God’s Grace & Hitler
Below is my response to skeptic Paul Baird who was recently featured on the British radio show Unbelievable with Justin Brierley. My previous post discusses the main subject covered in that show – Presuppositional Apologetics. Towards the end of this show there was a discussion about Paul Baird’s intuitional objection to the notion of God’s grace and the fact that a truly and authentically repentant Adolf Hitler could go to heaven, whereas an unrepentant Jew who died in one of Hitler’s camps might not. Baird also mentioned that the thought of becoming a Christian repulsed him because it meant that he would have to “support Sarah Palin and become pro-life”.
I posted a response to this apparent ethical dilemma and caricature of Christianity on Paul’s blog Patient & Persistent, and thought I would share it here too for comment and scrutiny.
Hi Paul,
I enjoyed listening to your debate with Sye on Unbelievable radio program. I was particularly interested in the ethical problem you raised regarding whether an authentically repentant Hitler would be saved and go to heaven, whereas an unrepentent Jew might not.
As you saw from my own blog post, I don’t agree with much of Sye’s presuppositionalism, but I feel strongly that Sye and Justin’s response to your intuitive dilemma was correct and reflects Christian truth.
A couple of points in support of their answer:
By what ethical or moral standard do you judge this question as being ethically or morally reprehensible? It sounds like you are admitting to moral objectivism? Are you simply borrowing a moral/ethical code from Judeo-Christian tradition and smuggling it in the back door for the sake of argument? Surely, as an atheist, the most intellectually honest position to take is either amoralism or moral relativism? So how can you make an ethical judgment in this instance?
That basic inconsistency aside, I do believe you are looking at this question from the wrong angle:
1. No person, whether apparently “good” or “evil” by our human perspective deserves to go to heaven based purely on their own merit, behaviour or actions. In our natural state, we are all equally as undeserving of this perfect relationship with God, due to sin. Hitler is undeserving, the Jew, me, you, Sye, Justin. All have fallen short of God’s perfect standard.
2. The only thing that qualifies any person for heaven, and the reconciled relationship with God that this entails, is our relationship with God through Christ. We are saved purely and only by riding on the coat-tails of what Christ did by his perfect life, death on the cross and his resurrection. To be a Christian is not being “good”, it is a position by way of our relationship with God through faith and submission to Christ.
3. You are trying to suggest that merit for heaven (or the opposite) is based on how we have lived our life and a balance of good and bad behaviour. You are suggesting that if, on balance, a person has done more good things than bad they should go to heaven. If they have done more bad things than good, they shouldn’t. This is salvation by works – seen in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Santa Claus, etc. But works are irrelevant in Christianity, at least when it comes to the issue of salvation. Of course, good works follow salvation, due to the fruits of the indwelling Spirit and out of gratitude for God’s grace – his undeserved favour in salvation.
4. You need to spin this whole question around and look at it from the positive position, rather than the negative:
How amazing is God’s grace and how deep is his love for every individual human (including Adolf Hitler) that He is so willing to wipe the slate clean for even the most chronically reprehensible and apparently viciously evil human who truthfully and authentically comes to a position of repentance and real faith in Jesus Christ! If Hitler might be forgiven if he truly and honestly repented and submitted to Christ, how much hope does that give the rest of us – most who have not lived nearly as an awful existence as Hitler did!
The possibility of Hitler’s salvation should serve as a reason for hope, joy and amazement for you, rather than a source of indignation. Even more so with Easter approaching. We can’t necessarily trust our natural intuitions and first impressions in matters such as these.
Finally, you seem to have a fairly limited conception of what a Christian looks like. You seem to think that if you became a Christian that you would have to become a gun-toting, Republican-voting North American fundamentalist from Alaska! Look around the world and you will see that there are so many other ways to live out an authentically Christian life – you must broaden your horizons and broaden your view about how individual Christians live out their lives. You will be pleasantly surprised at the diversity.
Anyway, hope this has helps. Feel free to drop by ‘Faith Interface’ any time and contribute your opinions. They would be very welcome.
Kindest regards,
Roger (Australia)
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/
Jason
on March 25th, 2011
Seems reasonable to me.
Faith in God, that is trust and loyalty mediated through the person of Jesus, is the defining feature of being a Christian.
Being a gun-toting Republican from Alaska is just a bonus.
Paul Baird
on March 25th, 2011
Hi Roger, thanks for posting. The objection isn’t original so nor will a defence of that objection be either.
I’ll post a response on my blog later today (it’s 6.15 am).
rogermorris
on March 26th, 2011
Thanks Paul – look forward to your response.
Paul Baird
on March 28th, 2011
here you go http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/03/response-to-roger-morris-of-faith.html
rogermorris
on March 29th, 2011
Thanks Paul,
Will have a good look through your response ASAP.
Roger.
Response to Paul Baird’s Response! | Faith Interface
on March 29th, 2011
[...] been having a discussion with skeptic Paul Baird of the Patient and Persistent blog. Here is Paul’s response to my [...]