This places the subject in its true position; and the old Calvinistic ground . . . Is the only ground on which the doctrine of endless woe can make any show of defence. If a single soul be damned, it is because it was created for this end, foreseen and foreordained. It was the original thought and plan of God in creating it, and not because he has made a mistake; not because the soul is anything different from what he expected; not because its faculties have been so perverted, to his great grief, that the design of its creation is defeated. This is the only consistent and logical ground for those who assert the omnipotence and omniscience of God (The Theology of Universalism, p 37).
What is the difference, at bottom, whether you deny the power of God over spirit; or deny his power over matter? Whether you say he cannot save a planet, or cannot save a soul, from ruin? Of course we do not ignore the essential difference between matter and mind; between the laws which govern a planet, and those which govern a soul. It is not contended that God undertakes to rule and save a free spirit, in the same way in which he holds the sun in place, or sends a planet through its orbit. But the thing we do contend for, the thing which the complete omnipotence of God logically necessitates, is, that he is just as ample in his spiritual resources for education, training, and saving the souls of men, as he is in his physical resources for shaping, guiding, and governing the worlds and constellations in their courses. And we contend, farther, that he can do the first without the violation of any moral agency, or any spiritual law, just as easy as he can do the last, without any violation of any natural or physical law.
“Irresistible force used by God on his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!” (Norman Geisler, “God knows all Things,” Predestination and Free Will, (ed.) David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986), 69 ).
Instead, I think I’ll wrap this up with a more relevant analogy:
Allie is a crack addict who has seen her life implode because of her desire for another hit of crack. Her family has tried everything to save her from her addictions but to no avail. Finally, one night when she is asleep her dad — a brilliant medical doctor — slips into her room and inserts a tiny, undetectable patch on the back of her neck which immediately overrides any desire for crack a split second before it arises. The next morning Allie wakes up and has no desire for crack any longer. She goes on to rebuild her life with her loving family, exercising her free will in all sorts of ways while never realizing that any desire for crack has been overridden
Did Allie’s dad rape her in the predawn? Surely it would be hard to conceive a more stupid and offensive suggestion than that. But I can think of one suggestion that is more stupid and offensive. In case you’re interested, it is quoted at the opening of this article
Does God ‘rape the will’ to save people from hell?
Posted on 06/06/11