely anyone is?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Where are the double-predestination Calvinists when we need them? Wouldn't their theology have something to say to this question? Are the people who seem "irredeemable" likely to be the "non-elect", I wonder? I would sincerely like to hear a Calvinist view on this issue.
Posted by Khuratokh (# 15502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Isn't there a verse somewhere about sinning against the holy spirit being an unpardonable sin?
Within my own denomination of Gereformeerd Vrijgemaakt (liturgically similar to the Free church of Scotland)
sinning against the holy spirit refers to people who genuinely believe the Holy Trinity to exist, but reject the notion of forgiveness of sin out of principle.
You can't receive redemption if you don't want to receive redemption.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Isn't there a verse somewhere about sinning against the holy spirit being an unpardonable sin?
Yes, the relevant passage is Matthew 12:22-32. The Pharisees said that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. They could not distinguish between God's power and the devil's power. Anyone who can't tell the difference between God and the devil cannot repent, and therefore cannot be forgiven.
Moo
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Khuratokh:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Isn't there a verse somewhere about sinning against the holy spirit being an unpardonable sin?
Within my own denomination of Gereformeerd Vrijgemaakt (liturgically similar to the Free church of Scotland)
sinning against the holy spirit refers to people who genuinely believe the Holy Trinity to exist, but reject the notion of forgiveness of sin out of principle.
You can't receive redemption if you don't want to receive redemption.
Yes I think your last sentence has it. If one is presented with a potion as the only means to cure a terminal illness, and one rejects it as poisonous, one cannot receive the remedy. That's the nub of Jesus's point to the Pharisees. You can't steal the goods from the home of a strong man until you have first bound him. You can't be forgiven if you reject God's means of redemption as a demonic deception.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Where are the double-predestination Calvinists when we need them? Wouldn't their theology have something to say to this question? Are the people who seem "irredeemable" likely to be the "non-elect", I wonder? I would sincerely like to hear a Calvinist view on this issue.
I guess they wouldn't believe that anyone was 'irredeemable', but that God in his sovereignty had not chosen to redeem them.
Posted by beachcomber (# 17294) on
:
'(though the road to heaven does also lead from the gates of hell)' by Mudfrog.
I wish Mudfrog will say more on this as very striking. Though brief. Tantalizing,
Thanks.
Posted by beachcomber (# 17294) on
:
In Orthodox tradition, a strong emphasis on grace AND great effort. As in unceasing prayer through The Jesus Prayer and fasts.
Even 'religious and hermits' must 'struggle', if in their case special quick grace not given; or will of God otherwise disposed. (See The Art of Prayer by Igumen R
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
As a Molinist I'd say that everyone gets all the grace they need in order to choose to respond to Christ's offer of salvation. But for libertarian free will to be meaningful, any universe God actualises must include people who will always choose to reject the Gospel. It's that category of people I would describe as 'irredeemables' in the context of this thread.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Isn't there a verse somewhere about sinning against the holy spirit being an unpardonable sin?
Yes, the relevant passage is Matthew 12:22-32. The Pharisees said that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. They could not distinguish between God's power and the devil's power. Anyone who can't tell the difference between God and the devil cannot repent, and therefore cannot be forgiven.
Moo
I'm going to alter that slightly. I think it's "anyone who WON'T tell the difference between God and the devil (because they are wilfully holding their fingers over their eyes, not because of real incomprehension) is in deep, deep shit" which can very easily turn out to be irredeemable.
Not that God would not redeem it if he could. Rather, they refuse every time he tries--"Won't! Won't!"
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Like I said on another thread just now, and blatantly influenced by the drunk bloke I met earlier today who thought that homosexuals were worse that Pakis, (and didn't much rate beggars, paedophiles, immigrants, and students either) and said that there is no forgiveness for such sinners and God will kill them all; listen to the Tom Waits song "Down there by the train". Also sung by Johnny Cash. Truth.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
it's "anyone who WON'T tell the difference
Yes. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
<tangent> Every time I read the title to this thread I hear Nat King Cole singing about how I'm going to Hell. </tangent>
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
We are, I think, judged not against an abstract standard but on what we do with what we are given. So a person who has very little insight and/or some intractable personality disorder would be judged on how well they responded to the impulses of grace within the context of what was genuinely possible for them. Something only God could be fully aware of. The Catholic concept of "invincible ignorance" springs to mind here. Sometimes people just cannot understand apparently simple truths no matter how clearly they are explained to them because of their personal background and constitution. In that case they may appear irredeemable in our eyes but eminently so to divine ones as they respond in the only ways available to them to the presence of the Holy Spirit within.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
What does it mean to be redeemed? If we think of those who live selfish, destructive lives, then being redeemed might mean such people changing into those who live generously and responsibly, and so becoming fit for society.
If we think of people who have very little mental ability, perhaps someone who had a major brain injury at birth, then redemption isn't in terms of the choices they make. They will be dependent on others all their lives. The big challenge might be to see meaning and worth in their existence. No one is going to judge them as wicked, but they might be seen as less than fully human, and not deserving of care for that reason.
Different cases, but perhaps there's a common question which is about the limits of our love. Who must we value, feel tenderly towards, give another chance to? Who has stepped over a line, or found themselves in a place where they are beyond the reach of love, forgiveness and kindness?
I think that the other way this question might be framed - who gets to go to heaven, who to hell - is a more pictorial way of asking the same thing: who deserves my/our love.
The story of the Good Samaritan was told in reply to this question, but it actually answers a different one: what does it mean to be neighbourly. Perhaps the world is saved not as we all get to be loved, but as we learn how to love.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Some may see this issue in terms of whether some sins are unforgiveable. IMV the answer to that is no in terms of the usual suspects..lust greed, murder, adultery envy etc.
However, I do think there is one thing that puts one in peril and that is the refusal of revelation or calculated turning of the back when God unmistakeably calls.
This was noted by Jesus when his generation rejected him. His response: "Your house is left unto you desolate."
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Like I said on another thread just now, and blatantly influenced by the drunk bloke I met earlier today who thought that homosexuals were worse that Pakis, (and didn't much rate beggars, paedophiles, immigrants, and students either) and said that there is no forgiveness for such sinners and God will kill them all; listen to the Tom Waits song "Down there by the train". Also sung by Johnny Cash. Truth.
It's basically none of our business whether anyone (else) is capable of redemption or not. What the above beautifully* illustrates is the effect on the self of thinking otherwise. Do we strive to see the good in humanity, or wallow in misanthropic excuses for not making that effort?
(* 'Uglily' would be more apt but didn't sound right)
[ 09. September 2012, 09:56: Message edited by: kankucho ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
It's amazing the number of people who want to play God. I mean He decides ultimately. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
It's basically none of our business whether anyone (else) is capable of redemption or not.
But whether or not we believe that everyone is ultimately redeemable affects our wider worldview i.e. I'm opposed to capital punishment partly because I believe that redemption in this life is always possible. Whereas the 'rot in hell' attitude towards serious criminals which is currently widespread in UK popular culture assumes that some people are simply irredeemable.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
^ Precisely. We filter our responses to actual or reported acts of violence through our own violent inclinations. And dress it up as 'righteous' anger. ('Of course it's righteous - it's mine. Whereas that scum's anger is just plain, irredeemably evil')
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Mental incapacity would be an excuse.
Bad example; atrocious treatment etc. would certainly mitigate.
Really? How many people are alcoholic or raised by them, how many in violence, how many in sexual abuse, how many in so many other bad situations and do not turn to evil in response, and may in fact turn it to love?
Mental incapacity as a excuse? I don't know about that either. Most persons are not violent whatever their capacity, but special things are going on within those who turn to evil and harm. The idea of people damning themselves seems pretty attractive to me right at the moment. The additional question I have is "who in Hell* is God to disagree?"
* as in: as a place where God is absent
[ 09. September 2012, 20:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by beachcomber:
'(though the road to heaven does also lead from the gates of hell)' by Mudfrog.
I wish Mudfrog will say more on this as very striking. Though brief. Tantalizing,
Thanks.
It's a quote I got from Rowan Williams' book about the Chrionicles of Narnia.
I take it to mean that there is always an opportunity for faith and redemption this side of judgment. On the other side, of course, it's a different matter.
Have you any time for Jesus, as in grace he calls again?
O today is time accepted, tomorrow you may call in vain.
Room and time now give to Jesus, soon will pass God's day of grace;
soon your heart be cold and silent, and your Saviour's pleading cease.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Whereas the 'rot in hell' attitude towards serious criminals which is currently widespread in UK popular culture assumes that some people are simply irredeemable.
I think it's more that the 'rot in hell' attitude means people don't want such criminals to be redeemed, because that would mean they'd got away with their crimes un (or insufficiently) punished.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The irredeemable will be those who when fully deconstructed, de-adapted, healed, compensated, engaged, taught, liberated: loved STILL want their will be done. If any. Satan would appear to be one, but he hasn't yet seen the love of God played out in Judgement. That may sweeten even his bitterest heart.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
My view is that no-one is irredeemable because redemption is the work of God, but some people will never perhaps enjoy the temporal benefits of their redemption because they have been so damaged by their enslavement to that from which they have been redeemed.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Where are the double-predestination Calvinists when we need them? Wouldn't their theology have something to say to this question? Are the people who seem "irredeemable" likely to be the "non-elect", I wonder? I would sincerely like to hear a Calvinist view on this issue.
I've have a try, but I can't promise you'll like it or that other Calvinists will agree with my attempt. Here goes.
ISTM, that irredeemable and unredeemed are two separate categories. Here's what I mean, while I believe that no-one is irredeemable I also believe that some people remain unredeemed. I suppose this can be explained in two basic ways (although I'm sure must be more). These two ways are:
1) that these people are redeemable and yet, for some reason, God does not to redeem them.
2) that these people are redeemable and yet, for some reason, God cannot redeem them.
So I find myself presented with two basic options concerning the God in whom I am to believe. Am I to believe in a God who is able to redeem all and yet chooses not to? Or am I to believe in a God who wants to redeem all and yet cannot? Do I want to believe in a God who is unlimited in ability but who chooses not to act redemptively in certain circumstances? Or do I want to believe in a God who is limited in ability and therefore cannot act redemptively in certain circumstances.
The first elevates God's redemptive ability but leaves him open to the accusation of injustice. The second demotes God's redemptive ability but leaves God open to the accusation of impotence.
Do I want to live with the tension of worshipping an inscrutable God who can look monstrously unjust, or an impotent God who can look pathetically irresponsible?
For me I would prefer to worship a God who I believe can redeem all but, for his own reasons, doesn't, than a God who would like to redeem all but, for reasons outside of his control, can't.
I want a God who is accountable to himself and himself alone for his actions, even when I don't understand them. I do not want a God who will fashion his way out of accountability by saying there was nothing he could do.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
For me I would prefer to worship a God who I believe can redeem all but, for his own reasons, doesn't, than a God who would like to redeem all but, for reasons outside of his control, can't.
As I see it, God offers redemption to everyone, but some people refuse to reach out and accept it.
Moo
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Odd how this ties in with that other thread on whether you can "choose to believe" something!
I don't think you can choose what God you want, (what kind of God you believe in). You DO believe in a certain God, and if your belief is in any way erroneous, you'll be wanting to correct the error--but simple choice isn't going to cut it.
But enough of that. I do believe in a God who has made himself impotent in one respect--that is, he will not take away the free will he graciously gave to his creatures. Not even if they use it to destroy themselves. I don't know why he values our free will so highly, but it seems plain to me that he does (and I can guess at some of the reasons, but that's another thread).
Still, if you choose to give someone autonomy, you are also choosing impotence for yourself in one limited respect. And the only way out of that trap is to say "I didn't really mean it after all" and snatch their free choice away from them.
But God won't do that. And so, since he has given us free will, and since it appears that some of us are fool enough to use that free will to choose destruction, God's hands are tied. I don't think you can redeem someone against his will. Or rather, I think you can, but the redemption will not go into effect. Christ died for Judas, but whether Judas receives that death and its effect is another matter.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
For me I would prefer to worship a God who I believe can redeem all but, for his own reasons, doesn't, than a God who would like to redeem all but, for reasons outside of his control, can't.
As I see it, God offers redemption to everyone, but some people refuse to reach out and accept it.
And yet, to me, "won't redeem" sounds so much more like the warts 'n' all God I see in the Bible than "can't redeem". To me, arguments which rest on God limiting himself in deference to free-will always smack of trying to get God off the hook of his own sovereignty so that we can feel better about worshipping him.
[ 12. September 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Still, if you choose to give someone autonomy, you are also choosing impotence for yourself in one limited respect. And the only way out of that trap is to say "I didn't really mean it after all" and snatch their free choice away from them.
But surely this idea that God chooses impotence for himself with regard to the concept of human free-will is the same as saying that God is not, in fact, omnipotent?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Surely both positions say that God won't redeem some people. One position says that the conditions for not being redeemed are intelligible (i.e. failing to do what lies within them, or whatever) the other position says that the reasons are not intelligible (i.e. God's secret justice, or whatever). Both are agreed on God's omnipotence - they disagree on how it is exercised.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet, to me, "won't redeem" sounds so much more like the warts 'n' all God I see in the Bible than "can't redeem". To me, arguments which rest on God limiting himself in deference to free-will always smack of trying to get God off the hook of his own sovereignty so that we can feel better about worshipping him.
I'd like to agree with you because a limited God is frankly a bit naff. And I can agree with you ... right up to the point where I have to replace the words "won't redeem" with the words "chooses to hold somebody in Hell with flames scorching every inch of their flesh for every second of eternity".
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Surely both positions say that God won't redeem some people.
Yes, that's true to an extent. One position says that God won't redeem people because that's what he has decided. The other position says that God won't redeem people because that's what they've decided. I prefer the first option because I really don't see the second as having much biblical warrant, despite the fact that, superficially speaking, it makes God look nicer.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet, to me, "won't redeem" sounds so much more like the warts 'n' all God I see in the Bible than "can't redeem". To me, arguments which rest on God limiting himself in deference to free-will always smack of trying to get God off the hook of his own sovereignty so that we can feel better about worshipping him.
I'd like to agree with you because a limited God is frankly a bit naff. And I can agree with you ... right up to the point where I have to replace the words "won't redeem" with the words "chooses to hold somebody in Hell with flames scorching every inch of their flesh for every second of eternity".
Yes, that is a nettle that has to be grasped. Some solve it via conditional immortality, some through post-mortem conversionism, some solve it by looking hard at what Jesus really says about hell and trying to humbly accept it, and some simply avoid thinking about it too much. I sure there must be others too. I've tried all four that I've mentioned, but I keep being forced back to option 3.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Yes, that's true to an extent. One position says that God won't redeem people because that's what he has decided. The other position says that God won't redeem people because that's what they've decided. I prefer the first option because I really don't see the second as having much biblical warrant, despite the fact that, superficially speaking, it makes God look nicer.
I would agree with you that there is very little biblical warrant for seeing God as a kind of cosmic J. S. Mill with a touching concern for everyone's moral autonomy. On the other hand there's not much warrant for seeing the biblical God as a divine watchmaker who builds a clock, winds it up and then punishes it for striking.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet, to me, "won't redeem" sounds so much more like the warts 'n' all God I see in the Bible than "can't redeem". To me, arguments which rest on God limiting himself in deference to free-will always smack of trying to get God off the hook of his own sovereignty so that we can feel better about worshipping him.
I'd like to agree with you because a limited God is frankly a bit naff. And I can agree with you ... right up to the point where I have to replace the words "won't redeem" with the words "chooses to hold somebody in Hell with flames scorching every inch of their flesh for every second of eternity".
Yes, that is a nettle that has to be grasped. Some solve it via conditional immortality, some through post-mortem conversionism, some solve it by looking hard at what Jesus really says about hell and trying to humbly accept it, and some simply avoid thinking about it too much. I sure there must be others too. I've tried all four that I've mentioned, but I keep being forced back to option 3.
You missed one.
I believe that those who 'will not' be redeemed are allowed to leave God's presence - and as there is then nowhere for them to go, they simply cease to be. This is after God has tried all means to redeem them, without taking away their free will to reject God.
[ 12. September 2012, 13:31: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Yes, that's true to an extent. One position says that God won't redeem people because that's what he has decided. The other position says that God won't redeem people because that's what they've decided. I prefer the first option because I really don't see the second as having much biblical warrant, despite the fact that, superficially speaking, it makes God look nicer.
I would agree with you that there is very little biblical warrant for seeing God as a kind of cosmic J. S. Mill with a touching concern for everyone's moral autonomy. On the other hand there's not much warrant for seeing the biblical God as a divine watchmaker who builds a clock, winds it up and then punishes it for striking.
Then it's a good job that the bible doesn't seem to present us with that God either, isn't it? Going to back to what I said above, though, the second (Arminian) option doesn't actually work does it?
Yes, it allows us to remove God one step from moral culpability through the insertion of tenuous notions of human free-will, but ultimately you've still got a God who still won't redeem certain people because of a choice he made.
The first option keeps it simple: God decides because he's God.
The second option is more disingenuous. God won't redeem people because that's what they've decided, even though he's the one who chose to abdicate responsibility for certain of his children by allowing them the 'freedom' to choose their own damnation.
In option 1, God is horrible because he calls the shots and won't apologise for it. In option 2, God is horrible because, like a weasel, he makes someone else take the rap for what he could have done as God by chose not to just so there wouldn't be any blood on his hands.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
I subscribe to what I would call a "legal universalist" view of salvation. As far as the demands of the law are concerned, we are all saved, or as Oswald Chambers once put it: "condemned to salvation" (although I am not sure he was using it in quite the same way as I am). The penal view of the atonement - which I regard as a perfectly valid aspect of the cross - leads me to this conclusion. (Even TULIP Calvinists understand the implication of this view of the atonement - that if Jesus bore the penalty for your sins then you are ineluctably saved - hence their need to construct the idea of "limited atonement" to explain why the Bible talks about damnation).
However, legal universalism does not imply spiritual universalism. Someone standing in the dock may be told by the judge that his fine has been paid by a third party, and therefore he is free to go, but that does not imply that the wrongdoer is pleased about it. He may resent this act of generosity. It may be a serious affront to his pride. He may have nothing but contempt for his benefactor. So his freedom - his salvation - could actually become a form of torment through the action of his own pride. This person has been legally acquitted, but he has not acquitted himself in his own heart.
It's not a perfect analogy (no analogy ever is), but it makes the point that there is indeed a difference between legal and spiritual redemption.
Could it not be that the real experienced love of God is actually a torment for some people? I don't find this idea illogical at all. If someone has spent his life persecuting a certain person or group of people and justifies to himself his actions; who builds his life on a long-standing hatred of certain others, and then he comes into a reality which overwhelms every "atom" of his being with the sense that the eternal God loves those whom he has spent his life hating and oppressing, will his experience of this reality be pleasant? I would have thought that a hideous sense of shame would crush him. He could, of course, repent and cry out for mercy, but suppose he doesn't? Suppose he is so far gone in his self-justification, and his inner life has, as it were, been built on this self-justification, then presumably he will remain permanently in this state of shame and torment. This will rapidly turn to anger against God ("gnashing of teeth") and a feeling of contempt for the One who "will not take my side in my dispute with these wretched people who deserve my hatred" *.
This torment has, of course, nothing to do with God hating this person - or even condemning him. He is condemned by his own evil, when it comes into collision with the love of God. But I suppose there is another, limited and highly qualified, sense in which God does "hate and condemn" him, because if it were not for the love of God this person would not experience this torment. This perhaps explains why the Bible talks about God hating certain people.
* This, of course, has a terrifying implication: what about the fate of certain religious (dare I say, Christian) people who seem to spend their lives almost feeding on a contempt for those outside their circle? What if we have lived with an expectation that certain groups will almost certainly be damned, and then we find them nearer to the throne of grace than we are? What will our reaction be? It's a disturbing thought...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Still, if you choose to give someone autonomy, you are also choosing impotence for yourself in one limited respect. And the only way out of that trap is to say "I didn't really mean it after all" and snatch their free choice away from them.
But surely this idea that God chooses impotence for himself with regard to the concept of human free-will is the same as saying that God is not, in fact, omnipotent?
Doesn't bother me any. Especially when you consider that the Scriptural presentarion of God's omnipotence is that his power cannot be impeded by anyone or anything else--unless he chooses to let it be. To define omnipotence in the usual unconsidered manner is in fact to deny it-- to say that God can do anything except to permit others to exercise free will against him. At which point the definition implodes.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Still, if you choose to give someone autonomy, you are also choosing impotence for yourself in one limited respect. And the only way out of that trap is to say "I didn't really mean it after all" and snatch their free choice away from them.
But surely this idea that God chooses impotence for himself with regard to the concept of human free-will is the same as saying that God is not, in fact, omnipotent?
Doesn't bother me any. Especially when you consider that the Scriptural presentation of God's omnipotence is that his power cannot be impeded by anyone or anything else--unless he chooses to let it be.
Where does scripture present God's omnipotence with that particular caveat?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Let's Boogie ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0