Tags
apologetics, gospel, grace, hell, jesus, new testament, old testament, salvation, world religions
If Jesus is the only way… what about people of other faiths and those who never hear the gospel? (read part one here)
The Bible witnesses to God’s universal love (Jn 3.16; 1 Tim 2.4; 2 Pet 3.9) as well as a particular path to salvation. How do we resolve this tension? Scripture teaches that this particular path comes to a head in Jesus. But is this unfair to those who never hear of Jesus, or only receive an unfaithful witness, or grow up in a different faith system? What about them?
In part one I shared some preliminary points. Today I’ll offer ten “theses” and follow it up later (today or tomorrow) with a summary conclusion. Enjoy. 
1. This debate often rests on and feeds an unbiblical portrait of salvation. See more on this in the last post here.
2. “Judgment” on this level is God’s call and God can be trusted to do the right thing. It’s not our job to figure out who will “go where” at history’s end. It is God’s, and whatever God does will be loving, gracious, and just.
3. If anyone receives eternal life, it will be because of Jesus. Scripture is clear that Jesus alone is able to fully save us from sin (John 14.6; Acts 4.12; Rom 10.9-15). Apart from Jesus’ death and resurrection there is no salvation.
4. People who reject Jesus as Savior and Lord thereby forfeit present and future life with God. (Matt 25.41-46; John 3.18; 5.28-29; 2 Thess 1.8-10; Rev 20.11-15) Acknowledging Jesus as Savior and Lord of course has to do with our lips as well as our lives, as does rejecting him.
5. In the Bible, other beliefs and experiences can be hindrances or helps to God’s efforts to save us. They can be idolatrous, deceptive and under judgment: Exod 20.3-6; 2 Chron 13.8-9; Psalm 115.3-8; Acts 14.8-15; 26.17-18. Or they can prepare us for Jesus: Acts 14.16-17; 17.22-31; Gal 3.23-25.
6. Scripture teaches that some people who never heard of Jesus were saved through him. Jesus’ death covers people who lived before him and could not have known him: Rom 3.25-26; Heb 9.15; 1 Pet 3.18-20; also Gen 15.6; Heb 11.
7. Most Christians believe that children and people with mental and emotional disabilities will be saved. We acknowledge that certain people don’t have the tools to make a choice for or against the truth of Jesus. Could the same be true of those who’ve never heard?
8. God’s people are routinely surprised by the wideness of God’s mercy and grace. God’s people are often (unpleasantly) surprised by God’s willingness to accept outsiders in ways that break the rules (Jonah; Mark 2.15-17; 9.38-41; Acts 10). This still comes through Jesus, but in unpredictable and “unorthodox” ways. (See also Mt 7.20-21; 25.36-46)
9. God wants all people to be saved, and we should too! (Ezekiel 11.17-20; 2 Peter 3.9; 1 Timothy 2.4) God weeps over those who don’t know him. We never rejoice at anyone being shut out of God’s present or future. If in the end we discover that God’s grace is wider than we imagined, we will celebrate!
10. If God plans to “save” people who don’t identify themselves as Christians, he hasn’t told us so. There is no clear statement in Scripture that plainly says people who don’t acknowledge Jesus as Savior and Lord are/will be saved. Until God adds to or takes away from this, we should focus on sharing the good news of Jesus with everyone we can.
Dayne said:
People don’t go to hell because they’re not Christians. They go to hell because they sin.
The question than is how a just God and a merciful God fulfills both of those roles at the same time without diminishing the other.
And that’s Romans 3:26.
I will become a Muslim when someone can demonstrate how Allah can both punish and pardon without a propitiation.
Michael DeFazio said:
Hi Dayne, thanks for stopping by… good thoughts, here are my quick responses.
True.
Maybe. Not sure that we read “just” the same way as Jews did.
Again, maybe. But “just” here seems to have more to do with God’s faithfulness to the covenant than the necessity that he punishes sin. The problem is how to reckon a Jew+Gentile church with God’s promises to Israel. Still, a good reference for all of this.
Word. I’ll become a Muslim when God raises Muhammad from the dead.
Hope all is well, brother!
Michael DeFazio said:
The question is, Can Jesus save people from their sins who don’t (yet) know they are being saved by him?
Kenny said:
1. Hi, Michael! Good to be in touch!
2. In regard to point #7, the distinction (usually) is that children and mentally incompetent have no sins charged to them. Folks in Mongolia do.
3. Inclusivism has its attractions. Walter Goodman, who was chairman of OCC trustees and built the campus, was an inclusivist.
Michael DeFazio said:
Hi Kenny,
Glad to hear from you! You are certainly right about #7. It is a different situation than the specific topic at hand. That is very interesting about Goodman – I didn’t know that! This is probably one of the two biggest questions I’ve faced in the church (along with the “problem of suffering”). Unfortunately, I think sometimes this question is just a smokescreen to avoid sharing our faith or being firm in our beliefs. But of course many times people are genuinely wrestling, and it’s been good for me to wrestle with it as well. Once again, thanks for stopping by! It’s great to hear from you.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Three things:
(1) Regarding point #3, Romans 10:9-15 does not say that nobody can be saved apart from Jesus. It says that all who call on the name of Jesus will be saved.
(2) In point #6, you say that Romans 3:25-26 indicates that people who have never heard of Jesus are saved through him. But the sins God looked over were covenant sins. The covenant is what demands the atonement. Not sin in general. Why else would God have to prove God’s righteousness? To whom? To those God had made a contract with. Outsiders God can do with as God wishes, however God sees fit. And here’s how God sees fit:
(3) “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all” (Romans 2:13-16, NRSV).
Here it is not the blood of Jesus that saves them, but their own obedience to the law written on their hearts–that is what potentially excuses them on the day of judgment. As Paul says, they are justified by doing the law–even (or perhaps especially) those who do not have the law.
Of course, their justification is still through Christ in the sense that he is God’s agent of judgment. Like in John 14:6, they still can’t get to the Father except through him. But it is not by his blood that they enter.
Salvation is covenant language. Luke’s Peter was right that there is no other name by which humans can be saved. Salvation is what it’s called when you enter the kingdom through the agency of Christ. But if you do not know the law, and yet live up to something like it, you have lived a life pleasing to God. God’s judge Christ will excuse you on the day of judgment. No salvation necessary.
The “strictness” with which God comes down on sin is something that makes sense only within the covenant. If God has not made a covenant with you, you will be judged differently. There are, therefore, up sides and down sides to being outside the covenant.
Philly Endiointmente said:
However, I should add, being within the covenant is like being in the mafia. Once you’re in, you’re in. There’s no getting out.
Michael DeFazio said:
Thanks Philly. Three responses.
(1) True. I made this same point to some of our friends when they brought up this verse. It is about who can be saved, not who can’t (specifically, of course, both Jews and Gentiles). But the clear idea of 14-15 is that people need to hear this message so that they can call on Jesus and be saved. In other words, Paul thinks that all people need to hear this message and so believe and be saved, which means we need to go tell it. Anyhow, the point I was making there relied more on John 14.6 and Acts 4.12, so I’m fine with taking out Romans 10.9, because, as you say, it is making other points.
(2) That’s fine. My point still stands, namely, that some people who never heard of Jesus (in this case, people of the covenant who lived before him) were saved through Jesus. That’s all I’m trying to say there at this point. And once again, the other reference is clearer so if you prefer, we can take out the Romans reference without affecting much.
(3) I’m ashamed to say that I’ve never though of this verse in relation to this discussion. Shame on me, because it is certainly interesting and worthy of much thought. I don’t have much to say until I give it that thought, but thanks for making your point quite clearly.
Alex said:
Hello guys! Good discussion.
Even though Romans 10 has been, so to speak, “stricken from the record,” I wanted to add some thoughts. In your last comment, Michael, you say that “Paul thinks that all people need to hear this message and so believe and be saved, which means we need to go tell it.”
I understand that you are interpreting this verse, as you said, in light of chs. 14-15. I am not sure about this connection, namely because, in context of Rom. 10, Paul is not talking about a message for the world exactly, he is talking about a message specifically for Jews, and the point is not, “We need to go out and tell Israel so that they will know,” but rather, that they have already been told. This is why, right after the verses that mean so much to the exclusivist (vv.14-15), Paul says “But not all have obeyed the good news,” and then quotes Isaiah.
Paul then goes on to quote several scriptures to the effect that Israel would hear but would reject, and those who did not seek God would not reject.
We must remember that the point of Romans is not to lay out some involved soteriology, but rather to explain why Jews and Gentiles can – and indeed, must – be reconciled and become part of one body. The issue at hand is not how people will be saved, but why Gentiles are being included in God’s plan for Revelation, and many Jews are not. Paul’s argument is actually an argument against some very exclusivist Jews.
He then goes on in chapter 11 to argue against the exclusivist Gentiles. Chs. 9-11, including 10, are not about missions in any way that we now conceive of them, but rather about leveling the social dilemma of the early church – how Jews AND Gentiles can get together and be God’s people, and how the Church can replace Israel, not as God’s primary agent of salvation (which Philly has already shown is a covenantal concept), but rather as God’s primary agent of Revelation.
This is why that rather important passage from Romans 2 is very central to understanding Paul’s soteriology (if we want to use that term anachronistically). Paul has already framed who exactly he is talking to, and what he is talking about. Those outside his realm of knowledge or experience, he leaves up to God. He does this elsewhere in 1 Cor. 5, but we have trouble there because we compartmentalize Paul’s talk of judgment according to our divisions between Church polity/discipline and soteriology.
Philly Endiointmente said:
In the immortal words of Tony Anderson, “Zing!”
Alex said:
Oh, and there were a few positive Scriptures that I wanted to add from the NT which should really not be left out of this discussion:
1)1 Jn. 2:1-2: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also the sins of the whole world.” The juxtaposition in this text is most naturally the people of God. The work of Jesus seems wider. Indeed, even an inclusivist must deal with the almost universalist bent of this passage. This is present in other Johannine statements.
2)1 Corinthians 15:22, in Paul’s great passage of Resurrection and the renewal of all creation, he writes “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” This is paralleled by his statements in Romans 5, supplemented by statements in Romans 2 that God will judge according to his own wisdom those who “do not know.”
Indeed, the language of Romans 5: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” – it seems even stronger. We must careful about turning these statements of a theology of religions, since this was not Paul’s intention, but the narrative logic and conclusion of the text at the very least leaves the possibility of hope outside the knowledge of Jesus an open question, if not a good “scriptural” conclusion.
3)Titus 2:11 speaks of God “bringing salvation for all people,” and 1 Timothy 2:2, a God who “desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” But perhaps most strongly in 1 Timothy 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” The idea that “especially those who believe” are special partakers of the salvation seems to quite definitely imply a salvation outside those “who believe.”
So there are strands within the NT traditions that lend themselves quite clearly to inclusivistic thought. And Church History should not be left out of this discussion – throughout the last two millenia, there have been quite a few saints who held a view of hope to various degrees for those outside the knowledge of Christ, though it would be anachronistic to label many of them “inclusivists,” since they existed before the modern bend for a theology of religions. This list includes: Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius, Abelard, Zwingli, and our beloved C. S. Lewis.
Of course, these saints (I guess we could call Zwingli a saint…well, maybe not
all had different theological frameworks that there statements must be understood within. But even in context, I think there testimony cannot be disqualified.
Kärkkäinen notes that it was not until Augustine that the Church took a distinctly exclusivistic turn. There are many social factors that can account for this. And moreover, in the modern age, it was the rise of Liberalism and rationalistic critiques that created the hyper-exclusivism pedantically flaunted by a group of fundamentalists that generally, in my experience, do not represent the most common view within the church.
Lastly (sorry, this became way longer than I thought it would be), several aspects of our theology, especially our pneumatology and our view of God’s graciousness can be helpful (especially when we do not JUXTAPOSE our view of justice with grace, which is our modern tendency) in guiding us to what I think is a more sensible view of those who do not know how to spell “Jesus.”
Peace
Philly Endiointmente said:
In that last line there Alex is alluding to my axiom: God cares more about how people treat one another than he does whether or not they know how to spell his name.
Just a word of warning, not that Alex is doing this at all, but we need to be careful not to gather all the texts in the NT we think are relevant to this subject and say, “This is what the NT says.” Paul probably had different ideas about this question that the writers of the epistles of John and Peter and what have you. They might not necessarily agree with each other.
Alex said:
This is funny, I almost included this as my last sentence in my last comment: (The last bit, I nicked from Philly. Philly is both clever and worried about credit. I assume the latter to be true even when utilizing a pseudonym.) I guess I should have kept it
.
Yeah, I think Philly is right, and I think that I gave a good deal of room for that when I said there are “stands within the NT traditions.” Not that Philly said I was doing that. Just want to cover my bases.
Alex said:
That should be: “stRands within the NT traditions.”
Michael DeFazio said:
Thanks fellas! There’s some really good stuff in here and I’ll try incorporate some of it into my next few posts; more importantly, as I work through this issue (this whole series of posts is somewhat of a “halftime update” for me on this issue, since I really haven’t looked deeply into it before now) I’ll refer back to some of this. A few questions:
(1) Philly, you talk about (or assume) some big differences between those in the covenant and those not in the covenant – outsiders not needing salvation and not getting in through through Jesus’ blood, etc. Why then does Paul say this: “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”?
(2) You guys seem to read Romans 2.13-16 in a way that takes Gentiles outside the realm of those who need “the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Why then does Paul say this: “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles are alike under the power of sin”? (Obviously salvation is covenantal, but is the covenant not expanded in Jesus to embrace Jews as well as Gentiles?)
(3) Alex, flesh this out for me: . . . how the Church can replace Israel, not as God’s primary agent of salvation (which Philly has already shown is a covenantal concept), but rather as God’s primary agent of Revelation. Whence comes the dichotomy? I am intrigued by this.
(4) Also Alex, in your comment you mention some key things. Our view of God’s grace is something that has played a key role for me in all this (as evidenced in some of my points I hope) and you’re the second person (besides Karkkainen, who talked about it a bit at Fuller) to mention the place of the Holy Spirit in this discussion. If you have time, I’d love to hear more of what you think in this regard.
Thanks boys. Sorry I can’t offer more detailed responses right now.
Philly Endiointmente said:
I’m not saying that Paul doesn’t think Gentiles should enter the covenant. He’s saying that it’s possible for a Gentile to be justified by his own good deeds. But clearly, despite the (who knows how many) gentiles who God will excuse through Christ on the day of judgment, the world is still insane with violence, selfishness and that sort of thing, and so the world needs to enter the covenant and learn the way of Jesus Christ too. The whole argument of Romans is that the covenant brings peace between Jew and Gentile.
Note that I didn’t say outsiders don’t need salvation. I just said that salvation is a covenantal concept and that not every outsider is going to require it. For instance, think of Ninevah. God made no covenant with Ninevah. He forgave them based on their repentance, and nothing else. They didn’t have to enter the covenant in order to become pleasing to God. They could do it themselves. Paul says that the Law actually makes it harder for people to obey God. That’s why the new covenant is necessary.
But none of this means that gentiles shouldn’t enter the covenant. Obviously to Paul the covenant is a liberative thing that saves the world.
Saying that gentiles who have not heard God can be justified by their own righteousness, and saying that all who enter the covenant are justified by it– these are not mutually exclusive.
Philly Endiointmente said:
Anyway, as for what I think, I think that if Israel didn’t start out like all of her ANE neighbors thinking that the deities required satiation for covenantal misdeeds, particularly and especially the satiation of human sacrifice, then this whole idea of Jesus being a propitiation for our sins never could have or would have came about. That puts us in an awkward position. Affirming the ontology of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus means validating the logic of human sacrifice from whence it came. I don’t believe God requires sacrifice in order to forgive. I think that’s a primitive view of God, rooted in broader ANE mythology. I do believe God requires repentance and transformation of self and society.
Pingback: If Jesus is the only way… (3 of 4) « to tell the truth