We started off by reviewing the four arguments for the existence of God that we've studied and also the case for Jesus' resurrection. Everyone did a great job recalling the cosmological, fine-tuning, and moral arguments! Our strategy for making a case for Jesus' resurrection is made up of two steps: 1) establish the facts and the 2) evaluate the best hypothesis. Amazingly there is very good grounds to make a case for the resurrection on historical grounds--the biggest (potential) hurdle is the possibility of miracles. If miracles are possible (i.e. if God exists) then the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is the best one out there to explain the evidence.
So then we turned our attention to the topic of Christian particularism. The fact that Christianity affirms universality of sin (Romans 1 and 2) and that salvation is not possible apart from Christ (Rom 2:16; Eph 2:12) seems to present a problem to non-believers. This seems cruel, narrow, and ultimately wrong to many non-believers. So how can we respond?
Well first we need to understand the problem.
Is the problem that Christians are arrogant for claiming there way is the only right way and so therefore they are wrong? No, this would fall victim to the ad Hominem fallacy. As Miguel pointed out, the personality of the messenger doesn't affect the truthfulness of the message. Plus this argument goes both ways because presumably the objector would be claiming that he is right and everyone else wrongwhich would equally be an arrogant claim.
Is the problem that we now know that people come to believe their religions influenced by where they live and so therefore they are wrong? No, this would be a textbook example of the genetic fallacy--explaining where a message or belief comes from does nothing to the truth of that message or belief. And again this turns on the skeptical objector because by his fallacious argument we can explain that his skepticism is a function of his upbringing and therefore wrong.
The problem seems to be centered around hell. But God doesn't send people to hell, it is their own choice. As C.S. Lewis says, "the doors of Hell are locked from the inside."
"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of Hell is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does." (Problem of Pain)
It seems that the real heart of the problem is that God knows who will go to hell and yet he allows it to happen. This is effectively the problem of evil and suffering again. We identified that given free-will God cannot logically force anyone's decisions. But what about those who would have been saved if they had heard the gospel? One possibility is that no such persons exist and that God providentially ordered the world so that people who would have been lost in any feasible world are so in this actual world. This all starts getting into what God knows and I briefly mentioned the topic of middle knowledge (that God knows all possible and feasible worlds). There's a lot of information on this through the Reasonable Faith main website.
In the end the problem of hell and Christian particularism is something that is very real and affects many people. I've personally struggled with this problem when investigating Christianity. So we need to be sensitive to those who wrestle with it. But there are good, biblical, reasonable responses and we must be ready to give a defense for the hope we have in us with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
No comments:
Post a Comment