I have begun the arduous task of preparing for my doctrinal oral examination next Spring. Basically, at Denver Seminary, in order to successfully complete the M.Div. program, one must write a somewhat lengthy paper summing up his or her theological beliefs and then defend those beliefs orally (and without notes) in front of a pair of professors. Fun, right? It is, however, an excellent chance to go back and think hard about the entire spectrum of theology and really nail down (at least for now) what I believe.
I am working through the topic of general revelation at present (that is, what God has revealed to us through nature, history, etc.), and the topic of salvation came up. Namely, can a person be accepted as a true believer if he or she has never heard of Jesus? Some would say, No, a person cannot be saved without a knowledge of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, through a human instrument (Rom 10:9-14). One must confess that Jesus is Lord, and how can a person know that if it is not told to him or her? Others say, Yes, a person can be saved without such knowledge. They believe that, just like the saints of the Old Testament, if a person has faith in God to the extent that his or her knowledge will allow, then he or she can be saved in Christ, even without knowing the object of their salvation (Hebrews 11, the famous "by faith" chapter).
Now the debate is much more complex than what I have represented here, but my view is this: I would maintain that it is possible for a person, never having heard the name of Christ, to be saved. The linchpin of the argument for me is the Old Testament saints. They had faith and were justified by it. They knew that Messiah was to come, but they did not know who it would be. Likewise, a person in a currently "unreached" area of the world, if they had faith in God based on what had been revealed to him or her from nature, would have a similar faith as OT saints (admittedly, with a much lesser degree of knowledge). What about Paul's comments in Romans 10? It seems to me that Paul was primarily exhorting his readers to spreading the gospel and not making an exclusive theological claim. That being said, before you burn me as a heretic, hear me out. I did not say that such a route to salvation would be easy. I expect that it would be nearly impossible for a person to respond with saving faith to general revelation. However, in Matt 19, Jesus speaks about the rich getting into heaven being similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle. "Then who can be saved?" the disciples ask. He responds, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Likewise, it may be impossible by our reckoning for a person who has not heard of Christ to be saved. However, let's face it: As an American, I am rich, and I have faith in Christ. With God all things are possible.
One final caveat: I do believe that a person who has heard the name of Christ is now responsible to come under His lordship. Therefore, the preceding paragraphs are a moot point for many, if not a majority of, people today.
So now I pose the same question to you: Must a person hear the name of Christ proclaimed in order to be saved? I have given my argument briefly. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. You never know, with a good enough argument, you might even change my mind...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I don't know if this is theologically sound - but - I've always defaulted to the verse that states that (paraphrasing) man looks at the outward while God looks at the heart. My responsibility is to share the gospel and to make disciples. I'll leave the salvation part to God. ;) So I agree with your view that if someone knows about Christ, they are responsible to respond. Also, if they do not know who Christ is, I also believe that God knows their heart. I also use this argument in regards to whether or not babies who die, born with sin, go to heaven. I know that doesn't help you with writing and/or defending a theological view, but I thought I would at least comment. See you Saturday.
Yes, I have thought many times regarding this topic. My biggest concern (and your argument is water tight believe me) is regarding one who turns people off to Christ while proclaiming themselves to be a Christian. Surely if one has their sin revealed to them, then that will surely cause some to turn away. However, what about those who proclaim the name of Christ but do things that are very unChristlike. Or since there are many things that are negotiable among Christians, what if one comes across a version of Christianity that is 'not their cup of tea'. In the Bible we are given very few actual evangelism one-on-one dialogs except for the few with Jesus and 'ahem' Philip. So I think that there is still a lot of gray area. I do enjoy C.S. Lewis' Last Battle dialog between Aslan and the 'false god' worshipers. I know he ticked off a quite a few with his universalism that he revealed later on in life and in other books such as The Great Divorce. I enjoy the M.M. but I don't envy your task of trying to defend or justify any human interpretation of the mind of God.
Good luck with that, I look forward to reading more!
Apparently you are about 5 days ahead of us we just hit 12 weeks yesterday!
Cilla,
Thanks for the comment. I had forgotten about the "where do babies go" question. One would hope that if God extends any grace at all, it would be in those cases!
Phil,
Thanks to you, as well. I think you're right in that there is a lot of grey area here--at least from our perspective. God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. I have a sneaky feeling that there will be some big suprises when we discover which of us are sheep and which are goats. Regarding The Great Divorce, I did not think it to have a universalist bent. The folks in Hell decided to go back, except for the author. The rest didn't want to be Heaven at all. Can you elaborate further on this point?
We hit 13 weeks on Sunday. Baby and Mom are both as healthy as can be. We got to hear the heartbeat last week--what a thrill! I'm very happy for you guys as well. Although the question is raised, what are the global consequences of Phil and Jon reproducing? Could be scary...
I must admit that I too am concerned about the global consequences of you two propegating your kind. Hee hee! I'm extremely excited for both of you. You'll be great dads!
Mwahahahaah yes genetics experiment Wagner01 is going according to plan!
Anyways, I liked what my friend said regarding The Great Divorce, that with God the bus is always running. Some people need more time (even if time is 'up') and that's cool. I must have misspoke I was referring to the universalism of The Last Battle when those who served Tash were still with Aslan. When the servant of Tash asked Aslan why, Aslan replied whatever good you did in Tash's name, because it was good, it was in my name...
I know I've come late to the party. I tossed around what I wanted to say for a while. Then I forgot to come back and say it.
I've pondered this for a while. For all our talk about exclusivity, Paul's the one who said that God overlooked past sins and where there was no law there was no punishment. But he also said that we all have sufficient revelation for guilt before God.
In the end, I decided I was looking at the question wrong. The question assumes there are people out there just waiting for the gospel and that God's sitting there wringing His hands wishing someone would go to them.
Is this the same God who picked Philip up and put him where He wanted him? God does not wring His hands. He does what He wants. You don't have to be a Calvinist to think that.
So my official position is, I don't believe in the heathen in Africa.
July! It's july already! Yikes! Anyway, I know that this was posted in MAY, but I just read it and thought I might answer.
Whatever position you hold in regard to this question, you open yourself up to some problems which are ultimately gonna be answered by God when he is good and ready.
But until then, the position that you can be saved w/o confessing Christ goes against some interpretations of Scripture. Was Paul being absolute when he stated that Faith comes by hearing, and if so, does that mean that faith is not required to be saved? Is ignorance bliss in this circumstance? The Bible also mentions that "it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. This does seem to open the door for those who have not heard, but to what extent do they have to obey the law, since anything less than 100% would fall short w/o the blood of Christ?
To patently say that w/o Christ one cannot be saved seems unfair at least and cruel at best, but I am just a lump of clay with no right to protest if this is truly how God wants it. Was it fair for God to "harden Pharoah's heart?" My mind says yes, but that didn't stop God now, did it?
Tough question with a huge implication for the Christian. Glad I am not taking that oral exam, hope you "get it right" (to the satisfaction of those who must decide those things).
Post a Comment