(April 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Let's say we have two natives in two different geographical locations. Both of them have rejected the revealed revelation of nature and have become polytheists just like the rest of their the people in their locations. So both of them, if they were to die at the same time, would wake up in hell. In one location, missionaries come and preach the gospel, and our native there hears it, believes in Jesus, and rejects his pantheon of gods. Shortly thereafter on the same day, the native happens to die, and wakes up in heaven to be with his glorious savior for all eternity. Our other native, however, also happens to die, but he winds up in hell. Is this just? It seems to me that the only reason why one native went to heaven and the other went hell is because the saved native had more information. If both had heard the gospel, both might have been saved.

It seems to me then that really the only reason in your view that a person goes to hell is because of a lack of information. Also, since in many places in the Bible, God appeared and demonstrated himself, followed by belief, then it's unfair that God doesn't show himself in the same way to everyone.

This is a hard question to answer because it relies on reading God's mind. The Bible isn't explicit on the topic of non-evangelized groups. However, Romans 9:15 has something to say on the matter. Paul on God:
"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

In the verse, God is choosing to pardon who he pleases. Is not being evangelized to "fair"? In our way of thinking, no. But is it just? Yes. No one deserves God's gift of salvation. It isn't one's lack of information that condemns them but their original sin. Matthew 20 describes the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. In it, the landowner offers his workers a denarius for a day of work. More workers join at noon and in the evening. Matthew 20:9-15 goes like this:

“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

This story is a vision of people who accept Christ early in their lives compared to people who, like the thief on the cross, ask for God's grace not long before they die. It illustrates God's idea of fairness versus mercy. Non-evangelized groups face a similar dilemma, but on the negative half of the believing continuum. If other believers and God do not bail them out, they will face their just punishment. If, however, missionaries arrive and God causes them to believe their sentences are erased (in the way that a murderer is pardoned by the president).

This view is a not conclusive, but is Bible-supported and realistic. It's also possible that God predestines future-believers to be in places where they will hear the message, and rejecters to be far-off locations the Word does not reach. Like the "God is evident to everyone everywhere" view, that is speculation.

(April 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [Edited]
I have never understood this. If God really loves everyone and wants everyone to believe in him so that he isn't forced by his perfect justice to condemn unbelievers to an eternity in hell, then why doesn't he just show himself continuously to everyone?

God does not love everyone, at least not in the universal sense that is implied by your question; there are some rather explicit statements to this effect (e.g., Ps. 11:5).

"But this contradicts John 3:16!" Does it? I suppose it might if you interpret that passage in isolation, in English, and from a modern Western world view. But that passage does not exist in isolation, nor was it written in English, nor was it framed in a modern Western world view; as such, it would be extraordinarily irresponsible for someone to interpret it in that manner. Taking that passage in the context of (1) the koine Greek language in which it was written, (2) the chapter and book in which it is found, (3) plus giving due consideration to the other material in the Bible by that author, and (4) within the Near Eastern first century Jewish world view, the contradiction is nowhere to be found. It is interesting, the effect produced when handling a text responsibly.

(April 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [Edited]
I already know what you're thinking: free will, blah, blah, blah. Supposedly if God shows himself we can't believe in him freely. We would supposedly do it out of coercion, not love.

Thankfully that is not what I happen to be thinking, for it makes very little sense to me. As you said, "By that logic, then, nobody who actually saw or spoke to God actually believed in him willingly."

(April 29, 2012 at 12:20 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: 1. Is it a person's own fault they go to hell?
2. Is it wrong to not share the gospel to someone?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

(April 29, 2012 at 1:59 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [Edited.]
See, when you say that a person is entirely responsible for being in hell, and that it's wrong for a Christian to not witness, you're making a big mess for yourself.

Let's say, for example, that Bob is a non-Christian and Larry is a Christian. Larry and Bob are life-long friends, but Larry never witnesses to Bob. In fact, to Bob, Larry is just as secular as he is. Bob eventually dies in his sins. At judgement day, God in effect says to Bob, "I never knew you," and casts him into the lake of fire because Bob never believed out of his free will. Larry also eventually dies, and God allows him into heaven because he believed; but God mentions to Larry, "You never shared the gospel with Bob, and he never believed and is now in hell. You should be ashamed of yourself! Didn't I command you to share the gospel to everyone? Anyway, here's your harp. Happy plucking!"

So which is it? Is Bob in hell because he never believed? Or is he in hell because Larry never witnessed to him? If he's in hell because it's his own (free will) fault, then witnessing is irrelevant. But if he's in hell because Larry didn't witness to him, then his doom is the result of Larry not giving him enough information. It also means that it's not his fault, but someone else's.

The big mess is of your own making; it does not follow given biblical Christianity. (You and I have not met before, so you are not familiar with the distinction I always make between "cultural" and "biblical" Christianity. I think Godschild is fairly representing the former, and your criticism continues to hold against his view.) Let us unpack it and see where your illustration broke down vis-a-vis biblical Christianity.

"Bob eventually dies in his sins," you posited. "At judgement day, God in effect says to Bob, 'I never knew you,' and casts him into the lake of fire because Bob never believed out of his free will." You probably do not see the disconnect that happened between what you started with and what you ended with. You posited that Bob had died in his sins (plural) but that he was cast into hell for his unbelief (singular). The sin of unbelief is just one of the sins for which Bob is cast into hell; it is not the only sin for which he is condemned. Every single thought, word, and deed will be accounted for before the judgment throne. Nor is Larry in any way responsible for Bob's condemnation; Bob is responsible for his own condemnation.

"Larry also eventually dies," you said, "and God allows him into heaven because he believed." That is not why Larry would find himself in heaven. The reason Larry is in heaven is because of the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in whom Larry placed his every hope. The penalty that Larry's sins were due were imputed to Christ and treated as if his, and the perfectly righteous life that Christ lived was imputed to Larry and treated as if his. "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Larry's belief could never save him, if for no other reason than his faith in God could never be of the character that it ought to be; "We are all like one who is unclean, all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight" (Isa 64:6). The only righteousness that merits a heavenly reward is that of Christ, who alone lived a perfectly sinless life—which is precisely why Larry placed his every hope in him.

"But," you continued, "God mentions to Larry, 'You never shared the gospel with Bob, and he never believed and is now in hell. You should be ashamed of yourself! Didn't I command you to share the gospel to everyone?" Your illustration assumes that God will mention any of Larry's sins to him, but God will do nothing of the sort. The day that Larry stands before God in heaven, the only thing that God will see is the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ in whom Larry is securely kept, all of Larry's sins having been dealt with and nailed to the cross of his only Savior. God promised that he would no longer remember Larry's sins (Heb. 8:12; 10:17; cf. Jer. 31:31-34) because the record of the charges against him were taken away, having been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, no, God will not mention any of Larry's sins to him.

"Anyway, here's your harp. Happy plucking!" This was, I hope, tongue-in-cheek and can be disregarded. I hope.

(April 29, 2012 at 1:59 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [Edited.]
So which is it? Is Bob in hell because he never believed? Or is he in hell because Larry never witnessed to him?

The former—and, again, it is only one of the legion of sins for which he is condemned apart from Christ.

(April 29, 2012 at 1:59 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [Edited.]
If he's in hell because it's his own (free will) fault, then witnessing is irrelevant.

That does not follow. If Larry cannot be blamed for Bob being condemned to hell, then how does that make witnessing irrelevant?

(April 29, 2012 at 10:58 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: But if you say that keeping the gospel a secret is wrong, then you're saying the preaching the gospel might increase the number of saved people (i.e. it does make a difference).

Preaching the gospel does not increase the number of saved people. There is an eternally set number of redeemed, known only to God, and every single one of them will hear the gospel and will believe. "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me . . . This is the will of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day" (John 6:37, 39). Jesus in his prayer to the Father said, "You have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him" (John 17:1-2). This is why we find such passages as Acts 13:48, "And all who had been appointed for eternal life believed" (Act 13:48).

It is wrong to not preach the gospel: (1) by definition, insofar as sin is not doing what God commands (and doing what God forbids), and (2) because it is the means by which God had chosen to reach those for whom Christ died; "For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Rom. 10:13-15); "We know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, in that our gospel did not come to you merely in words, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction" (1Thess. 1:4-5); "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18; cf. 2:4-5); and so forth.

---

---

(April 29, 2012 at 1:28 am)Godschild Wrote: [Edited.]
1. Is it a person's own fault that he goes to hell? Yes. Why wouldn't it be? God says that no one will be judged by what another does.

Wrong. Really, really wrong. The redeemed will be judged righteous precisely because of what another did, namely, Jesus Christ.

@ Ryft, I was speaking of other fallible men. I know that it's through Christ we are judged and found perfect in the sight of the Father. Those who do not choose Christ as their shield, they will be judged by Christ's perfect standard and be forever condemned.
I do not always write with enough description for clarity's sake, I meant that no man is judged for the wrong doing of another.

(April 29, 2012 at 11:49 am)Drich Wrote: ...It was required that God sacrifice His son in order to offer this form of Love. In return we are told through out the NT that we have to accept this sacrifice in order to receive and reciprocate this love. (those being the terms and conditions of the Love God offers.)

Required by whom? I don't remember asking him to sacrifice anything.

And guess what god asks you to sacrifice in exchange - your mind.

So there have been many replies to me while I was away. I will deal with Ryft since he dealt the most directly with my points and offers the most challenging objections. I will deal specifically with the claim that it does not follow that person going to hell by his own fault entails that witnessing is pointless.

Quote:The big mess is of your own making; it does not follow given biblical Christianity. (You and I have not met before, so you are not familiar with the distinction I always make between "cultural" and "biblical" Christianity.

The elements you took issue were mainly result of our differences in understanding salvation. I grew up in completely free grace churches (i.e. the most extreme view that would say even Hitler would have gone to heaven if he believed for a short while in sunday school) and I allowed unknowingly to let some of terminology and concepts unique to my own prior viewpoint slip in. Perhaps because of this, the specific story of Bob and Larry as written might not work as well against your own understanding of salvation. Nevertheless, I think my two basic questions that aren’t dependent upon the specifics of the story of Bob and Larry can work against most Christian understandings of salvation including yours.

Is it a person’s own fault he goes to hell?
Is it wrong for a Christian to not witness to someone?

I say it’s contradictory for one to hold both are true. If someone think’s that it’s one’s own fault for going to hell, then witnessing is pointless. If someone think’s that it’s wrong for a Christian to not witness, then, whether they know it or not, then it may not really be one’s own fault he goes to hell.

I thought the contradiction was obvious but apparently not:

Quote:That does not follow. If Larry cannot be blamed for Bob being condemned to hell, then how does that make witnessing irrelevant?

I will explain why I think it’s contradictory.

God is justified in allowing people to go to hell. There is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there.

Apparently, if you subscribe to the middle knowledge theory, that God created out of all the logically possible worlds in which free beings exist, God created the one in which the balance between saved and unsaved is at the most optimum levels by the end of human history it can be out of all logically possible worlds. This view to many theists solves the problem of divine foreknowledge canceling out free will. Middle knowledge also apparently allows theists to answer the problem of natives who never heard the gospel. It is possible those individuals who had never got a chance would have freely rejected it anyway if they had heard it. And the natives who had never heard the gospel, if they’re continuing in their pagan worship, have already rejected God more basically by his revelation in nature. So God is justified in creating a world that would have free beings not ever hearing the gospel and he’s justified in sending to hell those who have never heard the gospel because they have already rejected him on the more basic level of his revelation in nature and would have freely rejected the gospel anyway.

So, basically, everyone in hell is there justly because (1) they have rejected God’s revelation in nature, and (2) because they rejected the gospel or would have anyway if they had the chance. To repeat my earlier point, God is justified in allowing people to go to hell. There is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there.

Going back to middle knowledge, God created the world in which the optimum balance of saved and unsaved people exists by the end of human history. There’s nothing mankind can do that would upset this balance. This is where I perceive the contradiction. Let’s say I’m a Christian, and there’s a nonbeliever in front of me. I could imagine witnessing to him and imagine him hearing my witness and then coming freely to accept God as his savior. If I do this, and he becomes saved after my witness (out of his own free will of course), then it must have been part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum balance of saved vs. unsaved. However, if I do witness, and he does not become saved after my witness and later in life dies and goes to hell, then that too must have been part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum balance of saved vs. unsaved. However, let’s imagine the opposite. If I do not witness to him, and later on in life he dies and goes to hell, then it must have been all part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum.

Now, remember, not one person in hell does not deserve to be there. They have freely rejected God. They rejected God through his revealed nature, and they have also rejected the Gospel, or would have if given the chance. Also, remember, God already enacted the best possible world in which there is an optimal amount of unsaved vs. saved beings by the time human history. This balance is inevitable. No man can prevent or change it.

With these things in mind, there’s nothing wrong with me not choosing to witness to someone. I could keep the gospels a secret and be doing no wrong. Why? Because it can never be my fault if someone else goes to hell. Everyone in hell is there completely by their own fault. They are there justly, whether or not I decided to witness to them. If I decide to not tell the gospel to someone who has never heard the gospel, and that person dies and goes to hell just after I silently walk past him, he certainly did not go to hell because I didn’t witness to him. No, he went to hell because he rejected God, and would have anyway even if he heard the gospel (whether from me at or somebody else later on). Another person can never be blamed for the eternal damnation of another.

So, I don’t see any wrong in a Christian worldview with not sharing the Gospel. I could go through life keeping the Gospel a secret and “allow” all my friends to go to hell and be blameless for doing this. After all, it’s not my fault, because if they went to hell, they were going there anyway. No one winds up in hell faultless.

If you say that it is wrong to not share the gospel, then you must explain why it is not pointless to witness (protip: don’t say “because the Bible says so” because that little fact doesn’t explain anything other than the fact that the “Bible says so.”). Because if you say that a person’s witness does matter (i.e. is not pointless) then you are in effect denying that a person goes to hell by his own fault. Here’s why. I think it’s safe to say that when we say something is not pointless, we are saying that said something is capable of making a difference. Witnessing, if it is something a believer should do, would not be pointless. Witnessing can make a difference in other words.

Ok, let’s suppose witnessing is not pointless i.e. it can possibly make a difference. I have an unbeliever in front of me who’s never heard the Gospel. I decide to not share the gospel with him. And later he dies and goes to hell. Why is he in hell? If witnessing is not pointless, then wouldn’t it be true to say then that he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him? After all, if witnessing is not pointless, it must be capable of making some difference. The sort of difference that witnessing needs to make is getting people saved. But if my witness may have been able to have made a difference, then he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him. My witness might have made a difference yet I prevented the possibility of that difference occurring when I had the chance. If he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him, then it might be my fault that he’s in hell. Yet this cannot be so if you believe that a person goes to hell entirely because of his own fault and not the faults of others. You’d be saying that it is possible that a person in hell might have believed the gospel if given the chance!

So, basically if you hold that if a person goes to hell by their own fault, you are in effect making witnessing pointless. Yet, if witnessing is not pointless, then people may not go to hell by their own fault because it is possible that they may have believed the Gospel if given the chance. These two positions from my estimation cannot be held simultaneously without self contradiction:

1. A person goes to hell entirely by his own fault (witnessing is pointless because it was inevitable).
2. It is wrong to not witness (witness is not pointless because a person's going to hell may not be inevitable)

(April 30, 2012 at 12:50 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

---

So there have been many replies to me while I was away. I will deal with Ryft since he dealt the most directly with my points and offers the most challenging objections. I will deal specifically with the claim that it does not follow that person going to hell by his own fault entails that witnessing is pointless.

---

Quote:

---

The big mess is of your own making; it does not follow given biblical Christianity. (You and I have not met before, so you are not familiar with the distinction I always make between "cultural" and "biblical" Christianity.

---

---

The elements you took issue were mainly result of our differences in understanding salvation. I grew up in completely free grace churches (i.e. the most extreme view that would say even Hitler would have gone to heaven if he believed for a short while in sunday school) and I allowed unknowingly to let some of terminology and concepts unique to my own prior viewpoint slip in. Perhaps because of this, the specific story of Bob and Larry as written might not work as well against your own understanding of salvation. Nevertheless, I think my two basic questions that aren’t dependent upon the specifics of the story of Bob and Larry can work against most Christian understandings of salvation including yours.

Is it a person’s own fault he goes to hell?
Is it wrong for a Christian to not witness to someone?

I say it’s contradictory for one to hold both are true. If someone think’s that it’s one’s own fault for going to hell, then witnessing is pointless. If someone think’s that it’s wrong for a Christian to not witness, then, whether they know it or not, then it may not really be one’s own fault he goes to hell.

I thought the contradiction was obvious but apparently not:

Quote:That does not follow. If Larry cannot be blamed for Bob being condemned to hell, then how does that make witnessing irrelevant?

I will explain why I think it’s contradictory.

God is justified in allowing people to go to hell. There is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there.

Apparently, if you subscribe to the middle knowledge theory, that God created out of all the logically possible worlds in which free beings exist, God created the one in which the balance between saved and unsaved is at the most optimum levels by the end of human history it can be out of all logically possible worlds. This view to many theists solves the problem of divine foreknowledge canceling out free will. Middle knowledge also apparently allows theists to answer the problem of natives who never heard the gospel. It is possible those individuals who had never got a chance would have freely rejected it anyway if they had heard it. And the natives who had never heard the gospel, if they’re continuing in their pagan worship, have already rejected God more basically by his revelation in nature. So God is justified in creating a world that would have free beings not ever hearing the gospel and he’s justified in sending to hell those who have never heard the gospel because they have already rejected him on the more basic level of his revelation in nature and would have freely rejected the gospel anyway.

So, basically, everyone in hell is there justly because (1) they have rejected God’s revelation in nature, and (2) because they rejected the gospel or would have anyway if they had the chance. To repeat my earlier point, God is justified in allowing people to go to hell. There is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there.

Going back to middle knowledge, God created the world in which the optimum balance of saved and unsaved people exists by the end of human history. There’s nothing mankind can do that would upset this balance. This is where I perceive the contradiction. Let’s say I’m a Christian, and there’s a nonbeliever in front of me. I could imagine witnessing to him and imagine him hearing my witness and then coming freely to accept God as his savior. If I do this, and he becomes saved after my witness (out of his own free will of course), then it must have been part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum balance of saved vs. unsaved. However, if I do witness, and he does not become saved after my witness and later in life dies and goes to hell, then that too must have been part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum balance of saved vs. unsaved. However, let’s imagine the opposite. If I do not witness to him, and later on in life he dies and goes to hell, then it must have been all part of God’s plan for achieving the optimum.

Now, remember, not one person in hell does not deserve to be there. They have freely rejected God. They rejected God through his revealed nature, and they have also rejected the Gospel, or would have if given the chance. Also, remember, God already enacted the best possible world in which there is an optimal amount of unsaved vs. saved beings by the time human history. This balance is inevitable. No man can prevent or change it.

With these things in mind, there’s nothing wrong with me not choosing to witness to someone. I could keep the gospels a secret and be doing no wrong. Why? Because it can never be my fault if someone else goes to hell. Everyone in hell is there completely by their own fault. They are there justly, whether or not I decided to witness to them. If I decide to not tell the gospel to someone who has never heard the gospel, and that person dies and goes to hell just after I silently walk past him, he certainly did not go to hell because I didn’t witness to him. No, he went to hell because he rejected God, and would have anyway even if he heard the gospel (whether from me at or somebody else later on). Another person can never be blamed for the eternal damnation of another.

So, I don’t see any wrong in a Christian worldview with not sharing the Gospel. I could go through life keeping the Gospel a secret and “allow” all my friends to go to hell and be blameless for doing this. After all, it’s not my fault, because if they went to hell, they were going there anyway. No one winds up in hell faultless.

If you say that it is wrong to not share the gospel, then you must explain why it is not pointless to witness (protip: don’t say “because the Bible says so” because that little fact doesn’t explain anything other than the fact that the “Bible says so.”). Because if you say that a person’s witness does matter (i.e. is not pointless) then you are in effect denying that a person goes to hell by his own fault. Here’s why. I think it’s safe to say that when we say something is not pointless, we are saying that said something is capable of making a difference. Witnessing, if it is something a believer should do, would not be pointless. Witnessing can make a difference in other words.

Ok, let’s suppose witnessing is not pointless i.e. it can possibly make a difference. I have an unbeliever in front of me who’s never heard the Gospel. I decide to not share the gospel with him. And later he dies and goes to hell. Why is he in hell? If witnessing is not pointless, then wouldn’t it be true to say then that he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him? After all, if witnessing is not pointless, it must be capable of making some difference. The sort of difference that witnessing needs to make is getting people saved. But if my witness may have been able to have made a difference, then he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him. My witness might have made a difference yet I prevented the possibility of that difference occurring when I had the chance. If he might be in hell because I didn’t witness to him, then it might be my fault that he’s in hell. Yet this cannot be so if you believe that a person goes to hell entirely because of his own fault and not he faults of others. You’d be saying that it is possible that a person in hell might have believed the gospel if given the chance!

So, basically if you hold that if a person goes to hell by their own fault, you are in effect making witnessing pointless. Yet, if witnessing is not pointless, then people may not go to hell by their own fault because it is possible that they may have believed the Gospel if given the chance. These two positions from my estimation cannot be held simultaneously without self contradiction:

1. A person goes to hell entirely by his own fault (witnessing is pointless because it was inevitable).
2. It is wrong to not witness (witness is not pointless because a person's going to hell may not be inevitable)

---

Man that was a mouth full, however not quite enough, you have left out two very important parts of salvation, the God who brought it into this world through love and the ability of those He created to reject his work with them. In all you stated you are assuming that it is your responsibility to save someone or that they go to hell. It's not, that responsibility belongs to God and the one who is in need of Christ, salvation is completely out of your control. God would never allow man such power, man abuses the small things and he certainly would abuse that kind of power, if you don't think so then watch some of those TV preachers. Why would you ever think that salvation of another has anything to do with you, salvation is a gift from God who brought it into the world, and God works through those He chooses for the good of His will. Your mistake is believing you have any responsibility for another's salvation.

(April 30, 2012 at 1:40 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

Man that was a mouth full, however not quite enough, you have left out two very important parts of salvation, the God who brought it into this world through love and the ability of those He created to reject his work with them. In all you stated you are assuming that it is your responsibility to save someone or that they go to hell. It's not, that responsibility belongs to God and the one who is in need of Christ, salvation is completely out of your control. God would never allow man such power, man abuses the small things and he certainly would abuse that kind of power, if you don't think so then watch some of those TV preachers. Why would you ever think that salvation of another has anything to do with you, salvation is a gift from God who brought it into the world, and God works through those He chooses for the good of His will. Your mistake is believing you have any responsibility for another's salvation.

So, it's all in God's control. So you admit that witnessing is pointless then?

(April 30, 2012 at 1:53 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(April 30, 2012 at 1:40 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

---

Man that was a mouth full, however not quite enough, you have left out two very important parts of salvation, the God who brought it into this world through love and the ability of those He created to reject his work with them. In all you stated you are assuming that it is your responsibility to save someone or that they go to hell. It's not, that responsibility belongs to God and the one who is in need of Christ, salvation is completely out of your control. God would never allow man such power, man abuses the small things and he certainly would abuse that kind of power, if you don't think so then watch some of those TV preachers. Why would you ever think that salvation of another has anything to do with you, salvation is a gift from God who brought it into the world, and God works through those He chooses for the good of His will. Your mistake is believing you have any responsibility for another's salvation.

---

So, it's all in God's control. So you admit that witnessing is pointless then?

No, that's not even close to what I said. You need to reread the statement, God is in control the one is in control, and you are not, though God could chose to work through you. If you are not willing to let Him, there will always be someone who will, they will because they understand the love God has.

(April 30, 2012 at 2:11 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

No, that's not even close to what I said. You need to reread the statement, God is in control the one is in control, and you are not, though God could chose to work through you. If you are not willing to let Him, there will always be someone who will, they will because they understand the love God has.

Again, your writing is hard for me to understand. Like the Bible, your writing is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Hopefully, what you write won't be canonized.

Let's take this one step at a time.

Explain: Why, in your view, it is wrong to not witness?

(April 30, 2012 at 2:18 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(April 30, 2012 at 2:11 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

No, that's not even close to what I said. You need to reread the statement, God is in control the one is in control, and you are not, though God could chose to work through you. If you are not willing to let Him, there will always be someone who will, they will because they understand the love God has.

Again, your writing is hard for me to understand. Like the Bible, your writing is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Hopefully, what you write won't be canonized.

Let's take this one step at a time.

Explain: Why, in your view, it is wrong to not witness?

It is commanded of us by the One who saves us. I do not have to do it, if I choose. God will use another who is willing, that one will be blessed and I will have missed out on the blessing. The witness will be given and the person receiving the witness has a decision to make, simple really.