I heard on Ravi Zacharias` site (admittedly not from him, merely quoted by one of his associates on the inference that it might be true) that before He created Man God knew those who would respond to Him and who not. And that therefore He made sure that those whom He knew would respond would also get to hear (and vice-versa not presumably). At first this sounded ok to me, but then I pictured a man living in California (no disrespect but you guys do have a relatively very benign climate, at least on the coast) in 2009 and enjoying the benefits of central heating in winter, air-conditioning in summer, full health care benefits and all the other trappings of Western civilisation. The chances of this man hearing the Gospel during his life are very high.
Contrast him with a 12th Century Eskimo or a 4th Century man from windiest, dampest Tierra del Fuego, who suffers untold hardships during his life, and then goes to an eternity of perdition, because he wouldn`t have responded anyway to the Gospel had he heard it. Can someone help me get this awfully unjust theoretical scenario out of my head please?
Those who`ve never heard
Re: Those who`ve never heard
We discussed this topic a while back (with a slightly different, yet essentially the same focus).Can someone help me get this awfully unjust theoretical scenario out of my head please?
Copy & Paste (I wrote):
===========================Soteriological Pluralism
The view that "All paths lead to God." Jesus Christ is "a way among the many." Held by many theologically liberal Christians and people who are, technically, agnostic.
Exclusivism or Restrictionism
Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God. Personal knowledge of his person, as well as placing personal faith in him, are required for salvation.
Inclusivism
Jesus Christ is the Only Savior. Those who have never heard his name, who have otherwise lived to the best of their ability "according to the light they had" can be saved. This grouping has two basic forms {explained in brief}:
1. 'Soft' Inclusivism
Though all need to hear the gospel of the Only Savior, God can save those who never heard based on "a good life lived." Some in this camp believe a majority of "good people" among those who do not hear, can, and will be, saved.
2. 'Hard' Inclusivism
All need to hear the gospel of the Only Savior. Though God can save those who have not heard, only a minority of humanity will be saved {based on interpretations of other biblical passages regarding salvation that emphasize the sinfulness of humanity and the belief that "few will be saved"}. Thus, though there are those among the "never heard" that God can save: With the saved being a minority: All people desperately need to hear the gospel.
Note: Inclusivists are not Universalists.
To answer your question, Ian, I go to the Bible.
I've said this before someplace.
But first a pertinent quotation:
The gist being:"Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions"
~ Anonymous
Ask the correct questions and the right answers may follow.
Ask incorrect questions and the answers are suspect, at best.
So.
I try to "get" my questions from the Bible - what the Bible People asked about.
I challenge anyone to show from the scriptures if Jesus, any Apostle, or other biblical figures ever asked the question w/r/t those who do not hear about God and/or the gospel: "Can they be saved?"
Read Romans 10.
Jesus, the Apostles, and others died, being fully convinced that Jesus is The Way.
"Can the 'never heard' be saved?"
"Yes," the Apostle answers, if they hear from someone who is sent (Rom 10:14-15).
The question "But what about those who don't hear?" appears to have never entered their minds!!!
(If anyone can find that it did, please let me know).
Thus, I don't ask about the "never heard" either, though I have theoretical guesses.
Our business is to proclaim Christ, imo. Beyond that, His Sovereignty is the righteous judge, Who, we know will judge all humanity in, by, and through the person of Jesus Christ (Rom 2:16, Acts 17:31).
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Hi Ian,
The idea that God knows who will believe and providentially makes sure that they will hear the gospel, and that He places those whom He knows will never believe in circumstances in which they will never hear, sounds very Calvinistic to me (Ravi is a Calvinist, I believe). Though it uses the concept of "foreknowledge," rather than "election," (thus seeming to make the idea amenable to Arminians as well as Calvinists) it still has God deliberately placing some outside the reach of the Gospel, thus sovereignly consigning them to unbelief—which is the same as Calvinistic reprobation. In such a case, people were not unbelievers by a free choice, but by an "accident" of their birth circumstances—hence, by sovereign providence.
My views have been, in some degree, inclusivistic for many years. I don't necessarily consider that "living a good life" supplies the terms of justification, since people may have motives other than love for God which dictate their decisions in the direction of moral behavior. I do believe, contra Calvinism, that there are those who, without having received special revelation (that is, they are privy only to general revelation) may be moved to seek after and worship "the Unknown God"—that is, unknown to them, due to the lack of special revelation. We know of one case, at least, in which Paul recognized in one culture's "Unknown God" the true God of the Christian message (Acts 17:23).
Of course, the fact that Paul saw the Athenians as those who ignorantly worshipped the true God did not translate into the non-necessity of preaching the Gospel to them. The key word is "ignorantly." They were worshipping God, but (like the pious Jews) their worship was "not according to knowledge" (Rom.10:2). It is obvious that God is not content to have any individuals remain in ignorance. This may or may not be because of His inability to forgive people whose knowledge remains below a certain ignorance threshold. There are other possibilities, which many Christians do not consider.
Let's suppose (for the sake of argument merely) that God can and does forgive, through Christ's merits, everyone who positively responds to whatever "light" they may have received, however dim. This means that some would be saved by Jesus Christ in spite of (not because of) their adherence to different religions and faith systems, which may be the only options to which they have been exposed. Well and good, so far as that goes. Such people, being forgiven, would not be condemned at the judgment.
But is that all that Jesus came for—to keep people from being ultimately condemned? I think not. As I understand the Gospel, Jesus came to establish a Kingdom which would transform lives and societies, which would supplant the rule of sin and the devil in the lives of human beings, and would cause, eventually, the glory of the Lord to fill the earth, as the waters cover the seas. That God has a general (and probably a specific) plan for every human being to fulfill in this lifetime, and that God is grieved by any who live and die without fulfilling this purpose, seems obvious in scripture. We can be sure that, even if one may escape condemnation without hearing the Gospel, none can live the life of obedience to Christ that God desires unless they hear the Gospel and become disciples.
When we think of the need to evangelize the lost, we are usually motivated by a desire to save them for their own benefit (i.e., so that they can escape hell). This reflects our man-centered orientation—the one that we were supposed to have repented of when becoming Christians. We should be motivated by concern for God's interests. The greatest tragedy in the case of the unevangelized is not that they miss out on eternal life (whether they do or not is the question presently on the table). It is rather the tragedy of what God misses out on in their wasted lives of sin and their service to His enemy. His purpose for that person was unrealized in this life. God is ripped off. This should be our dominant concern.
There is a famous utterance of the Moravian missionaries, allegedly called out by those who had sold themselves into slavery in order to gain access to the slave populations on a privately-owned island. As their ship left the shore, it is said that they called out to their friends and families who were watching them sail away to their own enslavement, "May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His sufferings!" This sentiment is the truly Christian motivation for missions—not that people will be spared the condemnation that they deserve, but that Christ will receive in their lives the glory that He deserves.
The idea that God knows who will believe and providentially makes sure that they will hear the gospel, and that He places those whom He knows will never believe in circumstances in which they will never hear, sounds very Calvinistic to me (Ravi is a Calvinist, I believe). Though it uses the concept of "foreknowledge," rather than "election," (thus seeming to make the idea amenable to Arminians as well as Calvinists) it still has God deliberately placing some outside the reach of the Gospel, thus sovereignly consigning them to unbelief—which is the same as Calvinistic reprobation. In such a case, people were not unbelievers by a free choice, but by an "accident" of their birth circumstances—hence, by sovereign providence.
My views have been, in some degree, inclusivistic for many years. I don't necessarily consider that "living a good life" supplies the terms of justification, since people may have motives other than love for God which dictate their decisions in the direction of moral behavior. I do believe, contra Calvinism, that there are those who, without having received special revelation (that is, they are privy only to general revelation) may be moved to seek after and worship "the Unknown God"—that is, unknown to them, due to the lack of special revelation. We know of one case, at least, in which Paul recognized in one culture's "Unknown God" the true God of the Christian message (Acts 17:23).
Of course, the fact that Paul saw the Athenians as those who ignorantly worshipped the true God did not translate into the non-necessity of preaching the Gospel to them. The key word is "ignorantly." They were worshipping God, but (like the pious Jews) their worship was "not according to knowledge" (Rom.10:2). It is obvious that God is not content to have any individuals remain in ignorance. This may or may not be because of His inability to forgive people whose knowledge remains below a certain ignorance threshold. There are other possibilities, which many Christians do not consider.
Let's suppose (for the sake of argument merely) that God can and does forgive, through Christ's merits, everyone who positively responds to whatever "light" they may have received, however dim. This means that some would be saved by Jesus Christ in spite of (not because of) their adherence to different religions and faith systems, which may be the only options to which they have been exposed. Well and good, so far as that goes. Such people, being forgiven, would not be condemned at the judgment.
But is that all that Jesus came for—to keep people from being ultimately condemned? I think not. As I understand the Gospel, Jesus came to establish a Kingdom which would transform lives and societies, which would supplant the rule of sin and the devil in the lives of human beings, and would cause, eventually, the glory of the Lord to fill the earth, as the waters cover the seas. That God has a general (and probably a specific) plan for every human being to fulfill in this lifetime, and that God is grieved by any who live and die without fulfilling this purpose, seems obvious in scripture. We can be sure that, even if one may escape condemnation without hearing the Gospel, none can live the life of obedience to Christ that God desires unless they hear the Gospel and become disciples.
When we think of the need to evangelize the lost, we are usually motivated by a desire to save them for their own benefit (i.e., so that they can escape hell). This reflects our man-centered orientation—the one that we were supposed to have repented of when becoming Christians. We should be motivated by concern for God's interests. The greatest tragedy in the case of the unevangelized is not that they miss out on eternal life (whether they do or not is the question presently on the table). It is rather the tragedy of what God misses out on in their wasted lives of sin and their service to His enemy. His purpose for that person was unrealized in this life. God is ripped off. This should be our dominant concern.
There is a famous utterance of the Moravian missionaries, allegedly called out by those who had sold themselves into slavery in order to gain access to the slave populations on a privately-owned island. As their ship left the shore, it is said that they called out to their friends and families who were watching them sail away to their own enslavement, "May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His sufferings!" This sentiment is the truly Christian motivation for missions—not that people will be spared the condemnation that they deserve, but that Christ will receive in their lives the glory that He deserves.
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Many years ago I read in a bible handbook (Haley's, Unger's ?) the idea that after the Law was given to the Jews, non-jews could still have a rightful relationship with God, as Abraham and others of the ancients had, namely through the ancient patriarchical system of worship. That made sense to me, and I filed it away in a corner of my mind. Now this brings up some questions.
1. Were the people who were right with God, when Jesus came and the Gospel began to be preached - both Jews and gentiles in far off lands who had never heard the gospel - automatically counted as lost or condemned as soon as the gospel began to be proclaimed?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does this fit with Jesus declaration that He came to save, not condemn? And if no, does this answer hold indefinitely, or until they hear?
3. It those gentiles could be right with God, after the law came, could they still be right with Him after Jesus came, while ignorant of His coming?
4. IMO Rick is right (Hey Rick, great to hear from you again
) about the biblical writers not asking these questions. The test always seems to be accepting Jesus means salvation, rejecting Him means condemnation. Other categories not considered.
Steve, you wrote:
1. Were the people who were right with God, when Jesus came and the Gospel began to be preached - both Jews and gentiles in far off lands who had never heard the gospel - automatically counted as lost or condemned as soon as the gospel began to be proclaimed?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does this fit with Jesus declaration that He came to save, not condemn? And if no, does this answer hold indefinitely, or until they hear?
3. It those gentiles could be right with God, after the law came, could they still be right with Him after Jesus came, while ignorant of His coming?
4. IMO Rick is right (Hey Rick, great to hear from you again
) about the biblical writers not asking these questions. The test always seems to be accepting Jesus means salvation, rejecting Him means condemnation. Other categories not considered.Steve, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you meant by this statement. There is much debate about what was meant by "unknown God". Some early Christians believed the inscription was plural, i.e. "unknown Gods", and it is also said there were many statues thus inscribed, Paul just happened to see one. As you know, they were polytheists. I had taken the insciption to be aimed at any God they happened to overlook in the pantheon, not any thought of monotheism.I do believe, contra Calvinism, that there are those who, without having received special revelation (that is, they are privy only to general revelation) may be moved to seek after and worship "the Unknown God"—that is, unknown to them, due to the lack of special revelation. We know of one case, at least, in which Paul recognized in one culture's "Unknown God" the true God of the Christian message (Acts 17:23).
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Homer,
I think you are right about the Athenians, and it seems strange to me also, but Paul said that he had come to proclaim to them this God, whom they ignorantly worshiped. Since the God that Paul declared to them was the true God, and since he equated this God with that which they had ignorantly worshiped at that shrine (Act 17:23), Paul was apparently willing to concede the identification. Maybe I am reading him wrong.
I think you are right about the Athenians, and it seems strange to me also, but Paul said that he had come to proclaim to them this God, whom they ignorantly worshiped. Since the God that Paul declared to them was the true God, and since he equated this God with that which they had ignorantly worshiped at that shrine (Act 17:23), Paul was apparently willing to concede the identification. Maybe I am reading him wrong.
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Thank you all for your great replies! I`ll chew over these in the coming week.
Steve, you have a knack of piercing my soul with your sweet reasonableness. "Ripping God off". What a simple but powerful concept to take to heart.
Steve, you have a knack of piercing my soul with your sweet reasonableness. "Ripping God off". What a simple but powerful concept to take to heart.
Re: Those who`ve never heard
I take your point Rick. But the Apostles were further down the road of discipleship than I am. They could digest meat whereas I, after a long time away from God and the Church, am on baby`s rusks. They could talk tactics, presumably so convinced of the goodness of God that such questions never crossed their minds. I on the other hand am still concerned with the whys and wheretofores and I don`t apologize for that at this stage. If I`m still doing it in a year`s time, then yes, one could call my questioning a stalling strategy. But by taking my question head-on, Steve has helped me to put this one to bed.The question "But what about those who don't hear?" appears to have never entered their minds!!!
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Ian,
(Acknowledging your reply, with add-ons)
God bless you, Brother Ian!
P.S. On a (Christian) dating site, my profile says:
"I've studied the Bible and theology for years and know a lot of stuff about them. However, I've got *so* much to learn! It's a "The more you know, the less you know" type thing...."....
(Acknowledging your reply, with add-ons)
We don't know if the Apostles questioned if those who 'never heard' (i.e., would never hear) could be saved. If they did, they might have conceivably discussed it privately or even in public. However, and if they did, we have no record of such discussions. (Perhaps, I'm restating my point here. Just doing so for clarification).I take your point Rick. But the Apostles were further down the road of discipleship than I am. They could digest meat whereas I, after a long time away from God and the Church, am on baby`s rusks. They could talk tactics, presumably so convinced of the goodness of God that such questions never crossed their minds.
I didn't, in any sense, mean to imply that your asking questions is wrong or anything like that! Nor did I mean to imply you are somehow "less informed" than I! My intention was to show how I, personally, try to think like the Apostles and/or biblical authors: Ask the right questions, get the right answers. To elaborate on this a bit; I see the Bible like an "open book exam" - wherein both the (correct) questions and (correct) answers are contained. What I ask, might not be what the Bible asks - nor answers. A (sub-)point here is: I attempt to get inside the minds of the Bible writers in order to have a biblical worldview (is my goal).I on the other hand am still concerned with the whys and wheretofores and I don`t apologize for that at this stage. If I`m still doing it in a year`s time, then yes, one could call my questioning a stalling strategy. But by taking my question head-on, Steve has helped me to put this one to bed.
God bless you, Brother Ian!
P.S. On a (Christian) dating site, my profile says:
"I've studied the Bible and theology for years and know a lot of stuff about them. However, I've got *so* much to learn! It's a "The more you know, the less you know" type thing...."....
Last edited by RickC on Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Those who`ve never heard
Hiya Homer!
I've heard you and Steve on the radio a few times here lately.
Good to "hear" from you on both accounts (here & there).
Thanks everyone (Hello Steve, if you aren't too busy to see this)...
I've heard you and Steve on the radio a few times here lately.
Good to "hear" from you on both accounts (here & there).
Thanks everyone (Hello Steve, if you aren't too busy to see this)...
Re: Those who`ve never heard
I'm totally intrigued by the notion that there are right and wrong questions; yet it's not wrong to ask the wrong questions, except that you'll get the wrong answers, which would be wrong, I guess.