A SCRIPTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE FATE OF THE UNEVANGELIZED:

Transcription

1 A SCRIPTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE FATE OF THE UNEVANGELIZED: PARTICULARISM VS. INCLUSIVISM Kevin K. Haah Theological Challenges of Religious Plurality Spring 2002

2 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine the Scriptural basis for answering the question regarding the destiny of the unevangelized with a focus on two prevailing perspectives within Evangelicalism: particularism and inclusivism. 1 An Evangelical response to this debate must ultimately examine the Scriptural basis for the competing perspectives. The ultimate purpose of this paper is to help me sort out and struggle with this issue in light of what the Bible says. In the interest of limiting the scope of the examination, I will try to deal with issues that are typically in dispute among Evangelical theologians on this question and skip most of the discussions on the issues upon which they agree. 2 Most particularists and inclusivists agree on the following: Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone. These affirmations delineate that salvation is offered only through the work of Christ, that it is a complete work of God s free grace, that it is appropriated only by faith, and that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. 3 The Evangelical Affirmations produced by a conference at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in May 1989 stated in part: we affirm that only through the work of Christ can any person be saved and resurrected to live with God forever. Unbelievers will be separated eternally from God. Concern for evangelism should not be compromised by any illusion that all will be finally saved. (universalism). 4 In other words, they agreed on the ontological 1 This paper will not deal with the pluralist perspective simply because most pluralists do not claim that their views are consistent with the plain reading of the Scripture. 2 I will not deal all of Scriptural passages in support of the two positions. I will only deal with those passages that I believe make a stronger case for the perspectives. 3 Sanders, John, No Other God: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Eerdmans 1992), page Sanders at page 145.

3 necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation: if it were not for his atonement, we should all be left in our sins without any hope of reconciliation. But the matter of epistemological necessity the question of whether a person must know about Jesus in order to benefit from the salvation he provided is something else altogether. 5 The most sharply disputed issue in connection with this debate among evangelicals is the following question: How much, if any, do we have to know Jesus in order to benefit from the salvation he provided? This paper will analyze the Scriptural basis for answers to this question. A Discussion of Passages Used Widely By Particularists This paper will first examine several passages that are among the most widely used by particularists to support their position. Although these passages present the strongest statements in support of epistemological necessity, there are reasonable arguments for the position that these passages only support ontological necessity. In Acts 4:12, Peter boldly proclaimed to the Sanhedrin that [s]alvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips (who are particularists) argue that name refers to the focus of God s universal redemptive plan in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who must be the object of explicit faith by those who want to be saved. Peter does not appear to be referring to Jesus merely as the ontological ground of salvation that is, as the sole source of atonement. Rather, he is indicating what must be 5 Sanders at page 30.

4 acknowledged about Jesus before one can be saved. 6 Inclusivists, in contrast, argue that this passage does not expressly state that one has to know Jesus epistemologically in order to be saved. John Sanders states: the expression in the name of has its roots in the Old Testament (Hebrew Beshem), where it means that the speaker has the commission or authority of the one in whose name he speaks. So, Sanders argues that this passage is only saying that there is no salvation outside of the authority of Jesus Christ. In addition, this passage does not deal with what happens to those who lived before Christ, including those who are the subjects of the Old Testament. John 3: 16 and 18 state that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life and that whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God s one and only Son. Here, the object of belief is Jesus, and as such, particularists argue that belief in Jesus can only happen if one knows Jesus epistemologically. Geivett and Phillips state: Ironically, inclusivists must insist that in verse 18, believing in the name excludes Christological awareness, which would require dubious exegesis in the context of John 3. In any case, inclusivists must hold that something is the proper object of saving faith. Since these verses stress belief and belief always has an object what is the object of faith, if not Jesus? However, inclusivists argue that these passages refer to the evangelized: those who hear and accept Christ are saved, while those who hear and reject him are condemned. 7 In Romans 10, Paul states the necessity of confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved: That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and 6 Okholm, Dennis and Phillips, Timothy, General Editors, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, A Paricularist View: An Evidentialist Approach (Zondervan 1995) 7 Sanders at 64.

5 believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Then in verse 14, Paul states why there is a desperate need for preaching of the gospel: How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? This passage appears to state an epistemological acknowledgement of Jesus that comes from hearing of the gospel is required for salvation. Inclusivists argue that confession with our mouth is only one of the ways to salvation. Paul does not say anything about what will happen to those who do not confess Christ because they have never heard of Christ... It is sometimes argued that since all those who accept Christ are saved, it must follow that only those who accept Christ are saved. But this is like arguing that since all Collies are dogs, all dogs must be Collies. The argument is simply fallacious. Sanders 8 also notes verse 18 where Paul continues by quoting Psalm 19: Did they not hear? Of course they did: Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In verse 20, Paul goes on and quotes Isaiah 65: I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me. These passages ultimate say that the word of Christ has gone out to the end of the earth and God has been found by even those who did not seek him. These are compelling passages in support of inclusivism. In John 14:5-6 states: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. Particularists argue that this passage demonstrates that Christ is the only way to God. However, inclusivists do not argue with that interpretation 8 Sanders at 68.

6 of the passage. They say that it is a statement in support of ontological necessity of Christ, not epistemological necessity. In 1 Thessessalonians 2:15-16, Paul states that some people are trying to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. This passage implies that Gentiles will not be saved if Paul is kept from speaking to them. This interpretation is supported by numerous statements in the Bible that other religions are viewed at best as nonredemptive, and at worst as partaking of the domain of darkness (e.g., Ex. 20:3-6; 2 Chron. 13:9; Isa. 37:18-19; 40; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Acts 26:17-18; Col. 1:13). 9 Other religions are considered devoid of salvific truth and reality (Acts 19:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; 8:4-6; 10:19-20; Gal. 4:8; 2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Thess. 2:3). 10 Pinnock (an inclusivist) does not for the most part disagree. The conclusion to be drawn is that religion may be dark, deceptive, and cruel. It harbors ugliness, pride, error, hypocrisy, darkness, cruelty, demons, hardheartedness, blindness, fanaticism, and deception. The idea that world religions ordinarily function as paths to salvation is dangerous nonsense and wishful thinking. 11 However, Pinnock also argues that the Bible also recognizes some positive aspect of religious faith of those who were not Christians or Jews: According to the Bible, there also exists among the nations religious faith which lies at the other end of the spectrum. It recognizes faith, neither Jewish or Christian, which is nonetheless noble, uplifting, and sound. We came across this faith earlier in the category of pagan saints, believers like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, the Roman soldier, Cornelius, and others. 9 Okholm and Phillips at 237. (Geivett and Phillips) 10 Okholm and Phillips at 238 (Geivett and Phillips) 11 Pinnock at 90.

7 These were believing men and women who enjoyed a right relationship with God and lived saintly lives, under the terms of the wider covenant God made with Noah. 12 Discussion of Passages Used Widely by Inclusivists I will now discuss some of the passages and Scriptural concepts widely used by inclusivists in support of their position. A note should made that although inclusivists cites to various specific texts, they tend to rely heavily on the big picture arguments like the character of God and God s overall redemptive plan. First, in considering the key question of how much knowledge, if any, is required for the saving faith, inclusivists argue that this saving faith does not require specific knowledge of Jesus because, among other reasons, many people in the Old Testament were saved without specifically knowing Jesus. In Mark 12:26, Jesus said: Now about the dead rising have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken! According to this passage, Jesus said that Abraham, Issac and Jacob have resurrected already because God is the God of the living, not dead. As such, some people in the Old Testament have resurrected (which appears to mean that they were saved) without specifically knowing Jesus. Moreover, Hebrew 11 lists a honor roll of those who have lived by faith in the Old Testament. Then in verse 39, the author of Hebrew concludes: These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made 12 Pinnock at 92.

8 perfect. What was the object of their faith? They had faith in God and his character. They did not have faith in the historic Jesus simply because it was logically impossible for them to have such faith. Furthermore, Paul s primarily argument in Romans is that a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith. 13 In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul systematically discusses our sins, God s righteousness, and therefore, and our hopelessness; but Paul announces that God has created a way for us to be justified in front of God by faith through Jesus. In Chapter 4, Paul argues that this faith principle is not something new that he created but that it was always the case even from the ancient Old Testament times. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about but not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Clark Pinnock notes that God accepted Abraham because he believed he would be given a son and heir. He continues: What God was looking for in Abram was faith, not a certain quotient of knowledge. Paul s point in Romans Chapter 4 appears to be that justification by faith is a universal rule even before the redemptive work of Jesus. 14 Many particularists argue that this faith principle was only applicable in the Old Testament times. Since the time of Augustine, most writers on this subject have contended that in Old Testament times people had to have faith in the savior to come, whereas in New Testament times people have to have faith in the savior who has come 13 Romans 1: Pinnock, Clark, A Wideness in God s Mercy at page 162. He points out that in the Old Testament, this faith principle is applicable even to the pagans such as Job, Abimelech, Jethro, and the queen of Sheba among others

9 in order to be saved. 15 However, there is no Scriptural support for the proposition that those who were saved in the Old Testament times had faith in the savior to come. In fact, Paul s primary reason for writing Romans 4 regarding the faith of Abraham, David and other Old Testament characters suddenly after his discussion of salvation by faith in Jesus is to make the point that salvation by faith has always been the way God justified people and continues to be the way He justified people. Second, inclusivists argue that its position is the only logical conclusion from the character of God as portrayed in the Bible. I Timothy 4:10 states that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. Inclusivists argue that this passage means that the living God saves all who believe in him and that the specific content of saving faith may vary so long as it is grounded in an essential trust in God. 16 Interpreting the passage in this way is supported by the character of God as taught and portrayed by Jesus. There is no question that the Bible says that God is compassionate and wants to save even the worst of sinners. For example, the parables of lost sheep, lost coin, and the prodigal son demonstrate God s enduring patience and love for the lost. 17 If God does not want anyone to perish but wants all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), inclusivists argue that it is not logical that this same God would leave billions of unevangelized without any hope for salvation. Third, There are many passages that demonstrates that God has been active with Gentiles all throughout history. For example, many prominent Old Testament characters are Gentiles: Able, Enoch, Lot, Job, Balaam, the Queen of Sheba, Ruth, Melchizedek, 15 Sanders at Sanders at Luke 15.

10 Jethro, Rahab, and Naaman. 18 In each of these stories, God worked through them and presumably saved them. Inclusivists argue that God has purposes for the entire universe, not just Israelites, and this has always been the case throughout the Scripture, both New and the Old Testaments. Charles Ryrie stated: The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Jesus Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. 19 My Comments When I first started this paper, I thought the Bible was pretty clear on the epistemological necessity of acknowledging the historic Jesus as savior and Lord in order to be saved. After struggling with the passages, I now conclude that many of those passages leave room for ambiguity with respect to epistemological necessity. They do not, however, leave room for dispute regarding the ontological necessity of Jesus as the only way to salvation. One significant weakness of the inclusivists arguments regarding the ambiguity of the Scriptural passages widely used by particularists is that it appears that the passages themselves do not draw the fine line distinction between ontological necessity and epistemological necessity. They merely say that one has to believe in Jesus to be saved. I don t think it is stretching the intent of the authors to say that if one does not believe in Jesus, one is not saved. This is how people normally speak and write. I don t think they have to write so precisely (like modern lawyers), taking into consideration every possible way to read the passage, in order to convey what is for the most part a straight forward statement. Nonetheless, I think inclusivists have made a 18 Sanders at Pinnock at 162 (quoting Charles Ryrie).

11 reasonable case for ambiguities of those passages. Maybe the writers never meant them to be read so broadly as to confine the salvific work of the Holy Spirit. Given the ambiguities, the Scriptural passages and big picture concepts used by inclusivists make a strong case for something broader than particularism. The salvation of those who lived in the Old Testament times, the faith principle discussed in Hebrews and Romans, God s patience and loving character as taught by Jesus throughout the Gospels, and God s involvement with and love for Gentiles throughout the history of mankind compel me to acknowledge that God might be doing something grander in his salvific work than I am aware of. However, I am not sure how far we can go with respect to the value of other religions. I am not yet ready to say that a devoted Hindu can be saved by faith in a Hindu God. However, I think God s salvific work is probably much broader than what particularism allows for. I am just not sure how. Maybe the standard is as loose as Pinnock s who in essence use Hebrew 11:6 as the standard for salvation when they believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him. One perspective in between particularism and inclusivism has been referred to as postmortem evangelization. There are several passages in the Bible in support of Jesus descent into hell and his preaching of the gospel there. Matthew 12:40 states: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. John 5:25-29 states: I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he

12 has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. Hosea 13:4 states: I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death. O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? The apostle Paul alludes to the descent into hell in Romans 10:7 and perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:54 but most emphatically in Ephesians 4:8-10: therefore it says, when He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men. (Now this expression, He ascended, what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. Proponents of the evangelizationafter-death position interpret this text as meaning that Christ descended into hell and led out of that captivity a great number of people. 20 The most important and controversial passage regarding postmortem evangelization is 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah... For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are 20 Sanders at

13 judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. There are several views regarding the meaning of this passage. [One] view, held by many in the early church and regaining popularity today, is that during his descent into hell Jesus preached the gospel to all present and then led all who accepted him as Savior out of that prison. 21 I think there is a reasonable amount of Scriptural support for postmortem evangelization. This view is also consistent with the Scriptural passages and concepts in support of both inclusivists and particularists. It is also interesting to note that Pinnock welcomed this viewpoint as well Sanders at Pinnock at