Veto F. Roley wrote a lengthy comment that leads into some helpful areas for discussion. Veto’s comments are in italics. Mine are in regular font —
As you will notice from my comments, I come from the available light POV — that God only holds us responsible for that which we know or should know.
I agree. Romans 1 -2 seems to argue that God only judges us based on what we know.
It seems to me that knowledge that is sufficient to condemn (Rom. 1:18-20) is equally sufficient to produce faith, in some matter, and faith results in salvation.
It is faith that saves.
I agree, but what is the “faith” that saves?
Now, I disagree with the interpretation of Ulrich Zwingli and his current followers on faith only, reducing solo fide to belief-only, as faith always has a work component, but we are saved by our faith, by belief that compels us to follow God no matter how dark the light we have is. We are not saved by great faith, or weak faith. We are saved by grace though the faith that we have. And that faith, of whatever size or variety, comes from the light that we have.
You’ll find as the series progresses that we agree. “Faith” has an element of faithfulness, that is, those with faith have obedient hearts and therefore obey (not perfectly, of course).
You asked if we are saved by available light then why evangelize. By preaching greater light to people drawn in by little light do we not risk losing them eternally? No. Why? Because they have responded to the Spirit in their little light. And they will respond to the Spirit in the greater light that we bring them.
You assume that the Spirit works on the unbeliever apart from the word of God, because (I would take it) that God is active in self-revelation through the Creation, through man’s moral nature, even through human culture (all called “general revelation” by some, as opposed to the “special revelation” of Scripture, prophets, visions, and such like).
That might be right. I certainly agree with general revelation. Romans makes that clear, as do the Psalms and Job. So let’s say that God is active in drawing those who have no special revelation toward him.
Can that produce “faith”? Well, define “faith.” Plato and Akhenaten believed in one god. Neither believed in YHWH. Were they saved?
You say that their “little light” faith will assure us that they will respond to the true gospel when presented, but the evidence is entirely to the contrary. The Greek followers of Plato’s monotheism did not en masse convert to Christianity. Some did. Many did not.
More to the point, most of the Jews rejected Jesus even though they had faith in YHWH and the benefit of special revelation. If nearly complete light doesn’t assure a positive response to full light, why would an inkling of light guarantee more?
Salvation is not about us teaching, but about the sinner responding in faith to His God. We plant, or give greater light. We water, or encourage and edify. But it is the Spirit that gives growth, both in the numbers of those who are His and in their theosis, in the changing of those who are His to be like Him, to take on His character, His likes and dislikes, to think and act like Him.
It is not our job to convert, although it is our job to show the light. It is not our job to force individual growth, although it is our job to encourage, edify, teach and walk alongside those who walk in the journey with us. To use an old cliché, it is not our job to force the horse to drink, but lead the horse to water.
It’s our job to preach the gospel. It’s our job to send evangelists.
(Rom 10:14-15 NIV) 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
When we bring the Light of Jesus to those who have responded to little light, they respond in joy to know more about the One they served in the relative darkness. They come closer to Him. What we do when we bring the light into these eyes is not risk the salvation of those who responded in little light, but give greater light so that others might accept the calling of the Spirit and have faith in Him.
I’m confident it sometimes happens exactly like that. But not always. Not nearly. Some hear and delight in the message. Some do not. We can’t assume that those who respond were (a) already saved by (b) limited light. That’s circular. It’s not evidence.
After all, if that’s true, why wasn’t Cornelius saved before Peter preached to him? I’ve mentioned the case of Cornelius in the comments and the posts, and I’ve yet to hear anything but an emotive response: “Surely he would have been saved if he’d died before Peter preached!” But that response contradicts the Bible, which says he wasn’t saved until Peter preached to him.
My objection to rejecting the available light theory is not that it makes God unjust because He condemns those who have not heard of Jesus. All men and women, from Adam and Eve forward, except for Jesus, have sinned, have fallen short of God’s glory, which is nothing less than perfection. No matter how “good” our neighbors think us, we are condemned because we have sinned and are not perfect. The condemnation faced by one man is on the same standard faced by another — that of falling short of God’s glory. God is no less fair, then, for restricting salvation to those who have the happy accident of hearing about Jesus and coming into His light than He is in allowing rain to fall on the atheistic farmer’s acres and keeping the believer down the road in drought.
Would universalism be fair? Would it be fair to save all who believe in God but who also reject Jesus? Is is fair to save all Muslims except those who’ve heard of Jesus? Or all Jews who’ve never heard of Jesus? Would it be fair to save all religious people, even if their religion has nothing to do with God or eternity? Is it fair to save Confucians?
To create this kind of fairness, you have to radically redefine “faith” apart from the scriptural definition. And there’s no fall back position, no place to look for a second-best answer.
Moreover, this whole line of thinking — about what is fair — is foreign to Scripture. God is not fair. It’s not fair that I’m saved or that you’re saved. God is gracious. It can’t be both grace and fair; it’s one or the other.
You see, fair is that we should all be damned. We deserve it. We’ve not earned heaven, and therefore heaven wouldn’t be fair. The good news isn’t that God is fair.
The good news is that God will save those with faith in Jesus. Which is not even close to fair. It’s much better than fair.
The problem you’re wrestling with is the doctrine of election — not the Calvinist version but the version we learn from Israel’s history — from the Torah. I have at least one more post coming on the topic. (And the Bible doesn’t at all shrink from the topic.)
The resolution doesn’t come by hammering the Bible into a democratic, Western, egalitarian perspective. Rather, God chose Abraham and no one else. Most people would say that it’s unfair. But that’s what God did.
The good news is that we’re all invited to become sons of Abraham and join Israel by faith in Jesus.
The unfairness is that we’ve done a poor job of spreading the good news. The unfairness is our lack of missionary zeal and our refusal to talk to our neighbors. That’s unfair, because we’ve been told what to do, we’ve been given heaven for free, and even for heaven, we won’t do it.
However, in Romans 1:18-20, Paul seems to suggest that we haven’t just sinned and have been condemned, but our sin is a rejection of God whom we should have known and come to by the light, no matter how dim, we have been given. It isn’t that we are condemned by the accident of ignorantly failing God’s standards, but we are condemned because we have purposely chosen to reject God. Therefore, if the light we have from nature is sufficient for us to actively choose to reject God, and God is just, then the light must be sufficient to lead us to God. If the light is sufficient for us to only reject God, but not sufficient to lead us to Him in faith, then God is not just because He has given all men the ability to reject Him but only a few the ability to return to Him.
Well argued, and almost true. You see, the light you and I have is enough for us earn our way into heaven. We’ve failed. We deserve damnation. That’s fair.
Is the light enough both to damn and to save? Absolutely. It’s just that we always seem to choose damnation. Adam and Eve only had the one command, and they couldn’t even get that one right!
And so, since the merit argument obviously fails, we try to replace it with an argument based on faith, but it doesn’t work. The faith that saves is faith in Jesus, the Messiah of God. Nothing else is faith. Nothing.
Why did the Ephesians in Acts 19 not have the Spirit until taught about Jesus? They had been baptized by John and taught about the Messiah who was to come. They were men of faith — but not faith in Jesus. And only those with the Spirit are saved (Rom 8:9-11).
(1Jo 5:5 NIV) 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
Does this sound harsh? It’s not. It’s what the Bible says. It’s the story of Acts. It’s the story of Jesus’ ministry on earth. It’s the story of grace.
And it only sounds harsh because we think we somehow deserve salvation. We don’t.
(Rom 3:9-18 NIV) 9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Rom 3:22-24 NIV) 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Try it this way.
A ocean liner sinks in cold water. The ship has been overturned so that there are no life preservers and no lifeboats. The passengers and crew can survive in the icy water for but a few minutes.
Another boat happens by, but it’s so foggy the drowning men and women can’t see it. Its captain pulls out a megaphone and announces,
“If you’ll swim toward the sound of my voice, you’ll be saved. Don’t lose faith. We’re really here and we’ll rescue you. It’s cold, but trust my promise.
“My megaphone isn’t loud enough for everyone to hear. PLEASE shout to your neighbors and tell them to follow you as you swim toward me. Make sure they can hear you. You can do it! There’s still time!”
Some passengers do exactly this, saving themselves and dozens more. But many passengers, desperate to take care of themselves, immediately swim to safety and tell no one else. Many passengers are too far away and never hear the announcement. They die in agony in the cold.
It turns out that every single passenger would have been saved had all the passengers within the sound of the captain’s voice shouted to their neighbors. But instead most of the passengers died.
Afterward, many mourned the result, calling the captain terribly unfair for not finding a way to save everyone. But the captain did his part. In fact, he was nothing but gracious, offering entirely undeserved good news.
The biggest mistake we make in discussions such as these is forgetting that by now the gospel should have been told everywhere on the planet, churches should already be in every city, and the name of Jesus should already be honored by all.
It didn’t happen, but it’s not God’s fault. God is not the unfair one.
Veto and Jay,
I appreciate both posts, but have to disagree with both of you on some nuances.
Veto,
Natural revelation is a generic knowledge of God that can condemn, or much like providence, draw one towards God; however, while drawing can lead to salvation (Acts 17:26-27) it is not salvation itself; natural revelation cannot save. At best, natural revelation is a “groping in the dark” that will draw those to the presence of a specific revelation about salvation that God is purposefully sending, whether a prophet in the OT (Jonah 3:1-10) or the gospel in the NT (Acts 8:26-31). I must stress that the drawing and calling are an action of God, not man, as well as God’s work in the life of the person and other people because God never fails to send his specific message to those who will believe (See previous text and Romans 10:15). The issue of saving faith is Christ as the object of faith and power of the Spirit in the believer’s life, whether looking forward to him from the OT, or back to him from today’s perspective. Faith knows, receives, and applies the specific work and revelation of God. In an attempt to stay within the first chapter of Romans, since it was quoted by Veto, Paul clearly states the problem — multiple times — showing that mankind is not saved by available light because he always sins and does not keep the law/light revealed.
Romans 1
v18 – God revealed truth; man suppressed it
v19 – God is plain; man inexcusably rejected God
v21 – God is known; man darkened his heart
v22 – God is known; man became foolish
v23 – Sin: man traded God for idols
v24 – Sin: man traded God for lustful sex
v25 – Sin: man traded God for deceit
v26 – Sin: man traded God for lustful sex
v28 – Sin: man traded knowledge of God for depravity
v29 – Sin: man became utterly depraved
v32 – Sin: man knew God’s decree & defied it
Thus, Jay rightly contrasted mans state with the work of Christ and quoted Rom. 3:9-18.
Jay,
I appreciate your story about the sinking ship and foggy water. Nevertheless, I think you posted it before thinking it through… surely, that is what happened?
First, if God’s megaphone is not big enough to hear then man’s salvation is fully dependent on humanity. It is one thing to recognize that Christians will be judged for their lack of evangelism and men are vessels used by God, but another to say that some soul who would have believed will be damned to hell because God was powerless to get his message to them. God will not be in heaven weeping over some soul is in heaven who would have believed if “only God could have reached him.” An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God is never powerless to save, and promised to save his elect!
Second, the Bible is clear that everyone “drowning in the water” has heard God’s megaphone, but rejected the message Rom 1:32; every person hears, but only a few believe. I would actually prefer a different story, such as the passengers set fire to the ship after the captain told them not to play with fire, yet the captain still seeks to save them, but I am working with you posted 🙂
Third, God intimately knowing the thoughts of everyone before they were created (Psalm 139), appointed their time and places so they would grope for him (Acts 17:26-27). Whereas HE explicitly lays out the “golden chain of redemption” [Rom. 8:29-30] “foreknew, predestined, called (by specific revelation), justified, and glorified (Luke 10:20; Rev. 6:11; 17:8; 20:15);” The grammar of Romans 8:29-30 cannot be ignored.
Nobody in the water from the shipwreck (life) will be lost who would have otherwise been saved if only they could have heard. Stated positively, everyone who will have faith to swim to the boat will hear God’s megaphone (specific revelation). Thus, everyone who will believe will be called, and some will not be called by specific revelation because they not only rejected natural relation, but God foreknew (them – people) they would also reject specific revelation. Foreknowledge is certain fact, not philosophical speculation.
Nevertheless, I must be clear as to why I reject fatalism and promote evangelism. In an American context, every day God brings missionaries to this country to reach the lost and convert our neighbors because so many American Christians do not evangelize. God proves daily that he will reach everyone “who will believe,” but God will also judge those Christians who do not evangelize, meaning lose of some reward in heaven (I believe in salvation as free gift, but rewards received in heaven).
I don’t know many things (Deut. 29:29) but since God promises to save the elect, and some people of all nations will be in heaven, and God calls through specific revelation, I am confident the gospel has gone throughout the world — and will continue to go until Jesus returns. I have a Classical Arminian perspective, not a Calvinist.
Jay,
Thanks for your gracious reply. I wanted to respond to some of the comments. I am responding in essay form and not interlinear since it can be difficult to pick up the thread of interlinear comments after the first round.
My secondary argument is not based on fairness, but justice. It is not fair for a child in a country as rich as the United States to go to bed hungry – and, from what I understand, over a million children in the U.S. suffer from some degree of hunger – while others in that nation make millions of dollars each year shuffling money around. But is it just to forcibly take the riches someone has earned through sacrifice, through obtaining the necessary knowledge and skills to make his fortunes, through working long hours and give those riches to someone who has nothing? The question of being “just” is not about being “fair”. In my opinion, if Paul had merely left the question at us being sinners, then it is an issue of “fairness” and fairness is defined from the POV of the person involved.
Paul, though, does not seem to leave the conversation in Romans at a “fairness” level. Rather, Paul charges that we have chosen to reject God. The Jews have chosen to reject God Who had revealed Himself to them in the Old Covenant Scriptures, through the prophets and, lastly, through His Son, Jesus. Gentiles, lacking the revelation given to the Jews, are no less guilty, though, of the charge of choosing to reject God, who revealed Himself through nature or, as you noted, general revelation. The creation screams that God is. Therefore, we are not condemned because we have sinned by violating some command or principle that we do not know, but we are condemned because we have chosen to reject the Creator and, in rejecting Him, we have chosen to rebel against our rightful King. We are condemned, Jew and Gentile alike, not because God isn’t fair, but because God is just.
Now, I admit that this may be just my reasoning and it is always dangerous for us to assume God does things the way we would do things. This is dangerous because it not only makes God in our image, but it leads us to question our faith when God seems to do something that we would not do. God is God and I am His creation. He does not do things the way I do them. But, it seems to me, that justice demands that if God offers redemption for our rebellion against Him, then He must offer redemption for all men. Now, we could legitimately say that God has offered redemption for all men through the death of His Son on the cross. And while this is True, it is equally true that many have not heard the news of God’s redemption. Since they have not heard the news of God’s redemption, and since He has the ability to make all men hear the news if He desires – after all, He sent angels to shepherds to announce His Son’s birth to them, could He not do the same to all tribes of people to announce His death and resurrection? – then it seems to me that God has chosen, through His inaction, for some to receive the news of redemption and have the ability to come to Him but that He has chosen to be silent to others about their redemption. If salvation depends on responding to the special revelation that we in the West have, then God is a respecter of persons because He has chosen to reveal redemption to some but, through His not doing what He has done in the past in the other instances, chosen not to reveal redemption to others. And in making the decision not to do anything to ensure His plan of redemption is known universally, God is not just since He has revealed enough of Himself to us in general revelation to condemn for rebellion but has chosen to withhold the means of redemption to others.
Now, you could quote to me Paul’s words in Romans 9, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. … Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” This is the position taken by Calvinists, and to some extent, Muslims. Calvinists dismiss the lost as those chosen by God to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known. Muslims tell us that God is an arbitrary God, that he chooses to save those whom he will save and chooses to condemn those he condemns, that not even Mohammad is assured of his salvation before Allah. But, I would respond, “His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” God is not arbitrary, but He deals with us justly. He has not unjustly created some for salvation and most for condemnation. Therefore, ISTM, that His justice demands that which is sufficient to condemn us must also, in some way, be sufficient to lead us to some basic level of faith in Him.
So, we get back to your question, “but what is the ‘faith’ that saves?” And, not is this a very good question, but to be honest, I don’t know, even after thinking about this issue for the last two decades or so, I have a really good answer. Harkening back to your second essay in this series (/2012/02/baptismamazing-grace-a-conversation-over-lunch-part-2/#more-17082), you posit four views on those that have never heard the Gospel. I won’t discuss the last two views (universal and agnostic, that we can’t say who is saved or not saved), but will discuss the first two: that all those who have not heard the gospel are lost and those who respond to available light will be saved. Now, originally, you put this as, “The ‘available light’ view is that they’re saved, if they’re good people.” The way that I would put this is that the available light view is that they are saved if they have responded to the Creator in some form of faith. Just being “good” is not enough. There has to be something of faith there. But both views, taken to their extremes, have their problems. How much of the special revelation do we have to know before we can be saved? How much about Jesus do we have to know? What do we have to know about sin, about confession, about repentance, about baptism, about walking with God, about how we organize our worship (e.g. if we use an instrument are we saved? if we have Sunday School classes? if we take Communion from multiple cups?), etc.? The problem with the first view is where do we draw the line. You say at the knowledge of Jesus, but where with that knowledge do we draw the line? Perhaps I don’t have a good answer to what kind of faith produced by available light saves, but I doubt those who hold to the first position have a really good line as to where the special knowledge we must have for salvation is.
All I can tell you, Jay, is that it must be some form of faith. You ask about Cornelius. I can tell you I believe that if Cornelius refused to be baptized then I believe he would have been lost. But I can not tell you for certainty that Cornelius was lost when Peter first met him. And there is nothing in Acts that suggests that Cornelius was lost. In fact, Luke tells us that Cornelius was a “devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.” And, later, Luke quotes the delegation from Cornelius to Peter and they call him “righteous”. On the other hand, there is nothing in Luke’s account that tells us specifically that Cornelius was saved. But, Acts does tell us that Cornelius had faith.
Now you may counter with Acts 11:14, where Cornelius is told that Peter “will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.” But, it is not clear, or at least not clear to me, that Cornelius is lost at that moment, or if he would be lost had he ignored the words that Peter said. And the reason it is not clear for me is the very words Luke uses in Acts 10 when, as we’ve noted, he called Cornelius “devout” and a “God fearer”. If Cornelius had rejected Jesus, he would have been lost. Therefore Peter’s words about Jesus were means to salvation. (BTW, I don’t believe salvation is a one-time event that remains good throughout one’s life, but is conditional on our walking with God.) But there is nothing here, at least for me, to say that if Cornelius never heard of Jesus he would have been lost. Further, to argue that Cornelius was lost, you have the problem of his receiving the Holy Spirit. So, the passage does not say he was lost prior to hearing Peter, nor does it say he was saved.
You mention the followers of Plato who did not convert to Christianity even though they believed in one God. Did they believe in the Creator, or did they believe in Plato’s concept of god? And, there is a difference. It is faith in God, faith in the Creator, that saves us. And while I can’t exactly define what that faith is, I know it must be present in some form. And it is a faith in the Being behind the universe, behind the creation, the Being who moves us. It is not belief in this Being, for Agrippa had a belief in God that was strong enough for Paul to call him out on his belief, but little faith. It is faith in this Being.
Now, by now, you might be thinking I fall into the agnostic camp, that we can not tell who is lost or saved, particularly when I say that I do not judge another person’s salvation. However, I am not of the agnostic camp since I also believe, particularly for those with special revelation, that there are two beings who know if they are saved: the individual and God. We can know if we are saved. Everyone around us may look at us and guess, and some guesses may be very good based on the life they see us live, but we know. So while I believe it is beyond my abilities to look into someone’s life and say with certainty that they are saved or lost, I strongly believe that person can look at their own life and relationship with God and know if they are saved or lost. Further, as noted in my last post, those who are denied special revelation, but who respond in faith to general revelation, need to know more about God so they can deepen their walk with Him.
And that brings me to the major point that I was making in my last post. Ultimately, it is God, who perfectly sees the heart, who decides who is and is not saved. He makes this judgment with perfect justice and knowledge. As I noted before, our job is to plant (what I take to mean is preach and teach) and to water (what I take to mean encourage, edify, etc.). It is God’s job to give growth. And I believe the Spirit can birth faith through general revelation. And I believe that once this faith is birthed, if it is true, genuine faith that takes root in man’s heart, then it only deepens when special, revealed faith is added. That someone does not deepen their walk with God after special revelation is given suggests to me that their faith was never deep, that it was not birthed in the heart. Where faith is birthed in the heart, as it was for Cornelius, faith is strengthened by special revelation.
Just one final, minor note to close: all Muslims, if they read the Koran, know about Jesus (or Isa).
Veto
If “no one is without excuse” then what HG says is accurate. Everyone will hear or has heard. What they do with it is what seems to matter. This statement by Paul also addresses, so it seems, the man on the island away from civilization who hasn’t had the Gospel preached to him… He is also without excuse, is he not? Why? Because God has reached out to him..God isn’t going to through an uninformed man in hell for something Jay did or didn’t do… We answer for ourselves to a gracious God who knows that even with the complete and 100% accurate understanding of scripture (like Greg), cough….we are all dust and worms….
It seems to me that the fruits of faith (fruits of the Holy Spirit:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”)
are also necessary, and not just verbal proclamation. Verbal proclamation without said fruits isn’t what God wants, is it? I don’t think that this is merely semantics or that it “goes without saying”……….
— Galatians 5:22-23
Pingback: Baptism/Amazing Grace: A Conversation Over Lunch, Part 7.6 (In Reply to Veto’s Next Comment) | One In Jesus
If God were to speak to you from a burning bush and tell you that heaven/new creation will be filled with people who had never before heard the name of Christ but who will nevertheless be forgiven despite never before professing Jesus as Lord (much less having been immersed), would you still want to evangelize?
If not, ie, if you have nothing left to share about Jesus, have you not limited “salvation” to a “Get out of hell free” card or fire insurance? Without the torment of hell or the fear of annihilation, is there NOTHING worth sacrificing your comfortable life for and sharing about Jesus? To the contrary, I think escaping hell (or annihilation, it matters not) is only a small fraction of the “Good News” found in and from Jesus. In Luke 4:43, Jesus was teaching the “good news” long before He went to the cross. Indeed, He says that sharing the “good news of the kingdom” (described earlier in chapter 4) was “why [He] was sent.” He wasn’t sent just to die; He was sent to open our eyes to truly abundant life. Why would we shrink the Good News into something less than Jesus himself proclaimed it to be? Salvation is not just about forgiveness – it’s about transformation. And the joy is not merely the joy found in escaping hell, but in being transformed into what God originally intended us to be – in right relationship with Him, with each other, with ourselves, offering justice (yes, social justice; see Luke 4) in a world of beauty (and bringing beauty back into it where we can fix what we’ve messed up).
Now I’m not saying that one can find abundant life (or forgiveness) in the absence of Jesus. But if you would be so disappointed to find out that God’s view of who gets eternal life (or abundant life) is bigger than your own that you would not evangelize, then IMHO, you’ve missed the point of the Good News.
I think Roger Olson nails this one. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/my-litmus-test-for-true-christianity/
David Guin,
And so are you saying that there are those without faith in Jesus whose sins are forgiven and who will spend eternity with Jesus?
Otherwise, I don’t get your point. I’ve never argued that the only blessing that comes from salvation is escaping hell. I’ve pretty plainly argued to the contrary many times.
Moreover, my argument against “available light” salvation is based primarily on the fact that I find it contradicts the Bible. I’ve laid that argument out in post 7.6 and in others posts in this series. The evangelism argument is merely supportive. I build my case on the scriptures.