Let's say some guy specializes in estate tax return prep. Due to Obamacare's lack of death panels, revenue is down, so he decides to generate some business by throwing old ladies with net worth greater than $5.34 million off of the subway platform.
No Question. That's bad.
But what if it's just him and John Kerry's wife alone on the subway platform, and before he has a chance to hip-check her into the chilly embrace of Form 706, she falls off the subway platform on her own. I don't know why. Maybe she got dizzy from the subway's inescapable smell of hot piss. She begs him to pull her up, and he could totally do it because he did CrossFit that one time. He explains to her that he's not going to help because he needs the work so he can afford to go to the Cheesecake Factory. She tells him that she's already got an estate tax guy on retainer so he wouldn't get her business anyway.
But he still won't pull her up. He has the power to execute an easy rescue, but he doesn't. He just stands by and watches her get Wile-E-Coyotied by a train.
Everyone agrees that's bad, too.
God is hidden - or as C.S. Lewis says, God is not "sensibly present." Christianity claims that God is good and that he sends people to hell for wrong belief. I argue that God cannot (1) be good, (2) choose to be hidden and (3) send people to hell for wrong belief. At most two of those three things can be true about God.
I other words, if God chooses to be hidden, he can't send people to hell for wrong belief and still be good. (For more on this, see my earlier post "The Trilemma of Hiddenness + Goodness + Hell.")
A friend of mine called BS this argument. He said God does not send people to hell for wrong belief. People wind up in hell because of their sin. Therefore, God's goodness is unimpaired because my sin is the proximate cause of my eternal torment in hell, not God's apparent capriciousness.
Proximate cause was explained to me like this: If an ambulance doesn't make it to my house fast enough, that's NOT the proximate cause of my death. The EMTs won't be held responsible. They didn't murder me. They're not bad people. The proximate cause was autoerotic asphyxiation, and I should have know better.
But what if an omnipotent EMT doesn't make it to my house fast enough? Does that change things? If he's omnipotent, he could have performed an easy rescue, but he chose not to. Probably because he's grossed out by autoerotic asphyxiation.
But what if this omnipotent EMT saved some other autoerotic asphyxiaters, but he didn't save me? Would he have been less just for saving me than for saving other autoerotic asphyxiaters? If not, he's just like the guy who let John Kerry's wife spoon a train. He's just like Walter White watching as Jesse's girlfriend dies.
So the question is, Does the trilemma hold if the third statement is changed from "God sends people to hell for wrong belief" to "God refuses to save people from hell for wrong belief"?
Nope. God can't choose to be hidden AND refuse to save people for wrong belief AND be good.
Greg, this was interesting, and a fun read too. I see the distinction you have made and there is a significant difference, and again I agree with your conclusion if those premises are true. However, I think the same problem exists as before. You changed your premise to say: "God refuses to save people from hell for wrong belief." So now God is not intending for people to go to Hell, which is better, but He is not doing much about it even though He could.
ReplyDelete2 things to point out. First, your premise still makes "Unbelief" the cause of anyone going to Hell. This is the fundamental misrepresentation of Christianity, which many have misunderstood. Sin is the only cause of anyone going to Hell, so we don't need saved from our unbelief, but from the consequence of our Sin. Second, God doesn't "Refuse" to Save anyone - if the Gospel is true, then He has given His own life for all of us.
Of course, unbelief keeps people from accepting God's forgiveness for their Sin. So perhaps you mean to say that God isn't doing enough to help us see the truth. That is an understandable concern, but another possibility is that people aren't seeking or paying attention. This is where free-will comes into the picture. What is God supposed to do with people who don't believe if it isn't important to them? He has given evidence, but so many aren't interested and don't bother to look into it at all. Should He force them to care and just make them want to know? Perhaps you are more concerned about those who do want to know - that it isn't made clear enough for them. Well in that case, you know this is going to bring us back to the Resurrection again - everything goes there. God has given the most incredible evidence possible if Jesus rose from the dead. If someone does want to know the truth and whether God has actually done something about our sin, then we all need to assess whether that claim is true – and there is tremendous evidence to consider. But we will only bother to do so if it matters to us - that's the first decision we have to make.
Duane, I disagree.
DeleteMy argument in this post is, despite the cause of one's going to hell, an omnipotent God can execute an easy rescue of all hell-bound souls. Belief is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of salvation for the hell-bound. By choosing to be hidden, yet requiring proper belief, God's salvation becomes arbitrary.
The real weakness in this argument seems to be this: Humans appear to be morally bound by a duty to rescue. Is that, in fact the case? And if it is, is God similarly bound by a duty to rescue? On the surface the answers appear to be yes and yes.
The Christian God does refuse to save people (see Matthew 25: 11,12).
Finally, let's talk about specifics. I am seeking spiritual truth, and I am paying attention. I don't believe, but finding spiritual truth is immensely important to me. I have looked into it, and I find the evidence supporting faith to be lacking. So, yes, he should do more to help me see the truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreg, first off this is a good challenge, and I believe that finding the truth is very important to you, without question. I see your adjustment, should I take the change as an acknowledgment that the Christian God is not “sending” people to Hell? The heart of your reasoning now seems to be that if this God is real and Hell is real, then He isn’t doing enough about it.
DeleteGod is neither “sending” people to hell or “refusing to save” people, I will explain. The comment you refer to in the parable in Matthew 25 is not a refusal to save people. It is demonstrating that this is about a relationship with God rather than what is convenient for us (it’s a parable). We have to want to know God and seek Him, not just want to go to the party or join the fun or whatever. Salvation is not about just wanting to "get in," but it is about seeking God.
The Christian God has not refused and does not refuse to save people. Even in the Old Testament He never refused to save those who turned to Him. However, Salvation is by Faith – which means “Active Trust” and Trust is a relational quality. Therefore, Salvation is available to all who “Trust Christ” and in doing so seek a relationship with Him. So God cannot rescue all “Hell-bound souls” because Trusting Him is our responsibility – it’s our part of the relationship. It is not about just wanting to go to Heaven or to not go to Hell – those might be motives, but they don’t replace a relationship with God. Many people have no interest in a real relationship with God, it is an inconvenience to them, or worse, so I don’t know what you want God to do about that. I realize that you are more concerned with those who are interested in the true God but don’t find it convincing, like the position you are in. You want God to do more – specifically give more evidence – but it is not clear to me what you think He should do since the Free-Will factor comes into play at this point. It is important that we choose and that we aren’t coerced to believe in Him simply because we can’t avoid the conclusion even though we don’t want to believe.
As for rescuing, I will agree that we have a moral duty to rescue others - and so does God. So yes, He has that duty as well because it is being true to who He is, His Loving Nature. The thing is that this is exactly what He has done!! Greg, that is what the Cross was - God rescuing all of us. The problem then is how will we know that He has done anything to rescue us?? That is why the Resurrection of Jesus is essential, because there is no other way for us to know that He has rescued us. Jesus could have just died on the cross for us and then gone to Heaven, but then we would never know what he did for us. So I think the Omnipotent (and Omnibenevolent) God carried out a very costly rescue and that it was worth it to Him because of His love for us. Then He Rose from the Dead to demonstrate it so that we could know this after the fact.
DeleteI find myself wondering what the evidence is that you have looked into in support of faith that is so lacking. I know you can't address it here, but I know there are a lot of things that get presented as evidence that are irrelevant or even fallacious. So I’m interested in maybe a list format of what reasons you have examined that you find lacking – doesn’t need to be here.