I still don't think I misused the passages in question... When I've done my homework, I'll give you a response.

Great! I'll wait for that then. I look forward to hearing your research. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong! It has happened before

But we're still consenting to their deaths by not warning them of hell and telling them about Jesus.

Their spiritual deaths have already happened; our "consent" doesn't apply. You can't give permission for something that has already happened; your permission is completely irrelevant at that point! However, I think we agree that Christians have a responsibility to carry out the Great Commission and preach the Gospel, in words and actions, to those around us.

Remember Ezekiel?

I knew Ezekiel would come up! In fact, I almost addressed it pre-emptively in my last post. Yes, we certainly have a responsibility to speak the truth to people — I've never denied that. What I deny is that we should be motivated by guilt, as your idea of "spiritual death warrants" implies. Ultimately, 220, you and I are not responsible to save people. If they choose according to their sin nature, unquickened by the work of the Holy Spirit, their blood is most certainly not on our heads. If we fail to speak when we should, that is sin, certainly — but it is covered by the blood of Christ. That doesn't let us off the hook as far as evangelizing, but it makes the evangelizing more about obeying God rather than looking after our own interests (ie not wanting to feel guilty about having someone's blood on our heads). Does that make sense?

By the way, what does not telling people about Jesus have to do with "our failures and disobedience"?

Hmm, I must not have been clear. Not bearing witness to the work of Christ in our lives, when God opens that door and points us to the people we need to speak to, is a failure and an act of disobedience on our part. That's what they have to do with each other.

We need to preach the Gospel out of obedience to God, not out of guilt. If I am preaching to someone because I am more concerned about having their blood on my hands than about being obedient to the Great Commission, that's a problem. At that point my motive is not longer love for God, but fear for my own skin. I don't want to be guilty for someone else's blood, right? That should never be pointed to as the motive for missions. The motive for missions is obedience to Christ's command to preach the Gospel. That's it. We don't need to add anything else.

Correct! But "how then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!'” [Rom 10:14-15] This passage has spurred many into Christian missions.

I'm not arguing against missions (really, why do you make out that that is my argument?). It would be silly for me to do that anyways; my sister is a missionary in a closed Communist country. John 6:37 and Romans 10:14–15 work together. God is pleased to use us in His great work of harvesting souls. But it does not follow that if we oversleep one morning and get out to the field late, or don't cover our part of the harvest perfectly, or maybe don't bring the right scythe, that souls predestined for salvation will be lost instead. (If you think about it, such a view makes salvation based on man's work again!)

All that the Father has given Christ will come to Him. I'm privileged to be part of the process, but I will not in arrogance consider my part so essential that my failure to fulfill it thwarts God's plan of salvation in someone's life. Good heavens, what a ridiculously high opinion of myself I would have if I thought so! God works through us, but sometimes He also works in spite of us. His purposes are always fulfilled.

I'm not trying to manipulate anyone.

Trying to motivate yourself and others by guilt is manipulation, conscious or not.

Missions/evangelism should be our God-given passion, not a chore. It has nothing to do with guilt or legalism.

It definitely has something to do with guilt and legalism when we do it out of guilt, lashing ourselves into a state of prideful arrogance that says God can't work without us. He chooses to use us, but He doesn't have to!

But if we feel that way about missions, how close to Jesus are we? ... I ask this of you as I ask it of everyone in this thread, nay in this forum: where is your compassion--for the lost?

Perhaps you can discern my heart and exercise your spiritual gift to discern everything there . Again, I am completely pro-missions and praise God for the work He is doing both around the world and in my own neighborhood. I pray daily for several people in my life that I am sharing Christ with. I am so thankful to God that His plans for their lives will come to pass, regardless of my imperfections as a messenger. It really takes the pressure off me to perform and be persuasive when I look at those people with the knowledge of God's unstoppable work and sovereign will in their lives.

I'm afraid that statements like the one just above make me feel very defensive, as though I am being attacked. Perhaps you don't mean it that way — I'm trying to assume the best — but we might get farther in this discussion if we both tried harder to think better of one another.

Christ's passion should be ours, but without any sense of guilt or manipulation!

Agreed. When Jesus starts talking about spiritual death warrants, then I'll subscribe to that notion. Until then, I will see it for what it is: a thought that popped into someone's head randomly, that is not a Scriptural motivation for missions.

Do you know one reason why so many have become missionaries?

I do, but it's always good to be reminded!

Really? Tell that to Amy Carmichael!

Please spare me the dreams and visions; I view them with great skepticism when they are not from Scripture. Extra revelation is not needed because we have the Word; indeed, the Bible says that adding anything to Scripture (which I take to mean, putting ANYTHING else on the same level of Scripture) is both sinful and dangerous (Revelation 22:18–19). No doubt Amy Carmichael was a fine Christian woman, but that doesn't mean everything she saw (or thought she saw) is true. Let's stick with Scripture. I don't give any real credence to anything else.

And I will tell that to Amy Carmichael when I meet her in Heaven!

What in "how did God's sovereign choice come about" made you think I made the claim that "God's choices were based on Jacob and Esau's"?

I don't know, it seemed pretty clear when you said, "How did God’s sovereign choice come about? Through Esau’s hatred of his birthright and Jacob’s deception (Genesis 27)." To me, this says God's sovereign choice was based on Esau's hatred of his birthright and Jacob's deception — in other words, their actions. God chose them based on what they did. And that's why I took such exception to that idea; it's entirely unbiblical.

God's divine election isn't fate. We are responsible, held accountable, for what we say and do.

Amen! The Bible teaches both God's complete sovereignty and man's responsibility.

And God always works in time and space.

I'm unsure what this adds to your argument. The Bible says that Christ was slain from the foundations of the world (Revelation 13:8). The purposes and plans of God's heart are carried out in time and space, but they existed before them. Before the creation of the world, God foresaw and foreplanned everything. The way you describe almost sounds like God creates everything and then makes His plans reacting to us, rather than having a great plan already in place and inevitable in fulfillment.

At the same time, "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" [Rev 22].

That's the general call you're talking about here. Yes, whoever will may drink the water of life (metaphor for partaking in salvation), BUT God knows that no one will without His specifically working in their hearts. Whosoever will is perfectly accurate, but it does not imply unconditioned will — just free will. People will always choose what they want; that is the definition of free will. But people will never want God until He changes their hearts. Whosoever will are those the Father has given Christ, and they are His! They are the ones who will respond to the general call, because God has placed the effectual call on their hearts and His grace is irresistible.

So instead of addressing this particular church, Jesus seems to be addressing individuals within that church because the church as a whole is so corrupt.

Mm, I don't know. I still don't think that makes the verse mean that God goes around piteously knocking on every heart's door, begging and pleading to be let in.

But whether we're discussing salvation or sanctification, both God's divine election and man's free will are at work. God draws, we pursue. God draws, we pursue. Ad infinitum.

But wouldn't you say that God drawing is also Him pursuing us, like the Shepherd going after His lost sheep? "Drawing" is not a passive behavior, but a deliberate action. God is not passively sitting a little ways off, waiting for us to get up and chase after Him! He takes a much more active role in both our salvation and sanctification than that.

We can't say we're saved and then rest on our laurels.

Any laurels attached to salvation are His anyways, not ours! And if we truly are saved, the Holy Spirit will bear fruit in us as we seek to please Him and know Him better . It's inevitable!

(Sits for a moment, with wide eyes and a smile, then tentatively begins to type)

Wow. Quite an interesting exchange -- and so foundational!

I do wonder: why is it that people who hear rebuttals to wrong motivations for evangelism (such as "their blood will be on our heads if we don't"!) reflexively assume the rebutter doesn't care about The Lost? Really, at least among the brothers and sisters in Christ here, I would hope to see more grace and attitudes of humble questioning shown rather than knee-jerk assumptions. At the same time, because of long-held evangelical thought processes that aren't based in Scripture, those who rightfully critique the wrong ideas -- such as myself -- try to be aware that these wrong assumptions about the critic's reasons will be made.

Ever since growing in the glorious truths that God is sovereign in salvation, I have become more eager to share this truth with others.

The first Great Awakening in America was led largely by Calvinists like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. While yes, Reformed theology has been misunderstood to downplay preaching, in reality it frees the preacher to preach indiscriminately and let God take care of saving souls. Preaching never saved anyone--the Holy Spirit saves--yet no one will ever be saved without preaching.

Meanwhile, it's Reformed churches, leaders and ministries at the forefront of many missions efforts today. Obviously they don't see some contradiction between knowing that it is God Who saves, yet knowing He will very often use His people to accomplish this goal.

Instead of being guilt-driven, I want to share Christ with friends, acquaintances and coworkers because God has done so much for me, such as, oh, saving me from Hell forever. How could I not want others, if I care for them personally, to know this same God and grace?

My opposition to guilt-driven motivations, or stupid church tricks like wild experiences, pop songs or skits, exploding objects, etc., or just simply Playing "Just As I Am" One More Time and Raising Your Voice With Tears to try to get someone to Make a Decision, is based not on Failing to Care for the Lost, but yearning for The Lost truly to convert to Christ.

Meanwhile, others are soft-peddling the Gospel, removing the rougher elements to try to get people to like the message better. Maybe it's overreaction to the rough-elements-only perversion of the Gospel, as Draugrin recently described. Of course, I'm not saying all free-willies have this attitude (certainly not my free-willie friends on the forum!). But that is the logical outcome of basing everything on Charles Finney-style pragmatism: we need to use all kinds of tricks or Big Conference Experiences, whatever "works" to get someone to "convert."

Too often Christians "yes-but" the Gospel. They're afraid that if they talk about how salvation is all up to God, people will just sit back and relax and not do anything. So in effect such Christians say "Yes, the Gospel is important, and grace is amazing, but now it's time to get up and go work." What is devalued? The Gospel. What is given more value? Human nature, exactly what should not be trusted to get up and do good works.

In Paul's letters, he never got beyond the Gospel. Every encouragement to grow in discipleship, every mandate to spread the faith to others, was tied back to that truth. Never get beyond it. Never trust anything else but it to save souls: not stupid church tricks, not emotions, not human nature, not persuasive speech. Only the Gospel: pure and simple!

To tie two topics together, I was mildly surprised that so many people here dislike the hymn "In the garden" -- which describes the moment that Mary Magdalene realized that the "gardener" beside her was her risen Lord.

I *like* "In the garden."

document it.

Some sources say there's a fourth verse and that only 1, 2, and 4 make it into hymnbooks. Alternately the extra lines are a solo sung or spoken. Here ya go.

I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear
Falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses

CHORUS:
And He walks with me
And He talks with me
(Jesus) And He tells me I am His own (I belong to Him)
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known

He speaks and the sound of his voice
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing
And the melody that he gave to me
Within my heart is ringing

CHORUS

Now Mary wept to the tomb
Angels said, "Why cry?"
She said, "Have you moved him away
Tell me where and I'll get him"
Mary went to the disciples
With great, great news
And she said, "I've seen the Lord"

I'd stay in the garden with Him
Tho the night around me be falling
But He bids me go
Thru the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling

CHORUS (x2)

Source: Acadisc

/EDIT

...

BTW there's a hymn that fits today's discussion. This little dirge-like refrain was stuck in my brain for so long that I still remember it as being in the key of A-flat.

YOU NEVER MENTIONED HIM TO ME by James Rowe

When in the better land before the bar we stand,
How deeply grieved our souls will be;
If any lost one there should cry in deep despair,
"You never mentioned Him to me."

CHORUS: You never mentioned Him to me,
You helped me not the light to see;
You met me day by day and knew I was astray,
Yet never mentioned Him to me."

O let us spread the word _ where e'er it may be heard,
Help groping souls the light to see,
That yonder none may say, "You showed me not the way."
You never mentioned Him to me.

CHORUS

A few sweet words may guide a lost one to His side,
Or turn sad eyes on Calvary;
So work as days go by, that yonder none may cry,
"You never mentioned Him to me."

CHORUS

Comments?

Some of the comments in the responses to 220CT's posts reminded me of a recent exchange I had with a friend. It touches on the question of Free Will and who will be "saved". She asked me the following, because she hasn't read Lewis and is not a Christian.

Quite by co-incidence, just yesterday I heard this quote on the radio:
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
I don't understand it at all. (shrug)

I replied:

It could mean that he saw some people as blindly following God's Will, and others as exercising their own choice with God leaving whether or not they come to "Him" in their own hands, but I'm not entirely certain. It's a shame that people feel the need to chop an exposition into pithy sound-bites.

I think more context would give me a better idea of Lewis's actual position. But I was wondering how you guys (and gals) see this quote. I think it has some bearing on the debate about whether spreading the gospel because one feels bad for the unsaved is Biblical. Although there are questions of Free Will implied, I'm not trying to get that debate started again . I'm just trying to figure out what you think Lewis's position vis a vis this quote is.

GB

Here's another Lewis quote that's very similar, and may help explain:

You WILL carry out God's purpose. But it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John.

Theologians make a difference between whether someone follows God's revealed will, or will of command -- that is, a "Thou shalt" type of mandate -- or His hidden will, what He decides will happen and which we can never step outside of carrying out no matter how we choose to act. For example, it's clear from Exodus 3 that God told Pharaoh to let His people go from slavery, but Pharaoh wouldn't because God actually had a deeper plan, to proclaim His Name in Egypt and especially to the Israelites through the plagues. Romans 9 furthers this point, showing how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Similarly, it's true to say that everyone will get to God eventually. But only those who love God and want to be there will bow the knee to Him out of love, and not because they are forced. Non-Christians will bow anyway, and carry out God's purpose, but they won't like it.

Finally, The Old Maid ... ahem ... yeah, thanks for that.

Hope you heard my gentle sarcasm in that, but it's not directed at you; it's directed at the perhaps well-meaning, but woefully un-Biblical, writer, James Rowle.

I see it more clearly now, this notion: the Gospel isn't enough to make us overflow with gratitude to God for His grace and to serve as a conduit to share His love and truth to others. Instead we need to pile guilt on top of ourselves, saying that we'll be "deeply grieved" in front of God someday if we don't "mention Him" to someone else. The Gospel is not enough. Only what we say matters, eh wot?

So what if I do mention Jesus directly to everybody and they do get saved? Do I get the credit for that? It makes sense that I would, wouldn't it, if by not mentioning Him to everyone I'll be "deeply grieved" at the end.

Speaking more edgily than I usually do here: I find that song disgusting.

God saves. He uses us. We witness not out of guilt or fear of some fate if we don't, but because we're grateful and overflowing with love for God and a desire to glorify Him to others. This is not only the message of Scripture, but my own testimony as I've talked to others about spiritual matters. I don't need to do whatever is "necessary" to "get" them saved. Instead, I share Christ's truth and grace wherever I can, sometimes in little bits, sometimes more directly, because I want to glorify Him. Even when I don't want to glorify Him, if I think about it, I want to want to glorify Him. And that's solely because of Him, and not me.

Thanks Doc . I had a feeling as I kept examining the quote in light of Lewis's other works that it was something like that "You make your choice, but either way it's all part of God's Plan" sort of thing .

Live Long and Prosper
GB

Hey Doc, you're so shy. It's like pulling teeth to get two words out of you.

You read "guilt" but I've also heard it read as "fear." Am guessing that that reading wouldn't fly with the Calvinists, but it's not uncommon, at all, at all.

I said it was stuck. Lyrics to something better wouldn't be declined.

There seems to be two versions to that quote (which incidentally happened to come up today on my Lewis quote of the day). Here is a slightly different version:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.
— C.S. Lewis (The Great Divorce)

The quote is also used in this article which deals with a theory about what the Gospel means about who is saved and who isn’t. Of course that doesn’t mean Lewis supported the authors points; it just means that the author thought he did.
(I just did a search for the quote and the article and the slightly different quote came up.)

I need to think more and perhaps see if I can find the copy of the Great Divorce that is around here somewhere before I state an opinion on the quote.

It's still relevant to me Pattertwig . The more input I can get on this, the better.

If I read the more substantive passage correctly, it suggests that maybe Lewis might have leaned more to the "Free Willie" side of things. It also suggests, just as the Emeth passage of LB does, that he was certainly an Inclusivist. I don't have my own copy of The Great Divorce, so definitely let me know what you think after examining it more in-depth .

Peace and Long Life
GB

Lewis did lean toward the free-willie side, and directly disavowed "Calvinism" -- as he saw it -- in The Great Divorce and The Problem of Pain, specifically the concept of "total depravity."

But he, like many people, thoroughly misunderstood it to mean there was no goodness in the human race. Informed Reformeds never deny that. They simply point to the Biblical evidence that nothing a person does is good enough to merit God's favor.

Perhaps Lewis missed the "Calvinists' " views of common grace?

Either way, by now I'm sure he is Reformed, or in Heaven he has joined John and Charles Wesley in a friendly debating society versus Calvin himself, and perhaps B.B. Warfield, and the Apostle Paul.

Also, while I love The Great Divorce, without support from the Bible I find it hard to say God sends people to Hell because, deep down, they want it. My view of human nature, from what I see in the Scripture, is much less optimistic. People want goodness, yes, and they want their own way, but by nature they want it free of bad consequences, and even more so, free of God. They want many of God's gifts, even the ideals of moral behavior and righteousness, but on their own, without the Creator of all good things, Who is Himself goodness. This is the epitome of rebellion, and I can't think that God simply gives them "what they really want" when He punishes them. That seems to cheat divine justice. Surely God, though He is kind and compassionate and would prefer someone repent and follow Him, is not crushed and weeping in anguish when He executes His divine and rightful wrath against a rebel sinner who has rejected Him. If all works according to His plan, and if all things ultimately glorify His Name to His creation, that includes sinners' punishment in Hell.

Yet I will admit that this is the sort of thing Christians normally talk about (or should talk about) in the "clubhouse," as it were. Nonbelievers will be repulsed by such a thing. To them I would contend, plead even, to see things not from our point of view, but the point of view of God Himself. If He is great at all -- and He is -- then the smallest sliver of a germ of a micron of an atom of a thought of a sin is infinitely horrible in His sight.

Hmm. A short post for a change. Yet about some very important things.

Immediate EDIT: Just now author Randy Alcorn, who loves Lewis' nonfiction and especially fiction and who writes similarly on a lay-level, "Tweeted" this and it directly relates:

When we see the purpose of the universe as God’s long-term glory—not our short-term happiness—we undergo a critical paradigm shift—Isa 60:19

That verse, toward the end about how God will glorify Himself in the future glory of His people, Israel, reads as follows:

The sun shall be no more
your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon
give you light;
but the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory.

Isaiah 60: 19 (ESV)

Whew. Eye-wateringly powerful, and yes, paradigm-shifting.

Thanks again Doc, for affirming my thoughts on Lewis . I understand that many theologians think Lewis got his theology wrong on some issues like this, as in the debate he had with Anscombe.

It's taken me a while to figure out myself what the position of Calvinism really means (at least as you have explained it). But I think I'm finally getting your point. I was debating Providence in The Lord of the Rings recently, and realized a passage I wrote echoed the principle you are espousing (I think) .

Gollum, thought to be dead by Frodo and Sam, survives his fall into the chasm outside Shelob's Lair. He reappears on the slopes of Mt Doom, just in time to battle for the Ring. This was a necessary component to the destruction of the Ring. Providence again. And finally, on the ledge, the last struggle seals the Ring's fate. It's not really important who ends up with the Ring at that point. What is important is what Providence demands. The Struggle itself. Only by someone "Accidentally" falling with the Ring or dropping it, can the Ring be carried into the Lava Pit of Doom. As long as Jackson demonstrated this, he was perfectly in keeping with Tolkien's notion of Providence.

Providence works through individuals, by choosing those who are most likely to choose a path that synchronizes with the needs of Providence. This is different from the Manipulative Power of the Dark Side, which forces individuals to bend to it's Will, against their own judgment. So Choice and Destiny in the hands of Providence are two sides of the same coin.

I quoted the previous paragraph also so would understand the context of the conversation. If I understand you correctly, whether one ends up in Hell may be by their own "choices" but it's not necessarily their plan to end up there. And though God wants people to choose Him, He will not change a persons heart against their will. But He will make the choice available.

And thus, as God's Plan includes Hell for those that do not choose Him, and as He knows what is in People's hearts, it can be said that he Preordains where one ends up, but does not Predestine them. Let me know if I am getting warmer.

Peace and long Life
GB

Similarly, it's true to say that everyone will get to God eventually. But only those who love God and want to be there will bow the knee to Him out of love, and not because they are forced. Non-Christians will bow anyway, and carry out God's purpose, but they won't like it.

I have read and reread this part of your post and I still don't understand it. What do you mean by "get to God"? By those "who love God" do you mean Christians or something else? Will non-Christians bow because they are forced?

On the topic of my limited understanding , I'm having a little trouble with "free willie" and "Calvinist." I'm getting the sense there is a bit of history behind these words and their use on the forum. I've looked up Calvinist (which redirected) in my The NEW OXFORD AMERICAN Dictionary and it says:

Cal·vin·ism *N. the Protestant theological system of John Calvin and his successors, which develops
Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination.

I also looked up predestination in the same source:

*N. (as a doctrine in Christian theology) the divine foreordaining of all that will happen, esp. with regard to the salvation of some and not others.

I'm guessing that the part about predestination is what comes to play on this forum and thus is set opposite of "free willie." What I'm not sure about is exactly how "opposite" these terms are. Does a "free willie" not believe that God has a plan? Does someone who believes in "predestination" believe that we really don't make choices but God has already made them for us?

I don't have my own copy of The Great Divorce, so definitely let me know what you think after examining it more in-depth .

I will. It make take awhile because I think I will start at the beginning and work my way up to the quote. I think it is in Chapter 9. It has been several years since I read it.

Yes, we certainly have a responsibility to speak the truth to people — I've never denied that. What I deny is that we should be motivated by guilt, as your idea of "spiritual death warrants" implies. Ultimately, 220, you and I are not responsible to save people. If they choose according to their sin nature, unquickened by the work of the Holy Spirit, their blood is most certainly not on our heads. If we fail to speak when we should, that is sin, certainly — but it is covered by the blood of Christ. That doesn't let us off the hook as far as evangelizing, but it makes the evangelizing more about obeying God rather than looking after our own interests (ie not wanting to feel guilty about having someone's blood on our heads).

I never said we are responsible to save others. We cannot. Only God can, through the Spirit. And God made that crystal-clear to me a few weeks ago. But we are responsible to tell, just like Ezekiel was. That's our only "job," if you will, in evangelism: "go and tell" [2 Kings 7]. I never equated witnessing and salvation. Where did this idea come from? Regarding blood on one's head, I think God can and will use anything to make people get up, and go, and tell. With Amy Carmichael, it was a vision of people dropping into hell. As a result, she spent her life rescuing Hindu girls from temple prostitution. With Ida Scudder, it was the childbirth deaths of three Muslim women in India. As a result, she became a medical missionary to Indian women. Source

Not bearing witness to the work of Christ in our lives, when God opens that door and points us to the people we need to speak to, is a failure and an act of disobedience on our part.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We need to preach the Gospel out of obedience to God, not out of guilt. If I am preaching to someone because I am more concerned about having their blood on my hands than about being obedient to the Great Commission, that's a problem. At that point my motive is not longer love for God, but fear for my own skin. I don't want to be guilty for someone else's blood, right? That should never be pointed to as the motive for missions. The motive for missions is obedience to Christ's command to preach the Gospel. That's it. We don't need to add anything else.

Good point. Our motive should be "obedience to Christ's command," out of love for Him. But then this passage came to me, in which Paul addresses the various motives why people preach the gospel.

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife, and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention [selfish ambition], not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

I don’t think Paul cared so much about motives. Love for and obedience to Christ is the ideal, but not the only, reason we preach the gospel. What matters is that Christ is preached. And Paul himself said,

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [stewardship] of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

I'm privileged to be part of the process, but I will not in arrogance consider my part so essential that my failure to fulfill it thwarts God's plan of salvation in someone's life. Good heavens, what a ridiculously high opinion of myself I would have if I thought so! God works through us, but sometimes He also works in spite of us. His purposes are always fulfilled. . . .It definitely has something to do with guilt and legalism when we do it out of guilt, lashing ourselves into a state of prideful arrogance that says God can't work without us. He chooses to use us, but He doesn't have to!

You’re right. God “chooses to use us but He doesn’t have to.” But I said nothing about our part being essential. Rather we are stewards of the gospel. Remember the parable of the talents? What do we do with the gospel, and with the talents and gifts God has given us to spread that gospel? I pray we aren’t like the servant who hid his talent in the ground. What happened to him? He was thrown “into outer darkness” [Matthew 25]. At the judgment seat of Christ, Paul says,

Every man’s work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

I don’t think God guilts us into sharing the gospel. It should be our passion. But we should still consider both the glories of heaven and the horror of hell. Concern for others’ souls, for their eternal destiny, should also be a major motive in evangelism.

But if we feel that way about missions, how close to Jesus are we? ... I ask this of you as I ask it of everyone in this thread, nay in this forum: where is your compassion--for the lost?

I'm afraid that statements like the one just above make me feel very defensive, as though I am being attacked. Perhaps you don't mean it that way — I'm trying to assume the best — but we might get farther in this discussion if we both tried harder to think better of one another.

I’m sorry if you felt attacked. I know what it is to feel that way. Yes, we should think better of one another.

Please spare me the dreams and visions; I view them with great skepticism when they are not from Scripture. Extra revelation is not needed because we have the Word; indeed, the Bible says that adding anything to Scripture (which I take to mean, putting ANYTHING else on the same level of Scripture) is both sinful and dangerous (Revelation 22:18–19). No doubt Amy Carmichael was a fine Christian woman, but that doesn't mean everything she saw (or thought she saw) is true. Let's stick with Scripture. I don't give any real credence to anything else.

I never put Carmichael’s experience on the same level as the Bible, but I have no doubt it was real and God-given. Extra revelation isn’t necessary but it still happens. All it means is that we must test dreams and visions against the Word; when they pass the tests, it means they’re God-given and should not be ignored. How many people in the Bible began their God-given ministry with a God-given dream or vision? Quite a few! And guess what? God still gives them! Joel 2:28-29 is being fulfilled every day, and it began with Acts 2.

But wouldn't you say that God drawing is also Him pursuing us, like the Shepherd going after His lost sheep? "Drawing" is not a passive behavior, but a deliberate action. God is not passively sitting a little ways off, waiting for us to get up and chase after Him! He takes a much more active role in both our salvation and sanctification than that.

Of course. I never said or implied God’s drawing us was passive. The Bible, and Christians’ lives, demonstrate quite the opposite.

Any laurels attached to salvation are His anyways, not ours! And if we truly are saved, the Holy Spirit will bear fruit in us as we seek to please Him and know Him better . It's inevitable!

Agreed! If we’re truly saved, we’ll bear good spiritual fruit. We won’t rest on our laurels, for we are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” [Eph 1]. And what happens to the crowns Jesus gives us? We cast them at His feet [Rev 4].

The Old Maid: I like “In the Garden” too! Thanks for sharing! And whatever Dr. Ransom thinks, I like “You never mentioned Him to me” as well. Why? We are repeatedly instructed to go and tell, to “be witnesses unto [Christ]” everywhere we go [Acts 1]. What does this have to do with salvation? God alone saves! But it requires preaching the Word, sowing the seed, opening our mouths and sharing “the wonderful works of God” [Acts 2], and like the song says “mention[ing] [Christ] to [others].” How many people do we meet in restaurants, grocery stores, banks, department stores, etc? Do we tell them about Jesus or do we go on our merry way? Is Jesus constantly on our lips?

It also suggests, just as the Emeth passage of LB does, that he was certainly an Inclusivist.

After reading most of LB, I’m not convinced Lewis was an inclusivist. Quite the opposite. If you want to know why, check out my responses in the “Christianity in the Last Battle” and “Emeth in Aslan’s Country” threads.

Pattertwig: I fully agree with Dr. Ransom when he says “but only those who love God and want to be there will bow the knee to Him out of love, and not because they are forced. Non-Christians will bow anyway, and carry out God's purpose, but they won't like it.” Why?

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And it’s a fulfillment of Isaiah 45 “I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Eventually EVERYONE will bow to Jesus Christ and EVERYONE will swear that He is Lord of all. But not everyone will be saved, will they? No. Those who aren't saved will be forced.

Come, now is the time to worship
♫ Come, now is the time to worship
Come, now is the time to give your heart.
Come, just as you are to worship
Come, just as you are before your God.
Come (repeat)

One day every tongue will confess You are God
One day every knee will bow
Still the greatest treasure remains for those
Who gladly choose you now. ♫

I'm guessing that the part about predestination is what comes to play on this forum and thus is set opposite of "free willie." What I'm not sure about is exactly how "opposite" these terms are. Does a "free willie" not believe that God has a plan? Does someone who believes in "predestination" believe that we really don't make choices but God has already made them for us?

I'm not the best one to answer this but since I came here several years ago as a committed "Free Willie" and viewed anything with "Calvinist" attached to it with some suspicion, I might be able to illucidate for you a bit.

Free Will adherents (of which I was one most of my life until this last year) believe that you and I and everybody who walks the Earth ultimately has a choice on whether they wish to accept Christ as the Messiah or not. To a Free Will believer everyone they see has a shot at making it to Heaven, it's simply a matter of doing the legwork in order to get people to convert. The Scriptural basis for Free Will is based on a hodge podge of verses scattered throughout the Bible centered primarily on John 3:16 (at least from my experience) and reason that God loves the entire world and all persons within it and wants everyone to come to Him.

Calvinists are much different. The basis of the Calvinist or "predestination" system is that God selects people to bring to Him. All true Christians were "chosen" by God since before time even began for reasons only God Himself knows (literally...I do not have the verse in front of me but it says this exactly ). This process may strike FW adherents as seemingly random but Scripture says there is Purpose behind the selections. Calvinists also see the human condition as being fatally flawed in the sense that while you and I and everybody have "free will", or the ability to make choices on our own, that those choices are automatically skewed by our being imperfect sinful beings. Thus while we have free will in our base sinful state we will always choose not to go to God and instead to continue in sin. Only those who have their "eyes opened" by God will be able to make this eternal choice. The central Scripture in support of this doctrine (at least to me, as it was the one which convinced me that Calvinism was the proper doctrine) is Romans 9.

I've tried to be as fair and even handed in explaining both viewpoints, and of course there is a great deal that I have left out, but this is the core philosophy of each side. Like I said earlier I was a firm believer in Free Will for almost all of my life until God sort of opened my eyes to it, and very handily used wisewoman, TBG, and Doc Ransom to do so. Romans 9 really nailed it for me. Read that and it pretty much spells everything out as it is.

All true Christians were "chosen" by God since before time even began for reasons only God Himself knows (literally...I do not have the verse in front of me but it says this exactly ).

Are you referring to Ephesians 1:4? "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." And Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose." But if you're thinking of something else, let me know.

Calvinists also see the human condition as being fatally flawed in the sense that while you and I and everybody have "free will", or the ability to make choices on our own, that those choices are automatically skewed by our being imperfect sinful beings. Thus while we have free will in our base sinful state we will always choose not to go to God and instead to continue in sin. Only those who have their "eyes opened" by God will be able to make this eternal choice.

Well said.