God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[By the time I got through writing 3/4ths of my response, I realized that you have very different, perhaps Calvinistic views on salvation, free will, etc. so much of following might not be relevant to you. But I could be mistaken so please read it anyway. And for Christians who don’t have calvinistic type views, much of the following still stands against you I think.]

Response to what biblical Christianity means.

Thanks for taking to the time to educate us on this biblical Christianity. This actually sounds very similar to the teachers I use to listen to, at least similar in methods but perhaps not conclusions. I’m somewhat familiar with exegesis versus eisegesis. I have some questions though about what’s considered a legitimate means in your view of understanding the scriptures:


1. Is the Bible inerrant?
2. If it is inerrant, in what sense is it inerrant?
3. Are you trying to understand what scripture meant to the original audience (first recipients)?
4. Does historical context play a role in your reading of scripture or does this contradict “sola scriptura”? (perhaps related to question 3)

Response to not sharing the gospel is wrong.

I see why now you think it’s wrong to not share the gospel, namely it is wrong because it is disobedience to God. When I was saying that not sharing the gospel is not wrong, I was thinking that because I could not conceive of any reason why God should consider it wrong. I see now that one may say that it is true that it is wrong to not witness to someone, but it is only wrong because it is breaking a command. But I want to know, why God would command such a thing? What good is preaching the Gospel if people who go to hell were going there anyway? (I think it’s likewise true that those going to heaven were going there anyway. It was inevitable for them too.) It was inevitable that they go to hell. He might as well command us that we plead to the sun every morning that it does not rise. The sun will rise anyway and our pleading to it doesn’t stop it. We might as well not plead.

Why sharing the gospel is pointless.
When I say pointless, I mean pointless in the sense of winning souls. You might still say it’s not pointless because it fulfill’s God’s command.

First, we need to keep in mind why a person is justly in hell:
They have either:

1. Rejected the gospel.

or

2. They would have rejected the gospel if given the chance.

It is not simply that they are in hell because perhaps they rejected the gospel just once twice (or would have if given the chance). Some people in heaven may have rejected the gospel once or twice in during their earthly lives but eventually turned around for whatever reasons. The people in hell however would reject the gospel no matter how many times it was presented to them. It could be presented a million times and in a million ways, and they’d reject it every time and in every way. They may even reject it even in hell if that were possible!

I also need to clarify that on point 2, those who died before hearing the gospel, aside from going to hell because they would have rejected gospel if given the chance, go to hell because they have rejected God’s basic revelation in nature.

Ok, to illustrate the total pointlessness of sharing the gospel, let’s say the Christian community singled out a single person a from birth for an experiment. We raise the person on a completed isolated island. The person goes through life there completely unaware of Christianity and is never told about the gospel or the existence of God. The person dies and goes to hell. Let’s remind ourselves of why: they’ve rejected God’s basic revelation in nature and if given the chance would have rejected the gospel an infinite number of times and in an infinite number of ways.

Now let’s travel back in time to the birth of the same person. Instead of isolating the person on an island, we get the Christian community to single all of their witnessing efforts on this single person for the entirety of their life. We have a massive campaign of thousands of Christians trying to witness to this person for decades and decades on end. Just non stop witnessing every day through all sorts of mediums. Let’s say that after those many decades of witnessing, the person dies. Now where do you think the person is going? It must be hell, because if the person in the first hypothetical example had gone to hell, changing the history of their life in the second hypothetical example would not have prevented that from happening. Otherwise, if they end up accepting the gospel in the second example, that would mean that they went to hell in the first example unjustly because in the first example it would not have been true that they would had rejected the gospel an infinite number of times since in the second example they accepted after a finite number of times. If they went to heaven in the second example, then they went to hell in the first example not by their own fault, but by the fault of their circumstances which they are not responsible for, but others.

However, given that it is true that no goes to hell unjustly, it can never be case that someone went to hell because of the something they could not control (such as circumstances, or people not witnessing to them). Everyone there is there by their own fault.

I think in the above illustration, you can also make the opposite case: the inevitability of someone going to heaven.

So, I think I’ve shown that a person’s destiny, whether it be heaven or hell, is inevitable. If this is true, why is God commanding us to witness then? It seems to me whether or not I witness to someone, that person is going on a fixed course to either heaven or hell. If I witness to a person, and they go to hell, I could have instead not witnessed and they would have gone to hell anyway. If I witness to a person, and they go to heaven, I could have instead not witnessed and they would have gone to heaven anyway. It makes no difference to the person’s salvation. So, if you accept that a person’s going to heaven or hell is inevitable it seems strange to me that God would command that we witness when it seemly cannot make a difference.

Reply to “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) [emphasis mine]

.

Ok. I just realized after all that I’ve written in the above paragraphs that you’re seem to expressing Calvinist views, or something similar. I had begun this thread with my argument against those without Calvinist views. Much of my arguments then would only work against them. For you guys, I have to use some different arguments. I apologize if you’re not a Calvinist.

I guess then under your specific view that witnessing isn’t pointless when you define the point of witnessing in such a peculiar way (i.e. to call out “those being saved” or “those whom Christ died”).

Under your view then, the bigger problem, one which you’ve probably heard called out lots of times, is why didn’t Christ die for everyone? It appears completely unjust for God to allow those Christ did not die for to go into eternal torment. They can’t help it! That’s just the way they are.

Reply to “Sharing the gospel is either pointless or there is a contradiction.”

It may not be a legitimate contradiction under your views on Christianity. So, if you’re right in your interpretation, then no, there isn’t a contradiction. However for the Christians who hold to free grace and agonize over the people they may have “sent to hell” for not witnessing or being a bad witness, it is a contradiction in their view. Within their views, I think gospel witnessing really is pointless because of their insistence on free will. They actually think they can change the balance with their witnessing. But this contridicts their belief that everyone is in hell by their own fault.

As Benjamin Warfield once said, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith."

Yeah, you see, I had in mind the complete opposite position, which is held by a fairly large number of Christians which I had my target set on. I have to work from very different arguments if you believe what Warfield said.