 |
| David Lewis |
Here are some questions for you to ponder and discuss here:
(1) Lewis thinks that eternal conscious torment in hell is a wildly disproportionate punishment for whatever one manages to do. Of course, it is unjust to inflict wildly disproportionate punishments upon people. So no perfectly good God (who is presumably perfectly just) would consign people to eternal conscious torment in hell. Is he right about all that?
(2) Some may be inclined to appeal to certain theological traditions according to which it isn't ultimately up to us whether we are saved. Salvation is not a matter of our freely choosing (apart from God's complete unilateral control) to be reconciled to God. Rather, our salvation depends entirely upon God's electing us for salvation and unilaterally bringing it about that we choose to be reconciled to God. Does holding to this view (or something like it) make a difference to Lewis' argument? Would Lewis think that this makes things better or worse for the Christian?
(3) Lewis talks a lot about hell as punishment. Must we think of hell as punishment? Perhaps we should think about things this way: God consigns some persons to hell in the sense that God allows those persons to experience the natural outcome of their free decisions made over a lifetime. (Read the Michael Murray essay again for more on this.) These persons made themselves fit for a hellish existence, cultivating a certain kind of character and way of being through their free earthly choices, and God simply allows them to experience that hellish existence. What might Lewis think about this? What do you think about this?
(4) Some may think that Lewis omitted a crucial aspect of the orthodox Christian story: original sin. Suppose we run that by Lewis. Would that ruin his arguments? What might he think about such an appeal?
(5) Lewis seems to think that no one could possibly freely choose hell (eternal ruin and misery) over reconciliation with God (eternal joy and bliss) from a fully informed perspective. What do you think it takes to be fully informed for Lewis? Is anyone ever really fully informed? Is he right that no one could possibly make such a choice?
(6) We don't think young children and even adolescents are competent to make life and death decisions. For example, we don't let 13 year old children drive cars on the highway. Why should we think that they are capable of making competent decisions regarding eternal life and death? What does it even mean to make such a choice? Is Lewis' analogy of a parent placing infants in a nursery laced with deadly objects a fitting one here?
There are plenty of other questions to consider. But this should be enough for now. Think hard about these things. Reflect deeply. Be patient and persevere. This is tough work.
Interact graciously and charitably with each other. Strive to prod one another in fruitful ways.
47 comments:
Lewis argues that God cannot exist because no all loving God would create a hell that would inflict unimaginable suffering on those who did not obey Him in the finite amount of time they are given on earth for eternity. The Bible does not say that there is physical pain in hell or that all the suffering that takes place on earth is simply just magnified in hell. For example it is hard to argue that rape, murder, or abuse will still take place in hell. God wants to punish those who refuse to accept Him while they are on earth. As a Christians the concept of hell makes sense. God is all loving, He gives us so many chances, He is so merciful, yet there are many you shun God and therefore they do not deserve to spend eternity with Jesus (who they have rejected) in heaven.
Unfortunately I think Lewis’ argument works in a few cases. One of them being that what happens to the concept of hell when discussing free will or predestination. It does not seem fair that God has already chosen those who are going to be saved and spend eternity with Him. I also think his argument works when talking about people who are morally good beings. There are some people who are simply just good people they do everything that is asked of them but if they have not accepted Christ into their lives they still suffer in hell. I agree with the idea about hell not necessarily being a punishment but rather the outcome of our choices on earth but then of course what about those who are morally good. Their lifestyle did not necessarily earn them suffering in hell.
Overall I do not like Lewis’ argument and I understand why there has to be a hell but I also believe there are many cases to make against a God who creates a hell.
For me it is remembering that God is not just loving He is also a just God.
In response to Leanna, I'm curious about your statement that the Bible says nothing about physical pain. It does say there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Luke 13:28), which I think is clear that physical pain will be present. It is hard to say that hell is clearly a punishment or not, although isn't it ironic that we used to be spanked for punishment? It was physical pain to correct our misbehavior, but there will be no chance to correct our misbehavior for those who are eternally in hell. This leads me to say that, like our misbehavior and choices as children, the result of our actions are the consequences we choose. I'm sure for many of us we can remember one of our parents saying, "this hurts me more than it hurts you." Or maybe they said, "I'm punishing you because I love you." This is possibly a huge reflection of God's same love for us. It hurts him much more to leave his children out of the glory and mansions he prepares. He is loving and just, and that is why he must take action like our parents once did for us, with the same love and intentions of our heavenly Father. This is just food for thought. I ask a lot of the same questions Lewis has asked, and I certainly don't have the best answers. But this provoked me to think of the similarities between our parents and God.
Ashtyn B.
Yes, I believe that it is awful that people will be consigned to conscious torture in Hell, but I also believe that as long as one has not accepted Christ as their savior, then that is to be their punishment for the sins they have committed here on earth. God is a loving God for He provided a way for us to escape that eternal suffering, but He is also a just God in that He will follow through with the punishment that we deserve if we have rejected His grace. Our salvation in our personal choice and what we decide determines where we will be spending eternity. Hell could very well be viewed as punishment, but it is the natural final consequences of our lives here on earth. What we do and who we become on earth will be reflected in the eternal life to come. No one can be fully informed because we as humans do not have the copacity to have all the knowledge about this subject, but there are still ways to make a decision based on what we do know and what has been revealed to us through the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Granted that I don't have the full or maybe even right answers, but I think that we will be held accountable for teh decision we made according to our competence. I don't know how salvation will be determined for infants, but I know that God and God alone can truly know the heart of a human and that is what will be used to help determine the eternal placement of an idividual.
~Denida Chapman 11am
To not believe in something does not make it any less real. I can say, I believe there is no punishment for murder, because I cannot believe anyone would possibly give me a life sentence for one. I am in the wrong here. We have had so many years to contemplate whether or not we want everlasting eternity, or everlasting death. To say, "I could never believe in a God that would do anything like that," is foolishness. When someone has killed your relative, what is the first thing to come to mind? Vengeance. Could Jesus be holding his father back from taking vengeance on the unforgiving, and those who keep sinning? It's possible. What are your opinions on this?
I believe hell is a state of spirituality devoid of love. Rather than a literal pit of fire filled with goblins and ghouls as described in traditional Christianity, I believe the authors spoke figuratively about those who either fail or refuse to grasp the essence of faith-based love. A life spent in this void would surely be every bit as terrible as a pit of fire where the individual is haunted by their own fears and inadequacies. Thus, I would say hell is something we experience in this life, and if there is an afterlife, then we would experience it there as well.
I sometimes think of the refiner's fire as a metaphor for hell/purgatory. Whatever is unworthy of eternity is destroyed, and only what is worthy of eternity ultimately remains. Perhaps we are purified, as if by fire, to be worthy of eternal life, but the process will be initially painful. The pain of hell is, in fact, not so much a punishment for wrongdoing, but the natural result of evil. This would make hell not a permanent state of residence but rather a chance to prove ourselves like steel and offer ourselves up to the forgiving blacksmith, Christ Jesus.
Much of my views would contradict not only yours, my fellow classmate, but Lewis' as well. Lewis saw hell as doors barred from the inside. God does not stop saving and redeeming because it is inconsistent with His nature to be limited in love; but he does allow people the free will to choose their own destiny. Some are so arrogant and self-centered that they will keep on trying to save themselves. The rich might convince themselves that their money or their possessions are all they need. Others might be too dignified to enter heaven with all the rabble. Only those who are willing to become like a little child, to accept love that they cannot attain themselves but desperately need, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jordan Ryner
MWF 9:00AM
In referring to question four, I do not think that the issue of original sin would change anything for Lewis. If any effect were to be had it would likely be negative. The idea that humans automatically inherit Adam's sin just by being born seems inherently unjust. Had Hitler any children, it would be similar to holding them accountable for Hitler's crimes. Our justice system would not support such a conclusion, and the idea violates the idea of justice itself.
If the idea were explained to Lewis that the tendency to sin was passed on to humans from Adam instead of just the guilt from his original sin, I still do not believe that Lewis would be convinced. He has made clear that an omnipotent and good God would have seen such an incident coming and could have accounted for it. In knowing that humans would eventually sin and thus require infinite punishment, yet failing to prevent such an incident, Lewis would claim that God must be evil.
-Dave D 1100
In response to Dee Chapman, you mention that you believe anyone who does not accept God is consigned to suffer the consequences of this decision which would result in going to hell. The point that David Lewis makes, and which i stand behind, is that we must address the level of information an individual as in order to properly make such a decision. Many, Christians included, find it very difficult to grasp the level of ill informity a person has on the earth, but then we are all expected to choose God over anything else. While most of us at Cedarville have grown up with fairly religious backgrounds and upbringings, this often jades our view of just how evil the world is. Consider a child born into extreme depravity. A child who grows up seeing evil upon evil act by those that are supposed to love and care about them. Not only does this person become an adult that has little grasp of what love (let alone God like love) is, but they also have very little proof that this so-called God they may have heard about or breifly came in contact with at some point actually cares and desires their soul due to their horrible life situation... that God put them in from birth. The example of babies being put in a nursery full or knives, bombs, needles, ect. would alsmost seem to be a better example of how hard and how lucky one is to actually find God and continue to seek him through life, despite the copious amounts of evil one encounters in life.
In regard to thought 5, many things come to mind reading this. I suppose no one on Earth is truly informed about heaven and hell while her on Earth because the human mind can’t possible comprehend it. I believe that Hell is seeing God in his fullness once you die and then then being eternally separated from him. This separation causes physical and mental torment because on so desperately wants to be with God but they can’t. An important piece Christianity is faith and those who are faithful to God show a deep desire and want to be with him so that desire is fulfilled when they reach heaven. To me it seems the idea of free will comes into place here. Lewis could argue that is God was really just and loving that he would make everyone fully informed because of one was fully informed than they would not pick Hell over Heaven. But that would make God unjust and unloving because he would ultimately be forcing people to love him and not give people the choice to love him or not because forced love is not real love.
Jessie Comeau 9am
It has been very interesting and enlightening to read all the comments thus far. I have to say that I agree with Paul when he says that our lack of belief does not make hell any less true. I also agree with Dee when she says that hell is simply the direct consequence of our unwillingness to choose God.However, I am also inclined to see what this looks like to an unbeliever. It does seem very harsh that someone who lived a good, kind, and admirable life but simply didn't believe in God would be subjected to eternal damnation. I wonder what the result would be if we choose to look at hell, not as punishment, but as literal life without God. It is an interesting thought that maybe what makes hell so awful is that not a smidgen of God's presence is to be found so the natural result is "wailing and gnashing of teeth". It is not as though God sends people to hell to punish them, but as a result of them not choosing him, that is what they are ultimately choosing, and few are prepared for what that actually looks like. It is an interesting thought although I am sure there is ample room for objection.
On the issue of people being in such ignorance that they cannot be expected to choose God, Romans 1 speaks to that very clearly. No man is without an excuse because all men know through creation and their conscience that there is a God. Now obviously this can be debated by those who do not believe the Bible, yet then I think we are entering a new argument: Does God exist and is the Bible his inspired word?
Nicole S. MWF 9am
I do not think that question 4 would actually affect Lewis’s opinion on the subject in a positive manner. The idea of original sin is hard to fathom for many non-Christians from an ethical standpoint. Unfortunately, it is very hard to explain the idea to a non-believer that the reason a child is born into this world with a birth defect or the reason a home was destroyed in a natural disaster was due to two individuals eating fruit that was forbidden to them. Lewis’s automatic response to the original sin argument would be to question the goodness of a God who lets subsequent generations suffer for the actions of two people. What need is there for original sin and why would an omnipotent and holy God wish for this to exist? This idea would completely contradict the modern ideas we have as a society as to how to handle punishment, or justice more specifically.
-Nick. D 9:00
As I discussed with my classmates earlier today, we came across something peculiar in Lewis's argument he is arguing from the perspective of man being good. He claims that "not all of us are tainted with evil". The basis of my thoughts in regard to the remainder of his essay is based on his view conflicting with what God says in the Bible. God makes it clear that we are the ones who sinned. We choose to do that which was contrary to the nature of God, and because of that we were separated from him. We were completely and utterly offensive to God in his perfection. I approach his comments in light of that reality. To begin with I don't think it's fair for Lewis, or any other human for that matter, has the right to determine what punishment we should get for our actions. The examples he uses are human in nature. We can determine to some degree what a just punishment is for a man, because we are men and we take a certain degree of offense to some action. But God isn't human at all, He is something else entirely. In his very nature he is adamantly opposed to evil. It's sort of like oil and water. If you have them together in a bottle, no matter how hard you try they will absolutely not combine, they are forever separated. In the same way, we are completely opposite of God because of ours sins, He can't stand them. There is absolutely nothing we can do that can fix this separation. Because that's how God reacts to our sin, because He is so different from us, and made us, he chooses what the just punishment is for us. One sin alone is utterly repulsive to God, it can't exist with God, it has to be eternally separate from God. That's Hell.
Now onto the issue of freely choosing, this is talking specifically about election and predestination. Ultimately, this is not something our humans minds can comprehend. The way I try to understand it is the way Murray describes it. God knows our character completely, because of that he knows what kind of choice we will make through our lives, and He ultimately knows if we will accept or reject him. That to me isn't an issue of Him choosing certain people to go to heaven, rather it is just God knowing the choices and allowing them to be made. I do like how Murray reasons that Hell isn't necessarily a bad thing or even a punishment in the way we understand the term. You see God allows people to make their own choices, and we can either choose to love ourselves or to love God.Therefore God is being loving by giving us exactly what we want. Some people are conscious of God, but they want nothing to do with him. They realize He exists, but that would rather ignore him. God gives these people what they want by being eternally separated from Him.
As relates to the original sin, I think Lewis would be opposed to the idea. He would reason that sin can't be passed down through family. Each person must sin on his own, and since we understand that he doesn't think that humans are evil, he would simply reject that as well. But it's not up to him to decide. Just like I can't determine that the sky is pink, sure I can try to tell people that, but it's simply not the way things are. When man sinned, God knew the result of that sin would be separation, and that all humans were bound to sin. As I said before, people can know God and want nothing to do with Him. If someone was given both options, sadly people would choose Hell because they don't like the character of God. They don't like how He thinks, and what He stands for.
Finally, as relates to children I also think Lewis is wrong. When a child gets in trouble by his parents he understand that he has done something wrong and he knows he will be punished for it. It is not his place to determine the punishment, nor can he really complain. He chooses his action knowing the consequence. Children are able to understand the same thing about God. When I first came to Christ I was terrified of Hell because I understood that I was bad in the eyes of God.
-Matt Jackson
I think the belief that it isn't ultimately up to us to become saved would definitely support Lewis’ argument. If coming to Christ depends on whether or not He reveals Himself to us then it seems unfair that we are responsible for a “decision” we make not to. Also, Lewis was in strong opposition to the idea that our freedom to choose God is superior to God intervening to keep us from making poor decisions concerning eternity. However, this inclination would seem to indicate that God does indeed intervene in some people’s lives, just not all. Therefore, the argument that God’s choice not to intervene to affect our decision to love Him is a sacrificial gift from God longer stands due to the fact that He actually does act through the channel of the Holy Spirit’s power to change hearts.
This being said, I think Lewis would disagree with the idea that hell is not a punishment. Also, this would reinforce his idea that hell is too grievous a punishment for any so-called crimes committed while on Earth. First of all, if indeed people cannot come to God on their own, it would seem that God sentences them to hell not solely on the basis of the free decisions they made over a lifetime. If we are elected to salvation, no choice we make will hinder that. Therefore, it is not necessarily our lifestyle that naturally leads to our eternity. Someone could lead an upright life and make basically the same life choices that a Christian would make but if the Holy Spirit has not acted to change their hearts, it would seem like their life decisions did not matter and this view point is not viable. Also, if conversion is an act of the Holy Spirit then how much more unjust does damnation seem? I feel that Lewis would view this situation as people being helpless to avoid eternal torment.
I tend to side more with the natural consequence model and that hell may not necessarily be the fire and brimstone punishment model that we have heard. For those who have been exposed to God and still do not choose Him, hell is an extension of the choice they made. However, I cannot speak to those who have not heard the gospel and do not know how to factor the work of the Holy Spirit into the equation.
Kaitlynn H. 9:00
Leanna M. states she isn't certain about physical pain in hell but I really don't think that it matters if it is physical or not. There will be suffering! It isn't that God choose certain people to be saved, He just knows who those people are, there is a differance. People can't be morally good, that is why we need Jesus. We aren't able to be. We must seek God out and want a loving relationship with Him.
God originally made Hell for the Devil. It wasn't His will for people to go there. When sin entered the world, that is when Hell became a place for people.
I agree with Ashtyn B that we can't correct misbehavior in Hell. We need to live up the consequences we make, and since we all sin, only by Jesus dying for us can our sins be wiped cleaned. He has paid the consequences for us. If people know about Hell and yet continue to live apart from God, don't they deserve their fate? Is it God's fault they rejected Him?
As Dee Chapman states, God is a Just God. Punishment is only given to those who don't accept Jesus. God is love, even though some call Him Divine Evil. He doesn't do evil!
Connie D. 9am M-W-F
Such good comments and thoughts.
I rely on Romans 1 to show me that God has made Himself evident to all. But, is this knowledge unto salvation? Do those people who recognize that a Creator exists, but do not know the name of Jesus...are they freely choosing hell as Lewis describes?
Point #3: Connie-Your point of Hell being made for Satan is wonderful. I agree. Lewis misses the reality that God's intention was for man to live with Him forever. He didn't create Hell as a "time-out" or chair-in-the-corner-of-the-room, where He puts people who have disobeyed.
Lewis' view of those that go to hell is skewed. Hell is not the place occupied by those who don't make it to heaven. The reality is that we all deserve hell, all of us. As my sinfulness is revealed to me more often then I want to think it, I realize that my nature fits more closely to that of hell then of Heaven. Jesus didn't deserve hell, but got it anyway; we deserve hell, but get heaven. We are on a direct path to hell, and by God's grace we make it to heaven. Heaven is the detour, not hell.
If left to ourselves, our path would lead to hell. But through the calling of the Holy Spirit, whispering to our hearts, we make a lane-change to heaven. It's not of ourselves, or we could and would boast.
Denise 11am
Nicole S., I tend to agree with you about looking at hell as a literal life without God. If, as Christian’s believe, God is the reason there is any good in the world, then a life without God would certainly be terrible because it would be filled with nothing but evil. Hell, then, becomes the choice you choose when you reject God—even if you didn’t intentionally choose hell. But then, I think Lewis would argue that we couldn’t possibly be expected to make the right decision because we are not fully informed—and shouldn’t it be of the utmost importance to be fully informed when making a decision regarding heaven and hell? Perhaps it should even be expected that God would provide us with all the information if He really expects us to choose correctly, and yet, it seems (according to Lewis) that He has left us with none.
In response to this (and point 5 in the blog), I think that it is necessary to point out that no one is ever fully informed about the choices they make, because no one can perfectly predict the future. When it comes to making decisions, we are generally discussing decisions regarding the future—this then requires us to make a decision based off of the amount of evidence and information we have concerning the issue. This decision could be regarded as informed, but it could never be regarded as fully informed. While I think that Lewis has something going for him in his assertion that no one could possibly choose hell over God if they were fully informed, I also think that this issue must be further explored. For example, supposing that hell was a literal life apart from God, an atheist (as Lewis points out) feels that they are already separated from God and since this life apart from God isn’t so bad, then the prospect of hell doesn’t sound bad either. From this point of view, it might even sound preferable. However, this kind of decision might be regarded as ill-informed of the true character of God, and if people were fully informed about the character of God, and the existence of hell, then they could not possibly choose hell over God. Still, I think it can be argued that the presentation of information (causing one to be fully informed in their decision making) should not be equated with the acceptance of this information as correct, believable, or true. It is perfectly plausible that one could be presented with all the fact, and still choose to reject it based on the assertion that this information was false. As a result, this person would still end up choosing hell over God because they chose not to believe the information presented to them was true (and therefore, still rejected God).
There is much to think about, and there are doubtless many flaws in my arguments. I will suffice it to say that I am, at best, dissatisfied with Lewis’ arguments against/objections to the concept of a just God creating hell.
-Sarah L. 9:00AM
1. In response to question one, No he is not. Jesus is very clear on the fact that all sin is equal because it equally separates you from God. Now with that truth in mind, it is just for God to equally punish the people who have sinned and have not found salvation. God is not a fair God but a just one. If he was fair, I would be on the highway to hell just like the rest no matter what Christ did because I still would not be able to stand up to the perfection that is needed to be with God. God is just because the payment of sin was made through Christ and when we accept that and live accordingly, we are justified or made right with God.
On a side note, I fear for many “Christians” we have stripped the Gospel down to its very minimal stages just to get a number of “saved” people. I don’t think that there are as many people bound for heaven as we think there are. It is a relationship not a religion; for even the demons believe. You must first accept this payment and Christ but must also live out your faith and grow and get to know God. Jesus explains what eternity is meant for in John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” If this is what is meant for eternal life then isn’t just for God to sent people into punishment for not knowing him because people can be good but why would God want a good person to be with him if they do not love and know him? Why do we even want to go to heaven? Is it for the riches or is it to be with God and to be able to love and worship him? As for me, I would be honored to even live in a box in heaven because it will be good enough for me to see him face to face. I don’t think the question is for Christians, why do people go to hell but why do we want to go to heaven?
Anna P (1100)
I think that #3 is an interesting question. I can certainly see a lot of good reasoning behind the argument for hell as a natural consequence, but I think that the Bible seems to make it out to be more of a punishment. Matthew 25:46 says concerning the unsaved, “These will go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into eternal life.” Jesus also has a parable where a man’s master throws him into prison because he would not forgive his debtors as he himself was forgiven. That definitely seems to be a punishment as well. Anyhow, it seems like the Bible is leaning that way.
I think it is interesting to see what Ashtyn said, likening hell to a parents’ punishment. It’s a good point, and makes you think about a few things. But I may have to say that I personally disagree at a few parts. For one, it is true that, like you said, our parents discipline when we do wrong, and God does this also. Like you pointed out, in hell, the difference is that we can’t learn from our mistakes, it’s too late. So then, God isn’t punishing those in hell like his children, because they aren’t. When he punishes his children, it is as Hebrews 12:7 says, he does it on earth so that we can learn and live better. And his children are those whom he has adopted, the elect. Secondly, you are also right that it hurts a parent to discipline their kids, though they know it is ultimately for the better. But I don’t think that God can feel this way about those going to hell for two reasons: 1.) even though they are humans in the image of God, they aren’t his children (the elect are those who have been adopted into God’s family), 2.) if he did feel hurt over it, he would be in eternal sorrow, even after the consummation and all is completed. I don’t think that God is indifferent towards those going to hell; I certainly believe that he is very hurt that his creations have chosen this sinful way of life that leads to an eternal death. But I do not believe that he will actively feel sorrow for them in eternity as they are there, because his ruling is just and righteous and loving. It is the outcome of their lives and the just punishment they have fully earned. Still, I like what you had to say, Ashtyn, it is thought provoking to look at the similarities and the dissimilarities.
I personally struggle a lot with whether or not we freely chose to be reconciled to God or not. If it is God that intervenes into our lives and changes us from a self-lover to a God lover, as the natural consequence theory appears to say, then do we really have free choice? The whole argument that God is loving even though people go to hell is based on the assumption that we have free choice and that it would be unloving to take the free choice away. However, we don’t really have free choice to choose because God has to intervene in order for us to change, but He doesn’t intervene in everyone’s life. Therefore, it appears unjust, if not unloving, that God doesn’t stop people from going to hell. Therefore, Lewis would think that the fact that our salvation depends entirely upon God’s election makes things a lot harder for Christian’s to prove that God is just and loving even though people go to hell.
Also, I am not sure that the concept of hell just being a place that is the natural outcome of people’s free decision affects Lewis’s argument’s or what he thinks. Hell is still a place of suffering. Lewis’ arguments that people are making ill informed decisions is still a valid argument in this view of hell. The only argument that Lewis makes that might be affected is that He can no longer argue that people who go to hell are receiving an infinite punishment for a finite crime. I personally think it appears to be just for God to consign those people to hell that have characterized themselves as fit for that place. The problem that I have is that I am not sure how just it is that everybody is fit for hell unless God intervenes, and God does not intervene in everyone’s life.
Furthermore, original sin was not mentioned in Lewis’s interpretation of the orthodox Christian story. Adding original sin to the orthodox Christian story does not ruin Lewis arguments whatsoever. In fact, it only helps Lewis. Now he can add to his argument that God is unjust. He would just ask the question “What kind of just God would allow someone else’s wrongdoing to condemn everybody else to the same punishment?” Adam and Even did have a full informed choice to choose God or not, and they did not choose God. That is fair. But how is it fair to have people who are not fully informed be predisposed to not choose God because now they have a sinful nature due to Adam and Eve’s sin?
-Madison P. 9 AM
I honestly have no answer for the first question. God does send people to hell and I believe that he is a perfect and good God, but it is really hard to reconcile eternal punishment with a good God. I know that crimes do deserve a punishment, but torture for eternity does seem excessive. I liked Murray’s argument about how our crimes are committed against an infinite being, so they bear infinite weight. In this case, eternal punishment would not be unjust. It would make sense because the crimes we committed would be infinite and worthy of infinite punishment.
I do not believe that Lewis’ argument of the nursery laced with deadly objects is fitting for the argument against competent decisions. When God originally placed Adam and Eve in the garden, He placed one tree in the garden that was dangerous for them and He gave them full warning, that if they ate of the tree they would die. Adam and Eve were not uninformed. They were completely competent adults who chose to disobey God because they believed the lie of the serpent. People were supposed to pass down the knowledge of God on to the next generation, so they would never be uninformed. Unfortunately, some people stopped telling their children, so in some places the memory of God is forgotten in some regions. Now God has given us the Bible to tell us what is wrong and what is right. It is not God’s failure that keeps us uninformed; it’s man’s.
However, I feel as though knowing this information about the original sin and fall would still make no difference to Lewis. I think he would argue that it is still unjust for a loving and all-powerful God to put the weight on fallible man to tell the next generation about God because their failings are to be expected. So it is unjust for an all-powerful God to not intervene in every situation where man is going to fail to inform the next generation. I think this would be Lewis’ argument, but I’m sure it would be phrased better than this.
-Hannah H. (9:00)
Lewis certainly had an interesting essay. There are some specifics I’d like to comment on…
1) Lewis, at his nature, doesn’t understand the nature or character of God. He interprets God as he thinks in his own mind, not what the scriptures say. How obtuse for a man to assume he knows the mind of Almighty God. There are two basic arguments in rebuttal. One is that an all loving God must eternally punish for the sake of those who did not receive punishment. If two children are asked to do something, one does it well, the other does not; how fair would it be that both receive a cookie for their work. Even if the other child was spanked for disobeying, why does he too deserve a cookie afterwards? Surely one the one good child will ever get the cookie for that. The second argument comes from the reversal of Lewis’s case. Even the very best of people, still sinned. Why then should they receive eternal reward? If we are looking objectively at what is fair, no one should go to heaven either. Blessings be to God life is not fair, that He is the judge and declares those who love Him righteous!
2) While there is clear evidence of God’s specific appointment of the elect all throughout scripture—those being set aside, specifically chosen to serve God—I think it is made clear that those appointments are made for earth, not only heaven. The elect has been chosen for His eternal purpose. God justifies the elect so no one can bring charge against them, but the elect are not the only ones who are ever saved. The elect are those who God uses to reach out to all such that all are called. Thus our freedom is maintained. God foreknows the choice we will make but that does not change the fact that it is still our choice to make. If we do choose to serve God, He justifies us so we are blameless as we reach others for the kingdom. I think it is fair to acknowledge the difference in the caliber of Christians between modern day/average believers and those such as Peter, Paul, and John. Clearly those solders for Christ were give special ordainment to empower them to do what they did, particularly all as was written.
5) While it seems like it would be very hard to be in the presence of Almighty God and still refuse to subjugate one’s self, that exact case is described in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Never does the rich man, beg for mercy on his own rebellion. The only thing he asks is for the torment to stop. Not to be allowed to praise God. Unfortunately for him, he will rebel for eternity. Evidently in his mind, it is better to suffer as his own master, then to serve the Master of the Universe.
By and large it seems most atheists are atheists simply by some misguided interpretation of who God is. Perhaps an accurate description of the nature and character of God would be enough to convince them otherwise.
-Ivan Priest
In response to question 3, I do think hell is a punishment. Because of Adam and Eve, all people are now born sinful, and therefore will be punished if we do not repent and come to Christ. Whether or not God is simply allowing “those persons to experience the natural outcome of their free decisions made over a lifetime,” we are all sinful and deserve death without God. His mercy lies in the fact that He gives us a choice, though not everyone is exposed to the fact that they have a choice. I find it hard, however, to justify that it is a punishment for those who never have the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Clearly, even if every person was presented with the news of salvation, not everyone would accept it. But for the ones who would, I don’t understand how they should be punished in this way, when they never even had the opportunity to hear.
I can understand how someone whose life has been anything but love-filled wouldn’t believe there’s a loving God. If my life had been awful up to this point, I don’t think I would be a Christian. I mean, why does God allow those things to happen, then expect people to believe in His grace and forgiveness? They may think, “Well, great—He forgives me for all the bad things I do, but why would I want to give my life to a “being” who has allowed my life to be this bad?” Though someone may have a horrible life situation, if they hear about and choose to follow God, would He not bestow His peace and love on their souls at least, giving them hope for eternity? As we know, becoming a Christian doesn’t automatically make life easy. For some, life may have become harder after converting to Christianity. However, acknowledging, believing in, and asking for God’s grace in your life, I believe, would have an effect on how one was able to react to a situation and to persevere. Again, this doesn’t make life easier, but I think it would change how one, who truly believed in God’s love and forgiveness, saw life. I just wonder how people in these types of situations feel about God…..and I wonder how people who chose to come to God, despite thinking He’s responsible for their bad situations, changed as a result of Him being in their lives. Were they able to have a somehow drop all their negative thoughts about Him? Do they still believe He’s responsible, and continually face those questions, yet have still genuinely placed their faith in Him?
I just felt very discouraged after reading Lewis’ essay. He does raise some interesting points, and I can’t retort all of his arguments. I can just be extremely thankful that I do know God and His love and mercy.
~Anna Z. MWF 9am
In response to Jordan Ryner, I really liked what you had to say about hell. Personally, I tend to lean that towards hell not being a massive fire and constant burning, but I think that it is more of a place with no God. Since it has no God, all things good would be gone: love, happiness, health, friendship, family, etc. I had never really considered hell to not be a huge fire until I heard my pastor speak on it. I find that it makes a lot of sense because God will not be in hell, he will be in heaven. And I believe that because we have God in this world, we have happiness, family, friendship, and love. Without him, none of this would exist. Jordan, I also agree that this would be just as bad of a punishment than constant burning because i think that war and pain will come from the lack of God.
In response to question six, I think that this type of question involves a lot of trust in God. Personally, I do not think that God is going to take someone away from this world if He knows that if they live longer, they will come to accept Him as their personal Savior. I think that we all just have to trust in His plan and know that He knows what He is doing. In addition to this, I do think that a person can be a Christian their entire life, yet still lean new things about God and their faith daily. Therefore, I do not think that a thirteen year old knows all they need to know, but neither does an eighty year old. However, they are capable, at least some of them, to acknowledge that God is who He says He is and that HIs son did come to this earth to die for their sins.
Kara B. 9:00
On prompt #3, I would tend to agree more with the sentiment that Hell is first and foremost separation from God, and that anyone who does not accept God’s gift of redemption, and cleanse themselves of the stain of their own sin, is sentenced to an eternity where they are sent away from the presence of God, since nothing can exist in the presence of God that is not completely righteous, and suffer torment in Hell. Murray does raise the notion that such people are, while still alive, conditioning themselves for an eternity away from God. They incline themselves towards self-love, and by not submitting to the authority of God in life, even while suffering for in in death, they persist in their condition. To word it another way, hell does not seem to be as much “active” torment as much as it is “passive” pain, grief, and anguish that results from be separate from the God from whom all good things come
- Patrick Flynn
Even before we entered into this discussion regarding divine evil I have had a lot of trouble understanding how the doctrine of predestination can fit with the character of God that we as Christians hold. It has never made sense to me that an all good, loving, and just God would, prior to creation, destine certain of those he loves for eternal bliss and others for eternal torment. I think that suggesting such an idea to Lewis would have made his argument much easier and would not have helped God to seem any better to him. Truly, when I consider predestination I cannot see how a just and loving God could do such a thing.
Ian D. MWF 9:00
I think it's interesting that Lewis points out the flaws that come with viewing hell as punishment. Murray points out in his essay that there are other views on hell, including views on hell as being the natural consequences for decisions made here on earth. There are many other views that can be taken, but Lewis argues that any other view would either have the problem of hell as punishment or scripture is terribly misleading. What I would argue is that there could be other interpretations of the scriptures on hell without it being misleading.
There have been many analogies, parables, and prophecies in the bible that have referred to completely different things and we do not take them literally. We understand that there is room for interpretation. The same can be true of the scriptures about hell. Hell could just mean separation from God. But that might not seem as horrendous in words as it is in experience. Describing something as seeming like burning for eternity sounds a lot more horrible than just being lonely... But the experience could be comparable. I just question the premise that if the metaphor is not exact in nature, it is misleading.
lmsizemore
Point 1 talks about that fact that it seems unreasonable to be punished for eternity for sins you could commit in our short lives. I can see where people who follow this argument might be coming from, but I think they are also is something their missing—the power of sin. Our time to commit sin may be finite, but we are also eternal beings and I believe that our sin affects our eternal souls on a level we fail to understand. That being said, let’s say Bob stole something and then “served his time” in hell. At the end of x years Bob’s soul is still unchanged and dirty. That being the case, he has not righted the wrong he committed. The only thing that can clean his soul is the outside force of Christ.
Joel, I challenge you to think about how Lewis would respond to the line of thought that we need to be "cleansed." It's a Christian idea, but how does that hit home with someone who doesn't share your same worldview. You see, the world carries an idea that one can make up for the bad they do with a repentant heart and the right measures of penitence. For example, think of our prison system, crimes are assigned years. Thirty years to life for murder, 15 for rape...etc. So what you are saying is that penitence doesn't quite work. Why and how is that fair that only Christians get this form of cleansing? What if they're not even sorry?
Point 6 brings up the problem of how children who are not even allowed to drive cars can be held responsible for their decisions about Heaven, Hell, and God. This argument can be expanded to include all people who society would deem unable to take care of themselves (mentally handicapped especially). How is this fair? I have no idea. I would have to argue that it isn't fair. Some Christians use an argument called the age of accountability. I don't know if this is adequately founded in Bible. I don't have an answer for Lewis. I think his arguments are valid.
-Green
This is my second blog on this subject. I had to stop my first one short. In this blog I want to answer a couple of questions posed on the web site.
The comment that Lewis didn't mention original sin is important. I think it does affect is argument because of the spiraling aspect of sin. Mankind has continually sunk deeper into sin, so much sometimes one doesn't even recongnize it as sin. I am not sure if he would even validate the appeal. He seems set in his opinions and sure of his conclusions.
As for choosing hell, it isn't so simple. Of course in theory one doesn't want to go to hell, but if they choose behavior and an attitude against God, isn't that the same thing. For example, one knows eating too much food makes one overweight, so why are so many people overweight? Surely, they don't choose to be overweight. Of course they do, there is natural consequences. I think this is similar to the hell issue. Sometimes people can rationalize away anything (as Philosophy is teaching me).
No one is really fully informed about spiritual matters. But if there is a chance for hell, whould you want to risk it? If a Christian is wrong about heaven and hell (& God), what has the Christian lost? Did he or she have an unfulfilled life here? No, but if a nonbeliever is wrong, they will be spending eternity in hell wishing he or she knew God.
Lewis' analogy about a parent putting dangerous objects in a baby's nursery. We are not babies and God (or Parent's for that matter) wouldn't put dangerous things in our way. We or others, or nature itself may bring disaster to us but God doesn't. Yes, He allows it, as a matter of cause and effect, but He wants blessings for us and not cursing.
Connie D. M-W-F 9am Blog #2
Lewis' essay Divine Evil presents a number of tough questions and even ideas for the Christian to consider. Here are my responses to the questions posed:
Is Lewis correct to assume that the punishment of Hell is disproportionate? He is influenced by his cultural encounters and thus has a contextualized view of justice and of anything else he interprets. God is not contextual and what he deems right and wrong, and further righteous and unrighteous punishment is only what can be true and right. That would be my issue with Lewis' view of righteous or just punishment from God.
I feel as though this theological tradition would further Lewis' argument and disdain for the God he sees as evil. However, the very existence of humanity is not do to the predestination of humankind but rather the election of Jesus Christ and of the triune God. Thus, the existence of humankind is out of electing a graceful God, a God who wishes to bestow blessing on humankind. He destines some for blessing in this life and torment for eternity, while destining others for torment in this life and blessing for eternity. It's His world, His universe, and to question His decisions would be for me to question the financial dealings of a billionaire who continues to make more and more off of the investments he makes. God is making investments with what He owns in order to bring Himself glory, just as a billionaire makes investments to make more money.
Lewis would argue that those who choose the life they do do so without an honest or fully informed view of hell or view of the punishments for their actions. Also, if God is in complete control, then He determines the circumstances by which a person's character is shaped. Then God is at fault and not man, which returns to the idea of Calvinism and predestination, which was addressed in number 2.
I don't feel Lewis left out original sin, he very well addressed it and validly asked why he would be punished for a mistake made by his father or his father's father. So, by no means does the idea ruin his argument because he already addressed it and would probably maintain his view that he shouldn't be punished by a just God for the acts of a forefather.
I feel this is where Lewis' argument fell as Christ the incarnate God walked the planet for 33 years. He was rejected by many and hung on a cross. Humanity killed the obvious God of the universe in order maintain a lack of responsibility or moral conscience. Saying that one wouldn't choose Hell is to take away from the very crucifixion of Christ.
Maybe we aren't capable of making the decisions, and that further fits the idea that God ordains and predestines everything. Or God places us in dangerous situations so that once we are aware of our deadly surrounding we look to and cry out to Him to aid us. This fits with a God who wishes to offer grace and love only to those who truly understand they love and need Him.
Lewis makes some interesting claims and brings up a lot of questions. In response to the first question, I would have to disagree with Lewis. He seems to be asserting his own view of what justice should be on God. God is holy and He calls His people to be holy as He is holy. Therefore, even one sin make one irreversibly unholy. No amount of good works can cover the tarnish of sin. It's because of sin that perfection cannot be reached so since that standard cannot be met and the punishment is hell. God says His ways are not our ways so I don't think Lewis can say God's judgment is disproportionate on the basis of human punishment.
The second question is a tricky one. I think this view only adds to Lewis' point because it means that God choses some for heaven and some for hell. I think Lewis would say that this is just another example of harsh, unjust God. Since the verdict of salvation is chosen for people it is not just, Lewis would say, that those not chosen be sent to hell. I think this view makes things worse for the Christian because it means those who are saved don't have a choice in the matter meaning people can do what they want. It takes any responsibility from people.
For the third question I don't think this line of thought would sit well with Lewis. I think Lewis would respond that a God that lets His creatures choose to be separated from Him would be unloving. God knows what's best for His creation yet lets them do things destructive to their eternal state, how is that loving, would probably be Lewis' response. I personally believe this view, however. I think God allows us to have a free will to do as we please and He gives them over to the desires of their hearts whether it be eternity with Him or eternity separate from Him.
I think, in respect to the fourth question, that Lewis would dismiss a notion that people were born with original sin. However, I don't think it would ruin his arguments because he is saying that the punishment doesn't match the crime. Even if we sinned all our finite lives infinite punishment does not seem just to Lewis. He might dismiss original sin, but it wouldn't hurt his position, it might even enhance it. Enhance it because he may question the loving character of God by making people disposed toward sin.
In response to the questions in five I would say first, I think for Lewis to be fully informed he would need to die and see Jesus face to face. It seems as if all the information Lewis takes in he dismisses by his own reasoning. He seems to be proposing that His logic and judgement is superior to that of the God of the Bible. Also I don't think anyone could ever really be fully informed. How can a finite person fully understand an infinite God? It's not possible. I don't think Lewis is right that people could not make the choice to go to hell because people do it every day. God would not have said He turns people over to their own sinful desires if they did not choose to be separate from God in the first place.
To be honest, I don't really have much of an answer for the sixth question. While those who are young or not developed enough to make competent decisions at what point are they competent enough? I don't really know how predestination works with this either. Do they all just go to heaven even though they are sinners who need repentance just as much as any competent adult? I don't know what it means to make such choice in the context of this question. Also I don't know if Lewis' analogy is fitting one in this context because I don't know what to think about the first part of the question.
-Tim Hull (9:00)
On Friday we had the chance to talk about this subject.What was brought up in that talk is that Dr. Lewis did not have a clear view of torment or of God.Yes people are going to hell but it's a torment that they bring on themselves, and not God. The torment is like when you get a text from your girlfriend or your boyfriend telling you that they are braking up with you.The pain that you feel is magnified a thousand time when you are cut off from God. You know from that point on that you messed thing up in your life but then as you think about what you had done you realized that it was what you wanted and God just let you do it your way. I know that God sends people into our life that will lead us to salvation if we will only let them. When people reject Gods attempt's to bring them into his kingdom then that person gets what they deserve. I can speak from experiences I did a lot of running when I was younger it took me years to realized that God is all that I needed to feel the empty place in my soul. I tried drugs and alcohol to feel that gap. It wasn't the fear of God that keep me a way it was anger. I had thoughts like Dr. Lewis how could a God that loved me so much let bad things happen to me. I can't even answer that question today, but I can trust God today because I know that all things work for my good. This topic of heaven and hell will be the best one we cover in this class. I look forward to this discussion in class so for all of you who are in the 9:00 class bring your (A) game with you to class I want to argue this one with you.Until we meet in class peace be with you and my God have mercy on your soul.
(1) According to Lewis, Hell is a radically disproportionate punishment for everything one manages to do. He makes several assumptions here: that Hell, as described in the Bible, is a place of eternal unimaginable intensity of punishment; he also assumes there are levels of sin (like murder is a worse sin than disobeying parents). Therefore, it would be unjust for a "good" and perfectly just God to sentence anyone, regardless of the "level" of their sin, to eternal conscious torment in Hell. He seems to state that if it would be unjust to sentence someone that has committed a minimal offense, like lying to mom, to Hell then it should be unjust to sentence someone who has committed a presumably great offense, like murdering 6 million jews.
However, Michael Murray in his essay Heaven and Hell suggests a plausible refutation to Lewis' objections. Murray suggests that it is precisely because God is perfectly good and just that humans must be sentenced to Hell. Murray's argument first assumes that God is infinitely greater and more holy and more righteous than any human being on Earth. If God is infinitely greater than humanity, than any sin committed against God, regardless of its human-assigned "level," is just as great as the next because it has been committed against such an infinitely greater being. Therefore, all sin is punishable unto eternal conscious torment in Hell. Of course this argument suggests that all sin of equal weight, and therefore merit the same penalty. Does disobeying your mom merit the same penalty as a mass-murder who rapes and dismembers its victims?
I believe God's Word itself, the same source as our concept of Hell, clearly states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). This means everyone! This means that one whose worst sin is lying to mom about a broken vase is just as guilty as one whose greatest sin is murdering 6 million jews. Both parties deserve equal punishment because presumably both parties sinned against the same infinitely great and holy God. Both parties deserve Hell. All people deserve Hell because all have sinned.
Now this argument does not necessarily address the naked tongue-clicking tribal warrior in the thick of the Amazon forest that has not been directly told about the eternal punishment of Hell. No one would disagree that this individual has no doubt sinned in his lifetime. According to Murray's argument this tribal warrior's sin was committed against the same God as the most-churched Cedarville student. However, the stark difference is that the tribal warrior is not required to attend chapel every morning at 10, or church service every Sunday from 9-12. He presumably does not recognize the gravity of his sin. So is he just as accountable for his sin as the average American church-goer?
Adam - 11:00am
a) Lewis’ argument that a perfectly just God would not allow people to endure infinite conscious torment for their finite sins. However, God is infinitely Holy and we are infinitely sinful and without redemption we cannot rightly be in the presence of God. God did not create hell in the beginning, but once the Angels sinned and we followed suit there had to be a place for them to reside.
b) The view of predestination does make a difference to Lewis’ argument because if God only chose for a few to be called to salvation then He is a cruel God for creating those whom have no chance of salvation and are doomed since before birth to eternal suffering.
c) I think that Lewis would take offense at the stance that God consigns people to hell as a natural outcome of their free decisions over their lifetime because it seems, from earth, that those who don’t deserve heaven due to their deeds would achive it because they were ‘saved’. Not to mention those who do won’t be able to enjoy heaven because they were never ‘saved’ yet did a multitude of good deeds.
d) I don’t know what Lewis would think about original sin, but I am sure that he would have a thought provoking opinion on it.
e) A part from being in the presence of God in heaven I don’t think that there is a way to be fully informed on earth. Think of the Israelites or the disciples, they both witnessed miracle after miracle and yet they continuously forgot who their God was and how great He is. Yet in the midst of these people there were those who were able to be faithful to God.
f) In my experience it is easier for those 13 and under to comprehend the mysteries of God then those over 13.
In the discussion on Friday, it was brought up that it was not our good deeds that caused us to receive the infinite joy of heaven; it was our faith. Just as it was not those who go to hell’s deeds that caused their fate; but their lack of faith. As I was talking to a theologically/philosophy minded friend about what we were learning in class she brought up that the presence or absence of faith was a choice thus we did get into heaven based upon our good deed of faith. What do you think?
(4) It seems to be the case that Lewis would invoke a similar argument to putting a small child in a room with sharp, dangerous objects. While an irresponsible adult would force their children in situations where they are morbidly injured or killed without their children having a say about being in that situation, it is also the case that an irresponsible God would force His children into a state of 'original sin' (or as he may call, "Original Damnation") where they are harmed without them having a say in it.
An objection to this may be: But Adam sinned, and that sin was passed down through the generations. Lewis would probably say he does not find it probable that it is also just to punish all of humanity for ONE man's minor sin.
I think Lewis' argument would be extremely difficult to refute. One could take the approach of saying God has a higher standard of Justice. One could say God never intended for it to be this way and saves all who are not 'old enough' to make a rational decision on eternity. But i would go the route of saying it seems to be the case that just as God views nations as sums of people in the OT, he views humanity much the same: much more in a group sense than individualistic Americans would usually think.
JT B. 11.00
1) As Michael Murray suggested, there is an aspect that Lewis fails to recognize when contemplating how finite beings sinfulness could merit infinite punishment. That is this: Finite beings sinfulness is against an infinite being. This seems a logical explanation of the disparity between finite and infinite. Finite beings have sinned against an infinite God. Of course they're not going to spend infinity with Him. They rebelled against Him.
2) The doctrine of election seems to support Murray's point. He most definitely would use it to defend his point. Much discussion could be had on this point but the bottom line is that God demonstrates His love and justice. Who are we to question the one who knows all things and orders all things according to His purpose?
3)
4)
5)This topic is crucial. Lewis makes an error in that he equates God to eternal bliss as we would understand it in this world. One can love good things but not love God. That is the essence of idolatry. All people are guilty of this and they would have absolutely nothing to do in heaven because it is so much more than a beautifully cleaned up world without suffering or confusion, though those of course are apart of God's kingdom.
Romans 1 address this and states succinctly that all men are without excuse and are guilty of rebelling against God despite having the evidence necessary to lead them to Him.
6)
-Andrew S. (11:00)
Lewis isn't right about everything. He is right that God is good but wouldn't good not tolerate evil? And an infinite God would be just in giving an infinite punishment to those to sinned against him.
To Lewis we would be holding to a position that does not make us truly free but rather still restrains our thinking.
We should think of hell as a punishment in a similar way that going to prison is a punishment if you steal something. Whether or not you freely chose to prison or not you freely chose to steal. Often people do things without things about the consequences of their actions.Lewis would probably consider it a punishment and I think I'd agree with him.
Original sin is crucial to talking about eternal life and the existence of hell. Lewis missed a big piece of the pie and he should not be allowed to do so.
I don't think anyone would freely chose hell either if they truly knew what it was like. I don't think we have the privileged of being fully informed but we are informed enough as God sees fit. God is fully informed and if we trust him then we have nothing to worry about. I think it's about faith and when we try to say things like we deserve to be fully informed or I wouldn't have made that choice if I knew it was gonna be that bad we are just making excuses. No one really wants to believe hell exists or it is that bad but you know what it just might be worse than you imagined.
First of all age is a relative thing, different cultures and different times in history have decided an adults status differently. Most children start to understand right from wrong at a very young age, usually the first year of their life. So while they may still be learning they are capable of making eternal decisions and they must. We are eternal beings, so every decision we make is somehow impacting our future. Lewis seems like he doesn't want to accept any notion that there could be something so horrible as hell so he makes excuses, like universalists do or annhiliationist do. Even if you believe in God you may not want to believe in hell.
Alyssa C. (9.00)
David Lewis has an obscure view on the character of God as well as the purpose of Hell. In his essay he stresses a few points. First, a good and perfect God cannot exist if He is sending seemingly innocent people to suffer in Hell for eternity and that Hell itself is an unfair punishment. How could someone deserve to suffer for eternity in pain and anguish for minor sins committed in such a short lifetime? Second that if someone were to actually desire to go to Hell it would sort of debunk the whole purpose of Hell. And third, children are not capable of making a life changing decision such as deciding to accept Christ or deny him.
1. Lewis does not seem to understand the character of God. He has seemingly bought him down to the human level where he is then judging Gods actions from a human morality perspective. David fails to recognize that God is just in his decision making. The punishment of Hell was brought about by our own free will. God being perfect has to adopt a no tolerance policy on the issue of sin. Simply because someone has lives a good life by human standards does not make them good in the eyes of God. By sinning we have chosen to openly reject God. If God were to allow some sin to be weighed more heavily on terms of eternal destination then he would not be a holy and just God. Hell is not a punishment based on pain. It was designed basically to give us our wish as humans. Hell exists to separate us entirely from God. If we choose not to accept him in our life on earth then our life after will be no different. God is simply fulfilling that with for us by sending us to hell.
2. I do not think that it is possible for someone to desire to go to hell. I think of in the same sense as everyone knows that there is a creator. God said that he is revealed through creation. I believe it is more of a matter of the heart. Someone can open claim something but deep down I don’t believe anyone could desire Hell. This reminds me of the story about the rich man in the Bible to rejected God but when he entered Hell he repented and asked God or a single drop of water. He had hardened his heart to God but deep down if he would have examined himself truthfully he knew this was not his desire.
3. The beauty of the gospel is the simplicity of it. God has not made it a challenge to be admitted into heaven. We simply need the faith of a child to believe in the Lord Jesus who has died for us and rose again conquering death. The decision is easy. The life that follows is hard.
Josh Helminiak
Looking at question 1 I have to disagree with what Lewis says. God created this world perfect and there was no sin, this means that there was no punishment, but once man disobeyed God by the tempting from the devil, sin came into the world and thus our punishment was set. Hell. We are deserving of eternal punishment because we sinned and lost the chance at eternal life in the garden with God. It is by His grace that we can even be offered the gift of eternal life through believing in Him and His son that we receive anything besides the Hell we deserve. God is not a "fair" God, but he is a just God. We sin and fall short of His standards on a daily basis. If he did not give us the chance to be saved and escape the punishment He would not be a just God, but He does! Through the rest of Lewis' article and these specific questions I encountered some things that frustrated me, but this idea of God being unjust and evil himself for allowing evil is something I very much disagree with.
-Zack Gatlin (mwf 11:00)
1. I believe that Lewis is disregarding the idea that we are sinning against an infinitely holy and good God. This is somewhat reflected in our society: crimes against an innocent child suffer more penalty than those against adults. God is infinitely more innocent than a newborn.
5. I completely disagree with Lewis here. Even if we were completely informed on the penalties of sin, ie. eternal punishment against a holy God, we would still sin. Knowledge about sin does not lead us towards righteousness, only Christ does.
Laramie Huggins (mwf 11:00)
In response, one particular factor Lewis brings up doesn't quite ring right with me. While Lewis’s argument seems to carry an emotional basis to its argument, namely the avoidance of pain, it seeks to redefine issues at the core. Lewis has a basis of his argument as pain being the ultimate aspect to be avoided. While this can resonate as true in certain instances, it does not hold for all cases.
As Lewis points out, the definition of pain implies that how God handles the situation of justice, in an unjust way, sentencing those whom he claims to love to an eternal sense of pain. Therefore, this is viewed as the ultimate essence with which should be avoided. Another noticeable and problematic danger in Lewis categorizing pain in this manner places human values, virtues, and general senses above that of a more lasting and divine nature. Lewis’s argument revolves around placing the human sense of discomfort and pain above a more universal sense of justice and the overwhelming aspect of sin. This leads the author to a high amount of speculation in regards to what moral obligations drive his existence.
Austin K. (11:00)
I think points 3 and 5 may lead us to a way out of the argument that Lewis presents in the essay. In Romans 1, it talks about how God handed us over to our evil desires. God is not punishing us as much as he is allowing us to do what we have decided to do. CS Lewis argues a similar thing in his book the Great Divorce, essentially presenting the idea that a person in Hell wants to be in Hell and if given the option of Heaven, would choose to go back to Hell. Therefore, we choose Hell. However, David Lewis argues that such a choice must be fully informed for this to be a viable way out, for it to be just. It seems that in many ways, humanity does make a fully informed choice. God has explicitly told us what will happen in his revealed Word, and given us a way out. Even if that were not sufficient for Lewis, I'm not convinced that humanity has to be fully informed for it to be just, it would just mean that all people had the same opportunity. If we're presented with the same information, and one person chooses Heaven and another chooses Hell, how is that unjust?
-TJ Pancake 9MWF
I would agree with Zack Gatlin: a. He may not be right on this point. I think this because it may not be disproportionate to punish infinitely for a seemingly finite offense. God is the creator and the ultimate judge. All offenses are foundational against Him. If He says that a sin is worthy of eternal punishment, then who are we to question Him. Since we are not God, it is impossible for us to understand His perspective especially because we are so fallen. All we know is tainted by evil. So how can we fully understand what perfectly good really looks like?
If we think about hell as not a punishment, but instead a natural consequence, I think that Lewis would still claim that God is not good. Because God is the creator of everything, I think that Lewis would blame God for making a universe where our sin has such horrible consequences. I would disagree with Lewis because I think that we should not blame God for the consequences of our sin. The Bible clearly states that we choose to be slaves to sin. God is a good and just God. He cannot cause suffering, but He allows it. I think that we are so fallen that we do not realize the full extent of the evil that our sin causes. I think that only God can know the full consequences of our sin.
-Annelise
David Lewis makes a lot of good arguments and appeals. Really, what he says makes a lot of sense, especially if you don't know much about God and Hell beforehand.
It looks like the discussion points have been pretty well covered thus far, so I won't bore everyone with repetition. However, I do want to say I think David Lewis has a very distorted view of Hell all around. He starts by assuming man is inherently good, and bases his arguments from there. Then he strictly classifies Hell as a punishment. It could be seen as such, but that is not the intention God had in mind as it pertains to humans. Reading the Bible demonstrates this. Rather, it's more like finally giving us what we've been asking for the whole time. We can change our mind at any time until the point of our death, and therefore alter the consequences after death. If we've spent our whole lives doing our best to rebel against God, and consistently chosen to do what went against our conscience (one way God informs us) and what we are taught is right, then we are granted complete fulfillment of our desires. On earth, God interferes with common grace and blesses all people, but Hell is really more torment based on the complete and total absence of God. In contrast, those who have chosen to follow God in their life on earth get complete fulfillment in their desires to worship and glorify Him.
I can see very clearly where David Lewis is coming from, since this issue is one that I have struggled with myself. It is hard to wrap your mind around a God that is loving and compassionate, but also allows His own creation to spend an eternity in torment and despair.
Addressing #3, some prefer to think of hell as the natural result of a life lived in sin. Some argue God does not 'send' us there, but allows us to choose our own way, which many times leads to Hell. I agree with this view. It takes a lot of love to let someone go. Any good parent raises their child with the ability to leave the nest and make their own life someday. They give them the knowledge they need to make wise choices, and provide them with loving advice. However, in the end the child much choose their own lifestyle. Many kids turn 18, move out, and go completely against everything their parents taught them. They may end up breaking the law and going to jail, but the parent does not lock them up in the basement and refuse to let them leave the house. While this may save the child from the hurt and pain as a result of his choices, the parents know better. They love their child enough to let it go. They want their kid to know the joy of making their own choices and having their own life.
I believe this is how God treats us. He longs for us to follow the way He set out for us, but He loves us enough to leave the choice up to us. Many choose to go the other way, and the natural consequence is Hell. When this happens, I believe it breaks God's heart because He truly is a loving God.
Emily S 9:00
1) it is hard to really say what is just when discussing God because it goes back to what we truly believe justice to be. What is justice? If one can says God, then there must be some sort of junction that whatever God deems as just is just and whatever God deems as unjust is unjust. This also goes by then, what justice system David seems to be going by. There can be things that one considers just, but others unjust. We must all be on the same justice system to even have this conversation. If we go about this on Gods justice system, that to be able to get into heaven one must be perfect, and to be 'good' or 'just' one must be perfect than it is completely just to not let someone into heaven by not being perfect. But because God is a good and loving God as well as being just, He provides a way to get into heaven by becoming perfect through His son.
2)I think that this view would make David see God as worse because if Christians are elect than that means they are destined to heaven, and if that then by default others are destined to hell.
3) I think looking at Hell in this way makes it easier to cope with that some people will be in hell of eternity. This puts the responsibility a lot more of the individual and a lot less with God. It is hard to find this balance because it seems that there should be some responsibility on God but not all because we do have free choice as well.
4) It is hard to say Lewis' view on original sin seems to be one that is struggled with often. I believe that even if we discredit original sin and one starts each life as an individual. Than it is still impossible to be able to self-righteously get into heaven. Even starting today one would not be able to move forward sin free and therefore would still need Christ.
5) first off I don't think it is possible to ever be fully informed and I still believe that even if we could be people would still deny God. (and by default choose Hell) Christ was God in complete revelation and even as much of God that was revealed to s through Jesus, He was still denied by many. Even the Israelites denied God after everything He had done for them. So I really don't think that changes anything.
6) I believe it is the job of the church and the parents to train up a child then in this way. Yes they should have a choice because you wouldn't want them to completely rebel from the faith either; however, there examples and authority should be presenting Christ and living out Christ as attractive and real as it truly is. Actions usually come before feelings anyway, as I believe Lewis himself said, therefore teaching the action of following God is in hope that the feeling of love towards God will follow.
In response to question 6, I have to go to the orthodox story to point out a very important aspect that I don’t recall discussing in class. When the original sin came to be Adam and Eve did receive something. They now had the knowledge of good and evil. This was of course a bad thing but it then showed that they could know and make a decision on whether something was right or wrong so even in their sin, they were equipped to know if they were doing something wrong. That would be God equipping them to be able to navigate a fallen world. This would allow them to be able to see if their eternity is in danger. Everyone is fallen from God and that separation can be seen in some way so yes it is just that eternally that said person would be going to an eternal hell.
Anna P 11AM
This may be random, but as I was looking through this prompt again, I found myself arguing against Lewis in his thinking that we aren't fully informed because if we were, we wouldn't choose hell over God. I guess in thinking about being fully informed, original sin, and our freedom in making choices, it is obvious that we consistently choose hell over God daily. Sinning or doing wrong is a decision to choose hell (in a smaller sense) over God. In being informed, I would argue that we are informed enough to know that choosing God is joy, bliss, peace etc. The problem is in original sin and in our desires that pull us towards choosing hell over God. At this point, I don't know how to go much further because Lewis would probably argue, "Why would God allow the opportunity for original sin?" I don't know how to fully argue against this, but if we were created by God for relationship with him, what would be the benefit of not being created with the ability to make our own decision? If we were robots, and programmed to always make the right decisions, there wouldn't be any joy when we choose to do right on our own.
Anyway, these are some thoughts. I'm still wrestling through much of it.
Isaac M.
11am
Post a Comment