quote:

---

"ONLY distinction…?" Scripture leverages EVERYTHING on THIS DISTINCTION. Of course we all resist the Holy Spirit. But this doesn’t affect the issue of how I should relate to a person who is resisting the Holy Spirit on the point of believing in Jesus as Lord.

---

My point is simple, Doc. And you've acknowledged it somewhat, and Miss E has mentioned it. You do not and CANNOT know to what extent someone's not believing in the Christian God is attributed to "resisting the Holy Spirit." You said:

quote:

---

IF the Spirit of God is working in every heart to move in a certain direction, as I believe, one can only refrain from going in that direction by resisting the Holy Spirit. That makes it a moral issue. Now, I of course can't discern the extent to which a person is resisting faith because of sincere intellectual questions as opposed to moral rebellion. I can't even know this about myself. God alone is judge. But I would certain WARN a person whose "holding out" on the after life that this is a dangerous stance to take.

---

If you say that you truly don't know to what extent that a person's resisting faith is resisting the Holy Spirit, then by what means can you make that such a pivotal issue. I feel like Miss E here. Sure there are people who may resist the Spirit to a GREATER degree to the point where "evidences" and even experiences with God (whatever they may be) really wouldn't matter. But there are people who do not fall in this category. To place them in this category JUST because they don't believe seems wrong to me. But, in the end, how else can one do it? A person's not receiving the Gospel or believing in the Christian God? The root problem MUST be hardheartedness or self-deception. Why? Because they are NOT believers! Why, the very HEAVENS give testimony, right? Hmmm.. Honestly, I disagree with line of thought. I think that it is possible to HONESTLY be open to the CHRISTIAN idea of God and still come away unconvinced...and it not necessarily be a high level of Holy Spirit resistance to blame.

When you work everything out, then ONLY way to know that one was not "resisting the Spirit" with regards to belief in God was if someone, by word or action, demonstrated that they had a ROCK SOLID belief in God...NOT MERELY OPENNESS to God.


*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Only if you divorce "openness" and "belief." But what I am referring to when I encourage a person to believe is to open their lives up to God. I am not trying to manipulate anything with FEAR in doing this. I’m just speaking about reality. TODAY is always the day to begin being open to God, for there’s no gaurantee YOU WILL BE ABLE TO do so tomorrow. A person who is resisting the Holy Spirit to the point where they will not believe is slowly locking themselves in hell. It is not fear manipulation to tell them so.

---

I know that you are not trying to manipulate, Doc, but isn't this just what it does anyway? Basically, I feel you are saying this:

Look, I appreciate the fact that you say that you are open to God's existence and are an honest seeker. BUT, the problem is that if you REMAIN in this current state that you are in, you may become a complete and RESOLVED unbeliever, to the point where NO type of evidences or experiences from God would change you. I'm concerned about that.

Now, come on, Doc. What is the NATURAL THOUGHT that comes from this? "Remain open to God?" Nope. How about...

"You'd better hurry up and resolve this matter in the direction of having faith. Otherwise, you are CONSTANTLY in serious danger. Every day that you doubt could be a day closer to you becoming a resolved unbeliever

How is this not ultimately a fear tactic? This is NOT, as I feel we should, presenting options, relying on God, and respecting that person's power of choice (as the open view God supposedly does) This seems like subtle manipulation, based on a (no doubt) genuine love and concern for the person's ultimate final state. Nice intentions, but bad joss.

Moreover, just because you axiomatically believe that withholding belief in the Christian God is NECESSARILY linked in some way to Holy Spirit resistance does NOT give you any info on HOW BIG A PART it plays. You've acknowledged that and Miss E dealt with that wonderfully. So, this ends up being JUST LIKE THE PROVIDENCE DISCUSSION we've had over and over, in that just because we can say that God always does the best he can do in dealing with "evil" DOES NOT LOGICALLY ENTAIL that the "evil" that emerges is merely because human beings are resisting God's actions to a large degree. THere are OTHER OPTIONS to consider. It's the same with this. It is genuinely possible that a person is to a MAD GREATER extent, just intellectuallly and existentially unconvinced. I think its wrong to just use the belief claim of that person as some type of indication that Holy Spirit resistance MUST be the main issue. THIS is what I was trying to get at with my calling it the ONLY distinction. (I probably wasn't clear enough) If we all resist the Holy Spirit to a greater and lesser degree, then how in the world can we say that THAT's the chief problem...when we know that what we are REALLY doing is looking at a person's BELIEF claim and then applying this thought? Feel me?





*****************************************************


Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: How about EVERYDAY is the day of salvation. Whenever you choose to acknowledge it. The door to God is ALWAYS open and ONLY closes from OUR side. Isn't that what you've been saying, Doc?

Doc: Yes, it is what I’m saying. But the door ON OUR SIDE CLOSES. Just because you can see yourself believing today doesn’t mean you’ll be able to see yourself believing tomorrow. This is why I would warn someone against playing Pascal’s wager in the manner you’re here suggesting.

---

This shows what I'm saying above. The implicit thought is that merely being an genuinely open freethinker is NOT ENOUGH. As long as you are not a SOLID BELIEVER, you are constantly in danger. For a Christian to become relatively UNSURE, yet OPEN to God's existence isn't enough. Do we not see how this is an IMPLICIT fear tactic?



*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Doc: How is it inauthentic? We’re "hedging our bets" no matter what we believe – including agnosticism. The people at least believe there’s the possibility that God is real, that its eternal loss to close oneself off to him, and so it makes sense to continue to try to be open to him. So you put yourself in a position where you may experience his reality, may get clarity, may come to totally commit to him.

Personally, I think the difference between the seeker who is doing this and the committed disciple is, on this issue, a matter of degree.

---

Ok. The last sentence tells me something. Perhaps we don't DISAGREE on this area that much. Basically what I'm hearing is that, to an extent, a TRULY open minded person would examine ALL potential evidence, which would necessarily include EXPERIENCE within a faith context that MAY provide impulse for belief. I have no problem with that. I would whole HEARTEDLY agree. What I DO have a problem with is when a person has done that, for a time, and STILL comes away honestly with not enough grounds to believe in their mind. What would you say, Doc? Would you tell them to KEEP coming to church anyway? Keep tarrying for the Holy Ghost?? Would you support Philip Yancey's "as-if" idea, as espoused in his "Reaching for the Invisible God"? I appreciated his honesty. He admitted that sometimes he looks at all the conflicting evidence and he has to go on an "as-if" faith, whereby he acts AS-IF the Christian God were true, EVEN THOUGH he has serious doubts at the time. The moments of doubt are sometimes longer or shorter, he indicates, but invariably he actually begins to regain a strong sense of faith. Possible psychological explanations aside, how is this not, in some sense, a "fake it till you make it" idea? And honestly, tell me HOW this isn't what a person who supported Pascal's wager would ultimately HAVE to suggest that an agnostic do??

To me, this may truly lead to inauthentic faith, insofar as, people COULD end up saying the following (and I've HEARD it too)

"Man, I have so many issues with belief in this God. But the cost of disbelief is TOO great for me. So, I'm going to believe...even in some respects though I somehow don't believe. (Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief, right? Heh) I have to do this because I feel there's NO OTHER OPTION"

How is this not being inauthentic to oneself in any way, Doc?




*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

You are presuming that the post-mortem probation is fundamentally different than the pre-mortem probation. How do you know this? As I’ve argued before, if the choice is to be moral, it can’t be unambiguous. Nothing can be wagered on the possibility of future chances. We don’t know enough about life after death, and we don’t know the state of our own heart.

---

Hmmm...One question: Is it genuinely possible for someone to experience God post-mortem and basically reject God JUST because a person wants to, on whatever grounds? See, you seem to be just saying that as long as a person comes to believe that God is REAL that salvation occurs. Doesn't James speak against this line of thought? Don't the demons "know" and tremble or something? In other words, just because someone become CONVINCED of God's reality does NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that said person will choose to ACCEPT God. This is partly why I spelled out my Person B as I did. I believe that there will be a significant amount of people who will end up having NO DOUBT about God's existence postmortem, and for various reasons, STILL reject Him. As long as this is a possibility, then I don't see what problem you have. You seem to forget. Not everyone makes the "rational" choice just to save their own hides, when faced with CERTAIN death otherwise. Hmmm...



*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Semeia: Agnosticism is a refusal to enter into a relationship with God, based on a lack of data. It’s like when people are engaged for years and years (or living together) and never get married because they’re waiting for something definitive, when in fact the evidence is in the act of faith itself, without which no evidence will ever be enough. Love more than anything is a decision, a decision from which life flows.

Doc: Does anyone else feel like a literary blockhead when Semeia gets lyrical? I think you pinpoint the issue well.

---

Ummm...no. I don't think it does. Semeia is implicitly describing William James' concept of precursive faith over and against evidentialism. Sometimes, it is very rational to let faith outrun the evidence when going after something...LIKE A RELATIONSHIP! That's not the problem I'm having. I think that an open agnostic would acknowledge this. The issue is once this precursive faith is used...over and over again...at what point is one allowed to, as Dan Barker so aptly put it, "get tired of having faith in faith"?? It would seem that Pascal wouldn't allow for this, because of the weighty ends at stake. My point is that if one were to be COMPLETELY consistent with the warfare worldview and its implications this fear is diminished to a large extent, if not removed. So, let's not get this twisted.



*****************************************************

quote:

---

Meph: then that open, honest agnostic who has lived life his/her own way throughout their earthly existence would have NOTHING to fear from the loving, longing, persuasive God who embodies the Highest Reality. And he/she definitely would not have anything if God didn't exist. Not so with the INAUTHENTIC believer.

Doc: Tracking. IF the agnostic is indeed truly honest, open, etc… But the heart is desperately wicked and possible of self-deception (yes, my own included, Jere 17). So I have to encourage people to consider Jesus NOW. Neither of us has any guarantee about the future.

---

Epistemological humility and a corresponding understanding of the true depth of one's motivations is one thing. Constant second-guessing and self-doubt based on something like this is another. Isn't it possible to do what many EX-Christians have done? Say something like this:

"Look, God. I don't know if you are real anymore. I am TRULY open to you, as far as I know. But I may be having some internal motivations I don't know about. I am TRUSTING that if you DO exist, you are going to help me truly examine my motives as well as helping my search for truth"

And go from there. The constant self-doubt thing is a downward spiral to some type of epistemological nihilism, if one doesn't watch it. Both you and Icon have stated before in so many words that, at SOME point, you just have to take the leap of faith that maybe your intentions ARE honorable and that you really DO mean what you say you do. CAnnot this leeway be given to those who doubt the Faith?




Great interaction!

quote:

---

Now Meph is suggesting that this perspective, if thought through consistently,takes away the urgency of evangelism. Indeed, rather than "compelling them to believe," honest agnostics and others should be encouraged only to remain authentic in their search.

---

Oh...my! From what I'm hearing, I am saying that evangelism (ie spreading the good news about Christ and his Kingdom) should NOT seen as any type of pressing manner by a warfare worldview holding Christian. And I'm saying that agnostics should ONLY (I repeat, ONLY) be encouraged to remain authentic in their search for truth. Hmmm...now I'm looking over all the previous posts here. I don't see myself saying these things. I do see myself:

1) wondering about the consistency of warfare/open view theists who try to use Pascalian logic, with respect to his Wager.

and...

2) critiquing a TYPE of "evangelism" that depersonalizes and objectifies




But let's move on. I want to take Doc's objections in turn.


**********************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

1) The Bible commands disciples to evangelize with urgency. In my opinion, any line of reasoning that goes against this has gotten off track somewhere.

---

No problem with that. And I mentioned this in one of my posts to Tom. If I was dealing with anything about evangelism, it was about the "by any means necessary" type of "COMPELLING" that can turn urgency into fanaticism. Please remember this. I'm NOT dealing with one's urgency to witness to Christ. I am saying that there ARE other grounds on which to do so that Pascal's thought.


************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

2)While we can (I believe) have hope for non-Christians, I don’t see we can have <i>assurance</i> for non-Christians. We can only celebrate the death of a person we know has established a covenantal relationship with Christ. We should therefore be "uncomfortable" with a person remaining out of relationship with Christ. They MAY in fact be very open to the Lord and prevented from entering into an explicit covenant with him by the contingent variables outside of their control that contextualize their existence (e.g. geographical, temporal, psychological, biological, social, spiritual considerations [spirit influences), But we can’t know this.

---

First of all, good man, we can't even REALLY know whether or not someone has had a covenantal relationship with Christ or not. Remember Mat 7:21-23? Isn't it possible that someone, for all we know, can embody the most pious, honorable disposition and IN REALITY be something else? ALL we have to go on are OUR PERCEPTIONS of people's behaviours and the general dictum we experience that people generally behave as they are. That one's behavior is a pretty good indication of their character. To say that we should have "assurance" about someone's placement after death whom we THOUGHT were Christian needs just as much trust as anything else. Surely, you don't mean that we can with CERTAINTY know someone's eternal destination because of their EARTHLY claims of being with Christ. Especially considering that, with the idea of PME you outlined above, it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that just as people can solidify TOWARDS God, they can move AWAY from God, post-mortem. It is possible that a "Christian" may really not LIKE the actuality of God that doesn't conform to their THEOLOGY. Maybe there are some agnostics who are more open to God in THAT regard than Christians! So, where you see "assurance" to be taken, I see a fundamental act of TRUST...like with many other things.


************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

3) Knowing how difficult/ impossible it is to know ones own heart, we have grounds for warning agnostics not to take consolation in their "honest seeking." Yes, they must be honest with themselves, but we also know how easy it is to deceive ourselves and think we are being honest – when in fact there are "secondary gains" to our stance.

---

Turn this argument around, using what I said on #2. We also have grounds to ask Christians to second-guess themselves and THEIR sincerity of declaration, now, don't we? (How many times DO we preach on Mat 7:21-23, hmm?) But I don't think we do that, do we? Nope. We generally take people at their WORDS and ACTIONS when they tell us that they believe in Christ and live for Him. And we generally put TRUST that that act of faith "secures" their salvation. How in the world can we deny this VERY LINE OF THOUGHT to honest agnostics?


************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

4) If, as I believe, the Holy Spirit is universally operative in leading people to Christ, to whatever extent the contingent variables that contexualize their existence allows him to, then faith in Christ is the primary evidence that one is open to God, and resisting faith in Christ is one primary evidence of being closed to God. It certainly functions like this in the New Testament.

---

I admit it functions like this in the New Testament, especially in Paul's thought. But think about it. Did Paul REALLY consider the "contingent variables" you are? Or did he just believe that if a person didn't believe his words, it was pretty much cut-and-dry that it was because their minds were darkened by either worldly philosophies or the "god of this age"? I think the latter. But let's look at this statement more...

"...to whatever extent the contingent variables that contexualize their existence allows him to,..."

I've got to really bring this to the fore. I think that you know that there is a LOT of ideas that are within this statement. A LOT. This turns out JUST LIKE the "mystery in the tornado" for divine providence. You know that, right? And what did we end up figuring with that? Simply that, sometimes, God can have VERY LITTLE to do with a situation's affairs even though he is "working" in it! That "contingent variables" can be such that God's action really may have DONE NOTHING AT ALL in a situation. Moreover, we learned that just because we could say that God "worked" in a situation did not NECESSARILY mean that God's action is to be the ultimate REASON for what did or didn't happen. Now let's take this thought to our current context. Just because we say that the Holy Spirit is working to "open" someone's eyes to His reality does not NECESSARILY mean that that work is to such an extent that the person's resistance is the PRIMARY CAUSE for not believing. This is important.

There may be MANY GOOD REASONS, in other words, why people don't believe. And it is possible for a person to be GENUINELY OPEN, given their "contingent variables that contextualize their existence", and not be resisting God in any type of CONSCIOUS way. Think about it. All a person can do is CONSCIOUSLY commit to being open to God. (Isn't that why free will matters anyway?) If we could control our subconscious like that, God knows what we'd be able to do. So, it's not so simple. These "contingent variables" put a large cog in any machine that would relegate not believing to "resisting the Holy Spirit"



************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Of course, given the unknowable complexity of the human self, it is not conclusive evidence, and we thus cannot judge another. Our job is not to go around trying to assess who is "in" and who is "out." A person’s Christian "faith" may be disingenuous, and a person’s lack of faith may be genuinely due to variables outside their control. But this doesn’t at all undermine the importance of calling on all to believe.

---

THIS...ONE...PARAGRAPH agrees with me to a large degree...ESPECIALLY when one realizes that I'm NOT trying to disparage evangelism PER SE.


************************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

5) If a person believes in what I have called the principle of finitude – our libertarian freedom is transformed into compatibilistic freedom; our character becomes solidified one way or another – then this provides further grounds for our sense of urgency. Of course, we have no idea where a person is at in the process of solidification. We can’t even know this about ourselves. We thus are not in the position of judge. But there IS A FINITE PERIOD we have to definitively decide whether we are open or closed to God.
Hence, our agnosticism about where we or anyone else are at, combined with our awareness of how easy it is for us to deceive ourselves about where we are at, must give us a sense of urgency to compel people to seriously consider the Christian proclamation that Jesus is Lord NOW. I don’t see that a person who believes in post-mortem evangelism should have any less urgency to compel people to believe than a person who doesn’t: the former differs only in that she doesn’t necessarily equate a person’s probationary period with the duration of their physical life. We know no more about the finitude of a person’s freedom when we believe in PME than when we don’t.

---

I have no problem with a person having urgency about evangelism. I have a problem with the urgency coupled with a certain TYPE of evangelism. I have a problem with functionalist evangelism. I have a problem with using Pascal's thought (especially in an open view theist worldview) to attempt to "compel" people to become Christians. I have NO problem with giving an agnostic a context from which it may be EASIER for them to enhance their search for truth (ie giving more info, apologetics, etc) I do have problem with implicit or explicit fear tactics.

And I've already talked about this, but it would seem that the use of the Christian proclamataion for "assurance" is more for OUR benefit than anything else.


************************************************


6) God is more glorified when a person’s faith and life reflects Jesus Christ than not. Hence, for the glory of God, we should want all to believe here and now, even if their hearts are open to God apart from Jesus Christ (something we can’t definitively KNOW).

Hehe. This one was too easy. How many Christians do YOU know who's faith (AS EVIDENCED BY WORKS) and life doesn't reflect Christ even HALFWAY? Now, how many people of other faiths do YOU know whose life and devotion seem almost ANGELIC by our Church's standards? Who INDEED does glorify God? Thinking in terms of human actions "glorifying" God...

Rom 2:12-16
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Sometimes I wonder IN WHOM God is more glorified: A half-hearted Christian or a ardent God-honoring/human loving NON-Christian?



************************************************

Now looking at all this, I don't see how this means my thought experiement doesn't work. The only way that I see that your argumentation would hit the mark is if I were SPECIFICALLY out to say that there should be NO urgency in evangelism...and that evangelism is NOT a big deal. Hopefully, we see that I wasn't saying that. I agree that a warfare/open theist CAN VERY WELL do true evangelism and even apologetic...and have a GREAT sense of urgency in doing so. But just not for the same old reasons.



Cool stuff!

Holla back,

quote:

---

I’m slow on this one, so excuse my not understanding. But tell me exactly what it is you’re trying to address with this whole issue. Is it PME? Are you exploring the truthfulness of PME based on practical considerations now? Or are you convinced PME is true and now wondering how to make sense of evangelism? Are you a universalist now and trying to square that with how one goes about sharing the gospel? Or is this just an academic interest? Narrow it down for me Bro. What IS your interest in this?

---

Cool. Where things are now. Narrowing.

A person who subscribes to the warfare/open view theism worldview who wishes to be consistent with said view may want to refrain from trying to "persuade" an agnostic into being a Christian using any type of "Pascal's Wager" thinking (ie choose Christ today, cause a LOT'S riding on it!) This is because, given the worldview, Pascal's wager can be turned on its head to show that it MAY be more "rational" for someone to be agnostic in the long run. Rather than "pushing" people to believe in Christ, possibly to the point of living inauthentically, somethign else should be considered. In actuality, the agnostic (and the Christian's cause) may be best served by the Christian:

1) finding out WHY the agnostic is agnostic (This may let one know how open one has been)

2) if necessary, offering to help provide the general context in which the Christian claims can be more fully examined by the person, which is HELPING the agnostic's search for truth. (THIS, I think, is what Doc and I basically agree on)


3) if necessary, allow the agnostic to REMAIN agnostic while encouraging her to remain open and receptive to ALL info in her search for truth. This includes being open to change convictions about Christ if certain factors warrant it.

If the warfare/open view worldview adherent TRULY BELIEVES IN their worldview, (You ACT upon what you BELIEVE, right, Doc? then they may be more inclined to do this, all things considered.



__________________________________________________



Is it PME?
I was looking at PME only as it relates to the warfare worldview, and how that affects the "bite" of Pascal's wager...and may twist it up.


Are you exploring the truthfulness of PME based on practical considerations now?
Nope. From my understanding, SOME type of PME is INTEGRAL to the warfare/open view. It's got to be there for METAPHYSICAL reasons. Moreover, I believe that, also for metaphysical reasons, it must be UNIVERSALLY APPLIED to all postmortem existent beings...but that's another story.

Or are you convinced PME is true and now wondering how to make sense of evangelism?
Whether I PERSONALLY am convinced of it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that PME is integral to the warfare worldview for it to be consistent. Thus, one who believes in it SHOULD believe in PME. The relationship to evangelism is a later consideration that I had based on the idea. I would think that one's acceptance or rejection of PME would have to at least impact a person's idea of evangelism...ESPECIALLY if the evangelistic presuppositions are "functionalist"


Are you a universalist now and trying to square that with how one goes about sharing the gospel?
Hmmm...I wouldn't mind if universalism were true. But then again, I wouldn't mind if double predestination were true either. Take it for what it's worth.

Or is this just an academic interest?
With me, is it EVER just about "academic interest"? lol


Love ya,

quote:

---

I have no problem with a person having urgency about evangelism. I have a problem with the urgency coupled with a certain TYPE of evangelism. I have a problem with functionalist evangelism. I have a problem with using Pascal's thought (especially in an open view theist worldview) to attempt to "compel" people to become Christians. I have NO problem with giving an agnostic a context from which it may be EASIER for them to enhance their search for truth (ie giving more info, apologetics, etc) I do have problem with implicit or explicit fear tactics.

---

quote:

---

Help me out here—What is legalistic about a God who saves us from hell (or annihilation, or an unhappy life, or whatever)?

---

quote:

---

21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

---

quote:

---

1 (or is it 2) Peter (“Seeing that the heavens will melt away in this way [I’m paraphrasing], what sort of people ought we to be?”). Actually, Peter’s words are thoroughly functionalistic, aren’t they? Is this an illegitimate fear tactic? Talking about the terrible day of the Lord, the world ending, the elements melting with infernal heat, the wicked and the righteous etc. etc....THEREFORE live holy. Isn’t love the ONLY reason we should choose to be holy? Are people who choose to be holy because of what that day holds for the unholy living less than authentic lives?

---

quote:

---

Quite right. However, does not the point Christ makes have application to his disciples because it is in fact generally true all around? Is this not simply a general truth applied to a specific group of people? In other words, we wouldn’t want to suggest that Jesus’ meaning was that God tosses body and soul of only believers into hell, would we?

Granting that Jesus makes this point to his disciples, does his action suggest that “fear tactics” are OK for believers? Is Jesus using a “fear tactic” here to motivate his disciples?

---

I think the whole question must change if we're going to shift the discussion to whether threats and warnings are "acceptable" for the people of God as opposed to their use as evangelistic "tactics." We're in agreement that there are clear warnings that need to be heeded throughout Scripture to those whom God has revealed himself. The question is whether we are to use such threats as a means towards Christian conversion. I feel threats are a misguided way of doing evangelism, ala Pascal.

Tom said:

quote:

---

But let’s suggest another passage. For example, speaking to the crowds, Jesus upbraids unrepentant cities (Mat 11.21-24):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Jesus doing here? Is he using fear tactics? How likely would such language be to encourage these cities to reconsider the evidence for Jesus? I’m not perfectly comfortable with this sort of approach myself, but it’s there. Jesus could be tough and lay the truth out on the table with the religiously self-complacent or the unreligiously self-complacent.

---

But the implication here is that these are God's very own chosen people who God has revealed himself to, the Jews, who are living in sin unrepentantly. God's judgment is upon them for this, yes, but I don't see this as a fear tactic. Again, my position on evangelism does not conflict with these kinds of verses. I don't see Jesus threatening the Samaritans, Romans, or Greeks as a means to convert them to Christ for instance.

Do you see where we agree and where we disagree? This is not a disagreement merely over the need to heed warnings for fear of judgment, we both agree this is sometimes necessary among those whom God has revealed himself and who know God. It is a disagreement over what tactics we are to use in Christian evangelism. Of course, if a person is clearly resisting God out of stubborness of heart (unlike the proposed agnostic in this thread), it may then become necessary to remind them of such Scriptural warnings. I think we really need to hear what the Holy Spirit is leading us to do in difficult cases.

I hope we're getting somewhere here!

Tom said:

quote:

---

I’m just saying there’s more to sharing Christ with those who haven’t yet yielded themselves to him than saying "God loves you, think about it."

---

I agree...that's just cheap evangelism! We need to live it, we need to show through our actions and through real sacrifice what it means that "God loves you." If we don't do that, I don't know how we expect anyone to take our message of love seriously.

quote:

---

Empiress: Jesus “…saves us from the ultimate consequences of our sin, whatever that may be.”

Tom: Any idea what those consequences might be?

---

I worded that vaguely on purpose because I believe it really depends. God will deal with each of us individually as far as I can tell. I do believe there will be some kind of divine retribution for sin, but I'm not so sure we can accurately predict what that is going to look like or how it will be applied...my main guess is that we will be surprised! I'm sure a lot of people we think are destined for severe punishment will recieve mercy, and a lot of those we think deserve great reward will actually recieve punishment.

Doc said:

quote:

---

A final word to Empiress: You seem to think it “legalistic” if God decided salvation in terms of someone’s belief. It beliefs were completely disassociated from a person’s heart, I would agree. Some times they may be. But other times they are not, at least if the New
Testament is right. What saves or damns a person is their openness or closedness to God. Do they say “yes” or “no” to God’s loving lordship, or not. This “yes” or “no” may or may not be evidenced by the “yes” or “no” they say on a conscious level... which is why we
can’t judge. But my point is that a conscious “no” may be indicative of a heart “no” -- and this is what condemns them. (So, I'm actually agreeing with you that God doesn't judge on the basis of the cognitive content of a person's brains -- including their "beliefs." But the beliefs may be indicative of what God does judge on the basis of -- a person's innermost openness or closedness to his love. )

---

Doc, I think you misunderstood me a bit. I don't think God, who knows people's hearts through and through, is legalistic for determining people's fates based on their beliefs if those beliefs are representative of what is in their hearts. My point is that the Pascalian portrait of God is setting up a legalistic portrait of God, a simplistic and false portrait in fact. The only disagreement we have here is whether one's current beliefs are indicative of what is truly or ultimately "in their hearts." I am contending that we cannot know what is in a person's heart given their current belief system; I do not advocate making such judgments based merely on what a person confesses aloud, as Christians are prone to do.

Brett said:

quote:

---

Again, if God didn't want us to be afraid of hell, he either wouldn't have created it at all, or he wouldn't have spent so much Scripture describing its terror.

---

I think God does want us to be "afraid" of punishment for our sins, ie hell, particularly in cases of persistent sin and unrepentance. But I don't think hell is supposed to be a threat used against those who do not know God in order to coerce them into conversion. In other words, hell isn't the basis for Christian conversion, God's love and forgiveness is.

Peace to all,
Empiress

quote:

---

Quite right. However, does not the point Christ makes have application to his disciples because it is in fact generally true all around? Is this not simply a general truth applied to a specific group of people? In other words, we wouldn’t want to suggest that Jesus’ meaning was that God tosses body and soul of only believers into hell, would we?

Granting that Jesus makes this point to his disciples, does his action suggest that “fear tactics” are OK for believers? Is Jesus using a “fear tactic” here to motivate his disciples?

---

I think the whole question must change if we're going to shift the discussion to whether threats and warnings are "acceptable" for the people of God as opposed to their use as evangelistic "tactics." We're in agreement that there are clear warnings that need to be heeded throughout Scripture to those whom God has revealed himself. The question is whether we are to use such threats as a means towards Christian conversion. I feel threats are a misguided way of doing evangelism, ala Pascal.

Tom said:

quote:

---

But let’s suggest another passage. For example, speaking to the crowds, Jesus upbraids unrepentant cities (Mat 11.21-24):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Jesus doing here? Is he using fear tactics? How likely would such language be to encourage these cities to reconsider the evidence for Jesus? I’m not perfectly comfortable with this sort of approach myself, but it’s there. Jesus could be tough and lay the truth out on the table with the religiously self-complacent or the unreligiously self-complacent.

---

But the implication here is that these are God's very own chosen people who God has revealed himself to, the Jews, who are living in sin unrepentantly. God's judgment is upon them for this, yes, but I don't see this as a fear tactic. Again, my position on evangelism does not conflict with these kinds of verses. I don't see Jesus threatening the Samaritans, Romans, or Greeks as a means to convert them to Christ for instance.

Do you see where we agree and where we disagree? This is not a disagreement merely over the need to heed warnings for fear of judgment, we both agree this is sometimes necessary among those whom God has revealed himself and who know God. It is a disagreement over what tactics we are to use in Christian evangelism. Of course, if a person is clearly resisting God out of stubborness of heart (unlike the proposed agnostic in this thread), it may then become necessary to remind them of such Scriptural warnings. I think we really need to hear what the Holy Spirit is leading us to do in difficult cases.

I hope we're getting somewhere here!

Tom said:

quote:

---

I’m just saying there’s more to sharing Christ with those who haven’t yet yielded themselves to him than saying "God loves you, think about it."

---

I agree...that's just cheap evangelism! We need to live it, we need to show through our actions and through real sacrifice what it means that "God loves you." If we don't do that, I don't know how we expect anyone to take our message of love seriously.

quote:

---

Empiress: Jesus “…saves us from the ultimate consequences of our sin, whatever that may be.”

Tom: Any idea what those consequences might be?

---

I worded that vaguely on purpose because I believe it really depends. God will deal with each of us individually as far as I can tell. I do believe there will be some kind of divine retribution for sin, but I'm not so sure we can accurately predict what that is going to look like or how it will be applied...my main guess is that we will be surprised! I'm sure a lot of people we think are destined for severe punishment will recieve mercy, and a lot of those we think deserve great reward will actually recieve punishment.

Doc said:

quote:

---

A final word to Empiress: You seem to think it “legalistic” if God decided salvation in terms of someone’s belief. It beliefs were completely disassociated from a person’s heart, I would agree. Some times they may be. But other times they are not, at least if the New
Testament is right. What saves or damns a person is their openness or closedness to God. Do they say “yes” or “no” to God’s loving lordship, or not. This “yes” or “no” may or may not be evidenced by the “yes” or “no” they say on a conscious level... which is why we
can’t judge. But my point is that a conscious “no” may be indicative of a heart “no” -- and this is what condemns them. (So, I'm actually agreeing with you that God doesn't judge on the basis of the cognitive content of a person's brains -- including their "beliefs." But the beliefs may be indicative of what God does judge on the basis of -- a person's innermost openness or closedness to his love. )

---

Doc, I think you misunderstood me a bit. I don't think God, who knows people's hearts through and through, is legalistic for determining people's fates based on their beliefs if those beliefs are representative of what is in their hearts. My point is that the Pascalian portrait of God is setting up a legalistic portrait of God, a simplistic and false portrait in fact. The only disagreement we have here is whether one's current beliefs are indicative of what is truly or ultimately "in their hearts." I am contending that we cannot know what is in a person's heart given their current belief system; I do not advocate making such judgments based merely on what a person confesses aloud, as Christians are prone to do.

Brett said:

quote:

---

Again, if God didn't want us to be afraid of hell, he either wouldn't have created it at all, or he wouldn't have spent so much Scripture describing its terror.

---

I think God does want us to be "afraid" of punishment for our sins, ie hell, particularly in cases of persistent sin and unrepentance. But I don't think hell is supposed to be a threat used against those who do not know God in order to coerce them into conversion. In other words, hell isn't the basis for Christian conversion, God's love and forgiveness is.

Peace to all,
Empiress

quote:

---

I think God does want us to be "afraid" of punishment for our sins, ie hell, particularly in cases of persistent sin and unrepentance. But I don't think hell is supposed to be a threat used against those who do not know God in order to coerce them into conversion. In other words, hell isn't the basis for Christian conversion, God's love and forgiveness is.

---

quote:

---

To me, what Miss E and others uncomfortable with Pascal's Wager are really opposed to is a completely functionalistic, hellfire-and-damnation-type approach to evangelism---one that neglects an appropriate emphasis on the POSITIVE reasons for conversion

---

I'm saying something more extreme then that actually.

First, I think part of what Mephi is getting across is that Pascal's wager is supposed to be accepted on the basis of it's rationality, but clearly the case can be made for an even greater rationality to remaining an agnostic. Therefore the wager itself is flawed. I also pointed out that if we're merely looking at what's the "safest be,t" as Pascal urges us to do, we ought to follow the fellow who was buried with the symbols of all the "gods," so as to seek the greatest chance of being "saved" from the wrath of any would-be post-mortem deities.

(I mean, if it's just about placing the safest bet, why put all your eggs in one basket/deity???)

Second I'm saying that the basis for conversion really ought to focus solely on the gifts of God: the overwhelming love, mercy, and forgiveness of God. (There may be exceptions, but I think this is the rule.) I believe it is misguided to focus on the punishment of hell as the basis for Christian conversion because it automatically creates an unhealthy relationship between God and the newly converted.

My reason for saying this comes down to something even more basic however: What is God's ultimate purpose for humanity? I believe the ultimate purpose God has for all humans is to be in loving relationship with him. Our purpose is much more then making sure our hides don't get burned! If a person converts due to their fear of hell, that person is not entering into an initially loving relationship with God, but one of fear. "Perfect love casts out fear." It seems it creates a very antagonistic relationship from the outset between the newly converted and God, and it would be much more difficult for that individual to fully trust and grow in God's love and mercy as a consequence from thereafter.

A good example of this is our relationship with our parents. Our relationship with our parents should be established, particularly initially, on the basis of their love, nurture, and care for us. Once that loving relationship is established, then appropriate threats of punishment are within the context of that loving relationship and will not mistaken for mere hatred and anger. It makes no sense to approach a stranger's child, for instance, and threaten to punish them if they don't obey you in hopes of establishing some kind of relationship with them! And yet that is what we do when we evangelize with threats. Human relationships follow the model of God's relationship with us, it's not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be!

Tom said:

quote:

---

How about Jonah and the Ninevites? You know where I'm going with that right?

---

Yeah, I know where you're going with that. While we can't rule out the possibility that God could use such means for "conversion" in some seemingly rare cases, I still don't see that as the rule for individual Christian conversion. (Additionally it seems that God deals with nations in a different way then he deals with individuals.)

The book of Acts is our main model for evangelism in the New Testament. I did a word search on the word "hell" and hell is not mentioned or used as a threat anywhere throughout Acts or any of the New Testament epistles! It seems if the threat of hell were to figure into our evangelistic models, we'd see a lot more of it being mentioned in the New Testament. Instead we find an emphasis on the "good news" and the grace of God.

I also think we can trace historically to the point in time when the threat of hell started being used as a conversion tactic in Church history: the late Middle Ages. During the late Middle Ages is when "morality plays" performed by traveling bands of penitents in the Roman Catholic Church became popular. These plays emphasized the tortures of hell for various sins and literally frightened people into not sinning. Also around that time the Protestants began teaching "salvation by faith" and emphasized belief over works. Basically, the morality play mentality seemed to shift from a focus on "not sinning" to a focus on "right belief" in order to avoid the tortures of hell. It is not surprising then to find Blaise Pascal first working out his "wager" in the 1600's while this mentality would have been thriving. It seems this tactic "stuck" however, and has not fallen out of use since. I can't help but feel it was a great real disservice to the Christian faith.

Peace,
Empiress