mightychurch.com

What about those who’ve never had the opportunity to respond to the gospel?  My concern isn’t about people who’ve heard of Jesus on some inaccurate level e.g. Jesus being good, Jesus being a miracle worker etc.  I mean groups such as:

a) Infants
b) Unreached tribal groups
c) Christian schizos who’ve converted but in their ‘bad state’ actively deny God
d) Animals.

What d’ya reckon?  I’ve heard from both extremes and everything in between.  In asking these questions there may not be a real answer available to us, it could be a case of “waiting until the second coming to see”.  But worth asking the questions I suppose…

It’s an interesting question - it comes up a lot, and when it comes to those who haven’t heard, there’s the cut and dry “Everyone else goes to hell” answer (Jesus is the only way; if there was another way then why be Christian; we’re just getting what we deserve etc) *but* when it has come up in bible studies I’ve been a part of over the last few years (at very ‘Sydney Anglican’ churches) in my experience it’s been rare for anyone to come out and defend that position.

I’ve actually been quite surprised the extent to which people will build in back doors to the ‘orthodox’ position, and will be very sketchy if you try and pin then down on who is out.

Maybe there’s a large, ‘secret’ population of Sydney Anglican universalists out there?

(For the record I don’t really have a firm position on this myself at the moment - currently I think that if I’m optimistic about who will make it in, and turn out to be wrong, is that such a bad thing?)

To give a bit of perspective on all the different religions out there, the “Big Religion Chart” is quite interesting.

So if you’re going to draw the circle around who’s in and who’s out, how small is the circle? Are Christian cults/offshoots out (Mormon’s, JW’s, and dare I say, Muslims)? Yes? How tight does the circle become then? Catholics? Those naughty liberals? Those who don’t meet the current, fashionable litmus test of orthodoxy?

And on another random point, one thing I find particularly obnoxious is pew sitting Christians having the attitude that they’re in because they believe The Right Things as a credit to themselves, when the reality is that for 90%+ of us, we were bought up in a specific culture, in a specific area, often with believing parents, and these guys have often been force fed what they believe and have never really thought beyond it.

Our path was made for us a long time before we had much say in the matter. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but if circumstances were different, we would be in a very different position, and therefore we need to be mindful of the contribution our circumstances have had, and take a fair serving of humility because of it.

My random 2c anyway :)

An oldie but a goodie.  At the end of all the analyses, God is a just and loving God, and he will deal justly and lovingly with those who haven’t heard about his Son or had the opportunity to directly respond to the good news of what Jesus has done for them in his death and resurrection.  Justice is defined from God’s perspective, not ours - he made the place and he gets to make the rules and call the shots, not us.  So what might seem “unjust” to us (condemnation of someone from “deepest darkest africa” to use the stereotype in this instance) is always going to be just from God’s holy perspective.  Justice, mercy and love will be shown to those who suffer from mental incapacities of any sort whether acquired or organic and who may as the result of their incapacity appear not to to be “right” with God any more.  Animals weren’t made “in the image of God” and therefore are in a different category (but I for one hope my little moggies past and present will be there with me, even though many a flatmate past and present wishes equally as strongly they weren’t!).  Infants I have no answer about, but rely on the ‘God is ultimately just’ principle - I can’t think of how to deal with that very difficult issue, but I’m not God therefore I’m quite comfortable taking the position that God knows best and I don’t see that as “blind” or “unthinking” faith worthy of condemnation by all ‘right-thinking’ persons, I see it as a right recognition of God’s sovereignty and power. 

However, empty “debate” about difficult topics is not edifying or Godly - I frequently have these and similar debates with non-christian friends who are genuinely seeking, but with those for whom the “objections” are just a smokescreen for maintaining a sinful ungodly lifestyle I don’t entertain their “objections” and simply say that God is just, he is creator, he is sovereign and he gets the final call which will always be the right one.  I find it best not to encourage those who have no genuine interest in struggling through the issues in the process of coming to know God as their creator, judge and redeemer in a quest to obfuscate and polarise debates.  A question is not worth asking, and is not worth responding to, when it is asked by someone with motives other than that of finding out who God is and what his word says.  Paul warns against such empty debate quite clearly. 

I’m not by any means saying you have started a debate with an absence of genuine enquiry into the nature and sovereignty of God in an attempt to learn more about God and his word, but I would like to quietly point out to others with polarised (and sadly often vitriolic) views on these issues, who may be tempted to get on their hobby horses and sidetrack debate from those with genuine queries, that at the end of the analysis it’s got nothing to do with what we think but it’s all about what God thinks.

Apologetics is a fascinating area, and well worthy of detailed study (as we are encouarged to be ready at all time to give a reason for the hope which we have), but pandering to sinful desires of those who wish to osbcure God’s universal truths is of no gain and leads to much pain.  If anyone wants to investigate some of the more well thought out and well reasoned biblical responses to these sorts of issues by those with much more learning in the area than your average bear, I can recommend the moore college PTC course on apoologetics, it’s really helpful.  Otherwise, post your questions with abandon and see what responses come out!

Luke, you posted your random 2c while I was typing my rant, I shall go back and read it and respond in further detail.  I think there is an answer, and an answer only - not a wishy washy “maybe it’ll all just work out if we’re all nice to each other” view [not that I’m saying that’s what you’re saying].

That chart is a great resource, Luke. Thanks for citing it.

I’ve seen people cite Romans 2 to say that salvation is only possible through Jesus, while others cite the same passage to say that people who haven’t heard can get in by another route.

I also think that often this question is used to nullify the Bible’s apparently clear teaching in passages like John 14 that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Having made a path for some exceptions, they seem to then feel that the exceptions are now the norm, which gives them an excuse for continuing in a life of sin.

I think this is the most bizarre one: Here is what I said about it in my review of Suzanne Rowe’s China Ramblings on that website that made this website necessary:

Coping with distortions of Christian teaching which have become accepted by new believers in China is the focus of the chapter Those who have never heard.
It tells of a woman who is a Christian, but who fervently hopes her family do not hear the gospel because she is sure they would reject it. She is confident that her father, who recently died is now safe in the arms of Jesus, because in God’s mercy he never got to hear the message! This misunderstanding of Romans 2 is as popular in Australia as in China. (I once heard someone expounding it in a large Christian bookshop.) Suzanne makes us see its dangers, and how it is opposed to the command to go into all the world and preach the message of God’s forgiveness for those who trust in Jesus’ death for them.

Does God reveal himself to every human? Yes.
Is it possible for a person to respond in faith to what God revealed about himself to that person? Yes.
Should we expect it to happen? No.
Will God judge justly? Yes.

I think there is room for us to be completely amazed when we reach heaven and see exactly how far God’s grace reaches, but more importantly we should be deeply challenged and rebuked about why we aren’t telling more people about him.

Dannii, in what ways does God reveal himself to every human, according to Scripture?

Romans 1:18-20, his power and divinity is shown through what he made. It’s not a lot, but it is enough to convict people of their sin. And if it can convict people of their sin then it’s possible to respond in faith too.

God has also revealed himself to some through dreams and visions which once again can be responded to in faith.

OK. God has revealed himself generally through his creation to all, but has chosen to reveal himself particularly only to some.

I’m not sure about your logic here.

Romans 1-3 seems to teach that we have all been given knowledge of God through his creation, but that we have all turned from him.

Where does the Bible teach we are all able to respond in faith?

I understand that we are all dead in trespasses and sins [Ephesians 2] and cannot turn to God without his gracious enabling. Although we ought to, we don’t want to. Romans 3 tells us that noone seeks after God.

I’ve seen Romans 1:18-20 come into play for both sides of the debate.  One side which leans towards universalism of the a- c I mentioned earlier; they’ll say that they may likely be saved.  The other side claims that as in this case the group rejected God, all will if they don’t respond to Jesus with repentance and faith (consistent with John 14:9 and Romans 3:23, but then again the people in a-c haven’t heard about those verses!).  I’m more of the moderate view that “they will fall into the hands of the living God”, and that God will ultimately decide.

When I discussed this with the uni and workers bible study groups at my church, all but one person leant towards the traditional latter view.  Interesting as normally, the people at my church hold a wide range of theological views on everything else (though with evangelicals on the 10 main doctrines of Anglicanism).

Of course this shouldn’t hinder our evangelistic efforts one bit.  Especially when most people in Australia have already heard about Jesus in some form or another, albeit an inaccurate one of Jesus being a good man, good teacher and miracle worker.

But I’d also like to add it is difficult to keep conversation with someone you’re evangelising, who’s rejected Jesus over an issue like this.  For instance, one person I was evangelising to in Kogarah Station a few years back rejected Jesus because there was no assurance his dog would go to heaven.  It didn’t sound like there were any other hindrances either.

My response was to “save yourself first” like they say on airline safety videos, and gave him a tract.  I dunno what I could have done better in the circumstances.

Some people care more about animals than they do about people. I wonder if the man in Melbourne would have thrown his dog off the bridge?

My 2c worth is that perhaps God will judge people by whether they have responded in faith to whatever they have heard, regardless of whether “what they have heard” includes Jesus.

That is, even for those who haven’t heard about Jesus, will they respond (in humility, worship, and in confidence that God will put things right) to what God has revealed about his character through His creation, or will they continue to puff themselves up with delusions of their own grandeur / adequacy / ability to make correct moral judgments, etc.

Luke Stevens - 01 February 2009 04:39 PM

To give a bit of perspective on all the different religions out there, the “Big Religion Chart” is quite interesting.

This is quite good, especially for those obscure religions I previously knew absolutely nothing about!

So if you’re going to draw the circle around who’s in and who’s out, how small is the circle? Are Christian cults/offshoots out (Mormon’s, JW’s, and dare I say, Muslims)? Yes? How tight does the circle become then? Catholics? Those naughty liberals? Those who don’t meet the current, fashionable litmus test of orthodoxy?

My 2c… I’d say that the litmus test is that they must be saved by grace alone with faith in Christ alone.  The obvious cults/offshoots I would consider to be out.  Some evangelical Catholics out there might be in, especially in the charismatic realm (heard about the evangelical charismatic Catholic movement from Marc Gilbert, a guy who was called to speak at an Ecom function last year in the weeks leading up to WYD).  I’m sure that many liberals are in, though their spiritual maturity is another matter to address.

And on another random point, one thing I find particularly obnoxious is pew sitting Christians having the attitude that they’re in because they believe The Right Things as a credit to themselves, when the reality is that for 90%+ of us, we were bought up in a specific culture, in a specific area, often with believing parents, and these guys have often been force fed what they believe and have never really thought beyond it.

In my congregation it’s more 50-50.  Some were brought up in Christian families, but many particularly the youth were simply introduced by their friends into the congregation.  Perhaps it’s critical thinking (encouraged in our church with the 10 Anglican-aligned doctrines as absolutes) that encourages us against that type of obnoxicism (sp?).  Actually surprised that the percentage of Christian-raised is up to or above 90% in some churches.

David McKay - 01 February 2009 08:31 PM

I also think that often this question is used to nullify the Bible’s apparently clear teaching in passages like John 14 that Jesus is the only way to the Father.

I must admit I get a little frustrated when I hear people throw about John 14:6 as a proof-text to establish their exclusivist stance. While I can agree that no-one comes to the Father except through Jesus, this is something altogether different than saying that no-one comes to the Father except through (my particular sect of) Christendom.

So was Jesus wrong, David?

Hey David, out of general interest, could you elaborate on your position on the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of salvation?

No, I don’t why you would ask me that, David. Did I not suggest above that I believe that no-one comes to the Father but through Jesus?

But, David C, what do you mean by “this is something altogether different than saying that no-one comes to the Father except through (my particular sect of) Christendom”?  Perhaps you could elaborate on this instead?

David, David and Luke, perhaps Karl Rahner’s model of the “Anonymous Christian” might help you to understand where I am coming from. I am suggesting that people can be saved outside of an explicit knowledge of Jesus, but this does not mean that Jesus does not save them. Perhaps a parallel example may be a paramedic who saves an unconscious person.

Of course, I would certainly not begrudge you disagreeing with me that the locus of Jesus’ salvation extends to those outside of the fold of Christendom. Perhaps you might suggest that Jesus only saves particular people, based on a particular response. This is perfectly valid, but your argument with me is not that only Jesus saves, but that Jesus only saves according to a certain formula. In this respect, it doesn’t seem like John 14:6 is an appropriate proof-text to use to prove this point.

To answer your question, Luke, I am a tentative universalist. Tentative in the sense that I believe that this is how God will act, based on my knowledge of his character and from the Scriptures, but I cannot say this for sure. However, I am not a universalist because I believe that God is obligated for moral or other reasons to act in this way. God could very well comdemn some to Hell and I would not regard Him as unjust for doing so.

I, for one, am not proposing that Jesus only saves according to a certain formula - see post no 12 above.

So does this mean you agree with me, at least insofar as the idea of an anonymous Christian is concerned? To clarify, do you believe that anyone outside of Christendom will be saved?

To clarify, I think that the bible leaves open the possibility that some people outside Christendom will be saved by faith (of the kind that I outlined above) even though they have not explicitly heard of Christ. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not there has ever been anyone in this category. 

This is not a universalist position, but it is broader than any formulas of the kind that you are objecting to - which I take to be all formulas that are based on a reading of John 14:6 that says, in effect “no one comes to the Father except those who have heard about me and confess me”.

David C, the Bible is not universalist, though I have seen people argue a universalist case by quoting it selectively. The Bible not only says that we can only come to the Father through Christ, but also that salvation comes to those who have faith in Christ. The anonymous Christian is not a biblical concept.

David C, thanks for the link and explaining your position.

David B, where do you think the bible leaves that possibility open?

Likewise David M, you’re just asserting what the bible does or doesn’t say - can you make the case with some examples?

To clarify, I think that the bible leaves open the possibility that some people outside Christendom will be saved by faith (of the kind that I outlined above) even though they have not explicitly heard of Christ. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not there has ever been anyone in this category. 

This is not a universalist position, but it is broader than any formulas of the kind that you are objecting to - which I take to be all formulas that are based on a reading of John 14:6 that says, in effect “no one comes to the Father except those who have heard about me and confess me”.

It seems that from what I see you understand where I am coming from, which is definitely a helpful start.

Just to clarify, simply because one believes in the idea of anonymous Christianity does not compel them to a universalist stance, especially if one believes that one cannot be an anonymous Christian if they have heard of Christ. Indeed, your stance on the issue seems to be similar to that of orthodox Catholicism, which believes that anonymous Christians do exist, but that they are a relatively rare phenomenon. By the same token, one can be universalist without believing in the idea of anonymous Christianity. Some universalists even regard the idea of anonymous Christianity with disdain, because it prizes the relevation of God in Christ over that in other religions and prefer to take a more pluralist stance.

I do wonder to some extent why you entirely rule out the possibility of universalism if you acknowledge the possibility of God saving people outside of Christendom. In this respect, I actually agree with David McKay that one you make one exception, then other exceptions naturally follow. For example, if God may save someone who has never heard of Christ, then why not someone who has only ever had Christ communicated in a garbled fashion that completely misrepresents who Christ was? And if this, then why not someone who was sexually abused by a priest, because they forever associate Christ with their traumatic experiences as a child? Explaining where a line is or should be drawn is not entirely easy. Of course, I would suggest that these scenarios are not judged in a black and white fashion, but indicate differing degrees of culpability. That is, the person who has heard Christ but only in a distorted fashion is more culpable that the person to whom Christ is completely unfamiliar. In this respect, judgment operates according to a continuum based upon the individual, rather than a black and white “one size fits all approach”.

David C, the Bible is not universalist, though I have seen people argue a universalist case by quoting it selectively.

With all due respect, isn’t this our subject of argument? It doesn’t seem to me to be helpful to circumvent the process of working through this issue by simply asserting your stance. If so, I could simply suggest that “the Bible is not exclusivist, though I have seen people use all types of tortuous linguistic gymnastics to avoid what the Bible clearly says about the scope of Jesus’ salvific influence”. But then, all we’d have is my assertion against your assertion, which I think you’d agree would be fairly pointless. Perhaps you could start by making a sustained argument for your stance?

The Bible not only says that we can only come to the Father through Christ, but also that salvation comes to those who have faith in Christ. The anonymous Christian is not a biblical concept.

But there is a difference, is there not, between saying that salvation comes to those who have faith in Christ and that salvation only comes to those who have faith in Christ?

Just to get our bearings, are you saying that all who don’t have faith in Christ are predestined to damnation, whether or not they had heard of Christ?