Don't Be Born

A reader sends the link to an item from Opinion Journal on a book titled Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence, written by the  head of the philosophy department at the University of Cape Town (scroll down to the subheading "Publish or Perish"). The item quotes the Amazon.com review (I quote the first two paragraphs):

Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence--rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should--they presume that they do them no harm.

Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.

I suppose you can't fault the man's logic, but he does leave out a lot.

Comments

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Can't fault the man's logic? If the excepts are accurate, he says the benefits of nonexistence (harm avoidance) DO exist (that is, the "nonexistent person" somehow benefits from not suffering harm), but the faults of nonexistence (deprivation of the good things of life) DON'T exist (because those selfsame "nonexistent persons cannot enjoy them).

He seems to want things both ways, holding that not suffering harm is an objective good (which seems allowable on its face, although there are some kinds of "harm" that benefit us, such as a parent's -- or God's -- loving discipline) but that not enjoying the good is meaningless because one who never existed cannot be deprived of a benefit. Well, one who never existed cannot be saved from a harm, either, and for the same reason -- because one who never existed never falls into any real-world category that includes "harms" and "benefits."

But that stance also weights harm avoidance much higher than enjoying the good things of life -- elevating the former to the highest point, while writing the latter off the books. And, of course, from the Christian point of view, we can suffer a full lifetime of harm, and yet be saved by Christ for eternal bliss, and the tradeoff is infinitely to our benefit.

Nihilism is not a forward-looking strategy. Indeed, you could say it has nothing to recommend it. Or, to put it another way, no nonexistent person has a stake in the nilhilist position.

Thus, to be or not to be is not the question.

[Ethan Cordray]

Well said, Dcn. Harmon.

And doesn't Benatar realize that there's a simple solution? It's not as though it's impossible to restore oneself to non-existence. Unless, of course, you believe in life after death.

[Gintas]

Non-existing people benefitting from not existing? Where is Gogol when you need him?

[phil swain]

This is mind-body dualism carried to an nth degree. Mind-body dualist always have trouble locating the "I". In this case the "I" has slipped into the ghostly realm of non-existence.

[Rob Grano]

The Romanian nihilist writer E.M. Cioran (who wrote a book called "The Trouble with Being Born") was asked why, if life as a human was so hopeless and miserable, he just didn't commit suicide. His answer was something along the lines of, "I'm old enough now to where there'd be no point to it."

Chicken.

[Juli]

And doesn't Benatar realize that there's a simple solution? It's not as though it's impossible to restore oneself to non-existence. Unless, of course, you believe in life after death.

You don't have to believe in life after death to want to spare those who know you from suffering.

[Ethan Cordray]

Juli,

There's a simple solution to that, too.

[Brian John Schuettler]

This is actually a very old riff...a variation on the theme of the " I wish I had never been born" pity party except that now we have the ultimate good of procreation and the sustaining of life placed squarely on it's head as utter antithetical nihilism.

[Michael]

Phil--

I am a mind-body dualist, but there is something practical to recognize in this dualism: that though the mind and body are separate entities, this does not make them mutually exclusive. The substance of the mind does not necessarily exist prior to the existance of the material body--indeed, I would argue that it does not, to a degree. (Though writings like David's psalms may suggest it does.)

What Benatar fails to recognize is simply that if the person in question were never brought into existence, be it physically or mentally, then he would never have the benefit of good, nor the harm of bad. Sort of the whole idea of "never existing." If the person truely never existed, his mind would never have existed either. Have you not heard of mental or emotional anguish? Clearly you can suffer independently of physicality.

Too bad Benatar doesn't get that.

[David Gustafson]

I think I recall that, in G.K. Chesterton's autobiography, he recounts an anecdote about his taciturn, aged grandfather. The old man heard young men joking about the General Thanksgiving ("We bless Thee for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life...") and implying that being created wasn't necessarily such a blessing after all. Grandfather was roused thereby from his silence, and he said something like: "I should thank God for my creation even if I were a damned soul." GKC seems to have approved.

I do think we can say upon authority, however, that for at least one particular man it would have been good for him if he had not been born. (Matt. 26:24.)

[Bobby Winters]

Then there is the great philosopher Kristoferson:

From the rockin' of the cradle
to the rollin' of the hearse,
the goin' up is worth the comin' down.

[peasant]

Meaningless, meaningless says the Teacher..

[Woodward]

"Don't be born"??

NOW you tell me.

[Postman]

Mr. Benatar is simply transcribing the second or third thought of Lucifer.

[Little Gidding]

Mr. Benatar is simply laying out the Gnostic groundwork for justifying abortion.

[Seth C. Holler]

Mr. Gustafson,

I do think we can say upon authority, however, that for at least one particular man it would have been good for him if he had not been born. (Matt. 26:24.)

Yes, but notice that our Lord did not say it would have been better for him if he had not existed.

[Dan]

If one is born but not saved, then yes, it's better not to have been born. I will have no children, as I cannot live with the idea that my child might suffer infinite pain for all eternity in God's eternal torture chamber (and no word-twisting about how God doesn't run Hell....it's there because he lets it exist).

And if Calvinism is right, then it is doubly cruel and selfish to have children....chances are your progeny will have been created for the express purpose of feeling God's wrath...you will probably birth, nurture, and raise a child whose sole and only purpose is to suffer indescribable torment for ever and ever and ever.

[James A. Altena]

It's well known on this site that I'm no great fan of Calvin, but Dan (whoever he is -- one of the new atheist trolls to attack this site, I presume) presents an unrecognizably distorted caricature.

"I will have no children, as I cannot live with the idea that my child might suffer infinite pain for all eternity in God's eternal torture chamber (and no word-twisting about how God doesn't run Hell....it's there because he lets it exist)."

What a perversely distorted rationale for utter selfishness. Talk about word-twisting! Hell does not exist because of God, but because of man; it is not God's torture chamber, but man's self-torture chamber. As C. S. Lewis said, "All who are in Hell choose it."

[Dan]

Not an athiest, and not a troll, and I'm not "attacking this site" (is that what you think when people post things you disagree with?)...I'm just reacting to the question, which has bothered me all my life.

Is it better not to exist, or to exist in Hell? (And I don't think anyone willfully chooses an eternity of agony....we do actions that will lead there based on our own shortsightedness and inability to do anything else)

If we are born broken and sinful, and will go to Hell unless saved, then why is it such a stretch to decide not to bring additional broken, sinful, Hell-bound people into the world? We can try to show our children the way, but we cannot force them to be saved. I'm saying that I personally cannot face the idea of raising and loving children only to see them in Hell. Which, it cannot be denied, is a very real possibility. (And while I'm undecided about Calvinism, that view seems to reinforce my feeling)

I think the ultimate selfishness would be to have kids for my own joy and benefit knowing that their fate might be worse than not having been born at all.

[Nick]

Dan,

Trolls abound these days. We'll take you at your word. The majority take on hell is that you have to chose it. Every major Christian denomination that I'm aware of believes that "being saved" is something that happens exclusively between God and you. The forms that it takes under normative circumstances may be argued, but not the parties involved. That being said, the general opinion is, as was quoted, that you chose hell. That's why Jame's called what you wrote a caricature.

[Judy Warner]

Dan's comment reminds me in a perverse way of my Communist parents who at first didn't want to have children because they didn't want to bring anyone into such a terrible world. Somehow my father going off to fight in World War II changed their minds, thank goodness. (I was brought up with the notion that it was my duty to make the world better.)

[James A. Altena]

Dear Dan,

I too will take you at your word about not being a troll. (That's been a serious problem on this site recently.) I apologize for an overly hasty judgemnt. But your argument fundamentally mistates the entire situation.

"If we are born broken and sinful, and will go to Hell unless saved, then why is it such a stretch to decide not to bring additional broken, sinful, Hell-bound people into the world?" "I'm saying that I personally cannot face the idea of raising and loving children only to see them in Hell. Which, it cannot be denied, is a very real possibility." "I think the ultimate selfishness would be to have kids for my own joy and benefit knowing that their fate might be worse than not having been born at all."

1) Neither you, or I, or anyone else here, knows for certain that any particular person was or is Hell-bound (with one possible exception -- Judas Iscariot). Indeed, charity requires us to give the benefit of the doubt in favor of salvation in every case, for it is for God alone to judge. For you to make this kind of presumption, even as only to possibilities, is to arrogate to yourself the omniscience of God. (And, for that matter, if one believes in Calvinism in the manner you depict it -- more on that below -- then you cannot even speak in terms of possibilities, for then it's already been decided and is a certainty, not a possibility.)

2) The manner in which you state it effecitvely denies that above all "God is love" (I John 4:8). He is "not willing that any should perish, but that *all* should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9) It likewise effectively denies or sets aside the hundreds of passages throughout Scripture thatt inform us that God is merciful, gracious, compassionate, pitying, full of lovingkindness, etc., etc.

It is true that some (not all, I trust) Calvinists insist that "all" here must be read to mean only "all the elect" and that this is a specified number of persons strictly predetermined by God. (As a non-Calvinist, I invite our Calvinist participants to speak for themselves here.) But that view is not generally held by other Christians, who believe that it arbitariliy re-writes and distorts the plain meaning of the text -- which is that God desires the salvation of all. (I presume you know John 3:16 by heart.) Your argument then is with a particular group of Calvinists who constitute only a tiny fraction of Christians, not with Christianity as a whole. You can not justly use that either to characterize Christian belief about salvation in general, or to make a decision about not having children.

3) In connection with point 2), noticeably absent from either of your posts is any mention of the fact that God does not just ignore us or leave us adrift in this world, or just hand us a 1,000+ page instruction manual and disappear while we puzzle over it, or did not just pop into this world once for 33 years and then pop back out again. By the gift and presence of the Holy Ghost He is continuously before, with, or within every single human being ever born, constantly pleading, urging, cajoling, lovingly pressing and (when gentler means fail) also lovingly chastising every one of us to turn away from the vanity of this world and toward Him. Ultimately (again, a certain type of Calvinist may dissent, but not other Christians) God does not force us to come to Him. But since we also can not come to Him of our own initiatve, He does absolutely everything just shy of outright compulsion to bring us to Him.

4) The Scriptures positively command God's chosen people -- the Hebrews in the OT, the believers in the Church in the NT -- to "be fruitful and multiply" -- to have children. It is both a commandment and a promised blessing. (Indeed, in the OT the *failure* to have children is frequently viewed as a divine punishment.) It also in effect denies that Jesus blessed children and said no-one should hinder them from coming to Him. A God who loves and intend to save them would not act thusly.

5) Having children is not an optional choice within marriage. The classic marriage service text in the Book of Common Prayer rightly set forth having children as the first and most important purpose of marriage in this life. If a couple is unable to do so through no fault of their own, they are blameless; but to refuse deliberately to have children at all within marriage when able to do so is an extremely serious sin, a flagrant act of disobedience to God's plain command. While St. Paul sees a certain advantage in celibacy (I Cor. 7), he also specifically endorses marriage (Eph. 5:22-33) and absolutely condemns as heretics those who promote the "forbidding of marriage" (I Tim. 4:3). The Epistle to the Hebrews likewise says that "Marriage is honorable among all and the bed undefiled" (Heb. 13:4). Thus, to avoid marriage in order to avoid having children (as opposed to surrendering marriage in favor of to God for some greater good for others -- e.g., Mother Teresa) is also a sin. To disobey God's plain command is indeed selfish.

6) Likewise, the Scriptures constantly protray life as a gift and a blessing. All life is from God; Satan cannot give life. To assert that it is better not to have children because of a hypothetical possibility (unbeknownst to you) that they *might* go to Hell flatly denies this and claims that life is a curse. Actually, this entire problem is handled at length in the book of Job. (Though I suggest that you read it only with a learned and godly pastor, or else you will almost surely misunderstand it, as it is very difficult.) Job actually takes up your position and curses the day he was born -- and in the end, though God forgives Him and blesses Him, Job is first reproved for both his rejection of the goodness of life as God's gift, and for demanidng to know the mysteries of providence (which is what you are in effect doing -- you refuse to have children unless God reveals to you a guarantee that they will not go to Hell.)

7) To reiterate a point already made by several of us, all who go to Hell are there by their own choice. God does not "send" them there; they choose not to have God because they want something or someone else even more -- which is their idolatrous god instead. Two quotes from C. S. Lewis:

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done', and those to whom God says, in the end, '*Thy* will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it." (The Great Divorce -- essential reading in answer to your entire question, and my favorite of all of Lewis' books.)

"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." ("The Problem of Pain")

The second quote bears further explication in reference to your inquiry.
First, albeit in disguised form, your question and your decision really constitute an objection to the doctrine of Hell itself -- and thus to God's justice, as well as a denial of the breadth of His love and mercy.
Second, I must reiterate my previous statement -- the refusal to have childrren in marriage when able to do so is not only profoundly disobedient to God, but also an extreme act of selfishness. One of the most important ascetical dimensions of marriage (ascetical = disciplining of the flesh by humility) is that it teaches us that we are not God, but dependent on God, when we have to put another person with his or her needs and desires before ourselves. It teaches us that we aren't as independent and self-sufficient and in control of our own lives as we like to pretend to ourselves. In short, it teaches us humility instead of pride. The deliberate refusal to have children in marriage (or not marrying for that purpose) is selfish in its rejection of this discipline of the Christian life.
Third, God's effort to do everything to save us despite ourselves short of absolute brute force has already been noted.
Fourth, it is important to understand that all who are in Hell in fact do refuse to be forgiven. Many people misunderstand the anture of forgiveness. It does *not* just mean that God is letting someone off the hook from deserved punishment. It means that the person is surrendering himself (or is being surrendered by someone else) to God to be changed into a better person. Those who refuse forgiveness refuse to allow God to change them and make then better -- they think that they are quite all right the way they are, or that God should treat them as equals with whom He must bargain.
Fifth, and so in the end God leaves them alone. Heaven and Hell are not so much spatial coordinates somewhere in the cosmos as they are states of relation to God. People in Heaven want to be with God and are willing to let Him change themselves to have that. People in Hell want to be what they are keep what they have now, and refuse to allow God to change them in order to keep that, so God leaves them be. But even Hell manifests God's mercy, for as tormenting as separation from God (which is separation from all goodness and enjoyment) is for such folk, it would be even more tormenting to them to be in His presence and unchanged ("For our God is a consuming fire" - Heb. 12:29).

{On a previous post, there was some discussion of the possiblity that both the saved and the damned experience the presence and activity of God, but the former experience it as bliss because they love God, while the latter experience as torment because they do not. The closing chapters of C. S. Lewis' last "Narnia" book, "The Last Battle," illustrates this line of thought.)

In short, it seems that you have a greatly misinformed understanding of Scripture on this subject (and also of Calvinism). I urge you to seek competent spiritual counsel from a godly pastor, instead of trying to puzzle these things out for yourself. I, and I'm sure others here, will be praying for you. We love you and care for you.

[Dan]

Thank you very much, James.....you have indeed given me much to think about. You are quite perceptive (especially the points about my feelings about the doctrine of Hell....you're quite right, although I was not so concious of it), and I am realizing that I've concentrated too much on a few points of theology.

In my current circumstances (living overseas with Reformed missionary neighbors) I've been surrounded by some rather harsh and forbidding Calvinists and have perhaps been taking in more of their ideas than I realized.

If I am badly misinformed, it will be a great relief. The view of God I'm seeing here is certainly more "Good News-like" than my current view.

I will seek fresh guidance, and I appreciate your comments, prayers and patience, and Nick and Judy as well. Thank you for taking my question seriously.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

This immediately made me think of the book of Job. Job begins his lament with a dark parody of Genesis 1:

Let the day perish on which I was born,
and the night that said,
‘A man is conceived.’
Let that day be darkness!

May God above not seek it,
nor light shine upon it.
Let gloom and deep darkness claim it.
Let clouds dwell upon it;

let the blackness of the day terrify it.
That night—let thick darkness seize it!

Let the stars of its dawn be dark;
let it hope for light, but have none,
nor see the eyelids of the morning,
because it did not shut the doors of my mother's womb,
nor hide trouble from my eyes.

Elihu eventually brings needed correction, to both Job and David Benatar:

Do not long for the night,
when peoples vanish in their place.
Take care; do not turn to iniquity,
for this you have chosen rather than affliction.

Yes, even affliction is better than there being no creation.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Dan,

You're welcome. Since I am descended from pretty "hard shell" Calvinist stock (.e. a grandmother in the Dutch Reformed Church who even thought that all members of the Dutch Christian Reformed Church were necessarily reprobate), I understand the phenomenon to which you refer.

Remember that while God is just and therefore unrepentant sinners will incur punishment (for sin of course is a serious matter), that all aspects of God, including His justice, and expressions of His love and subordinate to the end of bestowing that as much as possible. Let not His love for you be denied or obscured by any false doctrine!

May God bless you. And don't be shy about a return visit to MC if you have more questions! Lots of folks here are ready to help you.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>If we are born broken and sinful, and will go to Hell unless saved, then why is it such a stretch to decide not to bring additional broken, sinful, Hell-bound people into the world? We can try to show our children the way, but we cannot force them to be saved. I'm saying that I personally cannot face the idea of raising and loving children only to see them in Hell. Which, it cannot be denied, is a very real possibility.<<<

Dan,
That's why we have them baptised and teach them about Jesus.
Bobby

[James A. Altena]

As an addendum, I call to mind one of the great Eastern Orthodox saints (whose name escapes me -- can someone help me out here?) who said that, even if he was condemned to Hell, he hoped he would still be able to hymn God's praises even there for all eternity. Even though that doesn't logically square with the nature of or reason for being in Hell, it is still a profoundly moving statement.

[Beth]

In regard to Dan's concerns -- there is one thing that having children does in a way nothing else can, at least in my experience: it reveals my utter helplessness and sends me to my knees continually to seek His wisdom, for raising them, yes, but also to plead for His grace and mercy to save them, as I cannot. Yes, it's a horrific thought that I might be separated from any of my children for eternity. But my trust in God has been fortified by the absolute necessity to turn to Him instead of relying on myself, and the blessings of seeing a child turn to Him are indescribable.

[hibernicus]

It is perhaps relevant to the general discussion that Mr. Gustafson's quote from Chesterton's autobiography is inaacurate. GKC's grandfather was a Calvinist, the young men were discussing the doctrine of predestination, an dwhat the old man said was that he would still praise God even if he knew he were a damned soul.
I must say this statement raises problems (a)damnation is necessarily held to preclude any concern for anything outside the self (b) In what sense would a God who practised double predestination be worthy of praise? The statement itself still strikes me as impressive and moving, though.

[Bill R]

Dan, as one of the resident Calvinists on this site, I must say I differ very little from James Altena in his wonderful statement above. Calvinism is, alas, too frequently misunderstood--often by professing Calvinists. I believe that a Calvinist is simply someone who believes ALL of Scripture must be taken seriously, including the parts we may naturally shy away from, or even be repelled by. But I firmly reject that caricature of Calvinism called "double predestination," if only because it violates the many statements of God's love as a part of His basic nature and his hated of the loss of even one soul.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Hibernicus,

"GKC's grandfather was a Calvinist, the young men were discussing the doctrine of predestination, and what the old man said was that he would still praise God even if he knew he were a damned soul.

"I must say this statement raises problems (a) damnation is necessarily held to preclude any concern for anything outside the self; (b) In what sense would a God who practised double predestination be worthy of praise? The statement itself still strikes me as impressive and moving, though."

a) is true (I alluded to it but did not spell it out in my last post), but b) is at least problematic. If God is truly God (i.e. with all the attributes we believe are His as God), then He is by His very essence worthy of praise, however he chooses to dispose of us. Rom. 9:14-29 speak to this point (among other things), I think.

I take it that what you have in mind is that a God who would predestine people to Hell as well as Heaven is not and would not be the God revealed in Scripture, but in effect (speaking typologically) a pagan god of human sacrifices. I am sympathietic to this on one level (probably the level you mean), but it still poses a trap -- that *we* define by our judgment what constitutes goodness rather than accepting that goodness is defined and revealed by God.

This ties in to a fine comment Rob Grano posted under the "Born Anyway" thread", on the false dualism between God and goodness, which I take the liberty of cutting and pasting to here:

----------------

"Mr. Elliott wrote: "Is a moral truth a truth because it is an objective fact or is it a truth because God wills it to be so? If the former, and a moral truth is an objective fact, then it exists completely independent of God.'

"and 'If objective facts exist only because God wills them so -- if the truth of something rests on God's impetus -- then are they not completely arbitrary, little more than capricious cosmic whims, subject to a change in God's will?'

"This is a false dichotomy -- 'Does God will something because it's good or is it good because he wills it?' The answer is the former, but the good does not exist outside of God. He is good in essence as person. He wills the good according to his 'character,' which is what defines goodness to begin with. God was good before there was anything other than God; the nature of the good is in no way contingent on creation. So the dichotomy you pose doesn't consider the Christian understanding of God. It may militate against the 'god of the philosophers' or a sort of general all-purpose deity, but that's not the Christian God."

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

While most grateful as always for your support, and delighted to know that you "firmly reject that caricature of Calvinism called 'double predestination,' I'm afraid it can't be called a "caricature." (Though do you mean that the doctrine is subject to caricature, or that the doctrine itself is a caricature of Calvinism not truly taught by it?) While some argue for ambiguities in the language of the Institutes, the overwhelming consensus is that Calvin indeed held to some form of it. It was formally developed at length by Theodore Beza, and formally incorporated into the authoritative Calvinist confessions of both the Synod of Dort (1618-19) and the Westminster Assembly (1647) as authoritative Calvinist doctrine.

E.g., in Inst. III.xxiii.i Calvin specfically asserts that there could be no election to salvation without its opposite, election to reprobation. It is often argued that the two are distinguished by Calvin as the former being by His perfect will (overturning the consequences of the Fall) and the latter by his permissive will (allowing the consequences of the Fall to run to their final end, and so not actively willing damnation by overt decree). The problem with this position, of course (and a similar problem arises often in certain RC apologetics on other issues), is that the willed choice of God *not* to intervene to overturn the consequences of the Fall for the reprobate, when absolutely no other action can avail for salvation instead of damnation, is arguably itself a positive act of His perfect will.

I might also note that Touchstone editor and eminent Calvinist Peter Leithart, in his web site posting "Predestination and Logic" (dated 02/26/07 11:02am), opens by referring to "Calvin's doctrine of double predestination." So it appears that he agrees with the consensus about Calvin.

http://www.leithart.com/archives/002837.php

Of course, this post may be a sure sign of my own reprobation! :-)

And there's always the old joke about Anlgicanism:

"Sir, what positions do the Arminians hold?"
"My Lord, all the best benefices in England."

[David Gray]

>While most grateful as always for your support, and delighted to know that you "firmly reject that caricature of Calvinism called 'double predestination,' I'm afraid it can't be called a "caricature."

It might be noted though that the WCF does not teach double predestination.

[Bill R]

James, what I mean by a "caricature" of double predestination is what most Calvinists call "hyper-Calvinism," which these same Calvinists would contend is not Calvinism at all. I too happen to believe Calvin's position is not this; his position is what I see the WCF as teaching. But I'm not here to argue predestination in any event. I merely meant to add support to your encouraging words to Dan.

[Bill R]

Dan, as a postscript, please consider reading a truly fine modern Calvinist. In another thread on Lenten readings, I mentioned that I was reading John Piper's "What Jesus Demands From the World." I earnestly recommend this as an example of true modern Calvinism. In fact I earnestly recommend anything Piper writes, as I consider him a deeply honest Christian. Predestination is not the focus of Calvinism: the sovereignty of God is. And correspondingly, the Calvinist's view of man is focused on humility and the reception of grace. Calvinism "gone bad" is terrible doctine, but only because Calvinism "gone good" is true Gospel. The truer the doctrine, the worse it is when corrupted. That, of course, is pure C.S. Lewis, the "patron saint" of Mere Comments and Touchstone.

[Thomas Cothran]

The issue of whether it is better to not exist or to risk eternal damnation is one that hasn't really occurred to me since I abandoned my loyalty to reformed theology. I think the problem largely arises when one believes that ones path in life is already predetermined: that all human existence is necessary, that one is destined irrevocably for heaven or hell. This strong view of determinism is not necessarily held by all those who consider themselves Calvinists, but I would maintain it is the conservative reformed position.

If a person accepts this determinism, then it is entirely rational to question bringing one who may well be irrevocably destined for hell into the world. Of course, it is possible that person may be destined for heaven too, but risking the intense pain of hell does not really seem to be counterbalanced by the possibility of heaven. It may be pointed out that in the Reformed world view, this hesitancy is superfluous, because if God destined the one who is pondering this to have a son destined for heaven or hell, then it will happen anyway.

The landscape is changed when one believes that one may freely choose either heaven or hell. Then a parent is bringing a free being into the world who may choose his or her eternal destiny. There still may be some anxiety, for the choice depends on the son or daughter alone, and they may choose incorrectly out of ignorance. But this anxiety is capable of some resolution while the rigorously reformed dilemma is not. Humans cherish freedom for its own sake – even if they make the wrong choices. In Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, the main character chooses incorrectly simply to prove he is free. I believe, given an option, virtually everyone would prefer the ability to choose the way they live, even if it goes poorly, to not existing at all. So freedom and life are valued for their own sake, even if their abuse results in sorrow.

James Altina has hit on most of the other responses to this problem: that God does not “send” us to heaven or hell, but we choose ourselves. In fact, we choose not only the actions that result in us being “in” heaven or hell, but heaven and hell for their own sake. Much of the modern misunderstanding of heaven and hell comes from the idea that heaven and hell (and purgatory) are physically distinct locations. This has not been the case traditionally, while heaven and hell may be more than metaphors in terms of physical location, the point is that they are primarily states of being. And one's state of being is entirely dependent on their relation to the source of being itself: God. There is room for a belief that the afterlife is not static: one is not “stuck” in heaven or hell except as they choose to be. Heaven itself is hardly an adynamic condition: one should progress towards God for all eternity.

It seems to me that this whole problem is a consequence of some of the more destructive threads in traditional Reformed theology. Generations who learn to think of God as the bloodthirsty ruler he is portrayed as being in such sermons as Jonathon Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, (to point to a particularly outrageous example). The solution is simple: one need only adhere to a more historical strain of Christian thought, at least on issues related to predestination.

[David Gray]

>I earnestly recommend this as an example of true modern Calvinism. In fact I earnestly recommend anything Piper writes, as I consider him a deeply honest Christian.

Having had the privilege of speaking with Piper before he is a most exemplary Christian in my opinion and very Calvinist in his soteriology. But not beyond that. Hence the fact, as he has himself pointed out, that Calvin would not be admitted as a member at Bethlehem Baptist Church.

[David Gray]

>James Altina has hit on most of the other responses to this problem: that God does not “send” us to heaven or hell, but we choose ourselves.

Of course scripture teaches us that it is God who chooses us first, before the foundation of the world.

"And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."

However if one is sufficiently rationalistic one may struggle with squaring the plain teaching of the matter with the teaching of personal responsibility. In one respect I think it resembles the struggles over the Lord's Supper and the nature of the elements. The Bible teaches that the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. It does not provide a technical manual describing how or in what way it is his body and blood.

[Bill R]

"It seems to me that this whole problem is a consequence of some of the more destructive threads in traditional Reformed theology. Generations who learn to think of God as the bloodthirsty ruler he is portrayed as being in such sermons as Jonathon Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, (to point to a particularly outrageous example). The solution is simple: one need only adhere to a more historical strain of Christian thought, at least on issues related to predestination."

Except for the fact, Thomas, that Edwards was no less ferocious that He who promised to cast the lost into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, where there is an eternal fire and eternal punishment, where there is a destruction of body and soul. Alas, Thomas, your problem in the end isn't really with Reformed theology, or with Jonathan Edward or John Calvin. Your problem is with the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to predestination, there is nothing in Edwards's sermon about it. How does this relate to your point? Do you think Reformed theology "invented" predestination? It is a hard doctrine, no doubt, but again it comes from the lips of Him whom you presumably acknowledge as Lord: "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65-ESV) Verses could be multiplied from both the NT and the OT. You may disagree with the plain or facial meaning of the text, but the obvious sense and repeated assertions give ample basis for a doctrine that long antedates the Reformation and which has its counterpart in all Augustinian theology.

[Bill R]

"Calvin would not be admitted as a member at Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Nor would Calvin have admitted Piper to the Geneva First Presbyterian Church. But both would have acknowledged the other as a sincere Christian. That's enough for me.

[Gina Mosko]

"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65-ESV) Verses could be multiplied from both the NT and the OT. You may disagree with the plain or facial meaning of the text...

I don't see in that verse that the Father denies any the opportunity to come to Christ; which highlights the natural problem of "the plain meaning." "The plain meaning" always rests on a host of preconceptions.

[Bill R]

"I don't see in that verse that the Father denies any the opportunity to come to Christ; which highlights the natural problem of "the plain meaning." "The plain meaning" always rests on a host of preconceptions."

In John 6, Jesus is explaining why some of his own disciples did not believe what he said. The explanation is that they were not granted belief by the Father. These people who did not believe are not described as enemies of God, but as followers of Christ. Nevertheless they were not granted belief, for the opportunity to believe is in the Father's hands, not ours. You must not assume the meaning of any verse outside of its context.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Thomas,

I believe this is the second time you've mis-spelled my last last name in a post. Could you please get it right from now on?

[By the way, I'm still working on something further for the libertarian thread. But illness (an exploratory surgical procedure on my back yesterday morning) and more presssing obligations have prevented its completion. It's very long -- far longer than I planned or want, alas -- but your many posts under that thread are substantive and deserve a fair reply.]

Dear David,

"Of course scripture teaches us that it is God who chooses us first, before the foundation of the world."

Quite true -- but even the meaning of that is subject to much controversy. Of course, Reformed theology also rightly distinguishes foreknowledge from predestination as two distinct issues. And Arminiansim relies heavily on that very disitnction.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your further explanation. Now, to take issue with a little something else --

"'Calvin would not be admitted as a member at Bethlehem Baptist Church.'

"Nor would Calvin have admitted Piper to the Geneva First Presbyterian Church. But both would have acknowledged the other as a sincere Christian."

Actually, the last sentence is doubtful. My memory here is a bit rusty and subject to correction, but generally speaking the paedo- and antipaedo- Baptist Reformers (including Calvin in the former) generally denounced each other as non-Christians, tools of Satan, etc., etc. as much as they did the "Papists." Indeed, Zwingli had the first antipaedo-Baptists in Zurich arrested, tried, and drowned to death.

It might be useful for all here to go back to Tony Esolen's post on this very topic some months back regarding Aquinas and Calvin.

I hold myself to what one commentator has called the "mildly Reformed" take on Predestination in Article XVII of the BCP 39 Articles, which emphasizes predestination as a knowledge given for comfort and assurance. But I also think that far too much time, energy, and attention is given to the topic at all. The debates too often remind me of the fratricidal strife between pre-millenial and post-millenial dispensationalists, which can make those over the nature and presence of Christ in the consecrated Eucharistic elements look like a tiff in a sandbox. We are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and that's quite enough and more for me to handle.

[Rob Grano]

Thomas Cothran wrote: "one need only adhere to a more historical strain of Christian thought, at least on issues related to predestination."

I'm not sure if it's quite that simple but I understand what you're saying. At one point in my life some years ago I was looking at Calvinism as an option, as its logic and thoroughness appealed to me. What convinced me not to go that route was a rather indepth study not of Calvinism, but of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian controversies of the early Church. While I definitely came down on the side of St. Augustine over against the Pelagians, I came to believe that he "overcorrected" when it came to original sin and predestination. Hence, if I couldn't be a full blown Augustinian, there's no way I could be a Calvinist.

[Bill R]

"Actually, the last sentence is doubtful. My memory here is a bit rusty and subject to correction, but generally speaking the paedo- and antipaedo- Baptist Reformers (including Calvin in the former) generally denounced each other as non-Christians, tools of Satan, etc., etc. as much as they did the "Papists." Indeed, Zwingli had the first antipaedo-Baptists in Zurich arrested, tried, and drowned to death."

You're correct, James. I took an "historic liberty." That is, David projected Calvin into the 21st century to have Piper bar him from membership at his Baptist church. I took the same liberty with Calvin to make him a 21st century paedobaptist who, I am sure, would now foreswear the bloody persuasions of the 16th century.

[David Gray]

>That is, David projected Calvin into the 21st century to have Piper bar him from membership at his Baptist church.

In fairness Piper did it first...

[David Gray]

And Calvin never claimed to be a Piperist whereas Piper definitely claims to be a Calvinist...

[Bill R]

"And Calvin never claimed to be a Piperist whereas Piper definitely claims to be a Calvinist..."

That would have been quite a trick on Calvin's part, wouldn't you say, David? ;-)

[David Gray]

>That would have been quite a trick on Calvin's part, wouldn't you say, David? ;-)

Well he was quite a fellow!

[James A. Altena]

But who here is going to pay the Piper? :-)

[Ethan Cordray]

"And Calvin never claimed to be a Piperist whereas Piper definitely claims to be a Calvinist..."

>>That would have been quite a trick on Calvin's part, wouldn't you say, David? ;-)<<

And would it ever prove the doctrine of foreknowledge!

[Iva]

Here is an example that the dissenters of this thread would be familiar with, had they actually bothered to read the arguments they're attempting to criticise (this is for those of you who have demonstrated a moderate understanding of moral logic and theory):

A person reflecting on the possibilities of life on foreign planets would rightfully regret the potential suffering that would befall such life forms. But a person reflecting on the possibilities of life on a deserted island is not likely to regret the pleasures that would have been granted its potential occupants.

In other words, there is a notable difference between avoiding potential harm, and maximizing potential pleasure. Where avoiding harm is concerned, the would-be victim never actually has to exist for the avoidance of his or her harm to be a good thing. Maximizing potential pleasure on the other hand is only a good thing for a being that is in existence, and not for anyone else. *Remember, if you are Utilitarian a distinction needs to be drawn between 'making people happy' and 'making happy people', the moral agent aims only to fulfill the former.* Therefore, one can say that avoiding potential harm is a good thing to do (not to be taken literally as: good for the being who's existence is averted); but we can't say that not maximizing potential pleasure is a bad thing to do, for the nonexistent being or for anyone else.

I do not agree with Benatar's conclusion, but his grounding logic is flawless. If you really thought that the head of a prestigious philosophy department would overlook such a pivotal piece of logical analysis in his pet project you were sadly mistaken.