Imagine the following person, call him Smith. Smith is convinced, based on various arguments (presuppositional or evidential) that an infinite being, called Yahweh, exists. Yahweh, Smith believes, raised Yeshua from the dead, and the Yeshua is Yahweh's son, the second Person of a Trinity. He believes, further, that the Old and New Testaments are factually inerrant. Based on an exegetical analysis of Scripture, (Rom 9, John 6:44, et al.) that the Reformed Doctrine that Yahweh predestines some to receive saving grace, while predestining others to suffer the punishment of hell, to be an accurate account. He's a good Calvinist, except for one thing. Given the fact that, for millions of people, Yahweh could have given them saving grace but did not, and instead inflicts everlasting punishment upon them, he concludes that Yahweh is unworthy of worship. With respect to those we care about, we are inclined to give up anything of ourselves, even our own life, to prevent them from suffering disaster. And eternal punishment is surely a fate worse than death, or prison, or being tortured on earth, or being publicly shamed, etc. If goodness is definable in terms of lovingness, then a deity who exemplified perfect goodness would do everything possible to keep people from suffering eternal torment, and on this score, Smith reasons, Yahweh falls short.
A good Calvinist could, it seems to me, give a prudential argument for why Smith should worship Yahweh. God, ex hypothesi, has either condemned Smith to hell or elected him for heaven, but his choosing to worship Yahweh no doubt renders it more probably that Smith is among the elect. But what I can't find here is a moral argument as to why Smith ought to worship Yahweh. That Yahweh is Smith's creator seems insufficient, because that would mean that someone created by Lucifer ought to worship Lucifer. So, if there is a moral argument, what is it?
(Notice that I don't use the word God for Yahweh, because the concept of God seems to entail moral goodness, and that is what is at issue in this discussion).
4 comments:
I am not a Calvinist, so I can agree that your analysis here shows a difficulty in Calvinism. But I am interested in this statement: "his choosing to worship Yahweh no doubt renders it more probably that Smith is among the elect".
I think it is true that, on average, people who are elect may be more likely to worship Yahweh. E -> W. But does that make it true that people who worship are more likely to be elect? W -> E? Maybe lots of non-elect also worship.It would depend on the propertion of people God elects, among other things. Of course if Yahweh's election also extended to predestining that the eect would also worship (i.e. we don't actually have freedom of choice in that area of life) then your statement would be true, and that may have been your intention.
But if Smith had the choice, he might decide to get the best of both worlds, so to speak, and choose to go his own way here on earth, confident that he was elect and safe in the next world, and if he wasn't elect, worshiping wouldn't change that. This is one of the reasons I left the Calvinism I was taught as a teen, it doesn't make sense. (Yes, I know, potter and clay, etc, but it still doesn't make sense to me.)
But if Smith had the choice, he might decide to get the best of both worlds, so to speak, and choose to go his own way here on earth, confident that he was elect and safe in the next world, and if he wasn't elect, worshiping wouldn't change that. This is one of the reasons I left the Calvinism I was taught as a teen, it doesn't make sense. (Yes, I know, potter and clay, etc, but it still doesn't make sense to me.)
I'm not an expert in Calvinism but under that system does Smith really have a choice? In anything? Wouldn't be a sign that you're not one of the elect if you sinned? Nothing you can do will change that, but it being a sinner it shouldn't bother you being that you wouldn't want to be different (which you can't).
That is one thing about Calvinism that doesn't make sense to me. The inherent knowledge that I can choose things.
To me, two of the most important tenets of my faith are free will and the understanding that God desires all people to be saved. Together, they imply that a person can freely choose to be damned, but that God damns nobody.
If fact, just about the only thing I admire about Mormon theology is their insistence that every human being is presented with an opportunity to accept salvation in the instant after death. You come face to face with God, and you either love him or hate him, no matter what you have done in this life. I believe C.S. Lewis had something like this in The Last Battle, where all the creatures of Narnia chose one of two paths at the end of the world. But it was entirely their choice.
If fact, just about the only thing I admire about Mormon theology is their insistence that every human being is presented with an opportunity to accept salvation in the instant after death.
It's not quite like that since Mormons think their baptisms can apply salvation to anyone who ever lived. It's because of their belief that we have such good historical records at Ancestry.com. But I agree with the sentiment.
It also needs to be said that at the moment we die, most of us aren't ready to meet God face to face. We are unworthy. Christianity of both the East and the West have recognized that all of the departed need a time of preparation before that meeting.
Post a Comment