I wanted to offer a brief alternative way of understanding the question: why did God create people He knew would freely rebel against Him, and thus would end up in hell. This analogy may help.
Analogy
Suppose Little Timmy is a dirty rotten cheater on tests. Well, a teacher catches wind of this and decides to offer a surprise pop quiz. She gives him the pop quiz knowing Timmy will cheat, and likely fail the class. However, she (somehow) knows as a result that a bunch of good will come--other students won't cheat, perhaps Timmy had evil plans, etc--as a result. Wouldn't it be absurd for Timmy to claim, "wait, you gave me this pop quiz knowing I would cheat! It's as though you cheated!! You're a jerk!" No, Timmy wasn't forced to cheat. And even though the teacher gave the thing she knew would enable his evil, she's still justified--because she had a good reason to bring about the evil.
Relevant Similarities
Now of course, one could reply, "wait a second. You're talking about a teacher giving a pop quiz--I'm talking about God giving something that damns someone to an eternal hell. Not the same." But before one answers this way, I'd ask them to consider the analogy more closely for the similarities that make a difference as to how we consider this question. We want to explain why God isn't sadistic in doing this, and why He may be justified. The teacher isn't a sadist because she's not giving this pop quiz solely for the purpose of kicking Timmy out. She might give the quiz with internal mourning and pain because she deeply cares for Timmy-but she also knows the deeper good it will bring about. In other words, the good that Timmy's potential expulsion/failure brings about (perhaps the protection of fellow students, the prevention of further evils, whatever) so outweighs Timmy's cheating that it justifies the teacher bringing about Timmy's cheating. It justifies the teacher's act of giving Timmy the very thing he'd use to do something immoral. The reason the teacher is exonerated from sadism is because she had a good reason to bring about Timmy's evil--and she's exonerated from the actual cheating itself because Timmy wasn't moved by anyone other than himself to cheat.
Suppose one says "but hell is too horrific to possibly bring about a good that could make it worth it!" To that, we must ask: how do you know? In the infinite wisdom of God, He might see a good that is brought about by the condemnation of those in hell so deep and so valuable that it justifies Him giving them the thing (free will) He knows will condemn them to hell. And just as Timmy could not complain, "you gave me this test knowing that I would use it to cheat! You ought to be held responsible for my cheating too!" those in hell could not complain "you gave me the will knowing I would abuse it--you ought to be held accountable for our abuse!" They are fully accountable for the abuse. They cannot blame God for their misuse of a good, namely the will, even though God foreknew their misuse (just as Timmy cannot blame the teacher for his misuse of a good, although his misuse was foreknown). And just as the consequence of Timmy's expulsion may be justified by the good it brings about, the consequence of hell may be justified by a supreme good that God alone sees right now.
This brings us to our knees and asks for us to trust God's infinite wisdom. This isn't irrational; it's humble.
No comments:
Post a Comment