Destiny of the Unevangelized (Main Source: Across The Spectrum)
Show Notes
Voices: Tim, Matt, Doug, Ben
“Even the demons believe” (James 2:19)
Great Divorce by CS Lewis
Across the Spectrum by Greg Boyd & Paul Eddy
Annialationism - is a Christian belief that at the Last Judgment those not receiving salvation are destined for total destruction, not everlasting torment.
Restrictivism/Traditionalism/Exclusivism - refers to the fact that orthodox Christian doctrine maintains only faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible leads to salvation or heaven.
Universalism - is a school of Christian theology which includes the belief in the doctrine of universal reconciliation, the view that all human beings will ultimately be restored to a right relationship with God in Heaven and the New Jerusalem.
Pluralism - As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid.
Universal Opportunity Before Death - Universal opportunity is the idea that anyone who has a heart to receive the gospel will indeed come to receive the gospel by the power of God.
Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10)
Scripture regarding God blinding people
2 Cor 3:14, 4:4
Jn 12:40
Is 6:7-13, 29:10
Lk 8:10
Rom 11:8
Deut 29:4
Eph 4:18
1 Pet 3:18-21
Hope After Death/postmortem evangelism - another chance to choose to follow Christ after death.
Love Wins by Rob Bell
Inclusivism - one of several approaches to understanding the relationship between religions, asserts that while one set of beliefs is absolutely true, other sets of beliefs are at least partially true. It stands in contrast to exclusivism, which asserts that only one way is true and all others are in error.
Parable of Sheep & Goats (Matt 25:31-46)
The Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:37-40)
Romans 10:9-10
Lazarus & the Rich man (Luke 16:19-31)
Arminianism
Calvanism
Verses on Everlasting torment
Lk 13:28
Rev 20:10; 14:11
2 Thess 1:8
Lk 16:24
Jude 7
Dan 12:2
Matt 25:46, 30; 13:42,50; 8:12; 22:13; 24:51
Verse on the one who can kill the soul (Matt 10:28)
Posing the Question - Why is this question so important
You have been a missionary for a couple of years. You have just started seeing fruit from your labor. One of your first converts asks to speak to you in private:
He tells you how happy and grateful he is God sent you to share the news about Jesus. But he wants to ask you a question that has been plaguing him for months. His father died a few years ago before you ever came to this village. His father was a good man, respected in his village and loved by everyone, but he died without ever hearing the gospel.
The new Christian asks you, Does my Father have any chance of being in heaven or will God send him to hell just because he was born in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Outside of the fold - Views typically considered to be outside of mainstream Christianity
We arent going spend much time on these since they are fairly easy to refute either logically or through scripture, but they are at least worth mentioning:
Annihilation - Agnostics and Atheists
Pluralism
Universalism
In the fold - Inside Mainstream Christianity
Restrictivism
More Lenient Views
God Does All He Can do (Universal Opportunity Before Death)
Hope Beyond the Grave
He has not Left Himself without a Witness (Inclusivism)
CS Lewis and Inclusivism
Emeth
The Great Divorce - Hell is a choice
We should mention this only in passing as being our main competition in modern secular culture. So of course there is no heaven or hell if there is only the material life. Many people regard themselves typically as too scientific and not superstitious enough to believe in anything other than what they can materially prove exists and therefore it is logical from that point of view to regard that there is nothing after death. A sub point here worth discussing at some other point is whether or not those who go to hell are annihilated, but that is more concerned with what happens in hell whereas this particular topic is more centered around who goes there and under what circumstances
Jesus is only 1 of many paths to God/Enlightenment. Jesus is neither ontologically nor epistemologically necessary for salvation.
Since most religions have very conflicting views on how one would be saved, pluralism seems very silly. I would be interested in meeting someone who was truly a sincere pluralists.
Most people at least in the United States who pretend to be pluralists really mean that they don’t really believe in anything. They accept all views as equally valid like a parent who accepts their child pretending to be a fireman or a basketball player as equally valid. Someone who goes about saying everything is true is basically saying nothing is true.
is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.[1] In other words, everyone would go to heaven.
Christian Universalism while usually being considered heretical is the closest to the mainstream Christian views in that it relies both upon a monotheistic God and a Savior, Jesus Christ, in order to save. A couple of big problems with Universalism are 1. It conveniently ignores all scripture in regards to hell. 2. It does not adequately explain how this view could be reconciled to God’s sense of justice. Even the most liberal minded believer would have a difficult time squaring with certain human beings being automatically granted heaven. IE Hitler, those who torture, rape, abuse children, etc.
1 Source: Wikipedia
Not all of these views are necessarily in contradiction and since they are all supported by 1 form of scripture or another, you have to figure out how to reconcile them all together.
Salvation is restricted to those have heard the gospel and have made a conscious decision to accept it. What they should have known is sufficient to condemn them.
Scriptural Argument
Romans 1:18-22
Acts 4:12
1 Timothy 2:5
John 14:6
John 3:18
1 John 5:11-12
John 17:20-21
No hope after death - Hebrews 9:27
No hope for “sincere” people of other religions
They are deceptive and under God’s judgement (Exodus 20: 3-6, Chronicles 13:8-9, Isaiah 37:18-19, Acts 26: 17-18
Sincerely religious people in the Bible still needed Jesus - Acts 9:2, 10:30-33
Majority of people are lost, “For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life and there are few who find it (Matt 7:13-14)
Church History: Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Carl Henry, R.C. Sproul, Ronald Nash
Objections
This view is unfair
Response:
People are judged on the basis of what they should have known, not on the basis of what they did not know. They are left without excuse because the glory of God is revealed throughout Nature and is available to all.
We can’t call God unfair. To what standard of justice can we hold God to.
Calvinist position already holds to an election. This is not really different. Opportunity to believe is a part of that election
The fact that it is not fair is what makes it true. Life is not fair.
According to this view, babies and mentally disabled cannot be saved
Response:
If people cannot make responsible decisions, they cannot sin.
Again we must resist making ourselves judges for God. God may elect some babies and mentally disabled while passing others by.
The next 3 views find restrictivism problematic. They all draw from similar verses to make their inferences on God’s justice but they draw from different verses and different viewpoints with their conclusions.
God is all powerful. He uses humans when it pleases them, but does not need them to get the job done.
The Bible teaches that God wants everyone to be saved He takes no delight in the destruction of any soul however wicked
Takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked - Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11
Wants all people to be saved - 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4
Holds out welcoming arms all day long - Romans 10:21
Protect Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks - Matt 23:37-39
Rewards those who seek him - Matt 7:7-8
God loves all (John 3:16, 1Tim 2:4) and wants none to perish (Deut 30:15-20, 2nd Peter 3:9).
He has Power over Death and Keys to the grave (Revelation 1:18)
This view agrees with Restrictivism in that a person is not only is a person saved by Christ (Eschatological) they must know him in order to be saved by him (Ontological).
If a person is willing to accept Christ as Lord, the all powerful God will find a way to give that person the opportunity to so. He will send a missionary, a dream, a vision. One way or another they will hear. People will not be damned who would have believed had they been placed in different circumstances. One way or another God will give them a chance to come to a saving faith.
Scriptural References
Ethiopian Eunuch - Phillip physically transported - Acts 8:26-40
Cornelius - Messengers and Visions - Acts 10:1-48
Dreams, Visions, Angels - Gen 20, Daniel 2
Supporting Arguments
Church Tradition - Thomas Aquinas, Jacob Arminius, John Henry Newman
Reason
The notion of a person going to hell because he or she was never given the chance to hear the gospel violates reason. What kind of loving God would wager eternal happiness or misery based on where and when someone was born? People cannot control those factors
The only view that affirms the logical consistency of God’s loving character with the requirement of necessity of believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
Objections
Inadequate Evidence for this view - Lacks adequate grounding in the New Testament, Visions were always accompanied by a missionary.
Response:
Not everything that happened in the early church is recorded in scripture - John 21:25, God obviously could use visions and dreams to bring people to him
We have recent examples of this
This view compromises the urgency in missions
Response:
God will make his own choices, but we are to be obedient. Not proceed on the assumption that God will take care of it.
This view holds that people who die without knowing Jesus will be given a chance to choose after the grave. From this view’s standpoint , there is no reason we would think that people would be limited in their choice after they die.
Salient points:
Logical Inference
God loves all (John 3:16, 1Tim 2:4) and wants none to perish (Deut 30:15-20, 2nd Peter 3:9).
Takes no delight in damnation of anyone (Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11)
He has Power over Death and Keys to the grave (Revelation 1:18)
Scriptural Reference
1 Peter 3:18-21
After being made alive,[a] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
1 Peter 4:6
6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
Ephesians 4:8-9
8 This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” 9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? Psalm 68:18
Romans 10:7 - 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[a] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
John 10:16 - Many tribes outside of the house of Israel
Matt 12:32 - one sin will be unforgivable in the age to come
Revelation 21:25 - Gates of the New Jerusalem will never be shut
Supporting Arguments
View can be found in church history
Significant to note that Christs desension into hell is noted in the Nicene and Apostles creed
Freewill defense
Major Objections
Objection: Scripture rules out the possibility of an offer of salvation after death
Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once and after that the judgement.
Response: Scripture reads too much into a text. The author is simply drawing a parallel between Christ’s death once and for all and our own death. This verse rules out reincarnation, but nothing more.
Objection: View undermines urgency of missions
Response: Calvinism also undermines urgency of missions by defining the elect. The motivation for evangelizing the world is rooted in our desire to obey God, have more people glorify God and help people to stop a life filled with sin and separation from their God and Savior
Adherents of this view, along with all the others within mainstream Christianity, believe that Jesus is the only Savior, the one mediator between God and humans (1 Timothy 2:5-6). They believe there is no other name given to humans whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). They agree that no one can go to the Father except Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
They do not believe that a person must explicitly know about and believe in Jesus to be saved by Jesus. All must be saved through Jesus whether they know him or not. People cannot be saved apart from Jesus, but they can be saved apart from knowing about him. Salvation is inclusive for all who have a heart that is open to Christ, whether they know him by name or not.
Biblical Argument
Acts 14:17 - 16 In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17 Yet he has not left himself without testimony
God judges people based on the witness they do have.
Romans 2:14-16 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
People are judged on the basis of what they know
Luke 12:47 47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36
Acts 17:26-27 and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
To believe otherwise undermines a fundamental sense of morality. If God wagers a person’s eternal destiny on election or on the contingent vicissitudes of where and when a person happens to be born it is difficult to confess with integrity that God is loving and Good. This violates something that is true about God and fundamentally more important than this debate. Salvation is available to all and God genuinely wants all to receive it.
Calvinists Restrictionists - People condemned due to no fault of their own were not the elect
Arminian Restrictionists - Simply unlucky, born to a place where gospel was not preached
The Bible offers a number of suggestions that God accepts all who have faith, whatever their level of understanding
People throughout Bible were praised not only when they didnt know Jesus, but couldn’t have known even Yahwheh: Melchizedek, Jethro, Job, ahab.
They were sinners. Unable to have explicit faith in Jesus. There is no doubt they were saved.
1 Timothy 4:10. “We have our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.” This passage reveals that the scope of God’s saving activity encompasses more than just those who believe.
Sheep who do not belong to this fold.
John 10:16
Matthew 25. Sheep in the parable of the sheep and the goats did not know Jesus explicitly?
Supporting Arguments
This view has never been dominant, but is well represented.
Justin Martyr, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis
God’s love and Justice. God sees the hearts of people perfectly and applies the reconciling work of Christ to all fairly.
God includes people under the work of Christ on the basis of their heart and not their head.
It is there that Emeth encounters Aslan himself, who explains that he and Tash are opposites: With any virtuous act done in Tash's name is actually accepted by Aslan as Tash can only accept acts of evil. Thus Emeth's devotion to Tash, founded on noble motives, was actually to Aslan himself
Aslan's words to Emeth, in which he ratifies the good deeds the latter did even under the name of Tash are the subject of this controversy.
I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash [the false God]... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me [Christ] that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."[2]
The implication is that people who reflect a righteous heart are to some degree justified, regardless of misbelief. This is a cornerstone of Christian theology: one party cites the Christian paradigm that faith in Christ alone saves, and the other wants to account for the fate of those born and raised into another faith. There has been extensive commentary on the question. In a letter from 1952, Lewis summarized and explained his position:
I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ.[3]
Lewis cites this view as derived[3] from the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:34-40, from Paul's speech to the Athenians in Acts 17:23: "What you now worship as something unknown, I am going to proclaim to you", and from 1 Timothy 4:10: "God, the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe" (all references NIV).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeth
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Objections
This view constitutes a drift towards religious pluralism
Misunderstanding of position. Big difference between saying not Epistemologically necessary for salvation vs not Ontologically necessary
This view undermines missions. Since people get more judgement based on the knowledge they are given.
Only view totally free from this objection is Arminian Restrictionists, they are the only ones who literally believe someone salvation hangs in the balance whether Christians evangelize them. This view is so problematic that few people hold it.
We were commanded to share the Gospel.
Only those who explicitly know Christ can have confidence.
God is the living water. Why would we want people to live apart from Him.
Personal - Tim
The point of this discussion was not to much to compel you into a different point of view and certainly not to convince you of mine. I have been pretty open that I probably can be placed most easily in the Inclusivism camp.
Here are the truths which I know and must hold in the balance:
God is love.
God is just.
God has given man freedom.
God is sovereign.
God sent Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and humans.
I would say as C.S. Lewis once said regarding Free Will and Predestination that you should not lose track of which truth is the deeper truth.
If my interpretation of the sovereignty of God or the exact formula for salvation infringes too much upon the first 3 truths, then for me I must assume that I am in some way mistaken in my interpretation. To do anything other than to hold on to the deeper truths would truly put my own soul in peril because I would no longer trust God.
I accept that to some I can be accused both of trying to judge God or of not having sufficient faith. I accept this criticism without any difficulty...I would prefer to live where my faith in the character of God is not out of sorts with the sense of morality and conscience which He seems very clearly to have given me. If I find out I was wrong when I die then so be it.
At this point, at least for me personally whichever one of these is true or which combination of them is true is less important than it was. It got me through a difficult time. These more lenient views certainly helped me through a time where I briefly considered the entire faith as a fable, but they may not be the best place to set up shop. There are really good reasons to lean back towards Restrictivism. There is a very good reason that Universalists don’t ever become Missionaries.
Summary
All the debate in the world on this topic or any other doesn't really matter in one way because we won’t really know the answer to these questions very likely until it is too late to do anything about it. What I would certainly not recommend doing with this information is deciding that you don’t need to either
A. follow the two greatest commandments
Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind.
Love your neighbor as yourself
Nor
B. to postpone any decision in trusting Christ as your own Savior. If you are able to listen to this podcast, you are in no position yourself to claim any ignorance.
Hebrews 10:29-32
29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’[a] and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’[b] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
