(1) An agnostic Hindu friend of mine views all the world’s religions as having the common goal of leading people to happiness and giving them a reason to continue living. He despises the Christian notion that Christ is the only way or that one religion was the only correct one.
(2) A Roman Catholic acquaintance of mine denied that salvation was possible only through Christ. Her example and possible reasoning for this was that her Grandma was Jewish and she believed that her Grandmother would make it to heaven.
(3) In a religious dialogue I was having on campus right before my freshmen year in college, one person expressed the belief that those who never heard the Gospel would be judged by their works (how they lived their lives) and that this belief was supported by Scripture.
Although I can mention many more examples, these three sufficiently serve to inform us of the diversity of opinions that surround salvation in a pluralistic world. Salvation being exclusively possible only by explicit faith in Christ was not the majority view in the world of the early church and certainly is not the majority view in today’s world. Although, historically, this particularity was the prominent view of the Christian church, it began to be challenged within the church during the Enlightenment and is still being contended with today.[1] Fittingly, and perhaps as a sign of the times, two of the three examples above of people denying this view are held by professing Christians. Additionally, the steady rise of pluralistic and inclusive views of salvation among top-flight scholars alone is reason enough to embark upon a serious study of the issue. It certainly merits our biblical and theological consideration. Accordingly, this blog will address three key questions: What role, if any, do non-Christian religions play in bringing a person to salvation? What is the fate of those who die without having heard the Gospel? Will those who die without having heard the Gospel have the opportunity to believe in Jesus the afterlife?
What role, if any, do non-Christian religions play in bringing a person to salvation?
As necessary, before we can appropriately answer this question, we must first understand that distinct religious traditions have “vast divergences…over the issue of the nature, grounds, and means of attaining salvation” – even the very definition of salvation itself.[2] For instance, the Buddhism concept of Nirvana is not nearly the same as the Christian concept of salvation. Alister McGrath is most helpful here when he remarks that since the “Christian understanding of salvation…is Christologically determined,” then “Christianity is the only religion to offer salvation in the Christian sense of that term.”[3] Thus, while the religious pluralist will have us believe that all religions “are equally valid paths to one divine reality,”[4] the truth is, this cannot be because “each religion is distinctively and irreducibly particular in its understandings, practices, and affections.[5] In other words, any attempt to merge the various (often contradictory) concepts of the divine reality and salvation found in the world religions unavoidably results in denunciation of central claims held by some of these religions. In Christianity, for John Hick and other pluralists, this involves the denial of the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ (and thus a denial of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – Yahweh, the one and only true God). All of this of course, means that other religions cannot bring a person to salvation, and therefore cannot serve as a substitute for Christianity. Salvation is through Christ alone by His grace alone.
However, refusing to go as far as the religious pluralists and some inclusivists, some, while denying that other religions mediate salvation, believe that the positive aspects of other religions can serve as a means of grace. This the view that modified inclusivist Clark Pinnock takes. He argues that people are saved by faith based on the light that they have received about God. The content of this faith – being deficient, therefore takes a back seat to faith itself, but those who have this faith will receive “an explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ and the basis of their salvation” after death.[6] Pinnock’s argument centers on the Arminian concept of the prevenient grace of God (which does not mesh well with Rom. 3:11 – the fact that there is none who seek for God). [7] He argues that since God is omnipresent, then God’s grace is everywhere – thus allowing general revelation to serve a salvific purpose. Conversely, R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips respond to Pinnock saying “saving grace is not a property of God’s nature, but an activity of his person.”[8] Moreover, Pinnock is mostly vague in his contention that grace may be encountered through other religions, most likely because his assertion is purely speculative.
At last, it is my opinion that non-Christians religions do not serve a role in bringing a person to salvation.[9] Although, it is conceivable that someone in a faith that reverences a god will have an easier transition to Christianity than someone with no concept of the divine. However, ultimately it is not logic or ease that converts someone to faith in Christ, but the grace of God. After all, we have already shown that other religions have drastically different concepts of salvation and the divine. God draws men to Himself, not to a generic religion. For that reason, even if it is possible for someone to be saved without explicit faith in Christ, it is not a particular religion that plays a role in their salvation, but rather the sovereignty and grace of God. However, with that said, I do believe in the reformed concept of common grace which is a grace that extends to of all of mankind and includes restraint of sin (so that mankind does not destroy itself), moral order, and various other blessings given by God (i.e., gifts, talents, art and science). Yet, this is totally different from the special grace that is given to those who believe in Him (the elect who salvifically come into relationship with Him). This brings us to the next question.
What is the fate of those who die without having heard the Gospel?
Before addressing this very controversial question, it should be highlighted that this question represents a purely hypothetical situation. Post-incarnation of Jesus Christ, we do not really know if there are any who died without hearing the Gospel (I know missiologists would take a huge issue with me here; perhaps I am naive). We simply speculate the possibility of such based on the perceived unevangelized areas of our world that still exist. The Bible certainly does not explicitly address this issue. This is something to keep in mind as we evaluate the question and come to conclusions that may, in fact, be different from others.
Moving on, religious pluralism aside, a definition that both exclusivists and inclusivists hold concerning salvation is “people are not saved apart from the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, whether or not they ever place explicit faith in Jesus (indeed, whether or not they have even heard the gospel).”[10] But the meat of the question is does not having the opportunity to hear the Gospel excuse one’s lack of faith in Jesus Christ? In reviewing what the Bible seems to explicitly teach, the apparent answer seems to be no. There is an overwhelming amount of Scripture that plainly states that explicit faith in Jesus is needed (a must) for salvation (e.g., Acts 4:12; 16:30; John 14:16; 17:20; Rom. 1:6).[11] Additionally, John 3:18 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8 are abundantly clear in stating that those who do not believe in Christ are condemned already. Also, Romans 10:9-15 seems to condition believing upon the hearing of the Gospel.
Even still, some have found reason to find hope or leave the door open for those who never heard the Gospel. Although quite the particularist, McGrath reasons that just because the Bible says those who respond in faith to the explicit preaching of the Word are saved, this does not mean that those who do not necessarily are not saved. He further maintains that God’s sovereign will cannot be limited or frustrated by human failure. Quite understandably he notes his reason for not being a full exclusivist (i.e., agnostic toward those who never hear the Gospel) is for pastoral reasons. Still, for some others, God’s love and fairness are questioned if those who never hear the Gospel are not saved – as is the case with Pinnock. The OT saints are often appealed to as examples of those saved without explicit faith in Christ, but as my theology professor notes, “faith is the OT was based upon YHWH’s self-disclosure to Israel.”[12] This self-disclosure is in many instances considered by many to involve the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. In many scholars eyes, in order for God to do what is right, He must save those who do not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, but Geivett and Phillips intelligently respond saying that “it is equally plausible philosophically that God knows all the individuals who never hear the gospel are individuals who would not believe if they were to hear the Gospel.”[13] Certainly, is this not as plausible as the claim for inclusivism?
Another related question that may shine some light on the issue is what happens to babies when they die. Although, there is not enough time to fully discuss this question in this paper, it is helpful to note that many believe that babies are saved and go to heaven if they die. While we have no post-incarnation examples of this, we do have the story of John the Baptist receiving the Spirit in the womb. Perhaps, this seemingly rare occurrence of God giving His Spirit pre-faith gives hope that God, in His sovereign will, just may save some of those who do not hear the Gospel. However, even with the story of John the Baptist (who does not fall into the category of the unevangelized – in fact, we do not know if anyone does), it is difficult to proclaim biblically that this is the case. Quoting Roger Nicole, a word from Geivett and Phillips is most useful here:
While we know that the Judge of all the earth will do right, we cannot always be sure what form his righteous action will take (Gen. 18:25). Whenever we think we are sure what form it will take, that is because we believe it has been clearly revealed. ‘It is dangerous to be more generous than God has revealed himself to be.’ [14]
Based on the revelation we have received biblically, I have to side with Geivett and Phillips. There is not enough biblical evidence to confidently claim that the unevangelized will be saved. But I do sympathize for those who hold out hope.
Will those who die without having heard the Gospel have the opportunity to believe in Jesus the afterlife?
This perhaps is the easiest of the three questions to answer. Although, many who think that those who never hear the Gospel in their lifetime will be saved because they are given the opportunity to believe in the afterlife, the Scriptures speak decidedly against this idea. Two key passages come to mind. John 3:18, where the Bible states that those who do not believe are condemned already, and Luke 16:19-31 (parable of the rich man and Lazarus) where the rich man is not given a second chance after death. Lastly, as my theology professor notes “one wonders if faith is even necessary in postmortem encounter; will a face-to-face encounter with Christ in the afterlife require faith?”[15]
Conclusion
In studying the different views (aka reading various literature such as Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World) on the prospective fate of those who never get an opportunity to hear the Gospel, I have gained an incredible amount of respect for those who hold different viewpoints than my own. In some regards, I am partial to McGrath’s view that we must be somewhat agnostic toward this issue because the Bible does not fully address it. However, given the Biblical evidence we do have, I lean more towards the view Geivett and Phillips hold - that these unevangelized souls are lost because they have not believed in Christ. But I am not as convinced as they are that this belief in Christ must come from preaching the Gospel as opposed to God revealing Himself personally to the individual (though the biblical support is on their side). All in all, I agree with J.I. Packer that while the cases of Melchizedek, Naaman, Cyrus, and the sailors on Jonah’s boat might provide some optimism for the unevangelized, “many of our questions….are left unanswered by the Word of God”, thus “living by the Bible means assuming that no one will be saved apart from faith in Christ and acting accordingly.”[16]
[1]Okholm and Phillips, eds. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 8.
[2]Ibid, 171, Others religions in the Bible are not considered salvific (e.g., Acts 19:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; 8:4-6).
[3]Ibid, 175, McGrath further notes that “salvation is [itself] a particularity, not a universality.”
[4] Taken from the central thesis of John Hick’s pluralistic thought in the Sin and Salvation class notes
[5] Okholm and Phillips, 23
[6] Ibid, 25; Sin and Salvation class notes, 85
[7] Sin and salvation class notes, 86
[8] Okholm and Phillips, 134
[9] Some may argue that Judaism played a role in Christianity which is undoubtedly true because Christianity is its fulfillment. But such an argument fails to realize that it is the Christian belief in Jesus as the Messiah that results in salvation. Without Christ, the beliefs of Judaism serve no role in salvation
[10] Ibid, 214
[11] Ibid, 230-237; Sin and Salvation class notes, 87
[12] Sin and Salvation class notes, 81
[13] Okholm and Phillips, 270
[14] Ibid, 139
[15] Sin and Salvation class notes, 87
[16] Okholm and Phillips, quoting J.I. Packer, 22
interesting. I would like to hear more
ReplyDelete