Thursday, June 19, 2008

Cohort of the damned

I was recently asked why I thought God created so many hellbound beings. Any answer is speculative, but here’s my conjecture:

1.Of course, the reason why God created so many hellbound beings isn’t a question distinctive to Calvinism. It isn’t generated by Calvinism.

To the contrary, supralapsarian Calvinism at least offers a partial theodicy. Even if it fails to furnish a specific answer to the question of why so many are lost, it still furnishes more of an answer than the traditional alternatives.

2.There’s also an acute irony in Christian concerns over the fate of the damned. The folks who have the most to lose aren’t the folks who worry about their eternal fate. The lost don’t worry about their eternal perdition. The folks who worry about the hellbound are the heavenbound!

Of course, if one of the damned happens to be someone close to you, then you do have a personal stake in his fate, even if you yourself are heavenbound.

Still, that doesn’t change the fact that the lost have a very different view of their condition. And it’s not just that they don’t believe in hell. They don’t find the idea of heaven appealing. They don’t find God appealing. They don’t find a godly life appealing.

Look at Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin or Merv Griffin or The Donald. That’s their definition of success. They’ve “made” it.

I’d find that aimless, vapid, vacuous existence unendurable. It’s like living your life on the set of a game show. Killing time with endless inanities.

Yet there are countless men and women who live for that. That’s the existence they aspire to.

If you didn’t see it, you wouldn’t believe it.

There are the handful of folks who actually live that way: who’ve “made” it. And then there are countless others who line up at the 7/11 to buy lottery tickets in the off chance that they’ll beat the odds, strike it rich, and be able to enjoy the same Tinsel Town, Vegas Strip existence.

As a Christian spectator, I find this sobering. If I thought that is all there was to life, I’d commit suicide.

(Of course, knowing what I do about the afterlife, suicide would be no escape, but you get the point.)

We tend to associate evil with paradigm examples of extreme evil. Torture, mass murder, &c.

But equally evil is the banality of evil. The way in which so many men and women trivialize the gift of life. Fritter away their time on earth.

While Christian theologians debate about whether hell is pointless, unbelievers have no problem leading pointless lives. Christian theologians are bothered on behalf of unbelievers who aren’t the least bit bothered by what bothers the anguished theologians.

I’m not saying that hell is pointless. But it is ironic that those who have the most investment in the outcome, the parties concerned, are, in fact, studiously unconcerned. And I do think this should cause us to scale back our vicarious concerns.

3.Of course, one could say the lost are nonchalant about hell in this life because they don’t believe in hell, and when they get there they will change their tune. To some degree I suppose that’s true.

But I tend to think of hell as an extension and intensification of fallen life on earth. Even though it’s an utterly miserably way to spend eternity, there are many unbelievers who make themselves miserable here and now. And even though it’s an utterly miserably way to spend eternity, that doesn’t make them long for heaven.

I think it’s a useful object lesson to see this side of evil. It’s so irrational that it would be hard to believe it unless you saw it for yourself.

Hell is just a special case of sin in general. It’s not fundamentally different than life in a fallen world. Just more of the same—minus the mitigating effects of common grace.

Common grace is necessary to make coexistence with the reprobate possible. But it can also be deceptive. It makes sin seem more virtuous than it really is.

4.As for the sheer numbers, I think the basic reason for that is due to human nature. We are creatures, created by procreation. As a result, we aren’t discrete, self-contained units. Rather, human beings come in sets, packages, chains. Parents, children, siblings, and various permutations thereof.

There are millions or billions of lost souls because they’re related to each other. In branching family trees. Forests of fallen humanity. Seeds and seedlings intertwined.

There’s something unnatural about salvation. At one level, salvation is natural. It restores our natural condition. The way we were meant to be. But short of universal salvation, saving individuals is genealogically selective. Grafting a twig here and a twig there.

In principle, God could always save more, but the cut-off point would always be arbitrary; for, at a certain level, the human race is an organic whole, like an orchard contained within an acorn.

5.I’m not very sanguine about salvation by general revelation. I think the witness of Scripture points to salvation by special revelation.

Of course, special revelation is progressive, so, to that extent, what constituted saving knowledge varied in time, if not in place. But public special revelation terminated 2000 years ago.

37 comments:

  1. I've been dealing with a witnessing problem sort of related to this.

    I can't quite find the point between bringing God up randomly or in the middle of a conversation or just waiting until the other party seems interested. I hope that's not confusing.

    Any advice?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post Steve. Since this seems to be something my conversations with friends & family members always stumble over, it's nice to see it worked over a bit more.

    Yet there are countless men and women who live for that. That’s the existence they aspire to.

    Application of this principle is a no-brainer in the gilded age of Western civilization, just look around, but I have a hard time expanding this in conversation to include the people in genuinely impoverished nations. I'm no universalist, not by any measure, but how do we approach application of this principle when the individual's grand aspiration is the first meal this week, and not much beyond that? It's obvious that the former rejects God in favor of excessive personal gratification and self-importance, but what about the latter, how would we explain their rejection of the God in practical terms to a child or even a new Christian. I hate to come so close to the "poor, ignorant tribesman just doing the best he can" argument, but it's what many conversations end up at, especially considering recent comments by Billy Graham and others.

    Of course, special revelation is progressive, so, to that extent, what constituted saving knowledge varied in time, if not in place. But public special revelation terminated 2000 years ago.

    I'd love to see this expanded upon because, again, it has been a sticky trap for me in prior conversations. In what degree was saving faith specifically in the Messiah necessary for salvation, in OT examples, faith was counted as righteousness, but was it faith in the Messiah specifically or just general faith in Yaweh to keep His promises. In orthodox Christianity today, explicit, conscious faith in the work of Jesus is necessary for salvation, but what about on OT times, at what point, if ever(?), was conscious faith in the coming work of the Messiah necessary prior to the Cross? Any recommendations of works that expand this?

    Again, great post, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. These are good practical questions which I'll get around to answering when I get a spare moment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lucas said:
    ---
    I can't quite find the point between bringing God up randomly or in the middle of a conversation or just waiting until the other party seems interested.
    ---

    That's because The Four Spiritual Laws isn't a very good model for evangelism. Evangelism that is contrived rarely works well. Evangelism proper ought to occur in the context of a relationship. That is, while there is a place for so-called "street ministry" proclamation of the Gospel, that tends to produce only seeds on the stoney ground. There might be faith for a short time, but when the trials come the missionary's already gone.

    As a result, I would propose that a better method of evangelism is to be relational with people. Go where they are (within reason, of course--you wouldn't want go to where you will sin), meet them on their turf, and then be yourself. If you have a relationship with Christ, then it will show. It will define who you are.

    And as a result, you won't need to manufacture anything. You don't have to worry about creating an excuse to bring up God in the middle of a conversation about the Yankees. And you don't have to feel like every conversation has to be about The Four Spiritual Laws.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I 2nd that. God is teaching me a lot about seeing segués to the Gospel in so many different conversation topics. I usually try to slide in there with a "I was there, now I'm here" and then I look at the person and say "And that's so important, you know?" ---wait for them to nod in agreement--- "Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Are you a spiritual person?"

    And you're there. I'd encourage you to remember that the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation, not apologetics. Gospel 1st, apologetics after, if needed and if appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rhology: "Gospel 1st, apologetics after, if needed and if appropriate."

    Amen and amen.

    Course, oftentimes, I get stopped in the middle of a Gospel presentation attempt and am asked a question or series of questions that require an apologetic response.

    And getting the derailed train back on the track takes some effort... and ... then time is lost... and then we have to go over old ground that I thought was established... and then the Holy Spirit says that He's there all the way and has been... and then I trust God.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lucas,

    1. In general, I think we have the most success with people we already know. Childhood friends. Old classmates. Coworkers.

    2. Although you can’t do this at work, one way to strike up a conversation is to wear a T-shirt or button or baseball cap with a provocative Christian message. That can be a conversation starter. And that has the tactical and psychological advantage because the unbeliever initiates the conversation. So he’s in no position to be offended since he’s the one who spoke to you.

    3. There are also situations in which you can make this a team effort. Suppose you and a Christian friend take an unbeliever to lunch, or a ballgame, or something. Suppose you and your Christian friend have a little conversation on the side about something you read in the Bible. The unbeliever you brought along is simply overhearing the conversation between the two of you. So there’s no reason for him to be offended since it’s not specifically directed at him. Yet it’s a way of introducing the subject.

    4. Christians should also learn the art of how to ask leading questions. Meaning-of-life questions. That’s a way of steering a conversation in the direction of the gospel. Os Guinness’ book Long Journey Home is a good, down-to-earth exercise in people-centered apologetics. A study in the lives of unbelievers. Some of whom returned to God, and some of whom died in unbelief.

    Ask the unbeliever questions about himself. About his life. People like to talk about themselves. Ask the unbeliever what were the best times he ever had. What were the worst. What would he do differently if he had it to do all over again. What did he always want to do, but couldn’t? Things like that.

    Study John 4, and see how Jesus used the ordinary circumstances and surroundings in the life of the Samaritan woman to move the conversation in the direction of the Gospel.

    Christopher,

    Of course, the difference between rich and poor is the rich have what the poor want. So, yes, if you’re starving, your immediate aspiration is for your next meal—but if you achieve a level of subsistence, you then envy the guy who enjoys a luxurious standard of living.

    If you’re starving, Spam is a feast. But if you work at MacDonald’s, you might dream of steak and lobster while you flip burgers.

    It’s a historical accident that Donald Trump happens to be a big-city tycoon rather than a poor, ignorant tribesman. Imagine a movie in which they were switched at birth. Say his parents were on safari in sub-Saharan Africa when she gave birth. Third World hospitals being what they are, there was a mix-up in the maternity ward.

    (Let’s say the baby of the tribesmen suffers from albinism, so mistaken identity isn’t quite so obvious.)

    The Donald was left behind, while the baby of our poor, ignorant tribesman was inadvertently whisked off to the Big Apple. Sent to prep school. Spoiled rotten. Toast of the town.

    In the OT, saving faith was, in part, faith in God’s promises. God’s covenants. The protevangelion (Gen 3:15). The Abrahamic covenant. The Davidic covenant.

    There was also the typology of the sacrificial system, as well as messianic prophecies. So you have an evolving messianic construct in the OT. That’s the object of saving faith.

    The main thing that saves a person is regeneration. And regeneration is the root of faith. Regeneration makes a person willing and able to believe. Willing and able to learn more. And believe what he learns. Believe revealed truth.

    I don’t know how much a person needs to believe to be saved. And I suspect it varies. So it’s best to leave a margin of error.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve wrote, "I don’t know how much a person needs to believe to be saved. And I suspect it varies. So it’s best to leave a margin of error."

    So, then, how does anyone know if they have believed enough to be saved?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. INTERESTED SPECTATOR SAID:

    “So, then, how does anyone know if they have believed enough to be saved?”

    Anyone who’s sufficiently articulate to ask the question is already in a position to know far more than he needs to know to be saved. Why not review the Westminster Shorter Catechism for starters? That’s more than enough—by a long shot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve, If you don't know how much a person needs to believe in order to be saved, how do you know that the Westminster Shorter Catechism is "more than enough"? Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. interested spectator said:

    "Steve, If you don't know how much a person needs to believe in order to be saved, how do you know that the Westminster Shorter Catechism is 'more than enough'? Thanks again."

    It's less a question of "how much" than "how little." It's clear that the doctrinal content of the Philippian jailor's faith was less than the WSC.

    At the same time, the Philippian jailor would have been open to further spiritual instruction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks again for the reply. You wrote, "It's less a question of 'how much' than 'how little.' It's clear that the doctrinal content of the Philippian jailor's faith was less than the WSC."

    Does that mean that Scripture is unclear about what precisely it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" or believe "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not my responsibility to give more precise answers than God has given.

    Scripture contains some generic what-you-must-do-to-be-saved statements.

    However, these generic statements don't define their terms.

    Implicit definitions are supplied by other statements of Scripture—which fill in the blanks.

    How much blank-filling God requires of any particular individual is not for me to say.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interested Spectator,

    Can you tell me how precise precisely must be before it's precise instead of approximate?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. TU...AD,

    That's about what I was thinking. More or less.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve, You wrote, "Why not review the Westminster Shorter Catechism for starters? That’s more than enough—by a long shot."

    Do you think that it is possible for a person to believe all the propostional truths espoused by the Westminster Shorter Catechism and not be regenerate? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. interested spectator said:

    "Do you think that it is possible for a person to believe all the propostional truths espoused by the Westminster Shorter Catechism and not be regenerate? Thanks."

    It's possible to be an orthodox, nominal believer. There's more to saving faith than bare intellectual assent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve wrote, "It's possible to be an orthodox, nominal believer. There's more to saving faith than bare intellectual assent."

    What specifically is the "more" that is required in addition to understanding and agreeing with (i.e., intellectual assenting to) the truth of the Christian gospel?

    ReplyDelete
  19. interested spectator said:

    "What specifically is the "more" that is required in addition to understanding and agreeing with (i.e., intellectual assenting to) the truth of the Christian gospel?"

    It has to mean something to you at a personal level. Something you care about. Something you can't live without. It's not just a case of believing a set of abstract truths. They must be life-changing truths.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve wrote, “It has to mean something to you at a personal level. Something you care about. Something you can't live without. It's not just a case of believing a set of abstract truths. They must be life-changing truths.”

    Thanks for the reply. Do you think it is possible for the propositions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism to mean something to a person at a personal level, for that person to care about those truths, to sense that they can’t live without those truths, and to have their life impacted by those truths and for that person not be regenerate? What is the difference between an abstract truth and a concrete truth, i.e., are the propositions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism abstract truth or concrete truth? Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. interested spectator said:

    "What is the difference between an abstract truth and a concrete truth, i.e., are the propositions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism abstract truth or concrete truth? Thanks again."

    The distinction should be self-explanatory. It's the difference between truths and true beliefs. How a truth is regarded by the believer (or unbeliever, for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for the reply. Do you think it is possible for the propositions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism to mean something to a person at a personal level, for that person to care about those truths, to sense that they can’t live without those truths, and to have their life changed by those truths and for that person not be regenerate? Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although there’s no crossover or overlap between elect and reprobate, there are psychological and/or phenomenological borderline cases. Due to common grace, the reprobate are often more virtuous than they should be. Due to residual sin, the elect are usually worse than they should be.

    As a result, one can’t automatically tell the difference between elect and reprobate. Some reprobates or unregenerates are more outwardly pious than some of God’s children. But God’s children have hidden reserves. It’s the difference between fair-weather faith and Timex faith (“Takes a lickin’ but keeps on tickin’!”).

    In general, unregenerate believers tend to be of two varieties: indifferent, but orthodox believers and intense, but unorthodox believers.

    The former group believes all the right things, but there’s no personal application. No emotional investment.

    The latter group are more emotionally invested and temporally committed. However, their flawed theology incubates false expectations which are eventually dashed by rude experience.

    The former group can remain in its state of nominal faith for a lifetime. The latter group is apt to flame out.

    Due to the aforesaid ambiguities, it isn’t possible to get much more specific than that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve, You wrote, “…there are psychological and/or phenomenological borderline cases.” Can the individual themselves tell whether or not they are a borderline case? If unregenerate faith can believe the exact same propositions as regenerate faith and those propositions can have the same importance and life-changing impact on the individual, how, at any given moment of time, can a person tell the difference in themselves between regenerate faith and unregenerate faith? In other words, how, at any given moment in time, can a person know if they are believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, or if they are exercising unregenerate faith?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I didn’t say that revealed truths have the same transformative effect (“life-changing impact”) on the regenerate and unregenerate alike. Clearly they don’t.

    There’s also a difference between rational and irrational doubt. Should I doubt my sanity just became lunatics are deluded about their own sanity?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve, Thanks again for the reply. You wrote, “I didn’t say that revealed truths have the same transformative effect ('life-changing impact') on the regenerate and unregenerate alike. Clearly they don’t.”

    Can belief in the revealed truth (e.g., belief in the propositions of Westminster Shorter Catechism) have a transformative effect on the unregenerate? Do you think that a person can be orthodox (i.e., they believe the Westminster Shorter Catechism), have what they sense to be personal application of those truths and emotional investment in those truths, perceive what they believe to be life changes due to those beliefs, and still not be regenerate?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The reprobate can be hardened by revealed truth, but they aren't spiritually transformed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Do you think that a person can be orthodox (i.e., they believe the Westminster Shorter Catechism), have what they sense to be personal application of those truths and emotional investment in those truths, perceive what they believe to be life changes and spiritual transformation due to those beliefs, and still not be regenerate?

    ReplyDelete
  29. To begin with, an emotional investment in Christian doctrine was never a sufficient condition of regeneracy. I merely mentioned the lack of emotional investment as a mark of unregeneracy.

    It’s quite possible to be emotionally moved by something without undergoing a basic change. A slumlord can go see a tearjerker like Shirley Temple in The Little Princess, cry his eyes out over her plight of her indigent living conditions, while reverting to form as soon as he exits the movie theater.

    I’d add that “perception” of life changes or “perception” of spiritual transformation is hardly synonymous with actual life changes or spiritual transformation. I was speaking of objective change/transformation, not a subjective impressions thereof.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks for the reply. Do you think that a person can be orthodox (i.e., they believe the Westminster Shorter Catechism), have personal application of those truths, have life changes or spiritual transformation due to those beliefs (e.g., they have greater interest in Scripture, they attend church regularly, and they pray more) and still not be regenerate?

    ReplyDelete
  31. interested spectator said:

    "Thanks for the reply. Do you think that a person can be orthodox (i.e., they believe the Westminster Shorter Catechism), have personal application of those truths, have life changes or spiritual transformation due to those beliefs (e.g., they have greater interest in Scripture, they attend church regularly, and they pray more) and still not be regenerate?"

    Since I'm basically using "spiritual transformation" as a synonym for the type of spiritual renewal characterized by regeneration and sanctification, the question answers itself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks again for the reply. You wrote, "Since I'm basically using 'spiritual transformation' as a synonym for the type of spiritual renewal characterized by regeneration and sanctification, the question answers itself."

    Do you think that a person can be orthodox (i.e., they believe the Westminster Shorter Catechism), have personal application of those truths, have what they believe to be spiritual transformation due to those beliefs (e.g., they have greater interest in Scripture, they attend church regularly, and they pray more) and still not be regenerate?

    ReplyDelete
  33. You keep inverting objective states (regeneration, sanctification) to subjective impressions (the perception of x). I've already addressed that question. I don't need to repeat myself.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve, You wrote, "You keep inverting objective states (regeneration, sanctification) to subjective impressions (the perception of x)."

    Since Scripture does not objectively say, "Steve is regenerate," aren't you left with the subjective, i.e., what you subjectively perceive and believe to be true with respect to regeneration in your case?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve, You wrote, “I’d add that ‘perception’ of life changes or ‘perception’ of spiritual transformation is hardly synonymous with actual life changes or spiritual transformation.”

    How can a person tell the difference between an actual life change or spiritual transformation in their own life and what they perceive and believe to be a life change or spiritual transformation in their own life?

    ReplyDelete