(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.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
