Funny this thread goes up, as I was just getting ready to start a discussion on many of these issues. We have seen both Calvinist and Arminian explanation of the "
scandal of particularity" —that only Christ saves, and one must hear of Him, then be convinced of Him, and then receive Him, to be saved and escape an eternal Hell; yet most people in the world are not meeting all three of these conditions. Most don't see any reason to "change one religion for another". In many countries, religion is apart of culture, and as Christianity has become apart of "western" culture, they see it as becoming "western", and coming under the dominance of West. Others were once Christians, but have bad memories of hypocrisy, corruption, authoritarianism and outright abuse. Others just look at this whole history of the Church, which one called a "2000 year crime wave" Finally, others have not even heard of Christ altogether.
So to address the problem of those who never heard, the Arminians come up with "anyone can call out to God, and then He will answer and send the missionary so he can 'believe'". Others who do not believe this basically place it all in our hands. There are millions of people out there who could be saved, dying every day, so we have to hurry and try to get the Gospel out to them as fast as we can. They are all in our hands, and if they go to Hell, they will call out to you and say "why"? And many think that God is waiting for a certain amount of people to be saved before He will finally send Christ back to fix this sad world, ending all death and suffering once and for all. Yet, look at the average Church budget statements, and most of the money is going to pay a stationary 'pastor' (usually including all of his and his family's living and travel expenses) and other "staff", and maintain a building, and often other trappings (making it look nice, trying to get bigger buildings, fancy "worship" or even entertainment). What's left from all that goes to missions. And they still have to struggle to support themselves. So if it's in our hands, it doesn't look good at all. Some realize this and have bent the Gospel to allow for those who have never heard being saved by obeying as much truth as they can know through general revelation alone. But this is understandably seen by many as calling into question the necessity of Christ.
So the Calvinists take the easier road and just says God is most glorified in the damnation of most of humanity anyway, and only wants to save a few, so most of those who never heard were only created as "vessels of wrath", and He will send missionaries to the "elect" scattered out there. This, I believe is one reason Calvinism sticks. But can you really call that "good news"? Look out at any group of people around you*, and they are all are "lost" and going to Hell, and God has ordained it that way! (*That is, unless you are in a Church. But then, some of these Calvinists and other conservatives will claim that half of the people in the Church are really lost "tares"!)
Then, even once you accept Christ, there is the issue of the "right" beliefs, as we have been arguing here. And then other groups with OSAS and works salvation. So we still faced with the question, why can't we even agree on anything, and if we are wrong on some of these issues, are WE even saved?
We hold up the "general revelation" argument as it were the ultimate convicting evidence, but in reality, it is not. At least, not of the particular God of the Bible. That is what we are interested in; not just any "intelligence". Hence, in the ID debates I was in, people came up with what they called a "
Flying Spaghetti Monster" analogy, as an example of any "intelligence" we can come up with to explain creation. The God of the Bible has specific set of PERSONAL characteristics. These are NOT evidenced in "design". Like the concepts of "justice"; perhaps the biggest, and most important attribute of God. The whole plan of salvation, and hence, the Judeo-Christian Gospel is based on this.
The ultimate case will be of CONSCIENCE.
That we all know deep down inside that we are "sinners". This is supposed to be why even those who have never heard of Christ are still "judged". They are supposed to know they have done wrong, which then points to a higher authority that determined right and wrong in the first place, whom they should appeal to for forgiveness. While I can relate this to my own inner experience; I find it hard to go up to others on
a premise of "You know it's true". This argument is too
subjective. When the person denies this, we are forced to conclude that he's just "holding the truth in unrighteousness". And then, what about our own doubts and inability to prove anything to each other?
Pastor Bob said:
No one will be able to stand before God and say, "But God, I didn’t know you!" God will say, "I gave you the light. Remember that night when you looked up at the stars and saw the galaxies and I spoke to you inside and told you there is a God, and that He made all of this? You chose to ignore the light and walk in darkness."
. But if that's true, then why do so many truly find it hard to believe? And not just those trying to make excuses for living in sin, but even those in despair, really trying to find meaning to life. And even Christians, admit they have doubts! That is too SUBJECTIVE a hypothesis to stake the truth on!
Yet, we have this "irrefutable" answer system where we can walk away affirming to ourselves that we are right, and the other person is just "blind" or refusing truth, but without even being able to offer any concrete proof to them it is true.
The "Everyone has the light" argument is easy for one to say and tell themselves it's right, as they cannot see into anyone else's head or heart.
Another big point is that it is ALSO man's "conscience" that opposes the notion of Hell. Of course, now, instead of the conscience being attributed to general revelation, it is dismissed as "sinful human logic". So again, we have a fundamental
attribution shift. The human mind and heart are only valid when they suit our arguments; otherwise, they are totally invalid.
It has also been said that the guiding principle in the universe we see is that of a "jungle" where there is no justice; only "survival": fight to stay alive, or die. Our universal answer to this is "the Fall". Basically, the universe is the way it is, because it is not as God created it. Sinful creatures rebelled against God, and then God cursed the physical realm, basically. God specifically mentioned the plants producing thorns, hard labor being necessary to survive on the earth, and childbirth becoming hard, and finally, death. Some hypothesize on an earlier rebellion of angels, to explain the seeming chaos and dacy across the universe (well beyong man's scope); with certain passages of scripture interpreted as referring to this. (The original contexts are usually about some earthly figure). And still, we don't agree on this stuff. No one is sure. It's all just hypothesis.
But then, to claim a "fall" then,
leaves the realm of general revelation, as that is
not observable. If some things in life are good as created by God, and others are fallen, then
the argument of general revelation becomes ambiguous, as
the mixture of "good" and "bad" in the universe does not tell us who created the good, and who cause the bad, or even if it was separate causes. So you can't claim the person "should have known", but "held the truth in unrighteousness". It's on this point that all our arguments fall flat. The few times I had tried to use this on my father, he pointed out that the rest of the universe is "violent", and "life only tells you one thing: survive!" and ever since then, it seems
the "general revelation" argument has been more on his side!
And then, there were other debates in the Politcs section, regarding Conservative rhetoric, where those financially struggling, and minorities are always told to stop "whining" and being "covetous", while the rich and powerful are defended as "deserving" all they have because "the market says they're worth it". This clearly places "worth" on one's status in the "jungle". This is another big strike in favor of the "jungle" theory. Even avowed Conservative anti-Darwinians believe in it, --when it comes to socioeconomics! So it seems by our own unwitting admission, this is the way life is. You then wonder how or if anyone can really be judged then. Who can be blamed if "it's just the market"?
At least the evolutionists evidences such as man's tail bone, while they may not be absolute proof of common descent; let alone atheism or deism till seem more solid than the whole "fallen cosmos" concept which points to some ideal state of "perfection" no one has ever experienced or can even relate to. All we can say is "well; God created it that way, or allowed it to be affacted by the Fall; why, we don't know." so we have all these partial hypotheses, but no answer. Fine, but do we really have a basis then, to expect or even demand others to accept our hypothesis and reject others?
We have heaped up so many arguments on every issue in and out of the Church, and we always cop out with "we can't know everything" or "God' has kept that to Himself". This is used particularly in the issues of Calvinistic reprobation or preterition, why evil is allowed for so long and Christ doesn't come back already, the scandal of particularity, and when details on doctrines like the Trinity, creation, universal Flood, etc. are questioned. Anything we can't answer. Yet we claim to know so much when approaching others with these doctrines.
So all of this stuff has been bothering me lately, as we ourselves argue on and on about every possible issue under the sun.
aul is NOT arguing "God so loved the Jews for 4000 years until finally finally God so Loved the World and sent His Son"
