God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

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.

That's actually somewhat close to the reason why I came to conclusion that witnessing is pointless! No matter what you do (witness or not witness) it makes no difference because the person going to hell went their by his own fault.

The fact that scripture commands believers to witness I think should be particularly troubling because it's commanding you to do the pointless.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Godschild is simply afraid of missing out on his imaginary present, in his own words. Christians really are selfish, not selfless.

[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.

[Reforged]

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.

Did other people witness Bob or not and if so tell us their names and where we can find them so we can take them in later for questioning.
Tell Larry hes going to be charged for wasting our time.

[Drich]

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

Are you the authority in which all of creation abides?

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

Not just you Mind, But Spirit, Heart, and Strength as well.

[Minimalist]

Shouldn't you ask this of yourself, I have the information now what will I do with it.

You could try blowing it out your ass, G-C.

[NoMoreFaith]

Not just you Mind, But Spirit, Heart, and Strength as well.

Somebody should remind God what the word "Gift" means, because most of us don't imagine we're supposed to then only use those gifts to satisfy the whims of the gift giver.

[genkaus]

Are you the authority in which all of creation abides?

No, I'm the authority within which I abide.

Not just you Mind, But Spirit, Heart, and Strength as well.

Thereby making him even worse than a street-thug.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Thanks, Ryft. I had originally wrote my argument against views of Craig which were also my own views for a while. I’m not exactly sure what “biblical” Christianity is because I thought I was the one with the “biblical” Christian worldview. Seems that almost every sect of Christians will claim that they’re the ones that know “biblical Christianity” and none of them will agree with each other. I’m not saying whatever your views of Christianity are isn’t “biblical Christianity,” I’m just saying it’s not very helpful in understanding your view. You might at well call it “true Christianity” or “authentic Christianity.”

I’m not entirely sure what exactly your understanding of Christianity, but I don’t think you eliminated the contradiction.

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.

All this is is an appeal to scripture. It doesn’t explain anything other than the fact that God commands it. This doesn’t solve the contradiction between a person going to hell by their own fault and witnessing not being pointless at all. God is just commanding something that is apparently pointless.

I’m saying that believing that people go to hell by their own fault, and also saying that witnessing is not pointless, is contradictory, much like saying that a ball is painted on the surface both entirely white and also saying the same ball is painted on the surface entirely black. Both cannot be true. But all you have done in essence is say “Book of 2nd letter to the Opinions chapter 3 verse 2 states that the ball is both black and white. No contradiction here.” It doesn’t solve the contradiction, it only goes to show that your holy scripture has yet another contradiction in it.

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.

Again, this doesn’t solve the contradiction, you’re just basically saying God willing that we should witness means then that it isn’t pointless. But if it isn’t pointless, then what does it contribute? It must contribute something to not be pointless. It hasn’t been shown that witnessing can do anything contributory without contradicting the statement that all men are justly in hell by their own will.

"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).”

Again, this is just more appeal to scripture that doesn’t solve anything. You’re just saying that because the Bible teaches that everyone in Hell is there justly by their own will, and that it also commands us to spread the word, then spreading the word must not be pointless. If witnessing isn’t pointless yet at the same time it doesn’t affect at all the pre-ordained number of people in hell or heaven, then from what little I know of your view, the only point to witnessing is to just fulfill God’s command to witness. It makes you wonder why God would command witnessing if the only point would to be to fulfill his own command to witness and not to actually contribute to decreasing the number of souls in hell.

It seems to me that you’ve realize that witnessing cannot affect the pre-ordained optimum balance of saved versus unsaved because, if it could, then some souls might be there who would not have been there otherwise if given the chance to hear the gospel. But this cannot be case since no soul is in hell unjustly. But you have all these scriptures that act like if witnessing does matter. So you’ve basically just made the point of witnessing to fulfill God’s command, which is really from the way I see it, an arbitrary command.

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.

I'm not saying that Larry's wrongdoing makes sharing the Gospel pointless. I'm saying that if Bob went to hell, he was going there anyway no matter whether or not Larry witnessed to him, and whether or not those other people witnessed to him. My hypothetical chat between Larry and God (whether or not such a chat is something that would happen given "biblical" Christianity) was a device to bring out the hypocrisy of scripture acting like witnessing does matter.

[Welsh cake]

If the President or the Queen or whomever was the most important person in your country were to invite you over for a state dinner would you also demand that he/she personally invite you, or would an invite from someone on their staff be ok?

Sorry, what are you talking about? Either way the analogy fails because I haven't received any 'invitation' from god in writing.

What about this: God's primary attribute is not an all encompassing love as most think. Rather we are told in the bible it is Righteousness.

Not all Christians agree with you. Take Godschild for example.

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?’

You can appreciate an hour's work is not a day's work can you not? You wouldn't last five minutes as an agency worker in the real world with that kind of attitude. Yeah, no, the parable fails.

"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."

How can an omniscient deity not know someone?

And if theists ponder that god is the sustainer of all reality as in all that exists, wouldn't disowning someone (declaring them no longer of god) cause them to cease to exist on the spot?