Is it fair to be born lost?

1. In Christian theology, there's a sense in which human beings are born lost. By that I mean, absent God's gracious intervention, we're already lost the moment we step into existence. 

Now God can intervene at any stage in our existence, so God can intervene between conception and birth. When I say born lost I don't mean that maybe we lost our way at some point during gestation. I don't mean we became lost in the womb. It's just concrete way of expressing the fact that we don't have to do anything to be in a lost condition. We don't become lost. Rather, we find ourselves in that condition. 

2. This is a doctrine that Christians accept on authority. One question is whether it's something we can explain, defend, or understand by reason. 

Intuition is paradoxical in the sense that on the one hand we depend on intuition for many things, but on the other hand, intuition isn't consistently reliable. It can lead us astray. Sometimes the problem is due to overgeneralizing from certain examples or illustrations. Or sometimes what we call intuition is just our social conditioning, and what's intuitive or counterintuitive is culturally variable. 

We need to make allowance of the live possibility that there are things we're just not smart enough to figure out, like the necessary conditions for moral responsibility or blame. 

3. Wesleyan Aminianism tries to relieve the tension by positing universal sufficient/prevenient grace. Sounds nice, but is it true? Or is it just an ad hoc solution to wish it away? Universalism is another way to evade the issue. 

4. In theory there are three different ways we might view the human condition:

i) We find ourselves born on a road. The road isn't going in the right direction or the wrong direction. But there's a fork in the road up ahead. That's the point at which we can lose our way, by taking the wrong turn. 

ii) We are born beyond the fork in the road. We are going in the right direction. But the road splits up further down the line. Depending one which turn we take at the second fork in the road, we will continue going in the right direction or else we will become lost. 

iii) We are born beyond the fork in the road. We are going in the wrong direction. But the road splits up further down the line. Depending one which turn we take at the second fork in the road, we will continue going in the wrong direction or else we will escape and finally get on the right path. 

(iii) represents the biblical view of the human plight. 

5. However, that raises the question of whether it's fair to be born lost. Let's consider another illustration. Suppose a rich man squanders his fortune in gambling debts. When he was rich he had a very luxurious lifestyle. But his children were born after he lost his fortune.

Although they suffer the consequences of their father's compulsive gambling, it's not unfair that they weren't born rich. It wasn't their money to begin with. They didn't make a fortune, then lose it. It was never theirs to lose. They weren't entitled to be born rich. 

6. An objection or limitation to that comparison is that the situation of his kids isn't punitive. Not to be born rich isn't punishment for their dad's gambling debts. But damnation is punitive. 

Here I'd introduce another consideration. The metaphor of lostness is, in itself, morally neutral. Indeed, we're apt to think of it as a kind of innocent, hapless misfortune. Mind you, it's possible to lose your way through reckless disregard of warning signs. 

But there's a glaring sense in which the lost condition of humanity isn't innocuous. Take the capacity for wanton human cruelty. And this manifests itself at a very early age. It's startling to see how cruel kids can be to each other. So something already went wrong. And not just because some kids are neglected or emotionally abused. Kids with loving parents can be gratuitously cruel to each other. 

7. In addition, while this is a doctrine which Christians accept on authority, it's also the case that human beings really do act like they're in a lost condition. We see that all the time. So it's not something we just take on faith, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. 

8. There's also the nature of salvation and damnation. What are human beings entitled to? How much good are they entitled to? How much deprivation do they have a right to be spared? The children of the man who lost is fortune don't deserved to be tortured for his behavior. But they don't deserve to be rewarded, either.

Do human beings deserve not to be lost? What does it mean to be lost forever? Does it mean to miss out on certain opportunities and certain goods? If so, is that unfair? Is that wrong? 

There's something tragic about that, but an element of tragedy makes life weightier. We don't take the good for granted. 

Of course, we're used to thinking of hell in much worse terms, but that's in large part because the wicked behave in much worse terms. 

9. A very popular storyline is a story about how somebody or some group got rescued. One variation is rescuing somebody who is lost. A lost child. A lost hiker. A lost sailor. Or a castaway who's stranded and forgotten on a desert island. But in stories like that, you must be lost before you can be rescued. 

Much of the appeal of the Gospel lies in the two-sided character of salvation. Salvation is only meaningful and thrilling because sinners are lost apart from salvation. That's why they have to be rescued. 

And there are different ways to be lost and rescued. You can be rescued from the bondage of a self-destructive addiction. You can be rescued from depression and self-loathing. 

10. In my view, human beings originate as divine ideas, like fictional characters in the mind of a storyteller. We initially exist in God's imagination. And God's imagination has alternate plots for every human life. In God's imagination, there's no one thing we were going to do or not do. Rather, there are endless plot variations. At this stage they're all just possibilities. Coequal possibilities. There is no one right plot. Each storyline will have unique points of interest and insight. 

When God creates us, he takes one of these plots and makes it real. In this case, he chooses a plot in which I'm born lost. He could choose a different plot. But it's not as if there's one way the story was supposed to begin or end. Because there's no one story to choose from. There are many different storylines. Did God wrong a human being by selecting one plot rather than another? 

The fate of the unevangelized

An exchange I had on Facebook, slightly edited. 

Hays 

The assumption of Scripture is that human beings are born lost. They come into the world in a lost condition. They don't have to do anything special, anything extra, to be in a lost condition. That's their default situation. The Gospel takes for granted that they are already lost. That's what they need to be rescued from, if they are not be rescued at all.

Caleb 

Sure. But the question is is there the opportunity for them to be rescued, if they've never heard of the solution?

Hays 

If they never hear and believe the Gospel, that's a way of saying the remain in the same condition into which they were born. Nothing changed to shift their original lost condition.

Caleb 

Yes, but should they not at least be given the chance to hear the message that will change their condition?

Hays 

Why? To be spiritually lost is not simply an innocent misfortune, but a preemptive punishment for sin and willful alienation from God? In Scripture, it's not as if they are lost through no fault of their own.

Caleb 

No, but their geographic location (which is relevant to whether or not they may hear the solution to their condition) is through no fault of their own. God decides where and when people are born.

Hays 

1. They're not lost because of their geographical location. Their geographical location simply keeps them in their lost condition. It's like If I'm bitten by a cobra and don't have access to antivenom, so I die. In a roundabout sense you could I died because I didn't receive antivenom, but I wouldn't need it in the first place unless I was dying from snakebite. Lack of antivenom is a secondary cause of death, but the primary cause is snakebite.

2. The fact that some people live and die outside the pale of the Gospel is God's preemptive judgement.

Caleb 

I agree that their geographical location does not condemn them. But a better analogy would be that you for bitten by snake, and God chose whether or not you'd be in a location where there is Anti-Venom. Shouldn't everyone get access to the Anti-Venom, and have it up to the people as to whether or not they will accept or reject that cure?

Hays 

No, because a person's moral condition can be a disqualifying factor. If a serial killer was bitten by a cobra, he's not entitled to antivenom. It's no injustice to let him die. Indeed, it's an injustice to let him live.

Caleb

But wouldn't the sense of humanity mean that everyone is a serial killer in the situation? It seems more plausible to say that either all killer should die, or that all of them should be given mercy. If all of the killer sins are the same, why would some be saved over others?

Hays 

1. If no one deserves to be saved, no one has a right to God's mercy, so it's not unjust for God to discriminate. Discrimination is only wrong in cases where two or more individuals have equal claims.

2. We need to resist the temptation of wanting too hard for something to be true just because we wish it was true, then creating a belief system because we want so hard for that to be the case. Like a teenage boy who's hopelessly in love with a girl who doesn't share his affection. He may convince himself that she's the only girl for him, he won't settle for anyone else, and he passes up realistic opportunities vainly pining for the unattainable.

3. Now, if we wanted to wax speculative, it's possible that God created a multiverse in which the lost/unreached in our world are evangelized/saved in parallel world. But that's just conjecture. Might be true but not something we can bank on.

Caleb 

That multiverse theory is basically Molinism

Hays 

1. Molinism has no monopoly on counterfactuals and possible worlds. Leibniz wasn't a Molinist. Counterfactuals and possible worlds fit into Calvinism, too. Molinism has a theory of middle knowledge, based on God's alleged insight into what nonexistent agents with libertarian freewill would do under various circumstances. The speculative scenario I floated doesn't have or require all those assumptions. It's entirely compatible with predestination.

2. Regarding what happens to the souls of babies:

i) We don't have any definitive revelation on that.

ii) It's possible that God saves everyone who dies below the age of reason. 

iii) That, however, is rather arbitrary. Salvation or damnation through lucky or unlucky timing.

iv) Why would Stalin be saved if he dies at 5 but not at 20–given how he was going to turn out?

What if he dies at 5, passes into the intermediate state, and matures into what he was going to be like at 20 if he hadn't died at 5?

v) I'm sure God saves some dying babies. On a positive note, in Scripture God has a special regard for orphans. And no one is more orphaned than a dying baby.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

From a Facebook exchange:

Michael

What's the symbolism in Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Acts 8:36-39?

Hays 

i) The long ending of Mark is probably a scribal interpolation, so it doesn't even figure in the discussion. 

ii) It's unlikely that Jn 3:5 even refers to the Christian rite of baptism. For one thing, that's anachronistic. It would be incomprehensible to Nicodemus, since Christian baptism hadn't be instituted at that point. The imagery evokes OT passages about water as a spiritual metaphor, and it's an emblem for the renewal by the Spirit. Jn 4 & 7 provide other examples where water is a spiritual metaphor. 

iii) Regarding the passages in Acts, I think you failed to grasp my point. If A is a symbol of B, then what is said of B can be said of A, even though it's not literally the case.

A classic example is how the NT talks about salvation through the cross of Christ. But literally speaking, the cross is just a piece of wood. It doesn't actually save anyone. Rather, to say people are saved by the cross is shorthand for people are saved by the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. The cross is being used as a verbal substitute.

Michael 

Oh yeah, let's just discredit entire parts of the scriptures because we don't like them.

John 3 being anachronistic does not change that it is very explicitly about baptism. Very explicitly.

No one is claiming that baptism saves. Grace saves, through faith. True Faith always leads to baptism. The apostles believed and practiced this, Paul believed and practiced this, and the early church believed and practiced this. You think you understand the commands of Jesus better than they did?

Hays 

i) Your first statement is nonsense. Have you studied textual criticism in reference to the long ending of Mark? 

ii) The fact that the baptismal interpretation is anachronistic is quite germane to the correct interpretation. Jesus upbraids Nicodemus for failing to understand what he's referring to, but if he's referring to the Christian rite of baptism, then it's impossible for Nicodemus to catch the reference since that would depend on knowledge of the future, which Nicodemus isn't privy to.

I gave reasons why it's not about baptism. You did nothing to refute my reason. You just reasserted your indefensible claim.

iii) Your third statement ignores the OP. The question raised by the OP is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. 

You then change the issue by talking about the command/practice of baptism. But that wasn't the question.

iv) Christians can't just shrug off textual criticism. The Bible you use, the translation you use, is based on a critical edition of the Hebrew text and the Greek text. Scholars make text-critical decisions for you. The Bible you hold in your had is the product of decisions they made regarding the best MSS and variant readings. So you're trusting in their scholarly judgment calls. The edition/translation you use didn't just come straight from Bible writers, but from scribes. And there are different critical editions, based on different MSS and different textual variants. Absolutizing the edition that comes down to you, one which, say, contains the long ending of Mark, is an arbitrary sample.

That doesn't require sheer trust in scholarship. A Christian can learn the rudiments of textual criticism, so that he knows the general lay of the land, and how these decisions are arrived at.

Baptism and the thief on the cross

An understandable weakness some Christians have (especially among the laity) is to rely on a one-shot prooftext for or against something. But this frequently leads to putting too much weight on a particular verse, and leaves them defenseless if their prooftext is challenged.

A case in point is using the thief on the cross to demonstrate that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. But that's rather anachronistic. Christian baptism doesn't really take off until after the Ascension. The situation of the thief on the cross is more like an OT Jew. At the very least, it's a transitional phase in redemptive history.

A better way to argue against the necessity of baptism is to point out that because baptism symbolizes certain facets of salvation, there are NT passages which sound like baptism is necessary for salvation, but that fails to take into consideration the nature of symbolism, where A stands for B. It confuses the illustration with the principle it illustrates. That's a deeper argument. 

Of course, that won't put an end to the argument. What I just said will be contested. But it's a stronger position to argue from, so that's where the argument should be engaged. 

I'd add that very few modern-day denominations or faith-traditions regard baptism as an absolute prerequisite for salvation. Nearly all of them make exceptions. 

It's become a fringe position, represented by the Churches of Christ and some KJV-onlyists. 

Holy moly Molinism

But now you raise a quite different objection aimed specifically at (3). “Before God sticks Fred in second century Tibet wouldn't He have to ascertain that Fred would freely reject the Gospel in all circumstances, not just some of them?” Well, He wouldn’t have to, but that’s my hypothesis. Clearly, God could place a person anywhere He wants in human history, regardless of how that person might freely behave in different circumstances. But my suggestion is that God, being so merciful and not wanting anyone to be damned, so providentially orders the world that anyone who would embrace the Gospel if he were to hear it will not be placed in circumstances in which he fails to hear it and is lost. Only in the case of someone who would be saved through his response to general revelation would a person who would freely respond to special revelation, if he heard it, find himself in circumstances where he doesn’t hear it.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-and-the-soteriological-problem-of-evil-once-more

This is Craig's general solution to the problem of the unreached. But it has a strange implication. Historically, most Christians have been Caucasian (along with Middle-Eastern Christians). Craig's explanation is that God left Africans and Asians largely unevangelized because Africans and Asians are generally far less receptive to the Gospel than Caucasians. Is that a plausible explanation? I think Craig might be ill at ease defending that proposition, yet that's a necessary implication of his position.

Kids in the world to come

Here I'm going to approach the question of whether most humans will be damned from a different angle. Over the years I've sometimes questioned the traditional interpretation of Mk 12:25 (par. Mt 22:30; Lk 20:35-36):

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-there-sex-in-heaven.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/05/like-angels.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/till-death-do-us-part.html

Recently, a friend of mine (who's welcome to come forward and claim the prize) drew an interesting inference from that position: if the saints continue to have kids in the world to come, then that will continually lower the percentage of the damned relative to the human race in general. I think that's a worthwhile conjecture to consider. 

Craig on the unreached

Freewill theists typically believe in universal atonement and universal sufficient/prevenient grace. However, exposure to the Gospel isn't universal in this life. Freewill theists have different strategies for finessing that tension. 

William Lane Craig resorts to the creative conjecture that God uses middle knowledge to instantiate a feasible world in which none of the unreached would believe the Gospel if given the chance. For instance:

I’ve argued further that it’s at least possible that God has so providentially ordered the world that any person who would believe in the Gospel if he heard it will be born at a time and place in history at which he does hear it. Thus, no one is lost because of historical or geographical accident. 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P20/did-god-overlook-china

God in His providence has so arranged the world that those who would respond to the Gospel if they heard it, do hear it. The sovereign God has so ordered human history that as the Gospel spreads out from first century Palestine, He places people in its path who would believe it if they heard it. Once the Gospel reaches a people, God providentially places there persons who He knew would respond to it if they heard it. In His love and mercy, God ensures that no one who would believe the Gospel if he heard it is born at a time and place in history where he fails to hear it. Those who do not respond to God's general revelation in nature and conscience and never hear the Gospel would not respond to it if they did hear it. Hence, no one is lost because of historical or geographical accident. Anyone who wants or even would want to be saved will be saved.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/christianity-other-faiths/how-can-christ-be-the-only-way-to-god/

In the past, I've noted some basic problems with this, even on Craig's own grounds. But now I'd like to make a different point:

It's hard to see how his explanation accounts for the distribution-pattern in church history. For most of church history, Christians are bunched in the western hemisphere. By Craig's logic, that means Caucasians are, or at least used to be, more receptive to the Gospel than the Japanese, or Indian tribes in North and South America, or Pacific Islanders, &c. So many people-groups weren't evangelized for centuries because they were unreceptive to the Gospel–unlike Caucasians? 

Europeans were evangelized while pre-Columbian indians were left in darkness...until the Conquistadors. And then, for some odd reason, post-Columbian Indian tribes are more receptive to the Gospel than their forebears. 

Arabs were evangelized, but then you had the Muslim conquest, so the reason that Arabs during the Muslim era are generally unreached is because they are unreceptive to the Gospel, unlike their more open-minded ancestors. Really?

Now we see Christianity expanding in sub-Saharan Africa, the Far East, and even the Middle East, because, for some odd reason, this generation is more receptive to the Gospel, unlike their ill-disposed ancestors. How do disparities in the chronological and geographical distribution of the Gospel coincide with the receptivity of different ethnicities, or the same ethnicities at different times? Why is the distribution-pattern color-coded? And why does it alternate? 

Presumably, as a freewill theist, he doesn't believe that some people-groups are inherently more receptive to the Gospel than others. So the correlation can't be pegged to that, can it?

So what's the differential factor? Cultural hostility to the Gospel? But it's not as if Viking culture (to take one example) was more welcoming to Christian missionaries than Confucian culture, is it? The initial challenge is always for Christianity to secure a foothold. 

Facing death

Death takes different forms, and that affects how or whether we think about it:

i) Sudden expected death

Above a certain age, you can drop dead from a stroke or heart attack. In that respect, the elderly expect to die, but they don't have a date certain. For all they know, they might have another 30 years ahead of them. 

ii) Sudden unexpected death

In the age of modern medical science, there's a presumption against dying young. That's the opposite of the past, when there was high mortality.

As a result, it's shocking when young people die. That can happen suddenly, without warning, in a traffic accident, or due to something like a pulmonary embolism or undiagnosed congenital heart defect. 

Because the prospect of death is a safe abstraction for so many young people, that leaves them unprepared in case they're unlucky. It fosters a presumptuous attitude. And it's too late to learn from their experience. They don't get a second chance. 

This is the stuff of old-fashioned evangelistic sermons ("If I died tonight..."), and while it's easily parodied, that's a neglected truth. Our forebears, without the benefit of modern medicine, were far more alert to the precariousness of life. 

It's sobering to realize that death may be imminent when you least expect it. You thought you had decades ahead of you. 

iii) Countdown to death

Then there are cases like terminal cancer where people have advance knowledge about their lifespan. Not a date certain, but an estimate. Within a given timeframe. The clock is ticking–louder. 

Moreover, the progression of the illness accelerates the process, which clarifies whether their case falls within the outside or inside range of the estimate. They can see death approaching as the end comes closer. 

The prognosis could be off. It might underestimate or overestimate the remaining time. There might be spontaneous remission, or miraculous healing. Still, that's unlikely. The presumption is death sooner rather than later. 

In one sense this is worse than sudden death because it can foster foreboding and dread–unlike those who died unexpectedly. In another sense this is better if they take advantage of their prognosis to prepare themselves intellectually, emotionally, and especially spiritually for their impending demise. Unfortunately, many people fritter away their opportunities. They cling to this life, even when that's futile, rather than using their remaining time to prepare for eternity. 

Will just a few be saved?

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Mt 7:13-14).

23 And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able...29 And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God (Lk 13:23-24,29).

A popular trope that critics of Calvinism mechanically resort to is the allegation that according to Calvinism, God reprobates most human beings. Problem with that allegation is that Calvinism has no official statement on the percentages. 

In my experience, critics who say this usually refuse to offer any justification for their allegation. They seem to think that's an implication of Calvinism, but they rarely construct an argument to that effect. On the rare occasion that them attempt to justify their allegation, they appeal to their interpretation of Mt 7:13-14/Lk 13:23-24. So let's discuss this:

i) To begin with, that's not an implication of Calvinism. Rather, that's a hybrid position in which the critic of Calvinism takes his own interpretation of Scripture as a frame of reference, combines that with the Reformed doctrine of reprobation, then alleges that "according to Calvinism," God reprobates most human beings. But he didn't get that from Calvinism. Rather, he's imputing his interpretation of Scripture to Calvinism, then deriving a conclusion. He lacks the critical detachment to distinguish his own assumptions from the opposing position. 

ii) The imagery of these two prooftexts is somewhat ambiguous. The imaginary probably envisions city gates, with roads leading into the city or away from the city. But the relationship between the gate and the roadway is unstated. Is the gate at the end of the road? That envisions a journey to the city, where the gate is the entry-point. Or is the gate an exit from the city onto the road? 

If the gate is an exit, then this suggests that getting through the gate is just the starting-point in what may be a long, treacherous journey. Leaving is when the hard part begins. The challenges lie ahead.

If the gate is an entrance, then this suggests that if you get to that point, you have it made. You arrived at your destination. Now you're safe. You put the treacherous journey behind you.

iii) What's the distinction between the narrow gate and the wide gate? The wide gate envisions the main gate into a city. That's used by visitors, traders, and the hoi polloi. By contrast, the narrow gate is a side-gate used by people with special entree. They know the porter. 

iii) The imagery of the narrow gate has ironic implications for critics of Calvinism. If we press the imagery, then most folks cannot enter by the narrow gate even if they want to, even if they try to, because it would generate a bottleneck. Indeed, Lk 13:24 makes that very point. 

So by that logic, God has not made universal provision for the salvation of everyone. It's not simply that only a few will avail themselves of the opportunity. Rather, the narrow gate screens out most seekers. They can't go through all at once. They must line up single file. People in the front of the line have an advantage. For folks waiting in back, it's too late. If you don't make it inside before the gates close for the night, you'll be turned away. "Outer darkness". That's the gist of the imagery.

iv) Notice, though, that Jesus doesn't answer the question of whether few be saved. He probably leaves it up in the air as a stimulus to the reader. Each reader needs to answer that question for himself by heeding the warning and taking appropriate action. 

v) Does the passage imply that only a few will be saved? We need to compare that with the messianic banquet in Lk 13:28-29. That evokes a motif in Isaiah (e.g. Isa 25:6-9; 26:5; 43:5; 49:12; 55:1-2), including the image of Gentiles flooding into God's kingdom (Isa 59:19). That envisions a multitude. 

Why does Scripture use disparate imagery? Why does some imagery picture a few while other imagery pictures a multitude? Probably to encourage initiative and perseverance, on the one hand, while discouraging presumption, on the other hand. 

vi) In addition, it may be that Christ's statement is not a prophecy about church history in general, but focused on the hostile reaction to his message and mission in 1C Palestine. The short-term situation that his immediate followers will confront. No doubt that has analogues in church history, but it's not a statement about every place and every time. 

Life is a Vapor

The above photo is what was left after a guy ran a red light and took the life of David Mann, a fellow street evangelist and Facebook friend that was 26 years young.  Now, both David and the driver that ran the red light are in eternity.  That is how fast we can go from this life to the next, yet most of us live as if we will never die.  This is why Biblical evangelists do what they do.  Call us wide-eyed fanatics, misguided zealots, or specially gifted, but before you do, please consider the above picture.  Hell is real and Biblical evangelists are those who are convinced from the bottom of their hearts that the most loving thing they could do is to warn you of it and preach the gospel so that you may be saved from God's impending wrath.  We do so even if it gets a little loud, a little inconvenient, and even if it makes you (and us) pretty uncomfortable.  All we are trying to do is live out a God-entranced worldview in light of our specific gifting.  Because we love you enough to tell you the truth, we may seem a little weird to you.  However, I'd rather be interpreted as a loon by you than be ashamed to use my evangelistic gifts to glorify Jesus.   Please contemplate the following verses.  In light of David's death, I sure have:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” ¹⁴ Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. ¹⁵ Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” ¹⁶ But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. ¹⁷ Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.  James 4:13-17

Innocent mistakes and willful errors

http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/i-beg-to-differ/

Churches Using Carnal Means to Attract People

Paul Washer on pastors serving up goat food rather than sheep food.



HT: Lane's Vlog

Lost sheep

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?” (Lk 15:4).

Few things are worse in life than losing your way. I expect most of us lack the experience of what it means to be truly lost. For most of us, to be lost is to take the wrong turn in a strange city.

But that’s a nuisance–nothing more. We know that sooner or later we will find our way back. The only thing we really lost was time. We’re wasting time. Running late. Because we have to double back. Go in circles until we regain our bearings.

A paradigm-case is a lost child. Of course, in most instances, he isn’t really lost. He just feels lost. Momentarily separated from his parents.

Young children live in their own fantasy world. Easily preoccupied. Self-absorbed, they wander off. As long as they remain within earshot or eyeshot of their parents, they feel secure.

But sometimes, after having gone off on their own, they suddenly become aware of the fact that their parents are nowhere to be seen. That they are truly alone–in a strange world. Instant terror greets them.

Although this is something we normally associate with childhood, the same fears and insecurities can recur in old age, when many people feel very vulnerable and alone–because they are.

Feel lost in the sense of forgotten or abandoned. If they went missing, no one would miss them. That’s a terrible apprehension.

Another paradigm-case is a hiker who loses his way. If he’s with a fellow hiker, if they both are lost, they at least take comfort in their companionship.

But a lone hiker normally takes comfort in hope. Trusting in the fact that even though he is lost, people are looking for him. There are friends and family who notice that he never came home. A search party is trying to find him at this very moment.

But suppose there was no search party. Suppose no one was waiting for him to return.

He suddenly feels terribly alone in the world. That, in a sense, he was always alone in the world. It’s just that, in this situation, it hits him for the very first time.

Or perhaps you have an injured hiker who’s abandoned by his party. They leave him behind because he would slow them down.

Perhaps he adopted a Nietzschean philosophy. And that sounded swell as long as he was young and strong and able-bodied. A proud, youthful atheist–exulting in his manly independence. But now that he’s weak and needy and vulnerable, that’s not much of a creed to live by–or die by. A philosophy that deserts you in your time of need.

I suppose that some medical patients feel lost. They went to their family doctor for some ailment. They’ve known him for years. But he refers them to a specialist–who refers them to another specialist. They wind up in the hospital. Handed off from one stranger to the next. At the mercy of others. Where are they anymore?

At the outset I said there were few things worse than being lost. But there is one thing worse: to be lost, but not know that you are lost.

Of course, that feels better, but it’s far worse. In that condition, a lost soul is heedless of his own condition. He ambles about, frittering away precious time. For time is running out, yet he has no sense of urgency. No sense of jeopardy. Of what it truly means to be lost, utterly lost, in a world which is indifferent at best, and malevolent at worst.

It’s like a hunter stalked by a lion. He imagines that he is hunting the lion, but the lion is hunting him .The lion approaches him from behind, but he’s oblivious to the peril since his back is turned to the lion.

You can see the lion, but he cannot. You jump and shout and wave your hands, but he can’t hear you. He’s not looking in your direction. There he stands, blissfully unconscious of the silent slayer which is creeping up on him, step by fatal step.

Providing Clarification for Reppert

In this post, Victor Reppert asked for some clarification. Ask and you shall receive.

Steve Hays gave some answers. He wrote,

"This is simpleminded. God would be just in damning everyone *because* everyone is a sinner. The justice of this counterfactual is indexed to a necessary condition. God would be just in saving everyone *if* Christ died for everyone. The justice of that counterfactual is indexed to a necessary condition. The justice of the outcome is not irrespective of other relevant factors.

If God damned the innocent, that would be unjust. If God saved sinners apart from penal substitution, that would be unjust."

This answers Reppert. I'd like to make a couple related observations, similar and complementing.

"How could God possibly be unjust?"

Not punish sin. Let the guilty go without punishment whatsoever.

"What could it turn out that God has done that could be identified as unjust, given the fact that God is the creator and we are creatures."

One example would be: After the Apostle Paul dies, faces judgment, God sends the Apostle Paul to hell.

One of the things you're not taking into account (well, there's many things not being taken into account, reading some of our systematics books on the decrees would help), is the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology and the corollary of federal headship theology.

Your questions are really just a spin off the old debate with voluntarists (and caricatures of reformed thought) regarding the question: God could send the Virgin Mary to hell. After all, his sovereignty is such that he does what he does, and its right no matter what.

The answer came back, "No." God is bound by his covenant. This covenant spans back to the decree to save some of the lost. The are also judged according to covenant conditions. The covenant of works.

You also mentioned that Calvinist exegetes "trivialize Scripture." I'd love to see your analysis of "Calvinist exegetes" and how they trivialize scriptural claims. Which ones did you have in mind? Page numbers?