What happens to those who have never heard the Gospel?
The question posed in this week’s Vox Apologia represents one of the most frequent challenges to biblical Christianity and, in my estimation, will be THE great issue facing evangelicalism in coming years. Of course it isn’t a new question, but with a shrinking world and an increasingly “post-Christian” worldview dominant in our own culture, the charge of narrow fundamentalism, intolerance, and arrogant judgementalism is often leveled against those who believe, as I do, that the Bible teaches that we can only be reconciled to God through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
In what follows I will briefly sketch out the three major positions taken on this issue, followed by what I think are some of the misguided presuppositions that lead to an erroneous understanding of Scriptural teaching.
There are 3 major understandings of this issue:
Particularism. This view is often labeled “Exclusivism,” but this title is too pejorative – it is intended to stack the deck against the view simply by definition and bias. Obviously, those opposed to this view were the first to define terms! Simply put, this view is that those who have never heard the Gospel are nonetheless condemned by their sinful rebellion against God and will spend eternity apart from Him. The only way of salvation is by explicitly trusting in Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and reconciliation with the Father.
Inclusivism. This view seeks a midway point between the other two. Basically an inclusivist holds that those who have never heard the Gospel may yet be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even if they have never heard of Him. Because they have never heard the Gospel and have not had an opportunity to respond, they will either be judged according to whatever revelation they had (i.e. general revelation in creation), or, as some suggest, they will be given an opportunity to respond at the point of death. They are still saved by Christ’s sacrifice; they just might not realize it. They are, as Karl Rahner famous describes them, “anonymous Christians.”
Pluralism. This view believes that all people will ultimately find salvation irregardless of their religious beliefs. Thus, obviously, those who have never heard the Gospel will be fine, thank you very much. So will Hindus, Muslims, etc. All roads lead up the same mountain and we will all find ourselves at the summit together. The most widely known (and philosophically sophisticated) advocate of this view is John Hick. I discussed John Hick in a previous post.
I think most people really want to believe in inclusivism or pluralism because it just makes a very difficult reality go away. It is difficult for us to stomach the idea that a nice and well-meaning person living quietly in a town somewhere in rural Mongolia may be condemned in his sin never having even had an opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can a loving God allow this to happen?
I suggest that our perspective needs to be adjusted. In short, such a view, while understandable, has an elevated view of man’s goodness and a diminished view of God’s holiness. It may not be popular or even couth to say it, but man is not inherently and intrinsically good. Man (every man and woman) is steeped in sin, actively in rebellion against the Creator. And we are without excuse. Scripture is very clear on this matter, perhaps nowhere moreso than Romans 1, which teaches,
“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
So we have an elevated view of man’s goodness, and we also have a diminished view of God’s holiness. The fact is that we cannot really comprehend the grandeur and majesty of God, nor His purity and holiness. He is utterly without sin, perfect in every way, abounding in goodness and power and glory. Scripture teaches that our righteous deeds are as filthy rags. No matter how much we do, we can never measure up to His righteousness, which is why, by grace, He provided Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, that we may be reconciled to God. In John 10:10, Jesus proclaims: “I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me.” In Romans 10:9, Paul teaches that to be saved we must confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.
Of course, in subsequent verses in Romans 10 Paul launches into a discussion of the importance of taking the Gospel message to people who have not heard. “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?”
So it seems to me that there is no way around the fact that those who have not heard the Gospel are yet condemned. God is not capricious in this matter for we are all rightly condemned by our sins. It is purely through the free exercise of His grace and mercy that some are saved. God is holy and we are sinful and rebellious. We should fear Him and exult in His mercy to us, and we should likewise be burdened for others that they may also come to know Him as we have. 2 Corinthians 5 teaches that all of us have been given the ministry of reconciliation, that we are Christ’s ambassadors sent forth to plead with others to be reconciled to the Father.
There is no other way.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Some people say, "God says it, I believe it, that settles it."
I say, "God says it, that settles it, I believe it."
Almost everyone who disagrees with your post would say, "God says it, I don't believe it, what do I think about it?"
Keep up the good work, Alex.
GBW
"This view is often labeled “Exclusivism,” but this title is too pejorative...."
I disagree. Exclusivism means what it sounds like it means, whereas one sees 'particularism' and has no idea what the theory is. One could just as well refer to the theory as 'Sneddlism', and there'd be no loss of information.
"So we have an elevated view of man’s goodness, and we also have a diminished view of God’s holiness."
I don't think that's the crux of the matter; the real question seems to me to be how the two interface. Given that God is omnipotent, as a logical matter he could allow Christians into heaven (or even purgatory or something). Why must God condemn those that haven't heard? That's the question, and if there isn't a good answer, people will tend to either not believe in this version of God (whose decision seems rather arbitrary), or will attenuate the theological position and decide on inclusivism (or maybe pluralism).
I like your methodology ('the wrong question is being asked'), but in the instant case, it seems to me that the original question was the right one.
Alex,
Instead of using the comment section on your blog to debate the merits of exclusivism vs. inclusivism, I will attempt to come up with a Biblical explanation of inclusivism and why it is as strong Biblically as is exclusivism (and like the previous commentor, I will disagree on exclusivism being pejorative- Be proud of exclusivism or the restrictivist view- both terms may seem negative, but they are not- you are saying that confessing Christ as savior is exclusive or restrictive-that is not pejorative) and post it on my blog.
We must rmeember that Christians play the naming something to define it and be pejorative game all the time (i.e. Gay Agenda, Anti-Life, naming things "Left" or "secular Left" when we do not agree, calling something Anti-American or socialist when it is not,etc.- just look at what your partners at Cardinal Coalition do regularly- you being the pleasant exception to the rule). It is what all people do in debate.
However, I have never heard Christians (and I must say this debate is a Christian debate- secular acedemics all believe in pluralism or universalism) react negatively to the term "Exclusivism." I consider it innocuous and truthful as a term. One could argue that "inclusivism" is also a pejorative term, since in many Christian cirlces anything smacking of inclusive is considered PC and therefore evil (to be judged without looking at it on its own merits).
I do believe, however, that your commentor GBW's comments are insulting to anyone with another view than his. Hopefully you can explain to him that his understanding of what is clear in Scripture may be flawed (like all finite humans).
I think it could be seen as "God Says it, That settles it, I hopefully can come to an understanding of it and believe it" is a better place to be (a little more humble in one's theology- fits in better with a reformed mindset understanding that we are depraved and cannot fully understand the things of Christ and God).
All in all, it is an excellent posting (apart from the naming of exclusivism as pejorative) although I disagree in degree(I would be someplace between exlcusivist and inclsuivist- based upon Scriptural teachings I take seriously and my reformed theological tradition of putting no saving act outsie of God's discretion and ability, unless it is explicitly stated in Scripture as a boundary God places upon Himself).
I'll not quibble over labels. Call me an exclusivist if you want - I do think the term is meant to those who hold that position mean-spirited and arrogant. But I'll not deny that I believe Scripture teaches that salvation comes exclusively through trusting in Jesus Christ.
"Why must God condemn those that haven't heard?" Good question that I only have time to answer very briefly. I would appeal to the holiness and justice of God, contrasted with the total depravity of man. Sin and rebellion must be taken seriously; likewise the incomprehensible holiness of God. "No one is righteous, no not one. There is none who seek God."
I'll be interested to read your thoughts, Rick. I hesitate to predict where you'll take us, but at some risk let me preempt you with a couple of questions I hope you'll answer. (And let me know if I'm off-base also.) Because you will be arguing from a Reformed perspective, let me pose this question to you. If God is really sovereign and omnipotent, why would he have to provide some secondary means through which individuals might be saved? Put another way: If one is indeed predestined for salvation, why could God not call that person to conscious faith in Jesus rather than relying on some other means?
If God is really sovereign and omnipotent, why would he have to provide some secondary means through which individuals might be saved?
Put another way: If one is indeed predestined for salvation, why could God not call that person to conscious faith in Jesus rather than relying on some other means?
Of course He does not need to provide some secondary means. God does many things that He does not need to do (like have a relationship with me). I just cannot completely box God in to not having a plan for those throughout human history who have not heard of Jesus Christ from missionaries.
So, just because He may choose to have another means (through natural revelation, supernatural dispensation- as we hear on the mission field,Giesler's universal opportunity theories) and I am comfortable with that.
To me this question is one that we can have assumptions on, but our theology has to take into light his sovereignty above my understanding (I, of course, as a PoMo Christian in the eyes of some, am very comfortable with paradox, mystery and unanswerable questions).
Scripturally many passages lead me to an understanding that it is not as simple and cut and dry as I would like to believe, such as Romans 2:14-16/ Luke 12:47-48/ Romans 1:20/ Acts 10:34-35/ hebrews 11:6/ Acts 17:26-27/ 1 timothy 4:10/ Matthew 25/ John 10:16, along with the non-Jewish Godfreaers of the OT, such as Melchizedeck, Jethro, Job, Rahab, etc, which would take days to properly exegete. I am sure a hard core exclusivist (which is honestly most people I know probably) would have an answer for each of these passages, but I am not ready to make it pat (It leads me to JC by not having all the answers).
As you can guess I would make a miserable classical apologist. I would fail your program in unheard of ways (they would have theological bouncers break my dissertation and burn it to shreds). I am more of an apologist for Christianity in a "I am sorry" way.
As brian M says, "I am more interested in a gospel that is universally efficaious for the whole earth before death in history."
our mission is "to join Jesus in expressing God's love for the whole world, to follow jesus in his mission of saving love for the world. More important to me than the hell question, then, is the mission question."
My job as a missional Christan is to be "blessed in this life to be a blessing to everyone on earth...my mission isn't to figure out who is already blessed, or not blessed, or unblessable. My calling is to be blessed so I can bless everyone."
I could go on and now I am feeling little need to make post myself. See what asking me a simple question causes.
Contrary to common modern thought, there are absolutes. One of them is not a complete understanding of Scripture on my part. There are, however, many things in the Bible that are quite straightforward and easily understood. That is not an arrogant stance, it is Scriptural. Read the 1st Epistle of John (for a concentrated treatment)and see how and what we can "know" and understand. We are also called to believe that which we do not understand, and work toward that understanding at part of our growth toward Christlikeness.
Part of that growth is the purposeful, guided metamorphosis of the Christian's mind from it's natural resistant state of rebellion against God in selfishness (a state the World prefers), to a state of hearing God, and agreeing that what He says is "...good, and acceptable, and perfect..." (Romans 12:1-2) This is only possible if there is objective truth from God that can be known and displace the relativism of the World.
We must then stand for Truth as it is revealed to us in Scripture. And no matter how much we sometimes don't want to, we commanded to believe it and live like we believe it. My comment was not meant to be an insult to anyone who merely disagrees with me. It was a description of people who will not bring themselves to believe God when He plainly speaks. The arrogance and insult to God and others occurs in the first statement which places the certainty in the personal viewpoint of the speaker instead of the Truth of God.
The plain statements in Scripture are the best commentary on those not so easily understood.
All that being said, I imagine we'll all be more than a bit surprised when we get to Heaven and find out God isn't running things just like we thought He should be.
GBW
I had wished Alex would have posted a comment rather than someone subtly accusing my posting of claiming no absolutes.
An actual debate of an issue is warranted, not just blanket theological assumptions and statements not related to the subject at hand.
I would ask that instead of talking about plain things in Scripture as your proof for your arguement (which I would agre with on certain subject, this not being one of them- and not being one of the original 5 fundamentals- and therefore open to debate-but I must be wrong), actually look at these Scriptures cohesively and try to see how each would be interpreted through proper exegesis, not taking them apart from context and fitting them into an already completed view on this issue. (I attempt to come to Scripture humbly and allow it to teach me. I do not want to come to something differing from common thought and make assumptions, without asking God for opennesss to understanding his teaching).
That is what I was expecting from Alex in response to his questions to me (which is what I assume people in acedemic or theological debate- prove your case/ put holes in mine while staying on subject and not using arguements that are not on the subject at hand).
I am just asking, but your statement;
"Part of that growth is the purposeful, guided metamorphosis of the Christian's mind from it's natural resistant state of rebellion against God in selfishness (a state the World prefers), to a state of hearing God, and agreeing that what He says is "...good, and acceptable, and perfect..." (Romans 12:1-2) This is only possible if there is objective truth from God that can be known and displace the relativism of the World."
Are you saying that you have been metamorphed into perfect alignment with the objective truth of Scripture and those that disagree with you on the interpretation regarding this (or any?) subject, have not been brought into alignment with the clear understanding of Scripture that you have been given?
I actually have not idea. I could be completely misunderstanding you and that is why I am asking.
Again, to Alex, I ask these things because I do not know this world which insults those that one does not agree with, as opposed to actually debating these issues (which is what I think you are looking for).
And, I would hope a different perspective would be valued (not by you, which I know it is), but by those that hold a similar worldview (I think I am the only person that regularly comes to your blog that would not quickly align myself with the Religious Right, Republicanism and the powers that be in the SBC).
Rick
Sorry for not commenting further - frankly I just haven't taken the time to do it. Glad you realize that I value your perspective and am glad to engage with you on such issues. Besides our history together, however momentary, I also respect you as a thinker, though I wish we agreed more! You're my also my link to that Emerging crowd that I'm not willing to identify with fully, but who I am interested in observing. I'm pleased to hear thoughtful comments from anyone.
And I know how you crave to be different (don't take that the wrong way), but I don't know that I would lump everyone together (including me) under the label of the "religious right, Republican, SBC elite." Clearly you're outside that sphere, nobody would doubt that!
Pertaining to the issue at hand, I admit it is difficult. I have come to the conclusions I have from study of the Scriptures - not saying you haven't. I do think the issue is significant because it gets to the heart of what the gospel is, soteriology, evangelism/missions, etc. I do not claim to have an infallible understanding of all of the issues, and am eager to continue to search the Scriptures when I have more time to study such issues in depth. (That is one of the plagues of academic work - you only have time to really study what they tell you to.... but now is not the time and this is not the forum to vent my misgivings about that enterprise).
So I apologize for not being to really invest in open engagement of this issue at this time. But I hope that we can have a civil and thoughtul discussion on this and other issues that come up.
Post a Comment