quote:

---

1) Person A holds that Doc's warfare worldview (and all the corresponding implications of God's nature) is true.

2) Person A believes in POST-MORTEM EVANGELISM of some type.

...this modified wager shows that IF ONE TRULY BELIEVES IN the open view conception of God that Doc espouses,..."

---

quote:

---

It seems that if we're to be intellectually honest, we're all "agnostics" in that we cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God beyond all epistemological and metaphysical "doubt." The difference is that Christians live by faith in God.

---

I'm completely agree. Been saying this for a while. This is why I firmly say that I don't KNOW that God exists, but that I BELIEVE that God exists. Agnosticism can have either a theistic or atheistic bend.




Miss E:

quote:

---

So it seems the root of the problem is not about whether one "believes" or "assents" to a belief in "God" (as defined variously by humanity), but whether one has a heart that desires Truth and "the good" (as defined by God), regardless of current belief system.

To be honest, I don't really understand what eternal difference there can be between the honest agnostic and the Christian. There will be differences in current worldview and practice certainly, but from an eternal perspective, both are predisposed to accept an all good, loving God and will reject evil.

---

Seems like Miss E's pretty much caught on to what I'm saying.

It's probably best I explain succinctly what I'm trying to show here. Obviously, the wager only works within a certain context. A certain view of God AND a restricted amount of outcomes must be postulated for the whole thing to have any affect. This is why I didn't wager things on the ACTUAL EXISTENCE of God qua Doc's warfare worldview, but on a person's HEARTFELT BELIEF in the existence of that God. In other words, for person A, when you say "God", there is only ONE view of God that they are thinking of...and it is by THAT context that the wager is placed. Next, I posit an agnostic who is open to the existence of ANY pontential God...REGARDLESS OF MORAL TENDENCY. This was very important. Why? Because I'm not working on any predispositions of any type. To use Miss E's categories, my person B is not necessarily seeking "the good" but is DEFINITIVELY seeking what is TRUTH or actuality with respect to God. According to Miss E's idea of human predisposition, if God were to end up being a malevolent Loki-like being, the person would INDEED have a moral problem with God and possibly revolt against God. To ME, this is not being completely open. Now, because of the DEPICTION OF GOD that we are applying here in this whole thing (an all good, all loving God), Miss E's essential point would stand regardless, in that human beings would be predisposed to fully embrace God AS DEPICTED HERE. All that I wanted to stress was the fact that my Person B would accept the Supreme Being because of Its REALITY, and not because of its moral character...and that this marks the LARGE AMOUNT OF OPENNESS that this person has to ultimate reality.



Here's the cool part...

IF

someone TRULY believes in God (and the FULL worldview as described in "God At War", "God of the Possible", and "Satan and the Problem of Evil") and holds consistently to ALL the implications of that view CONSISTENTLY...

and

that person wishes to take the "wager" above (just on face value) to see which option is the MORE RATIONAL CHOICE, all things considered...

I honestly don't see how said person could say that being agnostic about the existence of "God" is NOT the more rational way to hedge the "bet"


Remember, Person B (as I have defined him/her) loses pretty much NOTHING by living however they choose to live, whether by some type of vague theism, deism, or even atheism. Because of God's love, acknowledgment of free choice, and offer of postmortem evangelism, it is ASSURED that Person B will end up in the loving arms of God...REGARDLESS of how he/she has lived their earthly existence! However, Person B loses out immensely if they end up trying to coerce themselves to evaluate and REevaluate evidence to try to engender some type of theistic belief merely for more pragmatic reasons...ESPECIALLY if God doesn't exist. (Please don't be fooled. There are "Christians" out there who would be agnostics, but are deathly afraid of the POSSIBILITY of eternal separation from God or rejection by Christ. I'm thinking of two PERSONAL FRIENDS who fit this category...and that's just ones I know of.) They have wasted precious time and energy trying to be something they are NOT by nature out of fear of some POSSIBILITY of censure. They have denied their authenticity on a level that they cannot get back. What type of living is that?? So, in this wager, things are reversed. If God exists or not, the agnostic "wins." If God doesn't exist, the INAUTHENTIC theist (not AUTHENTICALLY CONVINCED theist) loses out dramatically, existentially speaking.

[Digression: Want to know the REAL kicker?? Even the INAUTHENTIC theist who is just believing for the sake of getting to heaven would come out on top, given our discussed view of God. Why? Because said theist would have the genuine opportunity to enter into God's love because of recognizing God's reality. Even opportunists can get off scot free. How about that? ]


Think about this other consideration, too. If YOU, an open view theist who holds to Doc's view, were to meet a person seeking truth (like my described Person B) that honestly just doesn't feel that belief in "God" is warranted, why would you EVER try to get these people to convert on the grounds of the "weighty decisions of eternity"? All the silly "There's a lot at stake here." arguments fall STRAIGHT to the ground! It would be absolutely criminal to try to pressure these people into being open to believe in Christ on these grounds. And it would be nothing more than added pressure on YOUR minds if you were to be worried about it. The ideal thing would be to encourage these people on their searches for truth...ALWAYS BEING OPEN TO WHATEVER REALITY MAY ACTUALLY BE. In short, instead of encouraging "belief" in fear of their soul, you should encourage authentic openness to REALITY to preserve their essential humanity. You should be encourage TRUE freethinkers to REMAIN such. Why? Because by your OWN worldview, if that person is genuinely open and accepting to reality, that person will discover and accept Christ ONE WAY OR ANOTHER anyway!

This is a big deal, y'all. It takes away the need or impetus for any DEPERSONALIZING type of evangelism. It takes away the need for us to feel that we have to work Christ into every friggin conversation with freethinkers because we "never know when their time is up" It takes away the need for us to try to blow past people's HONEST and JUSTIFIABLE hangups with belief in the Christian God...just so that they will be saved and not be lost. (You'd be surprised at the "by any means necessary" attitudes of some apologists and evangelists) And replaces these foolish ideas with the motivation to support responsible lifelong searches for truth in ALL areas where it may be found.


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


Tom:

quote:

---

I have a difficult time agreeing that a person’s reasons for not yielding themselves to God can ever be good, rational, and amoral. Disbelief an amoral issue? I’m not even sure those who argue for postmortem evangelism would concede that such a person who be eligible for a chance to believe after death. Are these the sort of people advocates of postmortem evangelism have in mind? Those who considered the gospel, weighed the evidence, and decided to be agnostic? They get a second chance?

---

Counterquestion. What's wrong with honest seekers of truth who come to the HONEST CONVICTION of God's probable non-existence getting a second chance from such an all loving God? Don't tell me you'd dislike the idea of God being like the Prodigal Son's father in the ULTIMATE context, God receiving His wayward children after they've "come to themselves" in light of God's postmortem self-revelation. You do LIKE the Prodigal Son parable, don't you?


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

Thanks for the interaction, you guys. Let's keep it up. If my head is screwy here, show me. I recant easy.


Holla back,


PS: Remember! "Thought balloons."

Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/03/2002 08:57:47 AM

quote:

---

1) With TGB, I think that every significant belief we hold has a moral dimension to it. 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. They may BELIEVE they are resisting out of pure intellectual reasons while, in fact, they are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:20ff). The heart, Jeremiah says, is 'desperately wicked" and no one can know it. I would warn the person that they may be solidifying themselves in a stance against God.

---

Problem: We ALL resist the Holy Spirit to either a greater or lesser degree. This is why we are ALL sinners and in need of grace. (Rom 3) If we are going to make THAT a "moral issue" then, all of us are "immoral" in that regard. So why would this be such a concern for people whose ONLY DISTINCTION from Christians is that they don't believe in the Christian God? Moreover, on the "solidifying" thing. This is problematic. It goes like this.

--God is continually working for you to come to Christ.
--You SAY you disbelieve in Christ for intellectual reasons.
--Your disbelief in Christ is the MAIN INDICATION I HAVE of your "solidifying", because if you were a believer in Christ, you could NOT "solidify" in the direction of unbelief in Christ.
--So, AS LONG AS YOU ARE DISBELIEVING, I can assume that you are 1)working AGAINST the Spirit and 2) are probably solidifying AGAINST God.

In this context, the only way one could escape possible censure for soldification is to become a believer. It doesn't operate on the LEVEL OF OPENNESS a person has, but merely their statement of belief. This works out to basically using the FEAR aspect of which I spoke in my last post, only in a slightly different way. Don't you have issues with that?

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


Doc:

quote:

---

2) Jesus taught that we have enough grounds NOW to make a decision for or against God in Luke 16. This is the whole point of the Lazarus parable. Because faith is a moral choice, its NEVER unambiguous. (Think here of Hick's "epistemic distance" necessary for moral decisions). Even if the agnostic is living with a pure heart, there's no gaurantee that things will be clearer in the probationary afterlife than they are now. TODAY is the day of salvation

---

Hmmm...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: (emphases mine)

quote:

---

3) So, all things considered, I think it makes sense to try to cultivate a life that is open to God. This, I think, is what Pascal's wager is all about. He's not saying "pretend like you believe when you don't." He's saying, all other things being equal, it makes sense to try to believe. The way to TRY to believe is by beginning to invest yourself in the life of faith. Start LIVING IN a faith mode. It grows on you. Doubts are not simply overcome by intellectual reasoning. They are also, and perhaps even more profoundly, overcome by a commitment to live a certain way.

Pascal is saying, commit yourself to BEING OPEN to (at least the possibility) of GOD, to the point where one participates in the community of those who are living open to God. As one does this, one begins to gain the insight that only comes by living life in a certain mode. One gradually begins to SEE that to which one was only vaguely open to previously.

Putting all this off on the vague wager that you might get a chance to resolve the issue later is, at best, a very dangerous thing to do -- hence not a good "wager."

---

AHA!!!!!!! Do you see it? Do you see it?? This is EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY. We have tons of "aliens" in the Church because of this very idea. People who are "trying" to believe in the context of the community of faith because they are trying to hedge their bets to avoid eternal punishment. How is this not INAUTHENTIC living at its worst?? It's one thing for a person to be a genuine believer. At least, they are being AUTHENTIC, though they may be sincerely wrong. But for a person like whom you describe, there is a chance of a depersonalizing process so possibly detrimental, it's sad. People living in a "fake it till you make it" mode of religious existence. Sure, SOME end up doing it...but many others REMAINS aliens in their own religious communities, isolated not only from their faith community but also THEMSELVES. This is not cool.



Yeeehaw! We're both on, Doc. Let's keep this wagon a'goin!!!! Others join in!!!




Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/03/2002 09:22:17 AM

quote:

---

Putting all this off on the vague wager that you might get a chance to resolve the issue later is, at best, a very dangerous thing to do -- hence not a good "wager."

---

In what way is the "wager" dangerous to a sincere freethinker? The ONLY problem that could occur is if a person SO SOLIDIFIED AGAINST GOD that they would not accept God EVEN WHEN FACED WITH GOD'S FULL REALITY. If they were open ANY OTHER WAY, the problem disappears. How would any person who is like my Person B have something to worry about?

PLUS, Doc said (emphases mine):

quote:

---

I do think that the free will defense requires the belief that people who are not given the opportunity to freely choose for or against God in this life are given the chance in the next life. If "love <i>must</i> be chosen," it MUST be chosen. If love is possible without choice for any, its possible without choice for all, and we can no longer appeal to the metaphysical conditions of love as the reason why God risked a free creation.

---

Is there any particular reason why postmortem evangelism should ONLY extend to those who WE feel haven't been given ample opportunity to freely choose? Wouldn't it make more sense in your system to base the postmortem evangelism on the LEVEL OF SOLIDIFICATION AGAINST GOD? That way the postmortem evangelism is UNIVERSAL and hell truly DOES "lock from the inside" via OUR hands. It makes more sense within the view and is less ambiguous a criterion. This is what I kept in mind when I designed my Person B.




Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/03/2002 09:31:50 AM

quote:

---

I don’t pretend to assume to know who has or hasn’t had what GOD knows is ample opportunity. All I’m arguing is that such a thing exists and that God knows the score. Isn’t your thought experiment predicated upon the premise that WE can and need to know precisely who qualifies for postmortem evangelism (if there is such a thing)?

---

I believe that I can cogently argue that if someone is to take the FULL implications of Doc's warfare worldview (complete with cosmology), there would be no "qualification" for postmodern evangelism. It would be universally applied to all postmortem existent human beings. If you want to espound, no problem.

___________________________

Tom:

quote:

---

Two things: First, does this not de-eschatologize the Church’s existence? What happens to our doctrine of the Church and its mission? What of the eschatological dimension of the Church presence in the world until the end of the age? If we define the end of the age in such a way as to erase all possibility of the Church's failing at their mission, then what do we make of our existence now? I’m just tossing these out. Could be waaaaay off.

---

This seems quite like the missiological question often asked concerning the postulation of PME, inclusivism, or universalism:

If this is true, then doesn't this makes missions superfluous? Why do missions if, in the end analysis, it's not NECESSARY in any deep sense for ultimately defining who gets saved or not?

Well, Doc and others have answered this pretty well. The Church's mission is to BEAR WITNESS to God in Christ through faith energized by love. THAT'S ALL. We were not called to snatch people from the burning embers of hell (as much as that gets thought) We are to HOPE FOR and EXPECT conversions but they are NOT the primary impetus behind what is done. Missions, as you probably well now, is NOT merely a pragmatic exercise. So, in short, this idea does LITTLE, I think, to our doctrine of the Church. The Church universal on this earth is STILL the Body and Bride of Christ...and that wouldn't change. Our being called out wouldn't change. Our obligation to witness to our Head and Bridegroom would not be eliminated. What's the big deal?


_______________________________

Tom:

quote:

---

Secondly, I’ve never understood how the postmortem deal is supposed to work out. What I’m picturing in my head (because I’m looking for analogies) is somebody standing in the wherever beyond death facing Christ. Jesus says, "OK, look. Over here you have heaven. See how beautiful it is? Nice, eh? Well, this is where I’d like you to come and spend eternity. And over here is hell (or annihilation, or whatever). See the fire that consumes? Hear their maniacal screams? Smell their incinerating bodies? [Remember, Mephi wants unambiguous criterion.] OK. It’s up to you. Where d’ya wanna go? If you bow your knee to me now you go to heaven. If you tell me to go to hell, then YOU go to hell. What’ll it be?" And there will be people who choose hell? I don’t get it.

---

I hear ya. Semeia's stuff was pretty good. Here's my postulation, Tom:

The nature of PME during the probationary period is functionally irrevelent in FORM as long as its CONTENT is such that it follows the axiom "God always does the MOST that God can do" is held. In other words, God does EVERYTHING that God can to persuade PMExisting human beings of God's reality.

That's pretty much all we need to know.




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

JET:

quote:

---

Thus, it seems you intend to take damnation out of the equation, so that we are left with comparing or weighing the relative risks and benefits of the two possible outcomes solely in terms of this life.

---

Damnation is taken out of the equation because the wager's matrix doesn't allow for it. If God is as described, neither the believer nor the agnostic Person B would be damned. If God didn't exist, neither the believer nor the agnostic would be "saved"

___________________________________________


JET:

quote:

---

That is, it seems to me you are saying that:

The risk in this life of "denying one's authenticity"(in the event Scenario 2 is true) outweighs the risk in this life of denying God's authenticity (in the event that Scenario 1 is true).

And / or conversely,

The benefits in this life of living according to one's own conscience, moral schema, and lifestyle (in the event that Scenario 2 is true) outweigh the benefits in this life of living a life surrendered to God (in the event that Scenario 1 is true).

Is this what you are saying?

---

For the first statement, YES. Definitely. Because of the qualitatively different states of existence between earthly existence and Unity with God postmortem. For the second statement, I think the question is hard to answer. It depends on what we mean by "benefits." For example, let's say that "benefits" equals existential angst. It could be the case that a person who lives according to their own edicts wouldn't have to face a bewildering "dark night of the soul" or incomprehensible emotional pain at the hands of "following God" On the other hand, one's surrendered life may give one the existential "answers" to life's questions that help them to endure many hardships whereas a person following their own light may still experience these. See the issue? Still a bit rough to answer.



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


Semeia, sorry about the computer troubles. I know the feeling.

Semeia:

quote:

---

But here’s the problem: the truth is often painful. Especially the truth about ourselves. The truth about our deeply flawed natures, the truth about a lifetime full of mistakes, false judgments, false actions. Even those among us who are after God’s own heart are riddled with sin. David was a murderer. Even the chosen disciples were a motley crew. But the only way to eternal life is through Jesus, who is the way, and the TRUTH, and the life. So when we die we come face to face with the truth. (Picture Jack Nicholson here, in A Few Good Men: “You can’t HANDLE the truth!”) This is the big reality check. And the only way in is to peel back the layers of denial, of rationalization, of submerged anger and fear, to reveal our deep intent behind every thought and action we have taken in the course of a lifetime. Suddenly Hell is starting to look pretty good. In hell we can stay numb, go to sleep, forget. But God IS the truth. God IS reality. To deny the truth is to deny God. So if we imagine Hitler, for example, we would see that the truth of his actions, the pain that he caused, is almost impossible to imagine he could bear to apprehend, and chances are he would turn away, rather than confront the reality of each precious life he tortured and extinguished.

---

To me, you basically bring up the point that we can never be sure of just HOW open to truth we will be if it's painful. It's easy to say before you can confront it, right? Point taken. However, as you well mention later in your post, THIS APPLIES TO "CHRISTIANS" who would consider themselves believers! So any trouble this would create for agnostics would apply to "believers" too. Hmmm...

____________________________________

Semeia:

quote:

---

Mephi, I guess this speaks to your analogy, after all. Because when it comes right down to it, I don’t think I want to depend on my own apprehension of reality in the end. What if it is too painful to admit to? But if I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, in which I have gotten used to admitting that I know almost nothing about anything, in which I am constantly embarking on a 12 step program of one kind or another - always humbled by knowledge of a higher power, and the admission that most of life is out of my control - then it seems more likely that based on that relationship, I’ll perhaps be open to the truth, and recognize his voice. No guarantee, mind you, but it seems like the relationship is more likely to lead me to the reality, rather than the reality lead me to the relationship. But I grant you that it is possible the other way around.

I think many people of all religions will choose God, and many Christians will not.

---

Your last sentence here said it all. How could this be possible if cognitive knowledge of Christ and the Christ work were completely necessary?

___________________________________

Semeia:

quote:

---

Love isn’t a piece of logic we agree to believe in – it is a perspective on reality that changes the way we view the facts, and frequently it flies in the face of logic. God’s love for us certainly can’t be plumbed or understood by logic. Christ’s death on the cross can’t be anticipated or remembered by formula; love stands in contraposition to reason because the facts and reality are deeper than our perception, and require faith. When you think about it, all love requires a temporary suspension of disbelief, a risk, a faith. When God asks us to believe, he gives us the prerequisite for love, which is faith.

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.

---

I think this is a slightly reductionistic way to conceptualize agnosticism. It's almost as if agnosticism is DIRECTLY LINKED to being overly cerebral and hyper-evidentialist. This is not so. Though agnostics MAY be like that, it's not a necessity. It is VERY possible to believe in the love as being somehow the Reality of which all things are composed...while having serious doubts about the existence of the Christian God. In other words, being an agnostic is DISTINCT from being a naturalist or a rationalist.


______________________________________________

Semeia:

quote:

---

And Mephi, it was GREAT to finally meet you in person!!! You and your lovely wife are wonderful and just plain fun to hang out with! You never did say exactly why you were so shocked (at least it seemed like shock) to meet me. ??? Hmmm????

---

Thanks for that, Semeia. It was GREAT to finally see you in person too. As for why we (or particularly I) was so shocked to see you...well... Hope you don't find this embarassing, but I didn't expect you to look so...er...um...aw, forget it...I didn't expect you to look so petite, yet GOOD for your er...um...age. Nette and I tripped off that. Let me just say that you are a pretty nice looking woman...and I honestly, didn't expect you to look THAT bomb by your speaking voice on the phone. But hey, there it is. Icon, you have a catch there, buddy. Don't hate me for speaking truth, 'kay? So, have I embarrassed you enough, Semeia? LOLOL


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


Yo! Now, THIS is what I'm talking bout. I'm loving the interaction. Keep it moving, peeps!


Holla,



PS: For those who are wondering, YES, Meph and Nette are normal, fully-functioning human beings who notice and acknowledge beautiful people, men and women. And we love doing it. Hey, sue us. HA!

Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/04/2002 1:01:08 PM

quote:

---

Isn’t your thought experiment predicated upon the premise that WE can and need to know precisely who qualifies for postmortem evangelism (if there is such a thing)?

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that the agnostic who holds out the possibility of hell and fears it, versus the Christian who fears nothing out of a false, smug comfort in their "beliefs," is likely in a better position ultimately.

---

and...

quote:

---

Part of the issue that Mephi is raising here is that we are all on a journey and we cannot know where we will "be" in an ultimate sense at any given point along the journey. The honest agnostic may well be on a journey towards God, while the confessing "Christian" may be on a journey towards "hell."

---

Sweet stuff, E. Again, it's great to have ya back.


Givin' that Southern hospitality,

The Word becomes flesh. The only-begotten Son is born as a man, Jesus of Nazareth. And the Spirit who is in him is given to all men to make them also sons of the Father in an eternal development of attaining His perfection by growing forever "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13). [Hopko]


"For we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba! Father! The Spirit itself bears witness that we are children of God ... for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself intercedes for us ... "(Rom 8:15-16, 26)


By the Holy Spirit given by God through Christ, men can share the life, the love, the truth, the freedom, the goodness, the holiness, the wisdom, the knowledge of God Himself. It is this conviction and experience which has caused the development in the Orthodox Church of the affirmation of the fact that the essence of Christianity is "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit" and the "deification" of man by the grace of God, the so-called theosis. [Hopko]



"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you. ... For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are" (1 Cor 3:16; also Rom 6:19).
"... through him (Christ) we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows in a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:18-22; also 1 Pet 2:4-9).

quote:

---

Mephi: Well, Doc and others have answered this pretty well. The Church's mission is to BEAR WITNESS to God in Christ through faith energized by love. THAT'S ALL.

Tom: That’s all? I thought our mission was to “disciple all nations” (Matt 28). That’s far more than just “bearing witness.” I totally agree that we bear witness. And I totally agree that saving people is not our “job.” But don’t divorce means and purpose so absolutely. The notion that God has NOT purposed our bearing witness (what WE do) to be the means by which he saves them (what GOD does) has, it seems to me, not a shred of biblical evidence going for it. I don’t think anybody in the early church believed this. I think they saw themselves as God’s instrument for establishing God’s rule in the earth—i.e., God does what GOD does through what God has asked US to do. In other words, don’t boil down the Church’s mission to any one metaphor. Bearing or being witnesses is what we do. But talk of “rescuing people from hell” should not be thought of as less than accurate or somehow academically and culturally naïve.

---

Ok. Let me repost, while placing some emphases.

Well, Doc and others have answered this pretty well. The Church's mission is to BEAR WITNESS to God in Christ through faith energized by love. THAT'S ALL. We were not called to snatch people from the burning embers of hell (as much as that gets thought) We are to HOPE FOR and EXPECT conversions but they are NOT the primary impetus behind what is done. Missions, as you probably well now, is NOT merely a pragmatic exercise. So, in short, this idea does LITTLE, I think, to our doctrine of the Church. The Church universal on this earth is STILL the Body and Bride of Christ...and that wouldn't change. Our being called out wouldn't change. Our obligation to witness to our Head and Bridegroom would not be eliminated. What's the big deal?

Let's be VERY CLEAR on what I'm saying. I am saying that our PRIMARY IMPETUS behind evangelism should be the goodness of the Gospel message and God's Kingdom, NOT the all too human motivation of helping people out. Yes, God does what God does THROUGH our actions, but that is no excuse for having such a pragmatic view of missionary work. I believe that much missiology works the OTHER WAY. Because of human compassion (which is understandable) and the belief in the reality of hell, many people want to get those "others" saved. It's more about people avoiding hell than either expanding God's kingdom or joyfully proclaiming the Gospel. In my mind, what chiefly separates EVANGELISM from PROSELYTISM is our focus on bearing witness rather than mere conversion and "discipling" of others.


INTENTIONALITY LEADS TO CERTAIN PRAXES. Do you think that "rice evangelism" (You know what that is) would take place as much as it does if people REALLY thought of evangelism in a way other than a "save them by any means necessary" stance?

To me this intentionality issue becomes OBVIOUS when dealing with PME. And it's never made sense to me. Would it matter to missionaries if UNIVERSALISM were true? Seeing as how we:

1) Have commands from Jesus to "disciple all nations"
2) SHOULD have such unbridled love for the Gospel message and its transformative power
3) want to expand the Kingdom here on earth

...WHY would the eschatological state matter to us...UNLESS we were being "functionalist", as POW said. It's almost like the line of thought is as follows:

Why in the world am I going to put MY life (or my family's) life on the line (in various ways) to bring to Gospel to others who don't have it...if EVENTUALLY most, if not ALL people , will eventually be with God anyway? Why have such a sense of urgency if this is not of life-and-death/eternal salvation vs damnation importance?

For anyone who thinks like this, how is this NOT functionalist? How is this thought NOT ultimately betray one's true feelings about the Gospel itself? it's no wonder some of the CHIEF arguments that people have against inclusivism, PME, or things like that is the PRAGMATIC missions argument. Sad.

Anyway, I hope this clears things up. I am not bifurcating means and purpose as much as you may think I am. I AM trying to look at our perspectives and their possibly being skewed.

Holla,