Posted on 10/20/2013 11:29:26 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Once upon a time, Groucho Marx hosted the popular game show, “You Bet Your Life.” At the start of the show, a “secret word” was revealed to the studio audience. If a contestant said the word during the course of the show, a reward would descend from the rafters (a one hundred dollar bill).
Whether we know it or not, we are all, Christians and non-Christians alike, contestants in the spiritual equivalent of “You Bet Your Life.” If we bet wisely, our reward is eternal life. But if we bet foolishly, we condemn ourselves to eternal damnation.
That brings to mind Pascal’s Wager, credited to the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal. He famously posited that every human being bets his or her life on whether or not God exists.
“Let us,” he wrote, “weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
To put this in terms to which most of us can relate, even if the odds of God’s existence are, say, 1 in 175 million – the odds of winning Powerball on a single ticket – it is worth the wager.
Because, if we have bet on God, and God does not exist, we lose nothing. That is, save for indulging in certain behavior proscribed by God, including sexual promiscuity, idol worship, adultery, homosexuality (and other sexual perversions), thievery, greed, substance abuse, slander and robbery.
But if we bet against the Almighty, and indeed He does exist, we shall be cast into the lake of fire, eternally separated from God. We shall be condemned to place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Where we will be burned with unquenchable fire. Where we will be tormented day and night forever and forever.
Most of us are rationale. So we heed Pascal’s advice.
Even if we are uncertain there is a God, we hedge our bet. We respond to an altar call at some point in our lives. We say we accept Jesus as our personal Savior. We get baptized.
In so doing, we believe we have ensured our eternal security. We believe that, because we went through the ritual of being “saved,” we have a lifetime “Get Out of Hell Free” card. And that we can live our lives as it pleases us – not God – with impunity.
But what if we are wrong? What if this doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved,” espoused by many Godly pastors, preached in many purpose-driven churches, is errant? What if it actually is possible for us to forfeit our eternal salvation, to condemn ourselves to hell, by living brazenly and unrepentantly in defiance of God’s law?
That presents a corollary to Pascal’s wager, one that has not been considered by those who profess themselves Christ followers, but who are not truly leading a Christian life.
Let us call this corollary the Salvation wager, in which we weigh the gain and loss in betting on “Once Saved, Always Saved.”
Those who reject the doctrine, who believe those of us whom the Son sets free, must go and sin no more, must faithfully strive to live in obedience to God, have everything to gain if the doctrine is wrong and nothing to lose if the doctrine is right.
But those who subscribe to the doctrine, who believe that, having been saved, they can commit any and all manner of sin and it doesn’t matter in the eternal scheme of things, have hell to pay if they are wrong.
So what might Pascal advise?
That even if it’s more likely that once a person is saved, there is absolutely nothing they can do to lose their salvation, and that even if the odds are, say, 175 million to 1 that the widely-accepted doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved” is right rather than wrong, it still is wise to bet against the doctrine.
Because there are many who claim themselves Christians, who think their names have been written in the book of life, who will appear before the great white throne of judgment, who will find themselves sinners in the hands of an angry God.
They will look to Jesus and say, “Lord, Lord,” hoping He will spare them from punishment. But He will declare to them, “I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice wickedness.”
That’s a warning to those abiding unabashedly and unrepentantly in sin. They have bet their lives on “Once Saved, Always Saved.” And if they are wrong, eternal torment awaits.
A gross misstatement and over simplification of the saved by Grace theological view point.
Exactly...Obviously he doesn't understand the doctrine of eternal security...
“Those things would show us who we should and could not fellowship with...But we don’t know their spiritual condition...”
Who did Jesus have fellowship with?
“But speaking as Man, it is monstrous. To say otherwise is not to be Man.”
A damned man, perhaps, but not a Christian man, or as Luther puts it:
Erasmus fully realized the implications of Luther’s strong statement of God’s sovereignty. He writes that if this teaching of God’s sovereignty is proclaimed, “Who will try and reform his life?”[37]
Luther lashes back, “I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! God has no time for your practitioners of self-reformation, for they are hypocrites. The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed.”[38]
Erasmus pushes the point: “Who will believe that God loves him?”
Luther stands his ground: “I reply, Nobody! Nobody can! But the elect shall believe it; and the rest shall perish without believing it, raging and blaspheming, as you describe them. So there will be some who believe it.”[39]
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html
Do you really believe?
“And we go full circle, back to the point of the original post.”
I think your circle is broken. I never saw a reply to anything I said, even when I asked you to explain yourself.
Without going into whether Pascal’s position had merit or not, it should be pointed out that his wager was never intended to be a stand alone argument, but rather was the culmination of an entire proto-existentialist apologetic for Christianity that he laid out in his Pensées. Taken within its proper context, the dichotomy it offers is perhaps a bit more valid. I personally doubt, however, that Pascal would have ever shown the lack of sense to offer up that particular argument on its own.
That is not to draw contention with the dismissal you offer (which is valid given this context), but rather as an important tidbit I find is sadly often overlooked by both sides in these debates.
“If you cannot question the nature of Man and God without being called a blasphemer”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. He was not asking any kind of a question. He asserted that God was ignorant of the human condition.
You are confusing morality with Christianity. Christians should not watch porn but neither should anyone else.
Why is it necessary for the elect to believe “it” or anything else, if they are elect?
I understand that, and believe me I am not trying to be provocative. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
The word blasphemous and all it’s connotations and conjegations are often used to end uncomfortable conversations, so I avoid it. That’s all I am trying to say.
“Why is it necessary for the elect to believe “it” or anything else, if they are elect?”
Why is it necessary? Because God has so ordained it, that all those who belong to Him, will come to Him, and not in ignorance, but in faith and love.
“The word blasphemous and all it’s connotations and conjegations are often used to end uncomfortable conversations, so I avoid it. That’s all I am trying to say.”
What’s wrong with using it when someone is saying something blasphemous? If saying that God is ignorant of anything is not blasphemous, I’d hate to see what fits the description. Unfortunately, I’ve never known my usage of the word to actually accomplish silencing anyone.
“Obviously it is impossible to stop sinning, though the fact remains that the Christian is entirely changed from what he once was before”
This is a popular formulation, but, after you get out for a bit, you realize it requires defining “Christian” (who is one) so narrowly that there are almost none living.
Tagline
Why on Earth would you call ‘once saved always saved’ false??? After all, The Lord picked Judas Himself, therefore we know that Judas must be sitting pretty right now - what better recomendation can one have on their spiritual résumé?
So do the elect have any choice in the matter? Are we really talking about the timeless nature of God? Are we talking about choice? Are we talking about both?
Thank you for your reply...it is appreciated.
And pretty much the conclusion my friend and I came to.
Ha,good way to say that.
“This is a popular formulation, but, after you get out for a bit, you realize it requires defining “Christian” (who is one) so narrowly that there are almost none living.”
How so? But, actually, you are correct in that you cannot know that anyone is a Christian at all, since it is a condition of the heart, and cannot be seen. So it happens that some of the most seemingly righteous people are the most evil purveyors of lies.
You did a real good job pointing out the easy believism seen today in the media. They existed in Paul’s time too. That is why he mentioned “those that accuse us.” His answer was that in fact under Grace we establish the Law.
Another poster mentioned true saving Faith is a regenerated life. The flesh is no longer our ‘compass.’ Our new compass is spirit and life through Jesus’ Righteousness.
But some might say “how do we know for sure?” There IS a litmus test. Jesus said we will know them by their fruits. Paul said if the root is good so will be the branches. Finally James bluntly tells us if our faith does not produce good works it was dead (not of Christ) in the first place.
So if we say we are saved and do not obey the Good Shepherd, John says we are liars.
A few other key terms that seem to be overlooked on these interweb forums are “LORD”; REPENT; godly SORROW. Everyone seems to get SAVIOR well enough except those who believe salvation is human efforts.
LORD: this means those submitting to Jesus Christ as Lord do so as a slave submits to a master. The slave obeys his master. It is not a democracy. When the slave disobeyed the master they are chastised. The old and new testaments are full of examples a loving God who corrects His children.
Paul tells us godly sorrow brings about repentance which leads to Salvation. This sorrow is brought about through God’s conviction. It is not merely the person confessing. It is a deep cut to the bone abhorrence about one’s sinful state. That leads to repentance, which means a turning AWAY from your sins.
These points are important. If we say we have repented and claim we have put on Christ and our compass still points to sinful practices and the works of the world then John bluntly calls us liars. Translation? We fool ourselves only because God knows His sheep.
What else do the apostles tell us? They tell us to examine ourselves to see if what we claim is true. Peter says it, as do John, Paul and James. How do we examine ourselves? By the Words of Jesus Christ. If our compass is pointing “north” towards what He commanded our examination will produce fruit. Will our march following the azimuth set by The Holy Spirit be perfect as The Son is perfect? I don’t think that is possible until He glorifies us as He was Glorified. However our walk through sanctification is a closer walk with Christ each day forward. The azimuth set for us does not lead to living in sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.