Rabid dogs...

[atty]

Hi everyone...

I just joined to ask a specific question. Well to pose a scenario, actually. It encompasses my biggest issue with calvinism, and I am just interested in hearing a reformed response. I'm not a troll -- but I wanted to find a place where I could receive a reply to my question. I do not ask in order to start a debate.

I didn't find this illustration anywhere - just kinda put it together in my head over time.

Imagine that you are an individual who was world-renown as the most respected and knowledgable dog trainer. All your prestige, recognition and honour has provided you with an unlimited source of income. Money was never an issue -- you could buy whatever you desired.

One day, you walk into a shelter filled with 500 rabid dogs. The dogs are all due to be put down because of their condition -- diseased, sick, and violent. Because of this, purchasing these death-row dogs is extremely high -- many, many times what they are actually worth. They display outright agression toward you. However, you know beyond the shadow of a doubt, that should you purchase any one of those dogs, you could transform it into a completely new nature. While the dogs are hopeless on their own, you have the expertise and power to rehabilitate them 110% and giving them a warm and happy home with you as their master. The dogs aren't lovable, they aren't cute, and they are downright rabid. They are not worth saving. But you know you could change them. So you decide to buy two to rehabilitate and leave the 498 others to be euthanized for their condition.

I do recognize that the illustration falls short in that we were created by the Lord, and not "discovered" by Him. I still think the allusion to sin/salvation is evident enough. Yet any "excuse" that we could think of for the limited rescue by the dog trainer cannot be applied to God.....

-- the dogtrainer didn't have enough time or energy to save all the dogs (≠ God)
-- the dogtrainer's expertise was insufficient to rehabilitate certain dogs (≠ God)
-- the dogtrainer didn't have enough space for all the rehabilitated dogs (≠ God)
-- the dogtrainer wasn't compassionate enough to rehabilitate all dogs (≠ God...?????)

If Jesus' blood is all-powerful to save any and all that He chooses, and God applies it to save only a small percentage, how is that not reflecting a degree of wastefulness towards Jesus' sacrifice, in light of what the He endured at the cross to bear the burden of sin and pay for it?

Obviously none of us are valuable to save--He owes justification to none of us. But IF God's ultimate intention was to glorify Himself through saving men, and IF He has the ability to save all, what reflection is it on His character if He chose to save but a select few? Why would He limit His own grace?

To clarify, I am by no means a universalist. I believe salvation comes by grace through faith, but involves a responsive personal repentance to the drawing of the Spirit, secured in the sovereignty of God. As I apprehend it, both predestined choosing and free-will are involved.

Again, I don't want to argue or debate -- I just would really appreciate hearing a Calvinist response to my illustration. If you have a question about my view, feel free to ask as well.

Thanks.

 

[heymikey80]

This misses certain critical points. In point of fact there are similar models spread across the Web.

- To save any of the dogs the trainer must sacrifice something himself -- his only son.

- Rabid dogs aren't responsible for their actions. Their violence is actually morally neutral. But the reality of the situation is that the dogs need to be responsible, and actually enjoy violently attacking the trainer. So the trainer could simply walk away, too.

- The particular dogs the trainer says he intends to save are the family pets.

- The trainer doesn't sell his cure, it's not even his job. He selects his trainees and always has.

- Given that the dogs would recover only doglike loyalty, the parable only leaving them as dogs without any awareness of the depth of love they have been given. They continue to live as dogs, love as dogs, and no more. So the parable is insufficiently allegorical to describe the need for dogs outside the family. What Scripture says is that some people are ultimately left to condemnation as a display of God's justice, to make us aware of the depth of favor placed on His people.

- The trainer is actually the judge who sentenced the entirety of the kennel to be put down -- possibly to (1) avoid reinfection, or (2) to demonstrate to the dogs-turned-sons, the humbling origins of their rise to glory.

- The sacrifice would bring the dogs to live and love an entirely human way.

A lot of ethical dilemmas change color rapidly when information is added to the scenario. That's simply a property of ethical dilemmas, which are weighting experiments in human experience. To grant one much broader distinction, though: God's power and righteousness are far, far above ours.

Finally, there's one other issue, here. God's omnipotence means that He is quite capable of saving everyone: no matter, no harm, no foul. He is powerful to change people and powerful to save everyone. The fact that He doesn't is an observation. No Scriptural view of salvation escapes complaints about universality. God can save. God is completely capable, there's no lack of power to do so. And God doesn't. Any self-imposed limit doesn't resolve that critical problem for non-Calvinists. It tries to sidestep the issue. It tries to make non-Calvinism comparatively different. But such a sidestep is not ultimately different. God still was entirely capable. And He didn't do so.

 

[atty]

Thank you for your response.