Ethics Paper DM820
B. The Lost Condition of Those Who Have Not Heard the Gospel
No question is asked more in the context of
CAN WE STILL BELIEVE THE BIBLE?
An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
BrazosPress
a division of Baker Publishing Group
Grand Rapids, Michigan
© 2014 by Craig L. Blomberg
Many religions have likewise debated the fate of those who never had a reasonable chance to respond to their message. Will God or the gods treat them in the same way as those who have rejected the message outright? The Bible only hints at answers to this question, yet Christians have made numerous suggestions that merit evaluation and are by no means limited to the notion that all such people are lost. (p. 1)
Christian answers have fallen into three broad categories: restrictivist, inclusivist, and universalist. Restrictivists believe all who reject Christ are lost. Universalists believe all who reject Christ will eventually be saved, though opinions vary on how or after what experiences this will occur. Inclusivists allow for some who have not consciously put faith in Christ for their salvation, but this by no means includes all such individuals (and again opinions vary widely on the conditions under which this can occur). Among self-identifying evangelicals, all three groups can be found, though the universalist is by far the smallest category. But see Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, rev. ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012). For an excellent anthology of two different evangelical restrictivist views, one evangelical inclusivist view, and one nonevangelical universalist view, see Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). (ftnt. #3, p. 1)
THE GAGGING OF GOD
Christianity Confronts Pluralism
D. A. CARSON
Fifteenth Anniversary Edition
ZONDERVAN
The Gagging of God
Copyright © 2011 by D. A. Carson
Even if (with the “soft” inclusivists) we think that in this age saving faith in Jesus normally has as its content, its object, the Jesus of the Scriptures, including both his person and his work, it is clear that genuine believers (both Jews and Gentiles) before the coming of Jesus did not have to exercise faith in Jesus to be saved: they had not heard of the man Christ Jesus. Early enough along the axis of redemptive history, believers had not heard of many other things as well. Men and women responded in faith to such light as they had. Would not the same principle apply to people today who are “informationally B.C.,” i.e., to people who, though they live this side of the decisive events connected
with the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, have never heard of them, and are therefore very much in the place of those who came before Jesus, and who consequently never heard of him?
This line of argument is very common. (p. 297-8)
Inclusivists who draw a parallel between modern non-Christians who have never heard of Christ and such Old Testament believers overlook the fact that these believers on the Old Testament side were responding in faith to special revelation, and were not simply exercising some sort of general “faith” in an undefined “God.” (p. 298)
Themelios
An International Journal for Students of Theological and Religious Studies
Volume 41
Issue 1
April 2016
Daniel Strange on the Theological Question of the Unevangelized: A Doctrinal Assessment
Kyle Faircloth
Kyle Faircloth is the director of intercultural studies at Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary in Penang, Malaysia, and a PhD student at the University of Bristol, UK.
In this case, Strange has in mind the inclusivist model of Clark Pinnock.
As regards the question of the unevangelized, Pinnock argues that those who respond to the Spirit’s offer of grace through general revelation and conscience can in this way receive Christ’s salvation. (p. 60) ...
He concludes that Pinnock’s view is untenable as an evangelical position, because it neither holds to the core precepts of the evangelical tradition nor represents an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. (p. 60)
Furthermore, “general revelation is insufficient to save but sufficient to condemn and ‘render without excuse.’ ” As regards salvation, general revelation needs special revelation before it can be understood and appropriated rightly, and the ordinary means of special revelation is through hearing the proclamation of the gospel.15 Still, though general and special revelation are distinct Strange also argues they are not meant to be separated. (p. 61)
TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD
METHOD FOR THEOLOGY
DAVID K. CLARK
CROSSWAY BOOKS
WHEATON, ILLINOIS
To Know and Love God: Method for Theology
Copyright © 2003 by David K. Clark
Does this religion, or do all religions, produce spiritual results, provide religious benefits, or achieve some moral function? (...the exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism paradigm....)
(p. 327)
an evangelical Christian who adopts alethic realism is declaring that God actually exists and that God possesses the qualities that Christian doctrines say God possesses. She will also choose exclusivism if she thinks that only Christian truth and practice lead to salvation. Her neighbor might agree that God is as Christian doctrine says, but opt for inclusivism in thinking that the practice of other religions can lead to salvation, but because of Christ. And his friend could hold that God does have certain definite features or properties, that the doctrines of various religions identify that deity under different names, and that all religious practices have the power to get a believer in contact with the supreme Reality. So it appears, at least prima facie, that an alethic realist can adopt either exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism. (p. 327)
An exclusivist says that only one path to spiritual Reality actually produces salvation. If so, then surely the doctrinal claims that describe that one path must be true. Their negations are false. (p. 328)
The Pluralist Challenge is:...the spiritual ultimate Reality is equally involved salvifically in many of the major world religions, and the adherents of many world faiths are able to contact that Reality. The followers of many religions can experience the benefits of liberation, enlightenment, or salvation (p. 330)
Inclusivism agrees with exclusivism that only one religion is ultimately true. But it shares with pluralism the conviction that sincere adherents of religions other than the true faith may still come into contact with God, find spiritual life, or achieve the religious goal (p. 321).
NEW DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY
HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMATIC
SECOND EDITION
Editors:
Martin Davie
Tutor in Doctrine at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford
Tim Grass
Senior Research Fellow at Spurgeon’s College, London
Stephen R. Holmes
Senior Lecturer in Theology at the University of St Andrews, Scotland
John McDowell
Director of Research, University of Divinity, Australia
T. A. Noble
Senior Research Fellow in Theology at the Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, and Research Professor of Theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri
Consulting editors:
Roland Chia
Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine and Dean of the School of Postgraduate Studies, Trinity Theological College, Singapore
David Emmanuel Singh
Research Tutor in Islamic Studies, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois
Inter-Varsity Press
London, England
InterVarsity Press
Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
INTER-VARSITY PRESS
36 Causton Street, London SW1P 4ST, England
Email: ivp@ivpbooks.com
Website: www.ivpbooks.com
© Inter-Varsity Press, 2016
A person is judged according to their deeds and to what the whole person has become as a result. ...God’s verdict is given at the end of a life, and this verdict is in a sense also the verdict of the person being judged: ‘This is the verdict [judgment]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light’ (
Lexham Survey of Theology
General Editors:
Brannon Ellis and Mark Ward
Major Contributors:
Gerald Bray, Susanne Calhoun, Brian Collins, John Frame, Jack Kilcrease, Fred Sanders, Justin Stratis, Jonathan Warren, and Fred Zaspel
Technical Editor:
Jessica Parks
Lexham Survey of Theology
Copyright 2018 Lexham Press
Ecclesiocentrism holds that in order to be saved, one must have heard the gospel message, responded in faith, and entered the visible church (The Doctrine of Last Things, Life after Death, The Fate of the Unevangelized - Logos)
In this view, Christ is the only Savior of the world, and all people should be evangelized as an act not simply of Christian duty but of neighbor love. (The Doctrine of Last Things, Life after Death, The Fate of the Unevangelized - Logos)
Paul combines pictures of punishment, destruction, and separation in
In
Theology for the Community of God
Stanley J. Grenz
WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.
© 1994 by Broadman & Holman Publishers
Hence, just as our acceptance of divine love is the gateway to eternal community, so also our rejection of that love means choosing a destiny apart from fellowship with God. God takes us so seriously that he will not force his will on anyone, not even in all eternity. As Travis correctly noted, “From the fundamental truth that God is love, it follows that he pays us the compliment of treating all our actions as significant.”
This means, however, that God is engaging in a divine “experiment.” He desires that humans freely respond to his love—that we enter into community with him, one another, and creation—and thereby that we truly become the image of the triune God. His desire, however, entails the possibility of our failure. Some of God’s creatures may spurn God’s love through all eternity and thus never realize our divinely ordained destiny. (p. 641)
annihilationists anticipate that many will remain lost eternally. The unrighteous will not wallow outside the kingdom, however, but will be sentenced to extinction. Their fate will simply be cessation of existence. (p. 638)
Hence, just as our acceptance of divine love is the gateway to eternal community, so also our rejection of that love means choosing a destiny apart from fellowship with God. God takes us so seriously that he will not force his will on anyone, not even in all eternity. As Travis correctly noted, “From the fundamental truth that God is love, it follows that he pays us the compliment of treating all our actions as significant.”
This means, however, that God is engaging in a divine “experiment.” He desires that humans freely respond to his love—that we enter into community with him, one another, and creation—and thereby that we truly become the image of the triune God. His desire, however, entails the possibility of our failure. Some of God’s creatures may spurn God’s love through all eternity and thus never realize our divinely ordained destiny. (p. 641)
Volume 2
Our Primary Need: Christ’s Atoning Provisions
GORDON R. LEWIS
BRUCE A. DEMAREST
ZONDERVAN
Integrative Theology, Volume 2
Copyright © 1990 by Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest
Requests for information should be addressed to:
Requests for information should be addressed to:
Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
3. Another ground of divine judgment is deliberate disbelief of the gospel and rejection of Christ (
INTEGRATIVE THEOLOGY
Volume 3
Spirit-Given Life:
God’s People, Present and Future
GORDON R. LEWIS
BRUCE A. DEMAREST
ZONDERVAN
Integrative Theology, Volume 3
Copyright © 1994 by Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest
Requests for information should be addressed to:
Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
If missionaries meet people already repentant and ready to believe when they hear the Gospel, they may be considered prepared for belief but not implicit believers. Our position is that the Spirit who began this preparatory work will bring the Gospel to them, and then they will become explicit believers. (p. 113) (Vol. 3)
The idea of someone else suggesting that persons have a faith that they do not consciously affirm...It raises serious ethical issues, such as, Is it intellectually honest?
All who have God’s moral norms written on their hearts (see vol. 1, chap. 2) disobey them to some extent. Why then should we assume that if they had the Gospel they would adhere to it? (Vol. 3, p. 113)
People had God’s truth but suppressed it, refusing to heed it. And these wicked ones did this in an attitude of wickedness (en adikia). This suppression of the truth is Paul’s first reason for God’s condemnation of the pagan world. (Vol. 2, p. 442)
For ignoring God’s revelation (1:19–20)
These verses declare that knowledge concerning God is available to all. This knowledge is called natural revelation because it is seen in the created world, is accessible to the entire human race, and is not soteriological, dealing with salvation effected by Christ. (Vol. 2, p. 442)
An Old Testament parallel to these verses is
men are without excuse. The witness to God in nature is so clear and so constant that ignoring it is indefensible. Their condemnation is based not on their rejecting Christ of whom they have not heard, but on their sinning against the light they have. (Vol. 2, p. 442)
People’s suppression of the truth is seen in their rejecting the clear evidence of God as the sovereign Creator and their perversion of that knowledge into idolatry. (Vol. 2, p. 442)
The clause although they knew God refers to an original experiential knowledge of God such as Adam and Eve had both before and after the Fall. How long this knowledge of God continued before it was perverted is not stated, but God was known by people. This fact makes human actions all the more reprehensible. (Vol. 2, p. 443)
Man’s refusal to acknowledge and glorify God leads to a downward path: first, worthless thinking; next, moral insensitivity; and then, religious stupidity (seen in idol-worship). (Vol. 2, p. 443)
