Wednesday, January 04, 2012

No strings attached


Dan Chapa has taken issue with my post, but he seems incapable of formulating a counterargument. So let’s walk him through my argument one more time:

Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God. Let’s define love as acting in the best interests of another. That’s a neutral definition. It doesn’t list towards Calvinism or Arminianism. But if Dan has a better definition, he’s welcome to defend it.

According to Arminian theology, God loves everyone. He wants to save everyone. And he shows his love by redeeming everyone.

Yet there’s a catch: to avoid damnation, there’s a condition you must meet: you must repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ. Those who don’t are damned.

But how is that the most loving thing to do for unbelievers? Even if they remain unbelievers, why punish them in hell? Why make faith an obstacle to forgiveness?

It would be one thing to forgive them without atoning for their sin. That’s arguably unjust.

But since, according to Arminianism, God has redeemed everyone, he can justly forgive everyone. So why make faith a condition of forgiveness? How is that the most loving thing to do?

Arminians like to quote the sermon on the mount about loving our enemies. And they think that command mirrors the heart of God.

But in the nature of the case, loving your enemy is a type of disinterested love. You don’t love your enemy on condition that he loves you back. You don’t do him a good turn on condition that he return the favor. Rather, you act in his best interests in spite of how he treats you or feels about you. No strings attached.

Calvinism doesn’t generate the same internal tension. On the one hand, there’s no pretense that God was ever acting in the best interests of the reprobate. On the other hand, although God demands faith from the elect, God gives what he demands. 

12 comments:

  1. The answer I see in C.S. Lewis, among others, is that it's not so much a judicial issue as it is a metaphysical/anthropological one. It's not that God won't forgive people who won't repent, but in their state of unrepentance they are simply unfit for heaven. By definition heaven is the company of the purified saints of God. There is no place in heaven for any kind of impurity, any kind of spiritual deformity. So if, under Arminian metaphysics, the kind of personal transformation required for heaven requires repentance, and God will not transform someone against their will, then they simply cannot enter heaven in their unredeemed state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JD, even if that's true, one problem is that it doesn't imply that *hell* is what is fitting for them. Why not a Island resort with scantily clad unrepentant women, and coconuts a plenty?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another problem is that the denial of post-mortum salvation doesn't follow from that. So classical or traditional Arminianism still have love problems. It's not as loving as it can be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    God’s love is his acts that unite us to Him. I don’t buy into the idea that God’s love is about what is best for us if “what is best for us” is understood without respect to our union to God. Hell is separation for God, so that’s not loving – at least not loving to us. So there must be something God loves more than us – His righteousness.

    So it’s fair for you to say per Arminianism God does not love us at all costs. But remember the original point: “Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God”. And is this really a matter in dispute? You yourself said: [per Calvinism] there’s no pretense that God was ever acting in the best interests of the reprobate. But per Arminianism, God loves sinners, provides for their salvation, sent His Son to die for them, wants them to believe and be saved, seriously invites them to salvation and even motivates them to unite with Him through the fear of hell.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  5. But remember the original point: “Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God”. And is this really a matter in dispute?

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan,

    “Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God”. And is this really a matter in dispute? You yourself said: [per Calvinism] there’s no pretense that God was ever acting in the best interests of the reprobate. But per Arminianism, God loves sinners, provides for their salvation, sent His Son to die for them, wants them to believe and be saved, seriously invites them to salvation and even motivates them to unite with Him through the fear of hell.

    Just because S loves more X's than S*, does not mean S is more loving than S*. This would seemto make polygamous husbands more loving than monogamous. Also, one might think that a being who *ensures* the best for those they love is more loving than one who doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "JD, even if that's true, one problem is that it doesn't imply that *hell* is what is fitting for them. Why not a Island resort with scantily clad unrepentant women, and coconuts a plenty?"

    That brought me to mind of this reflection by Steve Hays:

    "I see hell as less a torture chamber than fantasy island, but with a twist. If you strip away the figurative imagery of fire and outer darkness, what you’re left with is that hell is Arminian heaven, for there is where sinners have utter license to sin, to sin to their heart’s content, to sin without inhibition or intermission. So God punishes sin with sin by adding iniquity end-to-end without end—which strikes me not as a miscarriage of justice, but justice perfected."

    http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ste_hays/PT.Hays.Why.Believe.apologetics.2.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. JD,

    I don't think those are the same. By 'hell' I didn't mean 'torture chamber.' On Arminianism, God could continue to restrain sin via common grace yet not let them into heaven, and your claim about what is needed to get into heaven could still be true. In Steve's view, common grace is gone (or at least mostly gone).

    ReplyDelete
  9. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    “God’s love is his acts that unite us to Him.”

    That’s your polemical ad hoc definition.

    But the question at issue is how or whether God loves those who don’t play along. Does he treat impenitent unbelievers as lovingly as he can? Does he treat impenitent unbelievers as lovingly as they will allow him to?

    “I don’t buy into the idea that God’s love is about what is best for us if ‘what is best for us’ is understood without respect to our union to God. Hell is separation for God, so that’s not loving – at least not loving to us.”

    Once again, you’re being arbitrary. Arminians like to use the parent/child analogy. Well, if you had a rebellious teenager who refused your overtures, what would be best for him under those circumstances? If might be better for him to be reconciled, but if he’s irreconcilable, then what’s the next best thing for him? Is consigning unbelievers to hell in their best interests?

    You're admitting in a roundabout way that I’m right, but you try to disguise your concession.

    “So there must be something God loves more than us – His righteousness.”

    I’ve already presented two arguments for why the Arminian God can justly forgive unbelievers. God forgiving unbelievers is consistent with his righteousness, given universal redemption.

    For that matter, there are Arminians who don’t even regard penal substitution as a prerequisite for divine forgiveness.

    “But per Arminianism, God loves sinners, provides for their salvation, sent His Son to die for them, wants them to believe and be saved, seriously invites them to salvation and even motivates them to unite with Him through the fear of hell.”

    That isn’t counterevidence to my argument, for I built that premise into my original argument when I said: “According to Arminian theology, God loves everyone. He wants to save everyone. And he shows his love by redeeming everyone.”

    “But remember the original point: ‘Arminians say the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God’. And is this really a matter in dispute?”

    Yes, that really is disputable. Empty gestures aren’t loving. Foreseeably ineffectual actions aren’t loving. That’s just going through the motions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JD Walters said...

    “It's not that God won't forgive people who won't repent, but in their state of unrepentance they are simply unfit for heaven.”

    But according to Arminian theology, God *won’t* forgive the impenitent. Instead, he will punish them.

    Yet, as I’ve explain, that’s not a logical requirement of Arminian theology. The Arminian God could be more loving to unbelievers. He doesn't have to punish them.

    “By definition heaven is the company of the purified saints of God. There is no place in heaven for any kind of impurity, any kind of spiritual deformity. So if, under Arminian metaphysics, the kind of personal transformation required for heaven requires repentance, and God will not transform someone against their will, then they simply cannot enter heaven in their unredeemed state.”

    That’s a false antithesis. I didn’t say the Arminian God either could or should take unbelievers to heaven, to be with him, and the saints in glory.

    Rather, I said that punishing them in hell is not the logical alternative to heaven.

    “That brought me to mind of this reflection by Steve Hays”

    Several issues:

    i) That’s my argument. That’s not the standard Arminian argument.

    ii) Although I reject the torture chamber model of hell, I still regard hell as punitive. And that’s, in part, because I don’t think God is obligated to love the damned.

    iii) By contrast, Arminians profess God’s universal love for humanity. So why doesn’t the Arminian God forgive unbelievers rather than punish them? He already atoned for their sins. And some Arminians don’t even think that’s necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A question for the Arminians here:

    Does God love those in hell?

    ReplyDelete
  12. (Btw, you can pick either Steve's definition of love, or Dan's.)

    ReplyDelete