It has apparently been asked,
“Are you comfortable with Particular redemption/limited atonement? Or the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that supports predestination to damnation? Or Reformer Beza’s assertion that the unsaved in hell are there for the glory of God?”
I have to ask, Why is our comfort relevant to a doctrinal discussion? What type of thinking is it that relegates doctrine to personal comfort?
Quite frankly, I am uncomfortable with a lot of things I am convinced the Bible teaches. But I believe them because I believe the Bible teaches them. My comfort level is my problem. It is the result of the noetic affects of sin that corrupts my thinking. It is answered only by the illumination of the Spirit to the truths of Scripture. On matters of conscience, we can certainly appeal to comfort. But on matters of revealed doctrine? That seems a little out of place.
And what is the alternative to the unsaved in hell being there for the glory of God? That God sends them there in spite of his glory? That it doesn’t glorify God to justly punish sin against him? That there was a better way (i.e., more glorifying way) to punish sin than eternal hell?
I admit to being a few french fries short of a happy meal sometimes, so feel free to instruct me here.
Once again, I think this is just a bad argument, one that has no place in the discussion.
5 comments:
"And what is the alternative to the unsaved in hell being there for the glory of God?"
Exactly.
I was dumbfounded by this point in his message. I cannot think of a single alternate possibility that is remotely Christian. How far have we come...
Good thoughts. Having just read Who Needs Theology? by Grenz and Olsen, the original question quoted here reminds me of the discussion of folk theology in the book. Sad, really sad.
I'm sure that whoever you quoted would readily agree that God will ultimately be glorified in the just punishment of human beings by means of an eternal, literal hell. The question is: Why will they be in hell? Will they be there because God reprobated them in eternity past or will they be there because they rejected the God of heaven. Beza, et al obviously held to reprobation. There have been many godly believers throughout the history of orthodox Christianity who have viewed reprobation as going beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. I imagine that a full contextual representation of the quote, as well as a sincere discussion with the individual responsible for the quote would likely result in an appreciation for one another's position on this topic.
Hey Mark,
Thanks again for reading and interacting. We may not always agree, but I welcome your comments.
As for this speaker, I am not sure he would readily agree with that or not. Perhaps ... Perhaps not. But this was a very public statement that was, at best, poorly worded, and I imagine it probably more revelatory than a mistake. But I don't know.
But I think there are two issues here:
1. The way the issue was framed as a matter of being comfortable with it. If the Bible actually teaches some form of reprobation (or anything else for that matter), my being comfortable with it it is irrelevant. He framed the issue wrongly. He framed it in a way that is basically emotional, not exegetical. By appealing to comfort, he has established a criteria for truth that does not work. This is the same criteria that caused someone like John Stott (who wrote a great book on The Cross of Christ that is a must read, IMO) to reject the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. He was uncomfortable with it. Many others have done the same thing.
But comfort is not and cannot be an exegetical tool.
2. One can believe God gets the most glory through eternal punishment in hell without believing in some form of reprobation.
If someone denies reprobation, that's fine. I do. I think the most orthodox position is preterition. But I realize that denying reprobation has some exegetical issues that must be dealt with.
Yes, godly, orthodox men have rejected reprobation as contrary to the Bible's teaching. Godly, orthodox men have also accepted reprobation as the Bible's teaching.
In the end, it is an exegetical/theological question, not a question of being "comfortable" with it.
Thanks for the kind words, Larry.
I pretty much agree with what you're saying (I think). I certainly agree that one's "comfortableness" with the Bible's teaching should not affect their interpretation and application of it. I definitely agree that good exegesis should lead to good theology and ultimately to good application. The struggle, of course, is that the good, godly, orthodox men that we both have referenced agree with us on these things as well. And yet, they still end up miles apart on some of these issues.
Post a Comment