I recently reported the following to our prayer supporters:
This weekend, we will have two more evangelistic services in the mountains. On Sunday, a national pastor told how he invited a former co-worker who had rejected Christ many times; the guy promised to come, and our pastor was "on Cloud Nine"; but several days ago, the man was killed on a treacherous mountain pass. As the pastor reported the death to us, he couldn't hold back his tears--another soul, lost eternally. Astrit's sensitivity choked me up, reminding me that while Christmas should be "merry," it is an extremely serious rescue operation which brings about the joy!
A person who I do not know responded with the following message (in its entirety) ... this person, without any introduction, wrote:
I feel bad for the national pastor, but I am always a little confused by these stories. If the Biblical doctrine of Election [sic] is correct, no one goes to hell [sic] that was intended by God for salvation. The fact that he was presented the gospel several times and never responded is an indication that he was not one of God’s chosen. I will continue to pray for your ministry.
A strange email and I didn't understand its purpose. To me it read like the airing of a theological pet-peeve. Was he confused that the national pastor cried about his friend going to Hell? Does being sad about the eternal death of the wicked somehow contradict the biblical doctrine of election? In his mind, does a more Calvinistic view of Biblical election allow for tears to be shed at the fate of the lost? Does it allow us to continue to call sinners to repent and believe, even though they have rejected once or twice or twenty times? So I think out loud, and blog the following thoughts ...
- To be biblical, your theology of election must never, ever dry your tears for the lost (and I'm not talking about GOD laughing at the calamity of the raging heathen, I'm talking about the lost WE are commanded to rescue).
- Any theology of election which tends to dampen your compassion for the lost or make you shrug and say, "Well, I guess that guy wasn't God's chosen--oh well," is a skewed theology.
- Tears for a friend who has gone to Hell does not mean that you think that God failed to save one of His elect.
- Any theology of election which causes grammatical errors (or Freudian slips) like capitalizing the noun "election" and failing to capitalize the proper noun "Hell" may be indicative of a dangerous theology. I've met far too many people who focus so much on election that it has become Election while Hell has become hell. (Interesting that the author of this email "feels bad for the national pastor"; I feel bad for the guy in Hell!)
- The fact that we feel sad for our friend in Hell does not mean that we think God is unjust. The guy rejected Christ. One too many times. He is guilty, not God. And how sad it is that he rejected his many chances to have been saved!
- To the author's defense, I think he was reacting to an idea that sometimes so much responsibility is placed on our hands as missionaries that a sinner's personal culpability is ignored. They so emphasize man's role that they ignore God's role and can give us such a guilt trip that we begin to be fueled by guilt rather than joy. I can sympathize with this tension but also welcome all the Biblical "guilt trips" like "How shall they hear without a preacher?" I really do believe that blood will be on my hands if I fail to warn the wicked. But that anyone in Hell will be there because of his own sins, not mine, and certainly not God's.
Posts
8 responses:
To me, it's simple: Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept. Please keep sharing the Gospel with all.
In Calvin's words ... "However St. Paul speaks here expressly of the saints or faithful, but this does not imply that we should not pray generally for all men. For the wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son? If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy? So then, St. Paul's meaning in this passage is not that we should let the wretched sinners alone without having any care for them. We should pray generally for all men, but he shows at the same time that we ought to have a special care for those whom God has joined to us by a tighter bond." (Calvin's sermon on Ephesians 6:18-19 BOT p684-685)
Amen, and may I be more faithful to (do my part to) pull them from the fire!
That writer was just stating the only logical conclusion anyone who holds an extreme Calvinist position can come to. It's sad, and one of the reasons I'm convinced it's not a right position. It's deadening to any efforts to obey Christ and reach the lost.
I would challenge the author of the email to check out Romans 9:1-5
Having regard to the letter of Jude, I would say Amen to Carrie's 'Amen & prayer'. Have I lost my 'first love', am I becoming complacent about the plight of those teetering on the brink of a lost eternity? The sorry truth appears to be, "All too frequently, yes." It is all too easy to take matters for granted as a part of 'everyday' existence, - a matter of fact. I need to shake off this lethargy, as has been said, people's blood will be answerable for. A sombre thought!
while i hate to be unoriginal, i suppose it's most appropriate in this scenario, and it's the first and foremost response that comes to mind: "AMEN!"
Post a Comment