Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Apologetic Addendum to "I Owe What"; Argument for Infinite Consequences based on Infinite Worth
Topic Started: Aug 1 2012, 01:31 PM (125 Views)
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
This is an aside to my last post. I will continue in the study of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant soon.

One common complaint against the Christian faith comes in the form of a question, “How can a fair ‘god’ punish anyone forever (or so much or whatever) for ‘sins’ that only have a limited effect (or influence of whatever)?”

In other words, their argument is that it is just for a punishment to fit the crime. ‘Sin’ is a finite event (or events) with finite consequences. An infinite punishment does not fit the finite crime ‘sin.’ Hell is a place of infinite punishment. God sends people to Hell for sin, therefore God is unjust.

It would be a good argument if we granted the premises. So, let’s walk through them, stop on one, and finish with the counter argument.

P1: It is just for a punishment to the fit crime. Because I’m a jerk, I would ask the debater to define justice, tell me by what authority they develop that definition, and convince me that that authority is the authority with which I am bound to agree. However, that is a digression. I agree with the premise. It would be unjust to punish someone in a way not fitting the crime. Over-punishment is an act of injustice towards the perpetrator. Under-punishment is an act of injustice towards the wronged party (foot stomp… clap, clap… ahem… that last line is important).

P2: ‘Sin’ is a finite event (or events) with finite consequences. Here is where we would part ways. I would change the premise to read like this: Sin is a temporal act (or acts) with both finite consequences (temporally) and infinite consequences (atemporally). Why? A couple reasons:


  • Sin, as defined by a Christian, is an act (or acts) of rebellion against a being (God) that operates both temporally and atemporally. God is above time and yet acts and interacts in time.
  • When the opponent to Christianity is arguing that sin has only finite consequences, or something like that, they are arguing from an humanistic perspective, whether they realize it or not. Their concern is only in the temporal consequences of the sin – what happens between man and to man. If sin was only egregious on earth, then the opponent would be correct. But, sin is egregious to God. God is the party ultimately offended by sin. Consider David’s cry after being found out having a man killed and taking his wife. He says, “I have sinned against God!”
    As of now the opponent can reply, “Fine, sin is against God. But, so what? That doesn’t justify ’infinite consequences’ on its face. The sin is still a finite act (or acts). How can your god arbitrarily make the consequence infinite and still be just?” The answer is, “The consequence is based upon the worth of the wronged party. God has infinite worth.”

Consider the subject of my last post. I wrote, ”the debt (of sin) derives its depth from the value of the one wronged.” I believe that is correct and can be demonstrated using a quick thought exercise.

Imagine that you are a judge in juvenile court. You have three cases set before you, all involve killing by the child in the dock. All things are equal in these cases – three boys, same race, all three are 13, all three grew up in nearly identical families with nearly identical income in nearly identical jobs living in nearly identical neighborhoods. Etc. All three boys are guilty.

Case 1: This boy had come across an injured guinea pig outside his neighbors’ house. He stomped on the animal, killing it, because he “wanted to know what it felt like.” What would you consider a reasonable sentence? Why?

Case 2: This boy had come across an injured bald eagle in the woods near his house. He stomped on the eagle’s head until it was dead because he “wanted to know what it felt like.” What would you consider a reasonable sentence? Why?

Case 3: This boy had come across an injured 10 year old girl in the street near his home. He stomped on the little girl’s neck and head until she was dead because he “wanted to know what it felt like.” What would you consider a reasonable sentence? Why?


Most people would agree that the sentence should be increased progressively across the cases. Why? Because the victims of the crime have a greater worth than each victim before. Some opponents might attempt to cop out of that answer by appealing to the letter of the law, but that only pushes the question back a step. Why is the law written so that punishment should be increased? The answer is the same.

Now, if the worth of the one wronged increases the heinousness of the crime, increasing the severity of punishment for the crime, how much more of an increase if the one wronged by a crime is of infinite worth? The answer: Infinitely more. In fact, a finite punishment for a crime against a being of infinite worth would be under-punishment and an injustice against the one wronged. The same can be said of sin, which is, ultimately, the crime of rebellion against God. The value or worth of the one wronged increases the heinousness of sin, thus increasing the severity of punishment for the sin. If the punishment is to fit the crime, sin against an infinitely valuable being requires an infinite punishment.

At this point, the opponent to Christianity might oppose the idea of the infinite worth of God. That they refuse to recognize His holiness, though, is another issue (perhaps for another day). But, let’s get back to the point of this addendum.

Remember that the opponent’s argument looks like this, “It is just for a punishment to fit the crime. ‘Sin’ is a finite event (or events) with finite consequences. An infinite punishment does not fit the finite crime ‘sin.’ Hell is a place of infinite punishment. God sends people to Hell for sin, therefore God is unjust.” However, when we consider that the consequences of sin are extended to the temporal and atemporal; that the heinousness of a sin is dependent upon the worth of the party wronged; that the punishment for sin is increased by the increase in the heinousness of sin; and that God is of infinite worth, the counter argument is,

“It is just for a punishment to the fit crime. Sin is a temporal act (or acts) with both finite consequences (temporally) and infinite consequences (atemporally). The heinousness of sin is dependent upon the worth of the being sinned against. God is a being of infinite worth. Infinite punishment fits the crime of sin against a being of infinite worth. Sinning against God deserves infinite punishment. Hell is a place of infinite punishment. God sends people to Hell for sin against Him, therefore God is just.”

To close, in his book, Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy, David Clotfelter summarizes statements of Jonathan Edwards and Anselm
Quote:
 
[B]ecause God is a Being of infinite worth, to whom we owe an infinite obligation, sin against God is an infinite evil requiring an infinite punishment. And since the punishments of hell cannot be infinite in intensity, as that would violate the principle that the lost are punished according to their deeds, it must be the case that hell is infinite in duration.

As an aside, that was one argument to answer the question, but not the only one. Off the top of my head I can think of two more that work together with this argument – they are not exclusive arguments. First is “infinite obligation” which basically says that the sentence for the crime of disobedience or rebellion is based on violator’s obligation to obey. Greater punishment for disobeying a king’s order than for disobeying a local magistrate’s order, because the greater authority requires greater obligation. God has infinite authority, therefore we have an infinite obligation to obey. Another argument (and I won’t explore this here) is that the enemies of God will continue as enemies of God, infinitely sinning incurring infinite wrath.

- Soli Deo Gloria

Originally posted here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
I don't like the bbcode sometimes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply