Celsus

Hi all,

This question is directed to theists, and competing Protestant and Catholic viewpoints in particular. For the purpose of the argument, it would be better if we assume the Bible is inerrant. Obviously when it comes to the Apocrypha, just what the Bible actually is becomes a slight problem, but since I'm being generous, let's also assume the Apocrypha gets it right on theological matters.

The problem is with unreached people and the Great Commission of Matthew 28. My question is: What happened to the billions who never had a chance of hearing the good news of salvation (or bad news of hell)?

The way I see it, the Bible gives us some options, which go something like this:

1. All unreached people go to hell, therefore the Great Commission is in fact urgent to prevent this influx. See Romans 3:23-24, Ephesians 2:12, 3:8-10.

2. They do not necessarily go to hell, but this is based on their works and desire to seek God. Plenty of Biblical support, but then the Great Commission is not actually needed. See Ecclesiastes 12:13, Jeremiah 17:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelations 20:12.

3. We can save them after they have died (in Purgatory?). The Great Commission can go at whatever pace it needs to baptise the trillions of people who have ever lived on this earth. See 2 Maccabees 12:44-45, 1 Corinthians 15:29.

4. All the unreached go to heaven. No justice, no need for the Great Commission (in fact, it would be better if there wasn't one), they are all practically angels. See Romans 5:13.

#1 is what fundamentalist Christians would seem to prefer, but then their God does not seem to be a just God. Why would he create people just to throw them into hell? The other argument Christians used is that they suffer for the sins of their forefathers (Exodus 20:5, Isaiah 14:21), not realising that other verses in the Bible say that God does not do such stupid things (Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18).

#2 Seems a decent answer for rational people (if God exists), but then, what is the point of the Great Commission? Furthermore, while God's justice might be seen to be done by us, the unreached people are going to protest: They had no word, no condemnation of their activities - how would they know what was "good" or "bad" or issues such as polygamy? We enter moral subjectivity. Alternatively, if these people led good lives, sought God, but then went on to conclude that his name was Allah or Krishna, would that have been correct? (C.S. Lewis seems to think so in the Narnia books)

#3 is just plain weird, and possibly not palatable even for Catholics. It could, however, explain why the Second Coming is taking so long.

#4 is refuted by history, these unreached people weren't angels.

Christians claim that their religion is the only one where God reaches down to man, while all other religions try to reach up to God. Men attempting to seek God invariably fail, so according to "The 4 Spiritual Laws"-type tracts, we will have to rule out the only rational possibility: #2. Unless the 4 Spiritual Laws are wrong.

So did God reach down to humanity? If you think about it, he did it in a rather perverse fashion. Imagine you have the cure for AIDS, and you love the people so much that you want all of them to get it. Now do you set up multiple distribution points so that you can get it to as many people in as short a possible time? Or do you send a small little sample to a remote little village far from everyone, and then expect your helpers to make more copies of it and then try their best to distribute it?

Joel

Celsus

Relevant verses:
[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Vesica

The following explanations/issues are all from the Protestant side and none are biblical so much as doctrinal/denomonational stances.....And none are being offered as TRUE or my belief, just sharing the info.

Problem #1: Who are the people to be reached?
- People in remote areas or 'unchurched' countries
- Anyone who has not heard and been allowed to decide for themselves
- (And it hurts me to type this) People who haven't accepted the 'truth' no matter how much they know

Problem #2: What happens when these people die?
- They are not punished for not accepting what they never knew.
- They are not punished for being unable to decide yet (i.e. children younger than 'an age of accountability' are not punished/turned away)
- They go to hell
- They go to hell because anyone should be able to figure out X-ian doctrine from observing the wonders of the universe
- They go nowhere (or Purg?)

Problem #3: Can we do anything after they die?
- In the Prot. view, No.

Celsus

So what are your views? Remember, there's only heaven and hell, and maybe Purgatory, although the Protestants don't allow for it. So if "they are not punished" where are they? Think more along the lines of pre-Columbus Native Americans, or pre-Tasman/Cook Aboriginal people.

Kosh

And as it is argued in an article somewhere in the SecWeb lib, since 90% of those evangelized do not believe, then we must surmise that we'd all be better off without the "great commision".

Logically, as joejoejoe has pointed out, it all falls apart pretty easily.

Dargo

There's a great article showing the fallacy of the Great Commision at <a href="http://www.losingmyreligion.com." target="_blank">www.losingmyreligion.com.</a> Here's the link.
<a href="http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/greatcommission.html" target="_blank">http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/greatcommission.html</a>

Amos

Hello Joel, are you sure there is theology in the bible because I thought that theology is the study of the God and the bible. This would mean that the bible is correct and all we have to do is understand it (or it would not be part of theology).

God reaches down to all humanity and no bible is needed for this. The bible is mythology specific and works only in Christendom. If we go beyond that we are wolves in someone elses mythology and we really have no bussiness doing that because we would not like it if they did that to us (the evidence for this is our 20.000 sects).

If we go preach the gospel we should go when we bear the stigmata. In the words of Jesus Jn.20:21: "As the father send me, so I am sending you," and keep in mind here that these words were spoken while Jesus was showing his wounds. This means that the great commission doesn't begin until we get there and that means that not many of us should be out there preaching the Gospel.

Celsus

Amos, when you start with the assumption that the Bible is correct, and only our interpretations are wrong, of course you are never going to see anything wrong with the Bible. That's called circular reasoning. You never really answered the question about why the Bible was correct in that other thread with me, without resorting to theology (need I remind you that your theology assumes the Bible is correct?).

What I tried to do here, is to start with a theologically inerrant Bible, and still come up with irreconcilable logical and ethical problems.

As I have already stated, your view of the Bible is wonderful, in a purely aesthetic sense, but it never tells us why we should assume the Bible is correct (and it doesn't matter whether it works only in Christendom or not). Since you believe it to be so, it must be so.

So only when Catholics experience stigmata does the Great Commission apply? If so, why did Jesus preach the GC on in Matthew 28, which had nothing to do with stigmata? It's a pity the Christians here avoid any kind of discussions with you. I'd love to see it.

Joel

Amos

Nono, Joel! Be careful here. Matthew is the religious perspective of the preachings of Jesus and they, indeed, will have the urge to spread the good news all over he world. The Church is fully aware of it and used this many times to gain entry and break ground into new territories.

It should never be used for the re-conversion of Catholics which would render them "wolves in sheeps clothing" because they are now working in the same flock and there spiritually 'fornicate' the strayed sheep of the flock when they succumb to the 'tugging' of a marauding evangelist.

In case you do not know, it is the ambition of the Church to pasture the flock within the legal boundry of the Infallible Church where sheep are welcome to stray (if not encouraged to stray) and while in such isolation there reach maturity (metamorphosis) on their own. The most evil thing that can happen to them here is that preying evangelists do a premature rebirth on them ("from his mothers womb untimely ripped)."

The wounds were metaphysical wounds and the Matthew preachers are needed to crucify the John followers. The Matthew preachers are the scribes and pharisees needed to condemn the bleeding [son of] John followers. They are the Church Millitant within Catholicism that must condemn the Church Suffering while both remain under the auspices of the Mother Church, who is the bride of Christ here working from behind the scene. (Son of John followers are built upon Peter-the-rock of faith and not the Matthew of legalism, hence the suffering in "feed my sheep" after the question "Simon son of John, do you agape me?"

A nice passage follows to confirm this (Jn.21:18):

"I tell you solemnly (no bullshit here), as a young man you fastened your belt and went about as you pleased; but when you are older you will stretch out your hands, and another will tie you fast and carry you off against your will."

The above means that a carefree youth followed by a positive inner determination to succeed will automatically lead to the transformation wherein the inner man does convict and crucify the outer man (even against his will). It is this kind of salvation by faith the Church is after and no sola scriptura message is needed or wanted (idiots).

Celsus

Amos,

It's always difficult having a dialogue with you because there are so many theological assumptions that you make in any one given post. Worse still, in your reply, I think you misunderstood what I was asking. Let me rephrase: Are only stigmata-experiencing believers entitled to evangelise?

If you like, we can start a new thread, discussing what theological assumptions you use, why you use them, and how they apply in real life (as opposed to the hallucinogenic experience you tend to portray here on the II).

Joel