Sorry to bump your post so quickly, Justin. I'm trying to heed your encouragement to post something.
You may have encountered this question in your church sometime: "What about the people who've never heard the gospel? Do they get a chance to respond to the good news?"
We had that question last night as our book study group discussed a chapter on missions from Piper's, "Don't Waste Your Life." There were a couple of members who voiced opinions about the fairness of everyone getting a chance to hear. I don't think I handled it as well as I could have.
I, of course, explained that people don't go to hell because they refuse the gospel, but because they have sinned against God and broken his laws. I explained that what would really be "fair" is if God sent us all to hell, because of our sin. I explained that the Scripture indicates (Rom. 1) that all people are without excuse. I explained that people must call on the name of the Lord to be saved, but that they can't unless a preacher goes to them (Rom. 10). That's part of our motivation for missions. That people can't be saved apart from the gospel, and that we are the means by which the gospel spreads.
Here's where I think I muffed it: After several folks refused to go along with me (a few did agree with me, though), citing the unfairness of it all, I said that ultimately some of these things are mysterious to us and that we must trust the all-wise God in his grace and truth, and mercy and justice in this matter. I strongly asserted my view (which I told them I thought was biblical), but I felt like I kind of "whimped out" in the end.
What do you think? How have you handled this question? Did I "whimp out?" What should I have done? Thanks for your input.
Popular Posts
-
While reading the Old Testament, have you ever thought to yourself, "Boy, these Israelites just didn't get it!"? God warned th... -
What do you guys think about church choirs? Are they Biblical? Are they helpful? If you could have your preference, would your church have a... -
As I'm thinking through my sermon for this coming Sunday morning, a phrase in Romans 6:4 has me thinking. Now, I haven't yet looked ...
-
Okay, so a few months back we had this long drawn out debate about divorce and remarriage here on the blog. I think it was a healthy debate... -
What do you guys think is the best way to approach specials and/or solos in a church? Is it ever appropriate to have them? I'm not a fan...
-
Just finished reading this ... I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not Sunday School makes a positive contribution to the local... -
I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f. Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I jus...
-
Hey guys, what do y'all think about this? I've recently read of some Christians who say they don't listen to "Christian...
-
Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2 . Good thoughts Justin N.! 1. Yes, Amen! 2. Absolutely! 3. Many pe...
-
(Guests: If you haven't already, you should read the previous two posts before reading this one.) " Iron sharpens iron, and one man...
2 comments:
Jim,
The "unfairness" response typically rears its ugly head whenever this discussion comes up. It sounds like you handled the question well, with truth. I would suggest:
1. In these kinds of discussions, have them read verses out loud for themselves, and then pressure them (gently and lovingly) to deal with them honestly. The key is to teach our people how to properly handle the Scriptures.
2. Obviously, a God-centered perspective is necessary. No one who believes that ultimately God loves people more than anything is going to be able to handle the truth that He would let some perish "without a chance" for salvation. They must understand that this world and all who are in it exist for His glory, and that His glory is more valuable than our eternal destinies.
3. I would take several minutes to destroy the unfairness argument. I would destroy it first by talking about God and how He owes no one anything. I would then destroy it by talking about our sin and how we do not deserve even an opportunity for salvation.
4. Then, I would also tackle the subject from the perspecitve of salvation. It is the hearing of the Gospel that the Spirit uses to bring about regeneration. Without the Gospel, there is no regeneration. If we get this, the question is answered. There is the linchpin.
As for ending with a statement about God's mysterious ways, I would only warn against the possibility of your people using His mysterious ways as a way for Him to contradict or negate what He has revealed in His Word. The temptation will be to use His mysterious ways as a loophole for Him to get around His own precept. God doesn't contradict Himself, and His mysterious ways do not negate what He has revealed.
(By the way, there were some Puritans - at least I've heard - who believed that regeneration is possible apart from the Gospel. They believed that in rare cases, God might regenerate an infant or even a baby in the womb. What do you think about this?)
Justin N.
Thanks for the wise counsel, Justin. I think that's good advice.
I didn't know about the Puritans. And I haven't really heard the view that "an" infant or "a" baby are sometimes regenerated. The view I've heard more often is that "all" infants/babies are saved (the elect). I've read a few articles expressing this idea, and it seems like a good view. It is somewhat speculative too, though.
Post a Comment