God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Ryft]

[Edited.]
The elements which you took issue with were mainly the result of our differences in understanding salvation. I grew up in completely free-grace churches . . . and I allowed, unknowingly, to let some of the 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.

This goes to the point that I had raised about cultural versus biblical Christianity. Your objection holds against such beliefs as those found in the churches of your formative years, Tegh. But if those beliefs cannot be defended as constituting a sound biblical theology—and indeed they cannot—then they represent a cultural Christianity which I leave to its own hapless defenses, such as the Molinism of William Lane Craig which he borrowed from the Jesuit school and has barely anything in common with biblical theology at best (and contradicts it at worse). I am not suggesting that the churches of your formative years advocated such Molinism (although perhaps they did), but rather that this is the sort of hapless defense that one is left with apart from a sound biblical theology.

In case it is not obvious, I wholly reject as unbiblical the Molinism that Craig represents (i.e., middle knowledge) and have no intention of defending it.

[Heavily edited. See original statement if there is any doubt about my fidelity in representing Tegh's point.]
I say that it is contradictory for someone to hold as true both that (a) it is a person's own fault for going to hell and (b) it is wrong for a Christian to note share the gospel. If you think that it is a person's own fault for going to hell, then on your view witnessing must be pointless. If you think that it is wrong for a Christian to not witness, then, whether you know it or not, on your view it may not really be a person's own fault he goes to hell. I thought the contradiction was obvious but apparently not.

Indeed it is not contradictory, at least with respect to biblical Christianity, nor have you succeeded yet in demonstrating any such contradiction. Moreover, it still does not follow that witnessing is irrelevant given that a Christian cannot be blamed for someone going to hell. Let us take a closer look at your argument for the contradiction on the one hand and irrelevancy on the other.

You have represented biblical Christianity fairly well when you said that "God is justified in allowing people to go to hell; there is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there," although you digress into some pretty murky waters with the Molinist defense of libertarian free will (i.e., where you get into middle knowledge and possible world semantics), which I am not even sure is relevant in any case. I am somewhat well-versed when it comes to the biblical world view and yet I cannot think of anywhere the Bible speaks about man having a libertarian form of free will. But as I said, that is probably an irrelevant digression at any rate. At the end of the day you represent the opposing view here accurately, that "there is not one person in hell who does not deserve to be there."

So given that I hold as true both of those propositions you had earlier stated, what contradiction follows? None so far as I can tell, since (1) the person ends up in hell justly and (2) whether I witnessed to him or not it was all part of God's plan for achieving the optimum balance of saved versus unsaved (and, contrary to Craig, that optimum balance being precisely every single one the Father gave to the Son to redeem, the remainder being left under condemnation for their sins). Does it follow that there is nothing wrong with not sharing the gospel? Does it follow that "I could keep the gospel a secret and be doing no wrong"? No, that does not follow. Why? Because sin is not defined pragmatically, that is, by whether or not sharing the gospel makes a difference. Sin is defined theologically, as both not doing what God commands and doing what God forbids (whether by omission or commission); as such, if God commands the Christian to share the gospel, then it is wrong for the Christian to not do so—utterly regardless of whether his sharing the gospel would have been instrumental in some case or not, because sin is not defined pragmatically but theologically. And God does command Christians to share the gospel.

"I don't see any wrongdoing, given the Christian world view, with not sharing the gospel," you said. Hopefully now you do, if by the Christian world view you are referencing biblical Christianity. If God says to do x and the Christian does not do x, then the Christian does wrong (sins). It is the nature and will of God, not pragmatism, that defines the parameters of sin.

"If you say that it is wrong to not share the gospel," you challenged, "then you must explain why it is not pointless to witness." But I already did, Tegh, in my first response to you (see the final paragraph): "It is the means by which God had chosen to reach those for whom Christ died," which I supported by referencing various scriptures such as Rom. 10:13-15 and so forth. That is why sharing the gospel is not pointless. Whether you or I or the pages of the Bible, one way or another the message of the gospel is the instrument through which God has chosen to reach those who shall be saved. Does everyone who hears the gospel repent and believe? No. Only those whom God gave to the Son to redeem will repent and believe. This is what biblical Christianity teaches, as my biblical references attest (e.g., John 6:37 and 39, references which can be multiplied extensively); the "optimum balance" of saved versus unsaved is "precisely every single one the Father gave to the Son to redeem, the remainder being left under condemnation for their sins," for God's wrath remains upon them (John 3:18).

P.S. Just because Larry did not witness to Bob, that does not mean nobody ever witnessed to Bob. It could be that Larry never witnessed to Bob but several other people did. Larry's wrongdoing in not sharing the gospel does not make sharing the gospel in itself pointless.