RE: God, come out, come out wherever you are!
May 1, 2012 at 6:34 am
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2012 at 7:07 am by Ryft.)
(The first part is not directly relevant to our present discussion so you can skip passed it to the next section if you actually do not care what "biblical" Christianity is or means. On the principle of intellectual charity I have assumed that since you raised the question you are genuinely interested in an explanation, so I took the time to provide one. We do not need to explore this issue now, but I thought it important to be clear with my terms.)
1. What biblical Christianity means.
You said that you are not exactly sure what "biblical" Christianity is, pointing to the fact that various people claim to adhere to biblical Christianity (yourself once included) and that these views manage to nevertheless conflict with one another, which should not happen. If you esteem reason (and you do) then it should already be obvious to you that: first, just because a person claims that his view represents biblical Christianity it does not mean that it actually does (see the ipse dixit fallacy), so before we even begin there already exists reason to be skeptical of the claim; second, the word "biblical" by itself provides the criterion by which to judge the claim, so if a person claims that his view is biblical but cannot defend it biblically then we are provided reason to reject the claim; third, the textual hermeneutic of exegesis is the means by which we engage the criterion "biblical," so if a person is found to be engaging in eisegesis then we know he is not defending the view biblically (by definition, since the conclusion is being read into the text, not being drawn from it); fourth, some Christians will appeal to an extra-biblical authority (for example, the Magisterium or teaching authority of Rome) but, by so doing, they are simply conceding that their view does not represent biblical Christianity (but rather, say, Roman Christianity). I do not claim that my view represents any Christianity other than biblical Christianity. (For more information see "sola scriptura").
So for example David and Anthony both claim that their view represents biblical Christianity; yet their views conflict with one another, which should not happen if their claims are true. On the one hand David offers 18 exegetical scripture references supporting his view and five which undercut or defeat Anthony's view. On the other hand Anthony offers only two eisegetical scripture references supporting his view and none that challenge David's view. In this scenario David has provided us reason to believe not only that his view represents biblical Christianity but also that Anthony's does not, while Anthony did not provide us any reason to believe that his view represents biblical Christianity nor that David's does not. So what David and Anthony each claim is nowhere near as important as whether and how they can support it or not. As should be evident, it is not terribly difficult to understand what "biblical" Christianity means or to adjudicate competing claims.
And whether or not biblical Christianity is "true" Christianity depends upon the presuppositional commitments one brings to the question (for example, one's definition and criteria of truth), so it is a separate question underscoring the fact that the terms are interchangeable only if one presupposes the truth of God and his word as authoritative—which I certainly do.
Now this is not exactly relevant in our discussion because you do not claim to represent a biblical view. You do not have a dog in that fight, whereas I do. So the fact that I support my view biblically, consistently appealing to scriptures attesting the view I am defending, should suffice that it represents "biblical Christianity." Any other Christian in this forum who has an opposing view which they claim is biblical is encouraged to engage me on any point and I will gladly provide ample reason to believe that when I claim some view represents biblical Christianity it really does. But, again, you have no dog in that fight so we can carry on.
2. Not sharing the gospel is wrong.
You suggested that there was no apparent wrongdoing in the Christian not sharing the gospel, and I showed you that it is indeed wrong and exactly how (namely, because it is disobedience to God). You did not contest this point in your response, other than to say that it "doesn't solve the contradiction," which I shall take as a concession. It is wrong for the Christian to not share the gospel.
3. Sharing the gospel is either pointless or there is a contradiction.
The drumbeat you persistently hit is that Larry's sharing of the gospel must be pointless if it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell, that to suggest otherwise involves a logical contradiction. In my response I argued that you have failed to demonstrate any contradiction at all, to which you essentially replied, "That does not solve the contradiction." I was apparently not clear enough so let me state the point in a very matter-of-fact way: "There is no contradiction to solve."
As you seem to recognize, a contradiction arises from asserting that a proposition and its denial are both true at the same time and in the same respect. So where have you demonstrated such a contradiction in my view (given how I answered your two questions)? What is the proposition, and what is its denial? Did I say that it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell and, at the same time and in the same respect, not Bob's own fault? No, I did not. Did I say that Larry's witnessing is pointless and simultaneously not pointless? No, I did not. So where is the contradiction that somehow requires solving?
You seem to be arguing that if sharing the gospel is not pointless then a contradiction is produced, and Bob's moral culpability seems to be the hub around which all of this turns. So the proposition must be, "It is Bob's own fault he is condemned to hell," which I do claim. That means my other claim, that sharing the gospel is not pointless, must somehow be a denial of that proposition. In other words, somehow the fact that witnessing is not pointless flatly denies Bob's moral culpability—but I have no idea how that works out.
4. Sharing the gospel is not pointless.
There are two definitions of the term pointless relevant to our case: (a) purposeless and (b) ineffective. Since sharing the gospel is efficacious and has a purpose, that is, it is the God-ordained instrument through which he reaches those for whom Christ died, it is therefore not pointless. Sharing the gospel does not by itself save anyone—Bob included. God in Christ alone does that through faith alone. But it is the means by which he reaches those who are being saved (Rom. 10:17). The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, Tegh, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God at work within and among them (Acts 13:48; 1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:13). If it is a God-ordained means of grace (and it is) then it is not pointless; it has a purpose and is efficacious with respect to those whom the Son gives eternal life. Jesus said that everyone the Father gives him will come to him—will come, not might come—and it is through "the preached word of Christ" that they do so. (See the "ordo salutis.") Yes, God commands Christians to share the gospel. This is why.
In order to call this pointless you would have to redefine the word.
5. Decreasing the number of souls in hell.
The gospel does not save. The triune God of the Bible does, and through the gospel. As Benjamin Warfield once said, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." What contributes to the number of souls in either hell and heaven? It is not anything that Larry or anyone else does, but rather the saving grace of God alone in Christ only. Apart from his merciful grace every single human who has ever lived would find themselves justly in hell; it is God who decreased that number by choosing to have mercy on some by redeeming them in Christ alone through the gospel of salvation. This is why no one can boast, because it is not anything that Larry or anyone else does that contributes anything. Although God involves us in his saving work (and in a variety of ways), it is fully and entirely his doing.
6. Given the chance to hear the gospel.
Absolutely everyone God intends to save will hear the gospel and will respond in faith, Tegh. It is not as if God intended to save Bob, for example, but somehow forgot to make sure that he was able to hear the gospel. If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.
7. This is just appealing to scriptures.
Of course it is. I said it is "biblical Christianity" I am defending. What did you expect me to appeal to?
1. What biblical Christianity means.
You said that you are not exactly sure what "biblical" Christianity is, pointing to the fact that various people claim to adhere to biblical Christianity (yourself once included) and that these views manage to nevertheless conflict with one another, which should not happen. If you esteem reason (and you do) then it should already be obvious to you that: first, just because a person claims that his view represents biblical Christianity it does not mean that it actually does (see the ipse dixit fallacy), so before we even begin there already exists reason to be skeptical of the claim; second, the word "biblical" by itself provides the criterion by which to judge the claim, so if a person claims that his view is biblical but cannot defend it biblically then we are provided reason to reject the claim; third, the textual hermeneutic of exegesis is the means by which we engage the criterion "biblical," so if a person is found to be engaging in eisegesis then we know he is not defending the view biblically (by definition, since the conclusion is being read into the text, not being drawn from it); fourth, some Christians will appeal to an extra-biblical authority (for example, the Magisterium or teaching authority of Rome) but, by so doing, they are simply conceding that their view does not represent biblical Christianity (but rather, say, Roman Christianity). I do not claim that my view represents any Christianity other than biblical Christianity. (For more information see "sola scriptura").
So for example David and Anthony both claim that their view represents biblical Christianity; yet their views conflict with one another, which should not happen if their claims are true. On the one hand David offers 18 exegetical scripture references supporting his view and five which undercut or defeat Anthony's view. On the other hand Anthony offers only two eisegetical scripture references supporting his view and none that challenge David's view. In this scenario David has provided us reason to believe not only that his view represents biblical Christianity but also that Anthony's does not, while Anthony did not provide us any reason to believe that his view represents biblical Christianity nor that David's does not. So what David and Anthony each claim is nowhere near as important as whether and how they can support it or not. As should be evident, it is not terribly difficult to understand what "biblical" Christianity means or to adjudicate competing claims.
And whether or not biblical Christianity is "true" Christianity depends upon the presuppositional commitments one brings to the question (for example, one's definition and criteria of truth), so it is a separate question underscoring the fact that the terms are interchangeable only if one presupposes the truth of God and his word as authoritative—which I certainly do.
Now this is not exactly relevant in our discussion because you do not claim to represent a biblical view. You do not have a dog in that fight, whereas I do. So the fact that I support my view biblically, consistently appealing to scriptures attesting the view I am defending, should suffice that it represents "biblical Christianity." Any other Christian in this forum who has an opposing view which they claim is biblical is encouraged to engage me on any point and I will gladly provide ample reason to believe that when I claim some view represents biblical Christianity it really does. But, again, you have no dog in that fight so we can carry on.
2. Not sharing the gospel is wrong.
You suggested that there was no apparent wrongdoing in the Christian not sharing the gospel, and I showed you that it is indeed wrong and exactly how (namely, because it is disobedience to God). You did not contest this point in your response, other than to say that it "doesn't solve the contradiction," which I shall take as a concession. It is wrong for the Christian to not share the gospel.
3. Sharing the gospel is either pointless or there is a contradiction.
The drumbeat you persistently hit is that Larry's sharing of the gospel must be pointless if it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell, that to suggest otherwise involves a logical contradiction. In my response I argued that you have failed to demonstrate any contradiction at all, to which you essentially replied, "That does not solve the contradiction." I was apparently not clear enough so let me state the point in a very matter-of-fact way: "There is no contradiction to solve."
As you seem to recognize, a contradiction arises from asserting that a proposition and its denial are both true at the same time and in the same respect. So where have you demonstrated such a contradiction in my view (given how I answered your two questions)? What is the proposition, and what is its denial? Did I say that it is Bob's own fault that he is condemned to hell and, at the same time and in the same respect, not Bob's own fault? No, I did not. Did I say that Larry's witnessing is pointless and simultaneously not pointless? No, I did not. So where is the contradiction that somehow requires solving?
You seem to be arguing that if sharing the gospel is not pointless then a contradiction is produced, and Bob's moral culpability seems to be the hub around which all of this turns. So the proposition must be, "It is Bob's own fault he is condemned to hell," which I do claim. That means my other claim, that sharing the gospel is not pointless, must somehow be a denial of that proposition. In other words, somehow the fact that witnessing is not pointless flatly denies Bob's moral culpability—but I have no idea how that works out.
4. Sharing the gospel is not pointless.
There are two definitions of the term pointless relevant to our case: (a) purposeless and (b) ineffective. Since sharing the gospel is efficacious and has a purpose, that is, it is the God-ordained instrument through which he reaches those for whom Christ died, it is therefore not pointless. Sharing the gospel does not by itself save anyone—Bob included. God in Christ alone does that through faith alone. But it is the means by which he reaches those who are being saved (Rom. 10:17). The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, Tegh, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God at work within and among them (Acts 13:48; 1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:13). If it is a God-ordained means of grace (and it is) then it is not pointless; it has a purpose and is efficacious with respect to those whom the Son gives eternal life. Jesus said that everyone the Father gives him will come to him—will come, not might come—and it is through "the preached word of Christ" that they do so. (See the "ordo salutis.") Yes, God commands Christians to share the gospel. This is why.
In order to call this pointless you would have to redefine the word.
5. Decreasing the number of souls in hell.
The gospel does not save. The triune God of the Bible does, and through the gospel. As Benjamin Warfield once said, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." What contributes to the number of souls in either hell and heaven? It is not anything that Larry or anyone else does, but rather the saving grace of God alone in Christ only. Apart from his merciful grace every single human who has ever lived would find themselves justly in hell; it is God who decreased that number by choosing to have mercy on some by redeeming them in Christ alone through the gospel of salvation. This is why no one can boast, because it is not anything that Larry or anyone else does that contributes anything. Although God involves us in his saving work (and in a variety of ways), it is fully and entirely his doing.
6. Given the chance to hear the gospel.
Absolutely everyone God intends to save will hear the gospel and will respond in faith, Tegh. It is not as if God intended to save Bob, for example, but somehow forgot to make sure that he was able to hear the gospel. If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.
7. This is just appealing to scriptures.
Of course it is. I said it is "biblical Christianity" I am defending. What did you expect me to appeal to?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
