In class we've been considering one potential reply to David Lewis' central argument against eternal hell and, consequently, the orthodox story. That reply denies that on the orthodox story, a perfectly good God inflicts wildly disproportionate punishments upon his creatures. Rather, the reply continues, according to the orthodox story any moral crime humans commit has God as a target (at least), and so is in fact an infinite crime, and so deserving of infinite punishment. In short, the punishment does fit the crime. (We presented, explained, and defended the argument in greater detail in class.)
We then considered two replies Lewis (and others) might offer to this line of reasoning. The first reply was that the "punishment fits the crime" response makes each and every moral infraction deadly serious. Given that it's so serious, it seems that God ought to do more to make that moral fact very clear to his creatures. But, Lewis contends, it's not at all that clear and obvious (at least not to all God's creatures). This makes God like the parent who litters the nursery with knives, handguns, grenades, blowtorches, bear traps, open bottles of cyanide, and old Boohbah videos.The second reply was that we should think of love and justice as compatible, not in tension or at odds. (This is so even on the orthodox story--see Micah 6: 8 and Romans 13: 8-10). So, a truly and robustly just punishment will not be an unloving punishment. But what's loving about hell? How is hell contributing to the flourishing and well-being of those consigned there? It's terribly hard to see how eternal hell contributes to the overall well-being of hell's residents.
So, in light of these potential objections (and others you might think of), what do you think of the "punishment fits the crime" reply? Does it succeed? Are there good replies available to the two worries raised against it?
As always, think long and hard about this. Train yourself to ponder and contemplate. Cultivate good habits here. And interact graciously and charitably.
48 comments:
I would say that the punishment fits the crime argument works, but only so far as it goes. I think that by itself, it is not an adequate defense for the concept of hell. Now maybe joined with another argument it might be adequate, but I agree with Lewis that it leaves at least those two objections unanswered. I think the free will argument that we have begun discussing will be valuable in shedding some light on these objections.
Nicole S. MWF 9am
"The punishment fits the crime" reply is only somewhat effective at combating Lewis' central argument. Lewis' two replies against the opposition need to receive a response.
In response to Lewis's first statement, it could be said that God has made clear that every moral infraction is deadly serious. Even as a young child one purposefully disobeys her parents. The child understands that she is doing wrong, but she does it anyway in the process defying her parents. It seems that this is similar to our relationship with God. Cultures all around the world traditionally have held very similar values. Sleeping with another man's wife, stealing, and murder have commonly been prohibited by nearly all cultures. Although indivuals may not have read the Bible they understand they are doing wrong, and they do wrong despite this knowledge. In such action they are rebelling against God and defying the sense of right and wrong that has been placed within them.
Lewis' second statement could be answered with the fact that love and justice are indeed compatible. God does not want any to go to hell because he loves everyone. However, people have rebelled against God and they must be punished. He may not want to throw them into hell, but according to his sense of justice he is compelled to do so.
-Dave D 1100
I think that the punishment fits the crime reply aligns well with the orthodox story. God is the creator so everything in the universe belongs to Him. So if you harm anything, you are harming God. As finite humans, I do not think that we can fully understand how these offenses affect God who is infinite. I think that Lewis would be correct by replying that any and all offenses are then deserving of death and the Bible agrees with this. Any sin, no matter how small, brings death. I do not think that this defeats the argument, but instead clarifies the position of the orthodox story.
In reply to the question of what about hell is loving, I would say that it shows the respect side of love. By allowing someone to suffering in hell, God is respecting their choice to reject Him. True love does not hold in a death grip, but instead risks losing the other person when they are given freedom.
One thing that I do not understand is that we would complain that God is unfair and unjust if He punishes us even a little more than what we think we deserve, but we are totally okay with God being incredibly gracious and forgiving by letting us into heaven which we know that we could never deserve. If we protest His supposed unfairness, then we must also protest His grace.
-Annelise
Certainly it seems plausible to suggest that since all crimes humans commit are at least crimes committed against an infinitely holy, infinitely good, and infinitely just God, that all crimes deserve an equally infinitely long and infinitely cruel punishment. This does not seem disproportional, at least from God's perspective. Although we cringe at the idea that both Hitler and our unbelieving neighbor down the street will ultimately meet someday, although their crimes (assuming the neighbor is an upstanding citizen) seem disproportional from each other on a human level. However, from God's point of view (as suggested in God's Word) all finite crimes (regardless of duration of intensity on earth) merit infinite punishment because all finite crimes are also infractions on God's infinite holiness, goodness, and justice.
O.K., says Lewis, I'll concede that maybe all human crimes do deserve infinite punishment in hell, given that a perfectly holy God must demand perfect holiness from his creation. But this would then suggest that the rest of the orthodox story is false, since it does not seem very loving that God should sentence his sinful creation to infinite punishment. Maybe a great amount of torture for a set period of time. Or perhaps purgatory will suffice to justify God's wrath. Not hell!! God cannot be very loving if this is the case and therefore this whole orthodox story seems incoherent and simply not worth following.
So, how can God be all-loving while at the same time perfectly just? Some might reply by saying it is the loving thing for God to punish wrongdoers, both for the punishment of the individual being punished and for the greater good of the rest of His creation. How does this logic follow since wrongdoers will pretty much never be heard from again? Granted, one could see how a prisoner has learned from his mistake and repented of his crime when he reenters society with a radically more upstanding lifestyle. However no one will ever know if someone that has endured the fires of hell has repented of his acts, since the duration of the punishment is, well, eternal!
No, it does not seem plausible that an all-loving God would allow an individual into hell because he loves them. He allows them into hell because he is perfectly just. God never intends that certain individuals will endure the fires of hell when he creates them, in his love and for his glory. According to the orthodox story, hell was never meant for human-beings. Human-beings were never created with the intentions that some would be condemned to hell. Yet, God's justice must be satisfied and so hell is necessary.
On the other side, God is all-loving by allowing that all would have the opportunity to repent and trust in Jesus as their salvation. Jesus dying on the cross is the display of God's prefect love and mercy. Not the condemnation of sinners to hell. God can still be perfectly loving and perfectly just by still allowing those that would reject salvation into eternity apart from Him.
Adam Olson - 11:00pm
I tend to agree with both responses. God is infinite and the only true Sovereignty therefore whatever He says or wants us to say or do or be or feel or think is up to Him. The very fact that we can choose to oppose Him freely is His choice to find out the true-hearted. God chose a punishment which fits its crime and that is infinite punishment in Hell away from Him because any affront to Him is infinite and has an infinite consequence. I would also contend that maybe both points of argument that we are discussing are connected because rejecting God could mean that as a consequence the original sin we then are better off in Hell because we would not be comfortable in Heaven had we rejected God. Maybe some of the infinite consequences of sin are include a fitness for Hell, one that must be obliged by Love. Maybe the complete and utter depravity of a rejecting soul would be in torment were it in the full presence of God and therefore God out of love makes a place for them apart from Him, which is Hell. So to sum up what i am trying to say is that when we sin and reject God through disobeying Him or ignoring Him we deserve eternal punishment because our crimes have everlasting effects. Were a person in their deprived and rejecting state of soul to come into the presents of God then they would be in complete and utter torment so God out of love created a place separated from Him for them which is Hell.
Kyle Classen (9:00TWF)
The punishment does not in fact fit the crime. Even if God is the ultimate type of being, there is no warrant as to why He should sentence us to eternal torture for any finite crime. David Lewis is correct, the orthodox story is just too inconsistent. There are simply no good replies that I can find to refute his views. Now you have to either reject God or reject the orthodox narrative. I do not for a second doubt God, so I have decided that traditional Christianity misread Scripture and added something that was never there to begin with. We need to stop thinking of hell in terms of a scary bedtime story about darkness and fire and recognize it as what it is- the natural consequences of sin.
Jordan Ryner
9:00AM MWF
From a humans perspective it seems that the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime. Simple telling a lie or disobeying your parents once leading to eternal condemnation seems a bit extreme but in reality committing sin, even the littlest amount, separates us from God. From human standards it seems extreme but we are not held to human standards but Gods. Sin separates us from God and if we fail to have that sin forgiven than it leads to eternal separation. I don’t necessarily think that hell is physical torture but more the immense mental and emotional torture of being separated from God after seeing in glory. I believe that if people saw this glory and understood it than there would be no free will because people would not be in a way forced to pick God.
Jessie Comeau
9am MWF
My issue with both David Lewis' argument and with the orthodox story we keep addressing is the approach we take. It was said that sin is what ultimately separates humanity from God. However, I believe the separation begins as a deeper level, as argued by Marilyn McCord Adams. The separation between God and man stems from man's very existence, before the fall. God cannot create anything outside himself that is equal to himself except himself for he is God. The only thing "outside himself" he has created equal with himself is the Incarnate Jesus Christ. Thus, humanity is eternally destined for damnation, for separation from God before sin enters the picture. Because of this, it is important to deny the "The Punishment Fits the Crime" argument because the crime does not exist. Humans exist and that is what causes separation. This seems morbid that God would create a race of humans only to condemn them by creating them. Yet, God is yearning to reveal himself to this creation through His Son, which he can only do if a cost must be paid, a gap bridged.
Again, this seems morbid, maybe even masochistic in the nature of God. However, Love equates to Masochism, giving one's self up for the sake of Another.
God is wholly self sufficient, even in his relational being. Yet, He created humanity in order to obtain true and honest fellowship.This explains the presence of Christ, fixing the gap that was created once man was created. But, it doesn't explain hell, or at least not easily. Normally, and individual would argue that hell is eternal separation from God. Yet, we as Christians also accept that God is omnipresent. With that in mind, God must be actively present within the realm of Hell. God can hide his face or his presence, but he cannot be absent in the realm of Hell, It is through God in the Word or in Christ that Hell is even held together as a part of creation.This is important when looking at hell as an eternal resting place of torment for the nonbeliever. Christians also argue that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. What then will become of this earth. Will it be the eternal Hell? if that's the case, Hell is not torment because of God's absence but is instead torment because human freedom. God allows humanity to choose for or against him. In allowing choice, God is granting the will of humanity to decide for itself, and then acting in love by allowing them to choose their way. Their freedom, their choice to ignore God and to spit in His face is the torment they face. And, the torment will still be present with them as God is present in hell and is present in fellowship, coming to the sinner as he did in the man of Christ. fellowshipping with those who reject him. This is a loving act: allowing the human to choose and then following them on their path no matter the decision.
One comment was made that Love and Justice aren't equally expressed. True justice is always done in love and true love done in justice. God showed his love on Calvary by sacrificing himself, yet he also showed his justice by pouring the sin on the man of Christ. God cannot separate his attributes, he acts within them at all times, being loving and just always.
The conversation, the arguments must all be altered and better written to appeal to Christ, then the discussion of Hell becomes worth wile from a Biblical, Theological, Chrsitological, and Philosophical point of view.
I think that the punishment does fit the crime because God is infinitely loving, just, and merciful. However, this does not mean we have an adequate view of what the punishment.
In this class where we look at things calmly and rationally it would have been very beneficial to review the scripture in regards to hell, instead of mere conjecture. Because there is a high likelihood that the orthodox story is mistaken, it has happened countless times in the past. Yet because the scriptures, the very word of God, have not been discussed in class, while obviously we are perfectly free to review them on our own, we lack the group input on whether the orthodox story is even correct.
Lewis’s argument of the punishment being wildly disproportionate to the crime is fairly well combated by the argument discussed in class however there are other aspects that could improve that rebuttal. First, we should consider what crimes are actually being committed here. According to scripture all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23, 1 Kings 8:46, Ecclesiastes 7:20). Yet, God still saves some (John 3:16, 6:40, and 11:25, Ephesians 2:4-7, 1 John 3:1). So, how is it a perfect God can allow sinful man to dwell with Him? That is the real question, how is it we are not all doomed to spend eternity apart from God? Perhaps the gospel is the obvious answer at this point, since the high degree of familiarity within our community. But I urge we do not oversimplify the significance of the gospel story. Even if you were the only person God ever created, God still would have sent His Son (at which point you would kill him because you realize you cannot dwell with perfection). So Christ, the Lord of the universe, still dies for you, the sinner. Then, whether you accept Him or not Christ has paid the price for you. While you were still a sinner Christ died for you (Romans 5:8). So if you reject Christ there are at least two reasons for your eternal existence in hell in addition to the reasons already stated in class. One, you are imperfect so you must be separated from God because you were not washed clean by Christ. Two, because you are directly responsible for Christ’s death, God is acting in perfect justice in vengeance for His Son.
The primary response of Lewis then follows that the “human agency” is incapable of fully grasping the eternal implications of our actions, so how can we be blamed? The stark difference of those who believe and those who do not is given in John 3:18 and 36, so how can everyone know God enough to be informed to make an independent decision? Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:19-20 and Luke 16:31 declare what may be known about God, God has made known, “so all are without excuse.” Furthermore, 1 Samuel 16:7 and Luke 16:15 make clear that God judges the heart of man; intentions, not actions. So although a person may live a fairly “good” life by human standards, e.g. giving to the poor, helping others, exercising humility, if the heart is still insubordinate to God, God is just to withdraw Himself from that soul. Yet again, in that we see God’s unfailing love.
For Lewis, an all loving God couldn’t possibly let someone spend an eternity in hell. Yet at the very basis of it, that is probably the very apex of love. I will explain with this analogy. You and your significant other are going steady for a while and things are looking pretty good. Sure, there is an occasional argument but no one’s perfect. Over the course of a few months more arguments ensue. You don’t think much of it because in your mind you love them and no matter what you will work through it to resolve the matter. Finally the day comes and they tell you it’s over; they are really gone. When it finally dawns on you this is really happening you try fighting for it, begging, pleading with them to come back. But the more you fight, the further they run. Eventually it becomes apparent you will never be together. You still love them to the ends of the earth but they do not; what do you do? After all that has happened it is simply impossible to stop loving them so what next? If you truly love them with every fiber of your being, you will seek their happiness beyond that of your own. Clearly they are happier apart from you than with you, despite what you may be able to offer them. So the only thing you can do is love them enough to let them go, even to their own possible destruction. So it is with God. In His final act of love, He leaves those insubordinate to their own devices. No doubt adding to the agony of hell, knowing God loves you so much to let you go, yet there you are continuing to rebel. All this time wishing God would just leave you alone, then realizing when He does, it’s just another act of His infinite love.
-Ivan Priest
I have been raised with the “punishment fits the crime” response to Lewis’ arguments. After all, it makes sense. Committing a crime against an infinite God would seem to deserve infinite punishment. I struggle with this response though for a couple reasons. What about babies, children, and people who have never heard about God? Is it just for them to go to hell for committing crimes they had no idea they were committing or whom they were committing it against? Another reason that I struggle with this response is it is not our crimes that necessarily put us in hell. We are born with a sinful nature, so we are unholy right from the start. God is a holy God and cannot be with something that is unholy. Therefore, even if we never commit a single sin in our life, we will still go to hell. We do not just have a crime record, we have bad hearts. Who we are as people causes us to go to hell unless Christ’s righteousness covers us. So I think that this response is not complete; therefore, it stems out of bad doctrine. But, as of right now, I do not know what would be a better reply to Lewis’ arguments. If I say that people go to hell because of who they are, not just because of their crimes committed against God, then I run into the question of why God would let two people’s sin in the very beginning of the creation of the world affect an entire human race? That would also seem unjust. Therefore, I do not have a better response to Lewis’ arguments.
Madison P. 9 AM
I actually do agree that the punishment does fit the crime. We are sinning not only against ourselves and our fellow man; we more importantly are committing offences against the highest being, God. Because of His status, we have a weightier consequence for our misdeeds. We were given a moral compass therefor we can tell when we are acting immorally and therefore we have some sense of right and wrong. It follows then, that we should be held accountable for our actions and accept the punishment that comes from our immoral actions. In regards to love and justice, I believe that they are compatible and shown in God’s judgment of the world. God is acting lovingly by having worldly punishments for our moral infractions because by punishing us justly, He is trying to guide us toward Himself and a better life. By being a just judge, God is not only trying to guide us to a better life, but He is also being just to those who have been hurt by the more infractions. It may look unjust in our eyes, but God has the bigger global picture of justice in mind when He does punish His creation.
~Denida Chapman 11am
I would agree that the punishment fits the crime in that all crimes, regardless of who our target is, are ultimately against God Himself. He made all, He owns all, He loves all, so all offenses are sins against Him.
No one had to teach us to lie, or covet, it comes naturally because of the fall. However, we also hide our lies because we know, deep down, it is wrong.
When Dr. Graves prayed today in class, he prayed that God would swallow up evil. Even as a saved, redeemed person, I certainly feel as if I would be swallowed up. Even knowing that I am forgiven, I know that I still do wrong. We all know we do wrong. And we all deserve hell, but in God love and mercy and justice, He saves us.
Denise 11am
I honestly think that the "Punishment fits the Crime argument" works quite well, but as we have recently seen in class, perhaps it can be made even stronger with help from free will. But in light of the replies that Lewis could make in regard to this understanding here is what I think.
The first objection to the crime seems to say that God is doing something to us that is unfair. It seems, to Lewis, that God is putting us in a potentially dangerous world, setting us up for ultimate failure. But, the orthodox story isn't told in a way in which God is responsible for the current state of the world, and I think it's essential to view this argument in light of total depravity. God made the world perfect, but he also gave us choice, He was loving in the sense of warning both Adam and Eve of what they shouldn't do and made them completely aware of the consequences. Adam and Eve, regardless of the danger, choose to defy God and therefore the perfect world suffered the result of sin. God didn't set up a world in which the availability to sin was rampant, but instead he gave them one simple rule. When they disobeyed God, the world as we know it, in regard to sin, was "created". To say that God didn't step in is a great misunderstanding of scripture. Sure, one could say that God didn't act in the moment of their sin, but ultimately his plan for humanity is flawless. He sent Jesus for that very reason. It's not good to think of God as some bad parent, but as a loving parent who does allow mistakes to be made, all the while providing ultimate payment for their mistakes if we only take it. The issue of justice and love is tied up here as well. God is just because he punishes completely to the merit of our sin, we understand the magnitude of it, in light of who God is. Lewis is trying to say that by sending people to Hell, God is unloving. But as we have seen, we choose to sin and God did act, if we choose to ignore these, as Romans 1 says we do, then we truly opt for Hell. It is our choice. Just like it was in the Garden, and God is standing here offering his hand in love. How do we respond to that love? That is the question.
-Matt Jackson
I think that the punishment fits the crime works, but does not answer all of the arguments against it. The most common is that his seems to flat line all the immoral acts in the universe. I think that there is something that we have left out of orthodox story. It’s not that God is punishing a murderer and a liar by sending them both to eternal hell. The orthodox story claims that all people are sinners by their very nature. This is the reason that everyone in headed to hell, because we are evil in our nature. This is an important piece that has been left out of the story.
Joel W (11:00)
I believe the “punishment fits the crime” reply is a good argument. However, I do not believe that this reply by itself is enough to defeat every objection that Lewis presents. It needs other supporting arguments. I think that the argument of freewill and divine sovereignty/love is a good argument against both of the replies to the “punishment fits the crime” reply. Freewill is what allows us to make our own decisions and God wants us to have the freedom to choose to follow him or not. It would not be loving for him to force people to spend time with him and love him if they do not want to be with him. Therefore, it would be unloving for him to force people to spend eternity with him if they do not want to. So perhaps it is loving for him to allow people to go to hell instead of forcing them to spend eternity with him.
-Hannah H. (9:00)
I think that the punishment fits the crime argument works. This is because God is a just God. As humans we all sin so it does not make sense that our sins is what causes us to go to hell but rather it is people’s refusal of Jesus Christ as their Savior which is the ultimate crime. Everyone sins and those who accept Jesus as their savior is ultimately saved from a life in hell. God sent His son to die and for those who refuse to accept or believe this they will ultimately have to suffer eternally in hell. In this sense the argument almost makes more sense. To refuse this precious gift that God has given to us is the ultimate crime. Yes we live in a world full of sin and moral crimes ready to be committed but God has given us a chance for redemption. Once we refuse this chance then we deserve to suffer eternally.
I think that the "punishment fits the crime" is accurate. We all are sinners, although not just because of what we do. It all started with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God says that because of the sin of Adam and Eve that we are all born into sin. What we do after we are born, either accept God's forgiveness or not, depends on us. God saw what happened and helped us out of the sin that we are in. People say that if God is so loving that He shouldn't send anyone to Hell, they are wrong. I agree with the parent/child analogy, but it is different as well. If I were a parent and I told my child to do something, then they didn't do it, there would be a punishment for that. We need to learn what is right and what is wrong.
I would say that the punishment fits the crime argument works. However, I think Lewis makes a good point in his reply. Certainly, those of us who are looking at this through the orthodox Christian sense will feel that an eternal hell is a proportionate punishment to the sins committed against the eternal God. But from a non- believer, like Lewis' perspective it would seem that God wasn't making things clear enough and we had no idea what was expected of us. My response to this would be, first, that God has given us not only general revelation but special revelation as well. Also we have the Word of God, which teaches what is expected of us. In the Bible it says that no man is without excuse. God has given a way to know and he has also given us the will to chose what to do with that knowledge.
I would also say that the Church has a lot of work to do, if people are still allowed to use Lewis' ignorance argument.
In response to hell as unjustifiable and unloving, I would say that you are forgetting the person of Christ. God knows how bad the punishment is and because he is a loving God he sent his son to take that punishment for us, so we wouldn't have to. And if we accept that and choose to follow him we do not have to endure that punishment. That seems pretty fair to me.
Again, I think God also gave us things like the Great Commission so that there won't be the fear like Lewis' that we didn't know. I think as Christians we are responsible to spread the gospel and the Word of God. So instead of debating with Lewis I would say, "You know Lewis, old boy, you raise some really good points and there is something I really want to share with you..."
Alyssa C. 9am
When we first talked about it in class, the punishment fits the crime response seemed robust. It was what I had been taught growing up. All crimes or sins are against God (if no one else). Is that really the case though? That is what David Lewis is saying when he poses his questions of if every infraction (sin) is against God and deserves the worst kind of punishment (Hell) then why doesn't God do more to make it evident to His creatures very clear on the moral fact of their actions. One reply to this would be that God does make it clear in His Word that He is holy and any action (sin) against Him results in the punishment of Hell. This is the very reason that Jesus had to come and die on the cross. People are sinful from birth, so from birth they are destined to Hell according to the orthodox story, right? If that's the case then God should make His word known to them, which should be the response of His people to the great commission in Matthew 28.
In response to the second reply, it would seem that love and justice should be compatible and not at odds with each other. However, David Lewis' response of if Hell is just then it should also be loving, but how can sending His creation to the eternal punishment of Hell be loving? A response to Lewis might be, God says that His ways are not the same as our ways (He is infinite, omniscient, etc. after all), so how can we expect to understand God's ability to be both loving and just at the same time by sending people to Hell. While it seems as if God is not being both loving and just at the same time that might not actually be the case from God's point of view. It's really hard for me to wrap my head around that fact because Hell does not seem loving but somehow it must be if God's character is not in conflict. I'm not sure what else to say beside the fact that I trust God's reasoning more than mine. That's hard to tell others in conversation, but that's all I have to explain it.
-Tim Hull (9:00a)
Though I agree that the punishment fits the crime argument does give a potentially valid reason as to why humanity would be subject to the type of God-less existence described by the orthodox story(Everything is created by God so if we sin it is directed at God), I find myself having a hard time prescribing to the presented solution. I believe it would provide little success in an effort to convince Lewis of the goodness of God. I feel someone as staunchly opposed to religion as David Lewis would have trouble coming to grips with the fact that something as minor as disrespecting your parents could incur a penalty of eternal conscious torture in Hell just because we are of a lesser universal value than God. I think there are better ways of addressing and expressing exactly what hell is and why it is necessary.
-Nick D. 9:00
Vegetation covers the earth, except for those areas continuously covered with ice or utterly scorched by continual heat. Richly fertilizerd plains and river valleys are places where plants grow most richly, but also at the edge of perpetual snow in high mountains. The ocean and its edges as well as in and around lakes and swamps are densely vegetated. The cracks of busy city sidewalks have plants in them as well as in seemingly barren cliffs. Before man existed the earth was covered with vegetation, and the earth will have vegetation long after evolutionary history swallows us up.
Vegetation covers the earth, except for those areas continuously covered with ice or utterly scorched by continual heat. Richly fertilizerd plains and river valleys are places where plants grow most richly, but also at the edge of perpetual snow in high mountains. The ocean and its edges as well as in and around lakes and swamps are densely vegetated. The cracks of busy city sidewalks have plants in them as well as in seemingly barren cliffs. Before man existed the earth was covered with vegetation, and the earth will have vegetation long after evolutionary history swallows us up.
I agree with the punishment fits the crime view, and I think that Joel Wasserstein brought up a good point about sin nature. It’s not as though a person is sinless until they commit their “first sin” and after that they are candidates for damnation. Instead, it’s our totally sinful nature that condemns us from the start, in a way. Obviously, I don’t think any of us will be able to explain this in a way that is totally satisfying, otherwise this wouldn’t be a centuries-old debate. But still, I think that it has more to do with our sin nature than individual acts of sin that we commit. We are sinful even before we willfully commit a sin; that capacity and natural bent to sin will always be there, and that is our corruption.
Anyhow, with that “act of sin vs. sin nature” sub-category out of the way, I think that the argument for “punishment fits the crime (or nature)” is correct. I agree with this for the reasons stated in the traditional argument, and would also like to bring another point up, just for consideration. I think that if someone has a problem with the orthodox view of hell, they should have a much bigger problem with the orthodox view of redemption, Jesus’ death on the cross. In the orthodox view of damnation, God judges an unbeliever by sending him to experience His wrath towards the unbeliever’s own sin in hell. In the orthodox view of redemption, Jesus, the completely perfect and all-powerful second person of the Godhead, bears God’s wrath towards all the sin of the world Himself. Jesus presumably experiences a blast of the Father’s wrath that no sinner will know. This should be the issue we wrestle to understand. True, it can be hard to see how God sends sinners to hell, but why does that point of doctrine stick in our throats when we swallow the doctrine of the crucifixion so easily? I’m certainly not saying that we should doubt this foundation of our faith, but I am saying that the unbelievable nature of our means of Redemption should make the orthodox view of damnation less surprising.
The “love and justice” argument brings up an interesting point. I think that maybe it’s problem is how it views love, as necessarily being something that promotes the beloved’s flourishing. Maybe the problem I have isn’t with this definition of love, but rather how we define “flourishing.” If “flourishing” here means well-being or prosperity in pleasure, then hell doesn’t promote anyone’s flourishing. Rather, the orthodox view of hell promotes the flourishing of truth, in the sense that it is only true that sin be destroyed forever. To give a sin-stained, unredeemed person eternity with God in Heaven would be to promote the flourishing of a lie: this scenario would be inconsistent with our reality. Sin doesn’t dwell with God. It is most important that truth flourish, and therefore, that sin be destroyed. The sinner in hell, in this view, is our reality’s principles playing out in truth. Looking at things this way, it doesn’t seem like there is any other option for the sinner’s eternity, and so it is not unloving.
I find it humerus that we cannot decide this. We say that it is unfair that God leaves the knives and the bombs in our playpen, yet didn't he take them out in the flood. To, he gave us a chance a a clean slate, but we have, of course, dirtied it yet again by bringing the things that bring us harm in our little playpen. The phrase goes, experience is the best teacher. You have a hot stove, and a child. The stove is hot, and you tell the child not to touch it (granted you are cooking for the child). After several attempts at stopping the kid, even going so far as to snatch his hand away, he will keep trying to touch what is forbidden for him. This leads to the eventual burning of his figure,and his mothers caring for him. We are ignorant children, and no matter what parents do, they cannot always stop their children from getting hurt, whether physically or emotionally. The reason for this is because that we have free will, and as long as free will exists, there will always be those who wish to do what they are told not to. It is human nature. We are told not to sin, yet we still do it. There is a time that we will come to the age of accountability (which all of you are) where we take responsibility for our actions because we are aware of the consequence of our actions. Now this points to the fact that all sin, even what we call "little sin" puts us in mortal peril. I ask you this, if I were to pirate a movie, am I no less committing a crime than murdering an innocent? A crime is a crime, a sin is a sin. Now, we are provided forgiveness for that sin that we might commit, but we need to abstain from it. The Bible is an outline of what not to do and what displeases God. To say, "but I only told a lie, I shouldn't go to hell for that" is showing a lack of responsibility. Then we might say "this is to much responsibility." If we were given less, we would be as children are and state that we can handle it and it is not fair that we cannot decide our fate. This is where I stand on the matter.
The punishment does in fact fit the crime. Crimes against a classmate would have a different consequence than crimes against a king. In the same way crimes against God are infinitely larger. This means that if one sins against a human the punishment is finite because they are finite, and because God is infinite the punishment is as well. God is not like the parent who litters the nursery with dangers because humans can't understand eternity but they do understand punishment.
I agree with what Joel Wasserstein wrote in his comment "The reason everyone is going to hell is because of their sinful nature." He is correct in mentioning that has been left out of our discussion so far. David Lewis's stance is one of denial and wanting to blame God for his actions (or in David Lewis's case) lack of actions. The fact is God is a loving and Just God. He can not be in the presence of evil. In his loving kindness (and justice) He has made a way for us to be reunited in fellowship with Him. It is people's choice to accept this gift (Jesus) & ignore God once more as He reaches out to them over and over again. I believe the punishment does fit the crime. God isn't like an unfit parent who fills a baby's nursery with deadly items. God has given people all the intellect, reason and (yes, I dare to say it) desire to seek Him. What stops a person from seeking God (and thereby LOVING Him) is the real sin, and that David Lewis and others like him will never get it because he does not know or love the Lord as believers do. Eternity for them will just be an extension of their lives lived here. The loneliness they fill now will just be magnified indefinitely, (indeed for eternity). That is the whole point, God doesn't want anyone to perish! By accepting His Son, Jesus Christ, no one has to go to Hell, but it is still that person's choice.
Connie Donaldson M-W-F 9am
I would agree with the "punishment fits the crime" model. There is still a difference between our relationship with God and a relationship we might share with a parent or classmate/friend. We can hold certain expectations for just behavior with other humans because we are (should be) all considered people with the same right to fair treatment. But as much as we have tailored God to look like our friend, he is still the Holy creator of the universe that Moses could not even stare at because of his sinfulness. He allows us to have the choice to enter within a relationship with him becaus he desires it; he has no obligation. People who choose against it go against the holiness of God in their sinful state, itself an injustice against a perfect being.
- Aaron 1100
The argument for the punishment fitting the crime simply makes logical sense; it makes sense that because of God's unchanging characteristics: Him being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, for any being of His perfect creation to decide to go against the order of things and to in a sense "spit in God's face," is becoming deserving of any and all punishment from God. There are adequate arguments against this belief, and I feel like this argument would need some more work, because the argument facing it is that within God's character, He is also loving and just. Some people need to redefine and understand the meaning of justice. God is just and He acts in this justice within our time and for our eternities as well.
-Deborah Gordon 9AM MWF
Lewis’ main topic and point of discussion comes along in the means of whether or not the punishment one receives for rejecting God is truly just or not. In order to accomplish this, Lewis’ makes the assumption that our transactions are of a limited and mortal nature, and therefore should not be punished with an eternal punishment.
This attempt at redefining the roles of evil in our world and everyday environment is while surprising and different, not totally uncommon in its nature. David Lewis attempts to defend his point of view within this notion that what God performed was systematically wrong from a humanitarian point of view.
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.
Austin K. (11:00)
I do think the "punishment fits the crime" argument is a good argument, but it definitely needs further support and explanation. This argument brings up a lot of questions that must be answered in order for it to succeed. For example, if God, knowing in advance that the crime would occur and would hurt one of His 'belongings', still allows the crime to be committed, can it really be said that the crime was committed against Him?
Lewis makes some strong arguments, and though I disagree with several things he says, I do think that this argument in particular would need to more deeply evaluate the orthodox story to employ a fully satisfactory answer.
-Sarah Lusk 9AM
The “punishment fits the crime” argument does seem to align with the Orthodox story that God is an infinite being and sin is an act against Him using His own creation, which has infinite impact on Him at least. However, I agree with Nicole (the first commenter) that “punishment fits crime” argument cannot hold up on its own. It doesn’t explain enough the nature of humanity, as Tim Powers has discussed above. I would agree with him and Joel, that humans are corrupt from birth, that we are doomed to willfully sin. Sin is our father, as it were.
Lewis’s reply, that God doesn’t make it known to us, seems to be hard to prove either way. Every system of justice that I can think of in the world works on the principle that people are at least somewhat responsible for their own actions. In other words, people are able to see the consequences of their actions, and are able to act in such a way that they can change their actions in accordance with foreseen consequences. Across cultures, one can find strong similarities in moral codes (murder, rape, adultery, stealing, lying). So it seems that something is clear. It is at least clear that there is right and wrong. To Lewis, God’s particular moral code, or even God’s existence, isn’t clear enough. However, millions claim it is clear enough to them (Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike). These theists would argue there is abundant evidence in the universe for the existence of God and His mandates. So for Lewis to merely claim “God isn’t being clear enough for me” doesn’t hold up as well as it should. This becomes Lewis’ word against everyone who disagrees with him.
The second reply, that justice and love are compatible, and Hell can’t be loving, I think is a slight skewing of justice. Similar to what Tim Powers said, sin can’t exist with God, if the Orthodox story is to be believed. If God allowed sin to exist, He would be both unloving and unjust, because sin is essentially destruction and death. Sin brought death into the world, according to the Orthodox story, so how can God let sin exist?
I to believe that all crimes committed by humans are crime committed against God. We are made in Gods' image and have the Holy Spirit in us so when you commit a crime you are truly acting out against God. Every person knows of the punishment that God has in store for us if we are not been saved and continue to act out against him.Everyone has read some kind of mythology in which the gods would send people to hell if they acted out against them. To say that people in today society don't know that disobeying God and his commandments will not land them in hell. I think that most people in this country have seen the movie The Ten Commandments. It's been around since the 1950's This movie give us the commandments of God which is the base for our society. Parents have been explaining this movie to their children. so I can't see someone saying I did not know that I would go to hell if I acted out against God. So I have to say is that the punishment does fit the crime. No one in this country can claim ignorance when it comes to following the commandments of God. It's like choosing to speed on the freeway. If you do and you get pulled over for speeding you can't say I did not know that there was a speed limit, there are signs posted everywhere a long the side of the road. There are churches in every town and there are people who will come to your door and tell you about God and what will happen if you are not saved. I know this is true those people have been to my house before. The only reason a person liberality disobeys God is because they want to live out side of Gods' rules. this people don't care if they are going to hell as long as they can live the way they want to. So I say let those people go to hell. Those who want to be saved will seek out God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit and when they do they will be saved. The bible says that God is always seeking us.
Okay, rewind. Bear with me. According to the Orthodox story, God the Trinity wanted to create a world in which beings like Himself would be in perfect, loving communion with Him. It seems true that true love is an act of free will. Thus God created humans with free will. It also seems true that God created man with a highly complex, high-functioning brain. Humans can understand super-complex things. Humans are pretty incredible. So it would seem to follow that not only did God make humans with free will, but He also made humans intelligent to such a degree that they would be able to acquire a huge, deep knowledge of the world, possessed of great imaginative powers that allows them to predict future consequences, that allows them to analyze weather patterns, animal behavior, the movements of stars, the capacity to develop tools to observe those stars, and so on. It would seem in the orthodox story that God created a human being to be a great kind of being, capable of incredible actions.
So when this kind of creature, a human, became corrupt with sin, which brings death, by his and her own free will, God chose two things. One, to send a part of Himself to atone for the actions of His creation, which would create a bridge between fallen man and holy God. Two, that those humans who didn’t accept this act of salvation, who refused to let a bridge be built between them, would then be separated from Him forever. Those two things are God’s justice, and God’s love.
I guess the problem Lewis would have with this would be then why isn’t everyone saved? Why isn't it clear?
I don't think I can answer this question, because "clear" is such an ambiguous word. For millions of Chinese, it is clear. For Paul, it is clear. For me, it is clear. By "clear" I don't mean "reach out and touch it" clear, while at the same time I mean "willing to die a tortuously painful death for it" clear.
I do believe that the punishment fits the crime. I look at this with what I have and not what everyone else is lacking. We are looking at the wrong side when addressing if this is a just punishment. Being saved and being a child of God did not come easy. Firstly, someone had to die…which is the punishment…for me to be able to live. So when Jesus went to the cross not only did he die but he left the presence of God in that moment and went to punishment but then he defeated it and only he could get out. So in light of the fact that what I have, salvation, this seems just because of what had to be paid in order for me to be right with God. Now looking at the other side it seems unjust or not loving. Well if you reject God, why would he want to bring you to live with him if you don’t love him? Where is the act of love? God isn’t fair, he is just. His knowledge is above ours and what I see is that it is a right punishment but an even better forgiveness.
Anna P. 11am
When looking into the punishment fits the crime reply, I do find myself agreeing that the punishment fits the crime. God is the one who put us all here on earth and gave us everything that we have. He sent His own son to die for our sins. We owe Him everything we have; we owe Him our time, money, love, attention, everything. When we sin, we sin against Him; we spit in His face and because of this, we commit a crime against God. Since we commit a crime against God, we deserve the ultimate punishment, hell because God is so perfect and sent his perfect son. However, I do not like the reply after that statement where it says that since it is so serious God ought to do more to make that moral fact clear to His creatures. God has done everything for us, He doesn't owe us anything. We should just be thankful that He has done what He has done and not tell Him what else He can or should do. I think that this argument is wise and understandable, but my reply to the second part would be that God does not owe us anything as stated previously. In my opinion, this reply has its' strong and weak points which makes it overall unsuccessful.
Kara B. 9:00
I'm inclined to elaborate on Joel Wassersteins perspective - It's intriguing to think that infinite punishment may be more befitting of the crime when the story is viewed less as "murderers and gossipers receiving equal punishment for unequal crimes" and more as "all people born are sinful by nature." At least from this vantage point we don't have to deal with the disregard for the hierarchy of sin. All is black and white; heaven or hell; totally good or intrinsically evil. If this were the case, then parts of the orthodox story become more palatable. The sin being punished is Adams. Adam was not in a nursery full of bombs, but rather a fairly neutral environment with enough choice to have free will but seemingly not an overwhelmingly unsafe trap. The questions of God's love and justice then become...
A) "Why would He sentence all of humanity to suffer for one man's crime?" - Perhaps we are not so individual as our western minds like to think. Could, perhaps, the creator have a better perspective on our individual rights and distinctiveness than we ourselves.
and
B) "Why (as an all fore-knowing god) would He bother creating this entire scheme in the first place, knowing the devastation it would end up in?" - Can we perhaps question God's fore-knowledge? Could we adopt a more relational and linear knowledge based God?
I don't know the answers to these questions...
Grant M. 11:00am MWF
Although it may not be perfect, the "punishment fits the crime" argument works. There is no perfect response to the problem of the orthodox doctrine of hell because as finite human beings, there are certain things we will never be able to fully understand, and hell is one of them. Even in the Church there isn't complete unity on the doctrine of hell; some Christians aren't even sure that it exists at all, or that if it does, it is escapable or not as bad as we think. So for arguing in defense of something we will never understand, this argument works. It recognizes that the doctrine does raise questions, but also recognizes the orthodox belief that we are not above God, and will never understand all of His ways.
Shelby F. MWF 11
David Lewis's argument is fabulous. This is a problem Christians haven't addressed fully, and I think an argument based on every crime being a crime against God isn't a good enough response. In fact, I agree that it would still be terribly unloving and irresponsible of God to do this to us. A kind of sick demented game is what I think this argument opens up the possibility for. I don't think this is a good response because it has too many implications for the character of God.
Nor, would I say that unbelief is a just cause to send someone to hell. While the argument can be made that people like Hitler are fit for Hell, which I would still contend, what about people like Gandhi? I mean is this for real? If so, that's ridiculous.
Based on these arguments I think it would be more loving (I'm appealing to the idea that love is central to Christianity) to reject the Orthodox story.
If the Orthodox story would be kept, it's going to need much more careful consideration.
Green (9 am)
I believe that the "punishment does fit the crime." Several people have mentioned directly or indirectly how hell is a result of people exercising their free will to reject God. It is not that God is committing a perfectly loving act when he sends people to hell. He most certainly does not love people this way. In fact God does not delight at all in the punishment of wicked people. What makes them wicked enough to deserve hell? God's love. We must START with God's love and then we can see how sin is deserving of eternal separation and punishment from God. What happens to an individual who rejects God's love and chooses idolatry(loving something else supremely over God)? He gets what he was deceived and yet responsible for thinking would find him life-sin/death/separation from God. He wouldn't want to be with God at all anyway. He chose not to be. God is SLOW to anger but there comes a point when justice must be met. Love and justice don't necessarily coincide in every instance. But God's character is both simultaneously. As someone mentioned, Jesus' death and resurrection as the complete and perfect act of love on the behalf of humanity must be factored into the discussion. If all that Jesus is and did is true, than there is a really loving God that must be reckoned with. Even if God did fill our "nursery" up with dangerous objects, His own Son came and bore our weaknesses, sins, deceptions, and And we want to look at God and tell Him that He's not loving? Wait a minute. We didn't recognize Him when He came to us and killed Him because His teachings offended us. Maybe if we had listened to His teachings we might have learned of his real love and our need to be forgiven.
Many of us I believe would testify to this fact.
Andrew S. (11:00)
I think that it is very plausible to say that the "punishment fits the crime" argument sufficiently defends the tenet that God is just and that the punishment of Hell is a just punishment. It does however leave the topic of God's absolute love nearly unresolved. Even the argument that Hell is a result of what we choose leaves something to be desired as we seem to be entirely incapable of making a fully informed decision in regards to the state that we wish to spend our eternity. Truly it seems as though most individuals are unaware that such a choice needs to be made and even more unaware that by not being aware of the choice that they have already made that choice.
-Ian F. 9:00
It seems difficult to say that God is acting in a loving manner when he assigns a person to eternal hell. Loving punishment generally is intended for rehabilitation. However, an eternal punishment is incapable of having that intention. So God’s love seems to be contradictory to the idea of an eternal Hell.
I wonder if it is possible that God’s love applies not merely individually, but corporately. Thus it may not be loving to individually allow a person to choose their eternity in Hell, but it is loving corporately. God seeks the good of all people, as a whole. So, Hell is loving for the people in Heaven.
If God self-limits his omnipotence to give humanity free will, and allows them to make their decision about heaven and hell, is it possible that honoring that decision and allowing people to spend eternity in Hell is loving not inherently but because it creates a community in heaven untainted by people who reject the ultimate good. Thus it is a loving action, just not toward the individual.
I am afraid this creates more problems than it solves. I’m not sure if you can say God is love if he separates his love like this. What does anyone else think?
-TJ Pancake, 9 MWF
TJ,
It seems like if we say that God is loving in a corporate way and less in an individual way that we still run into the problem of God's actions being loving. If God only chooses to love certain corporate groups, then we have the same problem that we did when He chose to only love certain individuals. To consign a group to hell is no more loving than consigning an individual to hell.
Also, if God was attempting to love humanity as a whole, and to be loving to the majority of humanity, then it seems that He would be forced to side with those in Hell. Jesus told us that compared to those who enter by the narrow gate, more will walk by the wide path. Thus those found in heaven are the minority and God is only loving a minority of humanity.
-Andrew 11:00
I agree that we start this thought-provoking debate with realization of God's love. After all, God's love was what began creation in the first place when he created man to bring glory to His name. I don't think we are able as humans to grasp the concept in full of God's love and that is what leads us to so many questions about heaven and hell and if hell is an appropriate punishment.
His love is too big to understand. But accepting that we can't fully grasp it, we might then be able to grasp the weight of our sin. That is one explanation for why eternity in misery is the result of sin. But where does grace come out of this? Where is the forgiveness for those who have never heard the gospel? Some might argue that there isn't a fair option for those who don't have the option to accept or reject salvation.
I also understand Andrew's point above when he stated that it could look like God sides with those who are already saved because not many will enter the kingdom in comparison to those who will not.
This isn't something I grasp very well on my own. I also am tempted to ask the question of why God had to create a hell at all. He's God; he can do anything he wants. Why was this the best thing or only thing? It seems He could have certainly provided a different way out.
Ashtyn 11:00
Branching off of some other comments, I think we should look at punishment for our crimes through the lens that everyone is sinful by nature. I don't think that we were thrown into a nursery that was stocked with dangerous objects for us to misuse and commit wrong. In a way, there was no need for that because we are already born into sin. Because of our inherited nature, we are doomed to sin and doomed for hell. In a way, this is worse because we don't really have a choice about it; its already decided.
Along with Grant, I do agree that questions may need to change to asking, "why God would create us in the first place if He knew that this would be the case or even a possibility for us? How is that good and loving? Or, we need to question and look at free will and how that requires this possibility."
Isaac M. 11am
One thought presented in class was that we do not fully understand God's system of justice and love. He sees the big picture and knows everything, so it could be that the punishment we receive is perfectly appropriate according to God's view. I can't even begin to understand how much our sin really did hurt God and His relationship to humankind. It could very well be that we just completely cannot grasp the effects of our sin. Because He is a gracious God, the punishment we do receive is probably not close to what we deserve.
I don't like comparing God to the parent putting knives, grenades, etc. in a nursery, because this is as if the parent sets the child up for failure. I don't think God intentionally sets us up for failure. He intended us to have perfect lives and to not fail, and that is why He can help us do better and become more like Him.
Anna Z. MWF 9am
While the question "Does the punishment fit the crime?" seems to be a legitimate one, I think it could be avoided all together. As we discussed briefly in class, what if hell is not a punishment at all? As believers of the orthodox story we claim hell to be a place of torment and chaos, and the Bible seems to back this up. However, what is a punishment? A punishment is inflicted on a person who does something they should not do in order to teach them a lesson.This does not seem to be the purpose of Hell. Hell seems to be just the absence of God. (When God is absent, all good things are absent as well.) People who choose not to have a relationship with God choose Hell.
This reasoning seems helpful to me, however there are some gaps I am still trying to fill. One fault I have struggled with along this line of reasoning pertains to those who have not had a chance to hear. What about them? How can they choose their own eternity if they do not know the options?
-Emily S MWF 9
I really think personally that the punishment fitting the crime argument works because I am a Christian and my faith gives me adequate reason to believe this to be true. However, if you aren't a Christian I think this particular argument is just too bleak. It doesn't seem to hold much logical fact behind it. In the Bible, it has been made clear that any kind of sin is wrong and is committed directly against Christ and therefore I think everyone has enough reason and knowledge in their heart to understand and make the right decision or undertstand the ability towards punishment if they don't. In regards to Lewis's second statement, I believe that love and justice are definitely compatible. If there was no justice for wrong doing there would not be any reason for any human to act in a humane and decent way. If you rebel you understand it is wrong and understand the punishment for that.
Johnna
Post a Comment