Completely Worthless ... or Infinitely Important

I'm going to approach Pascal's Gambit two ways: one is by assessing the logical argument made, leaving aside issues of faith and theology; the other is to consider its merits as a mechanism by which to draw people to Jesus Christ.

As A Logical Argument

I'm left somewhat unpersuaded by the line of reasoning. First of all, I'm not sure the initial premise is supportable. I'm no expert in comparative religions, but to say that no other faith tradition offers offers a version of a blissful afterlife doesn't quite ring true.

Second, if the probability of the existence of the Christian God is unknown, that necessarily means it ranges from 0% to 100%. That's important because choosing something based on an expected return is dependent upon as assessment -- if not the certainty -- of the probable outcome.

Third, this argument leaves out the detrimental effects in this lifetime of being a follower of Jesus. The Bible is very clear that there will be a cost in this life. Sometimes it takes the form of considerable sacrifice; sometimes it takes the form of persecution. At a minimum, following Christ involves surrending one's freedom to freely do as one chooses. This is critical because what people are weighing in their minds is the certainty of cost now versus the unknown probability of reward later. It's my belief that very thing prevents more people from coming to Christ than any other. We are a selfish lot, deep.thought, with a real taste for near-term gratification.

Bullets four and five are really suggesting a calculation in one's mind of the expected outcome. Implicit in the argument, I think, is that the assessment of the probability of the Christian God's existence is something greater than 0%. The higher the number goes, the greater weight of the argument. However, bullet two states that the probability is unknown. Therefore, it's equally as likely to be 0% -- or very low -- as it is anything else. And if zero, and if given the cost of professing allegiance to this Christian God whose existence is of probability unknown, then the tradeoff favors rejecting the Christian God.

The line of reasoning leaves out what is perhaps the single most common choice people make -- to neither embrace or reject, but rather to ignore. It is not logical, but it is prevalent. The reasoning being, I suppose, is that some clemency will be granted those who profess ignorance later.

As for the last bullet, I believe it requires at a minimum an intentional act of will to come to faith in Christ. I think what the last point is getting at is whether one can rationally arrive at a point of belief. I think the answer is "Almost, but not entirely." I do not believe true faith in Christ is completely rational. First, it involves at least some degree of belief in the unknowable. I suppose that could be defined as "irrational." Second, and more important, true faith in Christ is a gift from God, not something we can achieve on our own, apart from God's initial act of calling us.

Note: you want a Bible topic that'll stir up more debate and emotion than even the Book of Job? Talk about predestination and the doctrine of the elect. The notion that God has from before time chosen who he will save and who he will not is a troubling one to embrace.

As A Mechanism To Draw People to Christ

Within this context I am not a fan of "Pascal's Gambit." It's not that I reject the idea of rational analysis of the authenticity or sufficiency of the Bible, or of the critical evaluation of the claims of Christ. Rather, I do not favor the punative flavor of the argument. It puts people on the defensive.

I much prefer a form of Christian witness where our comportment, our demeanor, our actions and our deeds suggest something strikingly different and compelling from the surrounding society. Personally, I think there are few more compelling displays (to unbelieving men) than an intelligent man, displaying strength of conviction in Jesus, and doing so with a demonstrably humble heart. That'll make a man who is seeking sit up and take notice.

And then the rational analysis of the Christian claim can be pursued.

There's a close cousin of "Pascal's Gambit" in something C.S. Lewis once wrote. Essentially his formulation was this: when considering Jesus, one must not avoid the stark claims Jesus made about himself. Because if Jesus was not who he claimed to be -- that is, the Son of God, God incarnate, the promised Messiah -- then we can rightly dismiss Jesus as a fraud, or worse, a mad man. On the other hand, if Jesus was who he claimed to be ... then the matter becomes of infinite importance. Because if true, then what we have is the very Creator of the Universe, incarnate and on this earth, instructing us on how to achieve eternal salvation.

That formulation doesn't attempt to logically argue to any given conclusion. Rather, it seems to simply set the alternatives in stark detail. That is, in my mind, a critically important thing because, as I mentioned earlier, for many people a third option is one they strive for -- complete avoidance of the issue. Unfortunately, Jesus didn't really leave that option open. Ultimately -- perhaps not in this lifetime -- we must face the stark choice -- Jesus is God, or Jesus was a nutcase.

Note: at this point many people say, "Why can't we just consider Jesus a good teacher, or another prophet?" Because good teachers or good prophets do not claim that, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Or "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!'" (John 8:58, making reference to Exodus 3:14).

That's my take ... for what it's worth.

* * *
With regard to the individual on ICU ... it is a true shame when someone carries the name of Jesus Christ on his lips, yet does not show the face of Christ in his actions and deeds. Such people do more damage to the Kingdom than those who are simply evil. It is a shame.