PDA

View Full Version : FEATURED ARTICLE: The Original Good News


dizzle
May 27th 2004, 07:39 AM
The Original Good News


David A. Depew, LLB and Master of Biblical Studies, Dr. Jur.

An apologetic for the original Good News that people can get to heaven who
never heard the name of Jesus

(Heaven being defined as a place or places opposite hell or the lake of fire)
______________________________________________________________

Today there is a habit in the evangelical community to piously quote, "...there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 KJV.

Unfortunately the attitude projected is frequently an attitude that the speaker is quite proud that he knows this secret name. Therefore, it is just the tough luck of some other people that they do not know the secret name. Such speakers are encouraged by other Scriptures such as, "I am the way and the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father, but through Me." John 14:6.

Again, "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." Rom. 10:9. This statement is understood to mean that a person is lost unless he knows a sufficient amount of correct information about Jesus and then specifically asks Jesus to become his personal Savior.

We note that the emphasis on "personal Savior" is apparently a rather recent Western and American emphasis as opposed to an emphasis on a family decision to follow Christ and to be Christians. Luke 19:9.

Most Evangelicals agree that there will be some people in heaven who did not know or say the name Jesus. The usually accepted examples are only the saints ("holy ones") who lived in the Old Testament period and infants and children who die before the "age of accountability". Many Christians even acknowledge that someone like Job will apparently be in heaven. This is acceptable to us even though Job apparently lived during the period of the patriarchs. Some people do claim he lived several hundred years later. However, he did not seem to know anything about the special
revelation of God to the Hebrews and the people in the blood line leading
to Jesus. All of his theology seem to be based on general revelation. It is not at all clear that he expected his Redeemer to die and be raised from the tomb. Job 19:25-26.


Most Evangelicals agree that there will be some people in heaven who did not know or say the name Jesus. . .

Some people think that there may have been a significant number of people in Old Testament times who had no contact with special revelation. It is thought that the general revelation in nature was sufficient to bring some individuals to a saving knowledge. The habit today is to state that since the time of Jesus, salvation is only provided to the blessed individual who:

(A) knows a sufficient amount of correct information about Jesus and:

(B) then specifically asks Jesus to become his/her "personal Savior."

Some who hold this view declare that a significantly smaller percentage of people are being saved now than before the time of Christ! This is the required conclusion from those ideas. Their thought is that, before Christ, the general revelation in nature was sufficient to bring some people to God. Now the assertion is that people can ignore the general revelation and they have to wait for a Christian to bring the good news about Jesus. The church has been rather slow to spread the word, therefore few are being saved and no one is being saved in the areas where the gospel has not spread.

But this type of thinking is going against the clear revelation that the gospel is the good news. Thus, the prevailing attitude is making the good news into bad news! What is the Gospel supposed to be, good news or bad news?


JESUS AND ETERNAL LIFE


Very serious questions are, Why did Jesus teach so extensively about the kingdom, when He could have emphasized the need to follow Him and the necessity of believing on Him as the personal Savior who provides for eternal life? Why were there some apparently honest people who asked Jesus for the key to eternal life and yet they were not told to believe on Him? Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-27; Luke 10:25-37; Luke 18:18-24. Also see the Sermon on the Mount. Matt. 5-7.

These questions can force a person to reconsider his understanding of the commonly accepted formula for salvation.

THREE GROUPS OF PEOPLE AND THREE PLACES IN ETERNITY


Other seldom discussed facts regarding salvation are given in Revelation chapters 20-22. Contrary to most peoples' simple ideas, the text indicates that there will be THREE categories of people in eternity, not just two!

These are:

1) People in the lake of fire. Rev. 20:15; 21:8; 22:15.

2) Kings of the new earth and people of the nations who live on the new earth and who go visit The City, the New Jerusalem. Their names are written in The Lamb's Book of Life. Rev. 21:1-2 & 23-27; 22:2.

3) The bond-servants of the Lamb in the New Jerusalem who shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads, they shall reign forever and ever.

The revelation was given to John to be given to these bond-servants or Christians. Rev. 1:1; 21:3; 22:3 - 6. If we understand salvation to be an all or nothing proposition, with some people in hell (the lake of fire) and others in heaven (New Jerusalem), from where will the group come who will inhabit the new earth? Could they be "Old Testament saints" and others from both before and after Christ who asked God to forgive their sins and trusted and believed in God, even though they did not have written revelation and did not have a saving knowledge of Jesus?

JESUS = YESHUA = JEHOVAH IS SALVATION MESSIAH = THE ANOINTED ONE


When we consider the importance of the name of Jesus, it should realized that Jesus is an English name. His mother, Mary, did not call Him "Jesus". Such a Hebrew mother would have called Him "Yehoshua" or the shortened form "Yeshua". Both names meaning "Jehovah is salvation." (see B-D-B-G, New Hebrew and English Lexicon.) This is the same name as Joshua in the O.T. which is rendered Jesus by the Greek Septuagint (Exod. 17:9) and the Greek N.T. (Acts 7:45 & Heb 4:8). Because of the importance of His name in the consideration of the Gospel, we shall refer to Jesus as Yeshua. This may help to put into perspective fact that the N.T. writers were writing about a Hebrew name not an English name.

Some people have a habit of quoting, "...there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 KJV. Such people should remember that in Semitic languages and thought, the word name does not mean only what it means in English. Note that in verse 7, where the question is asked, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Here we see that power and name are used together. In verse 10, Peter refers to the healing of the lame man as being brought about by the authority of or the power of Yeshua.

THE TRINITY AND SALVATION BY GOD

We must remember that there is a Holy Trinity. Yeshua is God. When Yeshua walked in Israel and people asked Him to perform miracles, they were talking to God.

The Scriptures seem to emphasize the oneness of the godhead rather than the division into three personalities. See John 10:30, "I and the Father are one (a unity or one essence)." Some people seem to emphasize the three, rather than the unity. This obscures the fact that salvation is of the Lord. (Ps 3:8 and Joel 2:32). If a person pushed the division aspect to the extreme, could it be said that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit could not save a person? Is it only Yeshua who can
save?

Is it only Yeshua who can
save?

And what of the people in the O.T. times? Were they saved by the Father or by Yeshua? The names and functions of the godhead are somewhat intertwined in the Scripture, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father (or Father of Eternity), Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace on the throne of David and over His kingdom to establish it ... forevermore, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this." Isa. 9:6-7.

These two verses were written to refer to the coming Son, but there are clear indications of the Trinity in references to terms traditionally also used to refer to the Father. These terms include Mighty God and Eternal Father or Father or Eternity.

In light of this brief consideration, we again are confronted with the questions. If a person pushed the division aspect of the Trinity to the extreme, could it be said that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit could not save a person (even using the agency of Yeshua)?

IN O.T. DAYS, WHAT FAITH DID PEOPLE HAVE ?


According to the O.T., what kind of people were accepted by God and thereby avoid eternal punishment.? Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah all these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and welcoming them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for He has prepared a city for them. Heb. 11:13-14 & 16. God gave these particular people promises involving land, descendants and blessings.

He certainly did not give everyone such promises. But what of the more common people, who did not receive a special individual promise from God? People who nevertheless:

(a) confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth; and

(b) desired a heavenly country?

Would that confession and desire have been sufficient for their salvation by God? Certainly it would have been sufficient. Another interesting Scripture is Gen. 18:18 where the Lord said about Abraham, "...in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed." Also see the related passages in Gen. 12:2-3 and 28:14.

This is fascinating if it is understood that every single nation of people that have ever lived on the earth will be blessed by The Anointed One (The Messiah), a descendent of Abraham. The meaning can be that some particular individual(s) from every single nation that is or has ever been on earth will be saved by the gracious work of The Anointed One (The Messiah). If this is the meaning, then we are forced to realize that as far as we know, whole nations perished before the time of Abraham and before the time of Yeshua, without ever receiving specific revelation about God. But yet, some individual(s) in each one of those nations must be blessed by The Anointed One.

A reasonable conclusion is that general revelation in nature must have lead some people to salvation by the Lord in every heathen nation, both before and since the time of Abraham, as well as before and since the time of Yeshua.

Another fascinating little glimpse of Yeshua's work in those B.C. years is in 1st Corinthians 10:4 referring to the wilderness experience of the Israelites. It states, "...they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and that rock was The Anointed One (The Messiah)." So we see that Yeshua was active in B.C. times, even when not known by the name Yeshua.

Other references from the O.T. would include:

(a) Joel 2:32, "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord (YHWH) will be saved." This is picked up and repeated in Romans 10:13 as being applicable in N.T. times.

(b) Daniel indicates that Nebuchadnezzar, the heathen king, had a dream which predicted a judgment of insanity. Yet Daniel, the prophet, did not urge the king to specifically trust in YHWH. He told the king to break away from or redeem his sins and do righteousness. Dan 4:27. After the seven year bout with insanity, the king acknowledged the Most High, the King of heaven. However, the true condition of his heart and his repentance from sin are still obscure.

(c) Exekiel 17:22-23 gives the prophecy of The Anointed One (The Messiah as a cedar-like tree that grows. Birds of every kind will dwell under it and in its shade. Birds often, but not necessarily, denote the nations (gentiles). This Scripture emphasizes birds of every kind. This could indicate that some gentiles from every kind of nation will be saved by God.

From the foregoing it appears that some people from every nation throughout the history of the world will be blessed by salvation brought about by The Anointed One (The Messiah), the descendant of Abraham.

IS NATURAL REVELATION OF ANY VALUE FOR SALVATION ?

The Bible says that there is revelation of God in nature, it is called natural or general revelation. Often noted in this regard is Psalm 19:1-6, The heavens are telling the glory of God, and the firmament is declaring the work of His hands... Also less well known is Col. 1:23, ...the hope of the gospel that you have heard which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven...

But there is a question raised about the efficacy of natural revelation. It has become popular to down-play the value of it. Yet, the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul said in Romans 1:18-21a, (emphasis and division added) For the wrath of God is revealed ... against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth by unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Since the creation of the world,:

- His invisible attributes,

- His eternal power, and

- His divine nature,

have been clearly seen, being understood through what had been made,

- so that they are without excuse.

- For though they knew God,,

- they did not honor Him as God,

- or give Him thanks, but they became futile..."

What would have happened if the people had honored God whom they knew and given thanks to God whom they knew (through general revelation)? Would they have been saved? Would they have been excused? Because of the natural revelation, everyone is without excuse if they do not honor God and give thanks to Him. The very fact that an excuse would be necessary, indicates that these people should have turned to God. He will apparently use the natural revelation as a basis for judgement against them for not turning to God.

Commenting on Romans 1:19, Adam Clarke quotes with approval Dr. John Taylor, Although the Gentiles had no written revelation, yet what may be known of God is every where manifest among them, God having made a clear discovery of himself to them. For his being and perfections, invisible to our bodily eyes, have been, ever since the creation of the world, evident to be seen, if attentively considered, in the visible beauty, order, and operations observable in the constitution and parts of the universe; especially his eternal power and universal dominion and providence: so that they cannot plead ignorance in excuse of their idolatry and wickedness. Clark concludes that there is enough natural revelation for people
to avoid idolatry and wickedness. See Adam Clarke, Bible Commentary,
original, Vol. VI, p-43.

. . .there is enough natural revelation for people
to avoid idolatry and wickedness.

One highly useful way of categorizing different individuals and their response to revelation has been proposed by Don Richardson, author of Eternity in Their Hearts and Peace Child. He has suggested (in unpublished conversations) that there are three groups of people:

Group "A" is composed of people around the globe who are easily persuaded sinners. These are drawn in to God by general revelation. They have set their threshold of submission quite low. They believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those people who diligently seek Him (as explained in Heb. 11:6). These people are attracted to God like iron filings are attracted to a magnet.

Group "B" is composed of people around the globe who are not so easily persuaded. They are not convinced by natural revelation. These individuals need special revelation such as teaching, preaching and instruction before they are persuaded to repent and to turn from their wicked ways.

Group "C" is composed of people who are unpersuadable sinners. Neither general nor special revelation persuade these individuals to repent.

This is a very suitable explanation which commends itself as being Biblical.

Another possible reference to the results of natural revelation is the rather obscure reference to I have other sheep, which are not of this fold in John 10:16. Yeshua said I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one Shepherd. It seems that these are people who had not yet heard His voice, nor joined with other believers to become one flock, nor come under the leadership of Yeshua. People from every tribe and tongue and nation are have been purchased by the blood of Yeshua. Rev. 5:9.

One Scripture used to challenge church members to work for missions contains these questions. Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?... Rom. 10:13-14.

The scriptural answers are not usually read. Paul goes on to ask another question and answer himself in verse 18, But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have: Their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the inhabited earth. It is interesting to observe that Paul states in verse 17, So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word concerning Christ. He then equates the word concerning Christ with that in Psalm 19:4a, Their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the inhabited earth. This is understood to relate to the teaching in John 1:9, There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

The same apostle quotes Yeshua saying, Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God. John 3:20-21. This Scripture indicates that some people must be practicing the truth, wrought of God, before they come to the light.

Another Scripture which must be understood in harmony with others is found in Matt. 9:35-38. There Yeshua said, The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beg the Lord of the harvest to send out worker into His harvest. There is no statement here that the harvest needs to be converted from one type of thing into another. All that the harvester does is to pick and transport an already ripened and desirable grain. The essential character of the grain is not changed during the harvest. The natural revelation must have lead many people to be ready for harvest because He said, The harvest is plentiful.

The fact that people around the world in every nation may grope and find Him is mentioned in Acts 17:26-27, and He made from one (person) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us...

Alvertus Peters wrote a book, Divine Lord and Savior. It has a chapter titled, "There Is No Other". He is a proponent of the traditional view. But in a discussion of the subject of people who may cry to God for help, without really knowing to whom they are crying, he says, The subject is a very painful one... See page 185. But it is apparently only painful because his realization does not fit in with his traditional ideas. In the painful section, Peters reiterated the standard view, then says, Yet, logical and apparently conclusive as such reasoning is, there is on the other hand, our knowledge of the character of God. That He is 'long suffering and of tender mercy, not willing that any should perish.' We know also that Jesus Christ is a sufficient Savior.

Therefore, this thought will not leave us: 'May it not be that the Holy Spirit works on the hearts of some who have never heard the gospel, awakening them to sorrow for sin and to a humble cry for help, even though not knowing clearly to whom they cry? And if there is such repentance and such a longing to be saved, may God not know of that way by which the salvation of Christ can be extended to such souls, even though they knew Him not?' It seems to me that we are not forbidden to cherish such a hope; for if it is true that 'what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law' (Romans 3:19), it must be equally true that 'what things soever the gospel saith, it speaketh to those that have the gospel.'

To reason from the solemn warnings of the Word of God addressed to those where the preaching of the gospel is [conducted,] as if everything applied without qualification to those who have never heard, is scarcely justifiable.

Peters goes on to note the Romans 10:18 passage. He concludes that revelation in nature is a thing ...which the apostle here seemed to rank as something that may lead men to faith and salvation. This is an amazing admission on the part of Peters who filled pages with the traditional view, yet conceded that this was a painful subject. Why should the subject be painful? If people in the time of the Old Testament could be saved without knowing the details of the coming Messiah's life, death and resurrection, why do we not accept that people can be saved the same way today? We should remember the words of the angel, Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which shall be to all the people for...there has been born for you a Savior, Who is The Anointed One (The Messiah), the Lord. Luke 2:10-11.

If we accept the traditional view, we are to believe that on the day before the death of Yeshua, a person could be saved by God because of the sinner's repentance and a belief in God, without knowing specifically of Yeshua. But the day after Yeshua's death, a sinner would have to:

(A) know of the name of Yeshua and

(B) what His work was here on this earth.

This would be true even if the repentant sinner was thousands of miles from Jerusalem and had no way of hearing about Yeshua's death and subsequent resurrection. This traditional view changes the incarnation and sacrifice of Yeshua from being good news into bad news for the vast majority of the people in the world. The traditional view would be akin to saying that the rules have been changed in the middle of a soccer game.

THE TEACHINGS OF YESHUA AND THE DISCIPLES


Yeshua did not tell everyone to believe on Himself for salvation. In Mark 1:14b-15, we read, Yeshua came into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and put your trust in (believe) the good news.' Also see Matt. 4:23 in this regard.

There are places in Scripture where people conversed with Yeshua about salvation, but He did not tell them to believe on Him for salvation or eternal life. Often these people appear to be open to receive the word but still He did not tell them to believe on Him as their personal Savior.

Perhaps it could be argued that His unique mission required that He not disclose to them His true identity for a time. But, then many people would have erroneously concluded that Yeshua was merely a wise rabbi or a special prophet, rather than the One Who was personally responsible for salvation.

A summary of Yeshua's preaching found in Mark 1:14-15, says He
came ...preaching the good news of God and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news." Yeshua was not telling the people to believe in Him as their personal Savior. He just told them to repent and believe the good news that the kingdom of God is at hand. Apparently we may be assured that the people who repented and believed the kingdom of God was at hand would be saved without believing in Yeshua as their personal Savior. Another example is in John 3:1-3. Nicodemus declared that Yeshua was a rabbi who came from God as a teacher and God was with Him because He performed attesting miracles. Yeshua told Nicodemus that whoever believes in the Son of Man (Messiah, The Anointed One) may have eternal life (verses 14-15). But fro the text we have, we see that Nicodemus apparently was not told that a personal belief in the God/Man with whom he was speaking was necessary for his own salvation.

In Luke 18:9-14, we see where Yeshua told about the Pharisee and the tax-collector who went into the temple to pray. The tax-collector prayed, God be merciful to me, the sinner. That man went away justified without knowing about Yeshua.

PERSONAL SAVIOR


There may be a danger in telling people to believe in Yeshua as their personal Savior. I have heard non-believers understand those words to mean that the Savior is merely someone to take or leave, because whether you believe or not, is merely your personal opinion. They fail to realize that He is God and is the Savior of believers, whether or not other people believe. This misunderstanding unfortunately reduces the choice of eternal consequences to being similar to deciding about food or the color of a new car to be purchased. We consider these as personal choices. But the results of choices are not the same when people chose whether to worship:

(a) YHWH, as revealed in the Scriptures,

(b) Vishnu, of the Hindu Indians, or

(c) money, of Wall Street.

Certainly the choice is made personally by the individual. But that does not make every personal choice correct. The correctness of that choice does not depend on the individual who is making that choice. Selection (a) is the only correct choice, whether the individual is Jewish, Gentile, or Indian. All choices, except (a) are objectively wrong as revealed by the Scripture. Perhaps we should use the more useful statement, Yeshua is the Savior and I personally trust Him for my salvation.

There may be a danger in telling people to believe in Yeshua as their personal Savior.

In the Great Commission, Yeshua said that we should be going and making disciples, baptizing in (into) the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Yeshua did not specifically say, teach them to believe in Me as their personal Savior. It is interesting to note that the command is to baptize in the name, singular, not names. The name the three have in common is YHWH. This would seem to emphasize that the preaching and discipling is t draw people to God as a whole godhead, not just to Yeshua.

Another insight is found in Philippians 2:9-11 where the name is emphasized. Therefore also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him THE NAME which is above every name, that at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow ... and every tongue should confess that Yeshua is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A pious Jewish person hearing this would know that the name referred to is YHWH. Many Jewish people still refer to Him as Hash-shem or The Name. The thought Paul seems to be trying to get across is that Yeshua is to be worshipped, not because He has the name Yeshua (YHWH is Salvation), bu because He has the name YHWH. This again emphasizes the oneness of the Trinity.

Yeshua taught some things about the Trinity. He said, I and the Father are one. John 10:30. Also He said, Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. John 14:11. Again, He spoke, You believe in God, believe also in Me. John 14:1. Perhaps there can be a difference in time as to when a person comes to have knowledge of salvation, the Trinity and of God's plan.

In 1st Timothy 2:4, Paul, through the Holy Spirit, says God is our Savior, Who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge/recognition of the truth. Perhaps the Spirit is listing be saved and come in sequential order on purpose. Grace and peace are apparently purposely listed in sequential order elsewhere by Paul. It seems that a person can be saved before coming to the knowledge/recognition of the truth. The life and ministry of Apollos is instructive on this point. Acts 18:24-26. We should consider, was he saved before he was more accurately instructed, apparently with news and theology about the death and resurrection of Jesus? Were the people under his preaching saved prior to this more accurate and full instruction? The results indicated for those who search, but who do not have an extensive knowledge of God is interesting. In Romans 2:6-8, Paul says, God will render to every man according to his deeds. To those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, (is given) eternal life. But, to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (is given) wrath and indignation.

We note that Paul did not say here that eternal life would only be given to those individuals who accepted Yeshua as their personal Savior. In Acts 17:26-27, it is recorded, He made from one flesh every nation of mankind that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

The Greek poets referred to this fact. Even the Muslims say that God is as near to us as our jugular vein. Such discussion should not and must not lead to universalism where everyone is saved, regardless of the object of their belief. The Scriptures are clear, You shall have no other gods besides Me. Sanders believed that such discussion inevitably leads to universalism. See Sanders page 20. But, God says that those who are cowardly, untrustworthy, abominable, murders, immoral, idolaters, and all liars will not be saved. Rev. 21:8.

A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGINAL GOOD NEWS THAT PEOPLE CAN GET TO HEAVEN WHO NEVER HEARD OF YESHUA


There was no need for God to change His method of operation after Messiah, The Anointed One, came to earth. Before then, faith in God was mans' obligation. After He came, mans' obligation is the same. The good news is that the sacrifice for sin was made by Yeshua and was shown to be acceptable by His resurrection! Luke 2:10-11. But how can people who never heard of Yeshua be helped by His sacrifice for their sin? We remember the foreboding words, "...there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 KJV.

In ancient and modern times there are instances of people being saved by someone whom they did not know by name. We have already mentioned several Biblical examples.

In modern secular society there are examples. Our courts of law are set up to preserve and save the innocent person from civil problems with neighbors and from criminal problems with worse malefactors. The judge makes a decision, but in some cases the parties do not even see the judge, nor know his name.

It is possible to probate an estate and the parties would never know the name of the judge. The attorney handles the case, and if there is no dispute, the matter is routine. The parties never attend a court trial or hearing.

Could not this be an illustration of a person trusting the (legal) system, the courts, and his own lawyer to handle a matter? The matter is handled and the results are obtained (estate distributed according to the will) without ever even knowing the name of the judge.

The function of the court clerk is even more anonymous to the average person. Every document that comes out of a court has to have the signature of the court clerk. Land or money will not be transferred without that name. The police will not act on a warrant without the clerk's signature attesting that the warrant is true and correct. Very few people know the name of the clerk. Everyone benefits because the clerk does his job. We have less crime because the clerk has his name on warrants of arrest of malefactors. We have relative calm because he has his name on orders settling land disputes and domestic fights. All law abiding people benefit, whether or not they know his name. But if an individual decides to fight against the law and to rob his neighbor, such a person will hopefully feel the effect of the signature of the clerk, even though that person does not know the clerk.

Cannot we, who trust the system, say we are saved from crime and lawlessness and even from unjust punishment against ourselves, in/thorough/by the name of that clerk, even though we do not know his name?

Such examples may be one imperfect way of trying to understand and explain how Yeshua gave benefit to all, even to those who do not know His name. He is the only instrument or agent of salvation on behalf of the godhead for those who trust on the system which God established.

Another illustration is as follows: Suppose a kind, generous and hospitable man owned a mansion. He wanted people to come into his mansion. He put up welcome signs inviting people to come in to visit and enjoy the house as though it were their own. People who did not know the owner personally could take him at his written word (the signs out front) and come and enjoy the house. But, people who knew him as a relative or friend could come and enjoy the house with much more freedom.

However, let's consider this. What if someone who did not see the signs came and had a picnic on the back yard grass in a manner respectful to the unknown owner of property? The picnicker learned to love the owner because of the way the owner designed and kept the property. He longed to meet the owner face to face. Would the owner be wrathful against such a man because he did not know the owner or see the welcome signs? Woul not the owner send out his son to welcome the picnicker into a banquet? But what would happen if the picnicker died before the son or the servants of the son got to invite the picnicker into the house? Would the picnicker be considered a crook and an outcast?

Contrast that outcome to what the owner's attitude would be in another situation. Suppose someone else came on the property and saw the way the owner designed and kept up the property, but claimed that he had a different idea. He had no use for the owner. He felt that he had as much right to be there as the owner. He started to build his own banquet hall on the property. What would be the attitude of the true owner? His wrath would go out against the usurper.

From what we know of the nature of God, if we consider God to be the lan owner in this parable, He would welcome people who:

(A) understood His invisible attributes,

(B) understood His eternal power, and

(C) understood His divine nature, and who

(D) clearly saw them and understood them through what had been made, and who

(E) honored Him as God and

(F) give Him thanks.

Rom. 1:18-21. This would be true even though they did not know Him personally. We can assert this on the basis of the Scriptures we have examined.

CONCLUSION

We have examined several Scriptures. These teach that God saved individuals (on man's part) by repentance and faith in God in both the Old and New Testament times. Scriptures show that Yeshua's sacrifice was necessary for the forgiveness of all sins, both before and after He came. Jesus is God. God saves sinners, even if they have never heard the name of Jesus or Yeshua. He is the agent, whether or not they know His name or that He is the agent responsible. We may attempt to understand this by what an unknown court clerk does in signing court orders or by what a generous man would do with house guests. The people who were saved in the Old Testament times and the others saved in the current times, but who do not know specifically about Yeshua's work, will be the people who inhabit the New Earth.

Meanwhile, the Bride will dwell with the Lamb in the New Jerusalem. This understanding of the work of Yeshua does not change our mission, but makes it more enjoyable. The command is still to go into all the world, teaching them all the things that Yeshua taught and baptizing them in the name (YHWH) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


__________________________________________________________

APPENDIX


COMMENTS OF SANDERS, LADD & WELCH

Dr. J. Oswald Sanders was General Director Emeritus of the Overseas Missionary Fellowship, OMF, (formerly the China Inland Mission). He was a saint with a true heart for world evangelism. He wrote a small book titled, How Lost Are The Heathen. He takes the traditional stand that it is necessary to have a specific quantity of knowledge about the life and ministry of Jesus to be saved. This conclusion of his is foretold in his usage of the word heathen in the title. In his chapter titled, Who are the Heathen?, he equates the heathen with the lost. He says, referring to the heathen, that ....the point in issue is not social status or degree of civilization, but relationship to God. And again, It was to seek and save these 'lost' men and women that our Lord came to earth (Luke 19:10). See page 19 of his book.

By equating those without a relationship with God to the lost, he therefore comes to the necessary conclusion that they are the lost. This evades the question and is circular reasoning. Dr. Sanders quotes, but disagrees with, the view of G. E. Ladd that: The operation of God's grace may well be wider than the knowledge of the gospel, just as the grace of God in the Old Testament was wider than Israel... No, we do not slam the door on those millions who have not heard the name of Christ, any more than we can restrict a saving knowledge of God only to Israelites in the Old Testament.
We do pronounce that only the cross and resurrection of Christ saves. We equally pronounce that the non-Christian religions are devoid of any saving truth. But there may be hearts outside the sound of the gospel who have felt after God (Acts 17:27), who seek for honor and immortality (Rom. 2:7), who do have the true circumcision of the Spirit, and to these hearts God applies the salvation of Jesus Christ.

"How many we do not know." Sanders acknowledges that this view has more apparent Scriptural support than some other views. But he still feels that the weight Scripture is with his view that people are lost unless they know a sufficient amount about Yeshua. See page 62 of Sanders book.

Sanders also quotes, without approving, a Dr. Welsh who wrote Challenge to Christian Missions. Dr. Welch said, How was it possible for Abraham and the devout Jews to be accepted of God without the knowledge of the historical Jesus...? ...Abraham was justified because he believed God, and that was counted for righteousness.

The heathen today are B.C. What operated B.C. in God's treatment of the Jew, operates proportionately in Asia and in every continent and island which is not Anno Domini. God's method of principle is the same for all alike when dealing with different races, all of them B.C. The grace which was at least within the heart of the humble-hearted Jew has always been, and now is within the reach of the Gentile in proportion, if there is a similar response of spirit.

Sanders rejects this suggestion saying, While it is conceivable that God in His sovereignty might save some without the preaching of the word and th hearing of the gospel, this cannot be substantiated beyond question from Scripture, whereas there is a strong body of explicit Scriptures which would appear to affirm the opposite. See Sanders, pages 64-65.

Sanders goes go on to recount some amazing stories of people who were following God before being reached by the gospel. One man reported three crises in his life. The first was when he became aware of the perfection and wonder of the universe created by God. The second was when he had a serious condemnation and conviction of sin. And third, was when he becam an earnest seeker for God's answer and he sought forgiveness. He then felt the presence of a Savior. Later he told a missionary, since I heard you speak, I recognize in Jesus the Person who has made atonement for my sins.

Sanders discounts these and other stories he relates by saying, But in any case, is there any evidence that the heathen world in general is seeking the truth, fearing God and working righteousness as was Cornelius? On the contrary, when the truth of the gospel is presented by the missionary, instead of embracing it, the great majority reject it. He seems to ignore the fact that even in the so-called Christian nations where the gospel has been known and preached for years, the majority reject it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd-al-Masik, Who is Allah in Islam?, Villach, Austria, Light of Life Press, distributed by Al-Nour (gospel fellowship), Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius The New Hebrew English Lexicon, Peabody,
Mass., Henderson, 1979.

Clarke, Adam, Bible Commentary, 2nd Edition, 6 volumes, New York, Mason &
Lane, 1837.

Peters, Alvertus, Divine Lord and Savior, Fleming Revell, 1949.

Sanders, J. Oswald, How Lost are the Heathen, Chicago, Moody Press, 1979. Rev. 2-18-96[/QUOTE] 300

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

dizzle
June 1st 2004, 10:20 PM
:bump:

geebob
June 4th 2004, 04:17 PM
ooo! when I have time I'll have to give this a better look.

Sparko
June 4th 2004, 07:20 PM
Wow, that was a long article. To summarize the author seems to be saying that theoretically people can get into heaven without specifically knowing about Jesus if they respond favorably to the natural revelation given to them by God.

Theoretically, yes this is true.

If someone did adhere to their own moral law (knowing right and wrong and
never doing what they knew was wrong) and did not know of Christ, then they
would get into heaven - God will not say to them "oops, you missed law 6578
paragraph B. Sorry" - but he will say to them "You knew XXX was wrong, but
you did it anyway. Sorry" .


But the people the author speaks of are completely hypothetical people anyway - no one has every lived up to their own moral law. So they need Jesus.

Here is what Paul had to say about the moral law in Romans.

(it is from "the Message" a modern paraphrase of the bible available at
www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com) )

Romans 2:12 If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that
into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a
different story entirely. 13 Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your
time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the
difference with God.
14 When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less
by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. 15 They show that
God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into
the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that
echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. 16 Their response to God's yes and
no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision
about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through
Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.

Romans 10:9 Say the welcoming word to God--"Jesus is my Master"--embracing,
body and soul, God's work of doing in us what he did in raising Jesus from
the dead. That's it. You're not "doing" anything; you're simply calling out
to God, trusting him to do it for you. That's salvation. 10With your whole
being you embrace God setting things right, and then you say it, right out
loud: "God has set everything right between him and me!"
11Scripture reassures us, "No one who trusts God like this--heart and
soul--will ever regret it." 12It's exactly the same no matter what a
person's religious background may be: the same God for all of us, acting the
same incredibly generous way to everyone who calls out for help. 13"Everyone
who calls, "Help, God!' gets help."

So God gives people natural knowledge of himself and builds in a moral code into their hearts. If they respond to this by following this moral code, they show that God is right. If they always obey what they know is right, then they would get into heaven.

But nobody has ever done this. Everyone has done at least one thing that they KNEW in their hearts was morally WRONG. Therefore they condemn themselves (we all do). And need Jesus.

The only exceptions I can think of would be little children, or mentally handicapped individuals that do not understand the concept of right and wrong and so they cannot go against the moral code written in their heart, cuz they don't understand it. If they die in their ignorance, they will be saved. The rest of us sinners need Jesus.

dizzle
June 4th 2004, 08:35 PM
ps I am an exclusivst let me say that right up front, but I don't think that is exactly what the article is saying or maybe I misunderstand -

what if someone knew they failed and threw themselves on the mercy of God? but didn't have knowledge of Jesus?

Sparko
June 4th 2004, 10:19 PM
ps I am an exclusivst let me say that right up front, but I don't think that is exactly what the article is saying or maybe I misunderstand -

what if someone knew they failed and threw themselves on the mercy of God? but didn't have knowledge of Jesus?


If someone knew they were a sinner and called out to God for salvation, but knew nothing of Jesus?

Hmm. That IS a good question....


If all it took was calling on God without knowing of Jesus, then we would be better off not preaching Jesus, cuz by telling people of Jesus we take away that chance of them being saved without knowing of him. See how that can get pretty confusing??

And that reminds me of another point of the previous article, the author was speaking of how the Jews in the OT were saved even though they did not know of Jesus?

Well, in a way they were already saved by Jesus. They believed all along that messiah would come to set things right between men and God and that their sacrifices were only foreshadowings of the sacrifice that Messiah would bring to reconcile man and God. So they always had a believing faith in Jesus, they just didn't know his name or particulars of his life. So even they had Jesus. But when they actually found out who Jesus was, they had to make their decision. Some chose to follow Jesus and were saved. Others refused and had no salvation, even though they may still have claimed that they called out to God for salvation. In reality, they turned their back on God when they found out who he really was.


And don't forget, the bible also preaches that no one seeks after God, not one. So I think the sinner that knows nothing of Jesus but calls out to God is also hypothetical. It takes the Holy Spirit to draw a man to God, and at that point, God being all powerful, he could send knowledge of Jesus to them also, either through a missionary or a vision (like Paul).

I think that question will have to remain a mystery until we get to heaven ourselves. All I know is it is better to know Jesus and be saved for sure, than to hope in some wierd twist of events to allow someone to be saved without Jesus.

I have faith that God is ultimately in control and that everyone that would accept his salvation will be saved. God controls where and when each person is born and lives their lives. He controls situations that would bring people to them to offer them salvation and he also has ultimate control in that he can perform miracles in their lives like he did with Paul.

There will be no one on judgement day that will be sent to hell without a good reason. No one will be able to say God unjustly sent them to hell.

dizzle
June 4th 2004, 10:34 PM
If someone knew they were a sinner and called out to God for salvation, but knew nothing of Jesus?

Yes


Hmm. That IS a good question....

And at the heart of the debate I think...



If all it took was calling on God without knowing of Jesus, then we would be better off not preaching Jesus, cuz by telling people of Jesus we take away that chance of them being saved without knowing of him. See how that can get pretty confusing??

No, becuase someone truly seeking the truth who genuinely cried out and wanted God's mercy would recognize God's mercy when presented to them. And perhaps the confrontation of the reality of Jesus would mmove people who were not able to be moved any other way. The fact of Jesus makes it MORE obvious, not less. See how clear that can be?


And that reminds me of another point of the previous article, the author was speaking of how the Jews in the OT were saved even though they did not know of Jesus?

Well, in a way they were already saved by Jesus. They believed all along that messiah would come to set things right between men and God and that their sacrifices were only foreshadowings of the sacrifice that Messiah would bring to reconcile man and God.

You really think ALL Jews knew or understood that? I doubt that. I doubt many did. I think they trusted God to make things right. That is all that was needed. Did Adam know that a Messiah would be a sacrifice? I doubt it. Did Noah? I doubt that too.


So they always had a believing faith in Jesus, they just didn't know his name or particulars of his life. So even they had Jesus. But when they actually found out who Jesus was, they had to make their decision. Some chose to follow Jesus and were saved. Others refused and had no salvation, even though they may still have claimed that they called out to God for salvation. In reality, they turned their back on God when they found out who he really was.

That was my whole point above. Why couldn't the savage on a remote island be saved the same way?


And don't forget, the bible also preaches that no one seeks after God, not one. So I think the sinner that knows nothing of Jesus but calls out to God is also hypothetical.

If that were so absolute as you say then even you and I do not seek after God, but we do. Paul is speakikng of the unaided man, the man rejecting God. But God rewards those who diligenetly seek him, meaning then there are those wo do. Man in his natural state will never come to God. God bestows His grace allowing man to do so...


It takes the Holy Spirit to draw a man to God, and at that point, God being all powerful, he could send knowledge of Jesus to them also, either through a missionary or a vision (like Paul).

He could, but He didn't in the OT. It is possible of course. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying it is not as clear as I once thought it was with typical evangelical zeal. I am saying "will not the Judge of all the EArth do right?"


I think that question will have to remain a mystery until we get to heaven ourselves. All I know is it is better to know Jesus and be saved for sure, than to hope in some wierd twist of events to allow someone to be saved without Jesus.

For the most part I agree. But I think we are making a big mistake if we presume those who die without hearing the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross) are automatically damned.


I have faith that God is ultimately in control and that everyone that would accept his salvation will be saved. God controls where and when each person is born and lives their lives. He controls situations that would bring people to them to offer them salvation and he also has ultimate control in that he can perform miracles in their lives like he did with Paul.

That does not rule out being saved without hearing the name of Jesus.


There will be no one on judgement day that will be sent to hell without a good reason. No one will be able to say God unjustly sent them to hell.

Agreed. I am just not sure that we can say that it is necessary to say one must know the specifics of the Gospel. I think we must preach the speicifics of the Gospel because it pulls man up short and causes them to think in a way that it is probably rare to do so without, if that makes any sense.

I just do not know that this can ruled out entirely. :nsm:

Sparko
June 4th 2004, 10:50 PM
I never assume that if someone died without hearing of Jesus that they are unsaved or are going to hell. I don't even assume that if they did hear of Jesus and rejected him (as far as I know) that they will go to hell. What transpires after they die is between God and them and only God knows their heart. I certainly don't know what was in their heart or what they believed at the time of their death.

And How do we not know that God doesn't send a last minute vision of Jesus to everyone just before they die to give them one last chance? He could. We might find that there are a lot more people in heaven then we ever imagined when we get there.

But I can't live my life by hoping that people will get to heaven without Jesus. So It is my duty to try to preach the Gospel to as many as will listen for as long as I can. It is every Christians duty. I think I need to really work on it though, I find myself being reluctant many times, not wanting to sound pushy or like some bible thumper.

Sparko
June 4th 2004, 11:01 PM
No, becuase someone truly seeking the truth who genuinely cried out and wanted God's mercy would recognize God's mercy when presented to them. And perhaps the confrontation of the reality of Jesus would mmove people who were not able to be moved any other way. The fact of Jesus makes it MORE obvious, not less. See how clear that can be?

Yes. I think that is truly one of the most important reasons Jesus came in the flesh (besides being our sacrifice)

Jesus being preached FORCES people to choose. They may claim to be for God, and righteous, etc, but when they have to make a solid choice: Jesus is my Lord, or Jesus is NOT my Lord - then they will have to search their hearts for what is truly in there. When God is some nebulous ideal in the sky, it is easy to say yes to that. But when God is revealed in the flesh then somehow he becomes more real to us and we have to choose.

Like Jesus said himself,


32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_171921359_5)]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.

Sparko
June 4th 2004, 11:04 PM
sorry, Matthew 10 above not 11.

dizzle
June 5th 2004, 08:28 AM
I never assume that if someone died without hearing of Jesus that they are unsaved or are going to hell. I don't even assume that if they did hear of Jesus and rejected him (as far as I know) that they will go to hell. What transpires after they die is between God and them and only God knows their heart. I certainly don't know what was in their heart or what they believed at the time of their death.

And How do we not know that God doesn't send a last minute vision of Jesus to everyone just before they die to give them one last chance? He could. We might find that there are a lot more people in heaven then we ever imagined when we get there.

But I can't live my life by hoping that people will get to heaven without Jesus. So It is my duty to try to preach the Gospel to as many as will listen for as long as I can. It is every Christians duty. I think I need to really work on it though, I find myself being reluctant many times, not wanting to sound pushy or like some bible thumper.


I agree. And I think there are many times when we have a very good idea if someone died rejecting God (barring a last minute visitation as you described) but there are vast numbers of people which we don't. Some Christians automatically assume they are going to hell, and perhaps that is still my assuption, but I am working a bit away from that. I have not yet studied it enough to make a Scriptural conclusion.

Sparko
June 5th 2004, 09:24 AM
Hi Dee Dee,

I wanted to respond to the rest of your posting above, after having slept on it. So here goes.:smile:




You really think ALL Jews knew or understood that? I doubt that. I doubt many did. I think they trusted God to make things right. That is all that was needed. Did Adam know that a Messiah would be a sacrifice? I doubt it. Did Noah? I doubt that too.

I think that is why God gave them the rituals of animal sacrifices. To give them something tangible to show his forgiveness is not arbitrary but that sin must be paid for. They must have understood that an animal could not truly pay for the sins, but was representative of what Messiah would do. The book of Hebrews goes into this, as how the OT saints looked forward to Messiah as the fullfillment of their faith and how Jesus became the ultimate high priest and sacrifice.


That was my whole point above. Why couldn't the savage on a remote island be saved the same way?

If a savage on an island could be saved without Jesus (I still don't know if they can or not) then you have to take it further... for example:

1. Savage on Island. Knows nothing of Jesus but realizes he is sinner and needs God. Calls on God for Salvation.

Is he saved? Let's say yes.

2. Same as #1, but the Savage has a heard of some Jesus character from a missionary last week. Did not really pay attention and he simply ignored it. But he still calls out to God for Salvation.

Is He saved?

3. Same Savage. Heard all about Jesus, but a God who comes in the flesh sounds strange and he doesn't believe it. Thinks the missionaries are nuts. So he rejects their Jesus stories, but still believes in God and knows he is a sinner. He calls out to God for Salvation.

Is he saved?

If "no," then the only difference between 1 and 3 is that in #3 he knew about Jesus. So it would have been better for him not to have heard of Jesus then he would be saved (re: #1) - But this flies in the face of what we believe as Christians, that not knowing Jesus would let one savage be saved, but the one that heard of Jesus was lost because he rejected what he heard.

But if you say "Yes #3 was saved, God won't hold him responsible for not really understanding about Jesus, his cultural biases caused him to reject Jesus, but he still called out to God for salvation" then what would the difference between the savage in #3 and, say, a muslim? They call out to God for salvation, but reject our stories of Jesus because of their cultural biases and preconcieved notions. Are they saved?



If that were so absolute as you say then even you and I do not seek after God, but we do. Paul is speakikng of the unaided man, the man rejecting God.

You and I DID NOT seek after God until God gave us his grace and "woke us up" -- Without God's influence, none of us will seek him. We are all spiritually dead unless God gives us the grace to respond.


But God rewards those who diligenetly seek him, meaning then there are those wo do. Man in his natural state will never come to God. God bestows His grace allowing man to do so...

Again, agreed. But that means that no one will seek God unless God allows them to. They wont do it on their own.. But then this starts to get into Calvanism versus Armenianism (I am squarely in the middle of THAT debate)


...I am saying it is not as clear as I once thought it was with typical evangelical zeal. I am saying "will not the Judge of all the EArth do right?"

...For the most part I agree. But I think we are making a big mistake if we presume those who die without hearing the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross) are automatically damned.

...That does not rule out being saved without hearing the name of Jesus.

...Agreed. I am just not sure that we can say that it is necessary to say one must know the specifics of the Gospel. I think we must preach the speicifics of the Gospel because it pulls man up short and causes them to think in a way that it is probably rare to do so without, if that makes any sense.

I just do not know that this can ruled out entirely. :nsm:
I also agree with you above for the most part.

But as I tried to showed above, it is a pretty slippery slope from some savage being saved without Jesus to everyone being saved without Jesus and I know we both disagree with that.

So, while it may be POSSIBLE for some to be saved without Jesus, that doesn't give us license to not preach Jesus or to tell others that "sure, anyone can be saved without Jesus. All you need is to call out to God and ask him." because that leads to the destruction of the Gospel, and then ANY religion is right and Jesus becomes unnecessary. Every religion claims they call out to God as the real God and that he will save them.

And this is the feeling I got from reading that article. That he was saying that Christians were being too exclusivic and intolerant and that Jesus was not really necessary. He couched it pretty well by appealing to our desires that everyone should be saved, but that was his underlying theme (at least in my opinion)

Lazy Agnostic
June 8th 2004, 10:59 AM
Or maybe the Bible has nothing to do with the Creator. That would make more sense.

geebob
June 8th 2004, 12:14 PM
Would that confession and desire have been sufficient for their salvation by God? Certainly it would have been sufficient. Another interesting Scripture is Gen. 18:18 where the Lord said about Abraham, "...in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed." Also see the related passages in Gen. 12:2-3 and 28:14.

This is fascinating if it is understood that every single nation of people that have ever lived on the earth will be blessed by The Anointed One (The Messiah), a descendent of Abraham. The meaning can be that some particular individual(s) from every single nation that is or has ever been on earth will be saved by the gracious work of The Anointed One (The Messiah). If this is the meaning, then we are forced to realize that as far as we know, whole nations perished before the time of Abraham and before the time of Yeshua, without ever receiving specific revelation about God. But yet, some individual(s) in each one of those nations must be blessed by The Anointed One.

This is excellent and parrallels my arguement from acts 17:26-17. And though kenny cast some serious doubt on it (which I think discussion from jaltus and a greek proff I consulted with castes doubt back on his doubt...though I don't have as much confidence in it as I used to as the "proof" of inclusivism), I think this observation restores that arguement almost to it's former glory. Suppose Paul was being a good Jew and was working from jewish conceptions such as this most fundamental promise to Abraham when he made that arguement to the athenians. Then he saw this statement which spoke of a definite blessing to all nations and interpreted as a blessing not for all nations alive at the point of the messiah's coming, but all nations decended from adam.

excellent stuff.



one peice of criticism here:

Alvertus Peters wrote a book, Divine Lord and Savior. It has a chapter titled, "There Is No Other". He is a proponent of the traditional view.

gah! this is not THE traditional view. It is A traditional view, but inclusivism and universalism go back just as far and have just as much claim to the tradition. (if not more as I believe universalism and inclusivism predates restrictivism). The tradition isn't as lame as evangelicals so often paint it to be.

geebob
June 8th 2004, 12:39 PM
john

But I can't live my life by hoping that people will get to heaven without Jesus. So It is my duty to try to preach the Gospel to as many as will listen for as long as I can. It is every Christians duty. I think I need to really work on it though, I find myself being reluctant many times, not wanting to sound pushy or like some bible thumper.

I think this view actually reduces the glory and importance of missions. If your only reason for preaching to the lost the historical explicit gospel of Jesus is because it's the only way for them to escape hell, then finding out that God can save them through other means would sabotauge the point of missions and evangelism.

But what if the gospel is richer and more deeper than that. What if being saved is not just about escaping hell, but is about experiencing the fullness of love and life in God. Wouldn't you want these people to come to a more fulfilling and loving relationship with God?

secondly, If God doesn't love the unevangelized enough to provide a real means of salvation that is really accessible to them, then why should we love them. We should go out and preach because we should desire to take part in the work that God is already doing. God is already saving souls. instead of only being motivated by a desire to flee punishment, we should, as christians seeking to grow into maturity, seek to do what God is doing because we love him. Furthermore, not only should we participate in missions and evangelism out of love for God, we should do so out of obedience. God told us to do it, so we should.

finally, as dd already hinted at (doing a decent job as a fake inclusivist!) and the author of the topic, more people will probably find salvation through the gospel than those without that influence.

So consider a parallel with a fireman before a burning house. He could reason as do some restrictivists (those who believe that only those who hear of the historical gospel can be saved...exclusivist is a term that is more relevent to the issue of religions... you can even be an exclusivist and a universalist... as was suggested of karl barth) that the only reason to go into the burning building is if it's the only way people inside can be saved. And since it is possible for those people to escape the burning building on their own, why should the fireman bother. Well, he would be very irresponsible shirking his duty just as christians, and furthermore, his activity may result in saving more lives than would be saved if these people are left to fend for themselves.

DavidD
June 10th 2004, 02:48 AM
I would be interested in having those who have been commenting on this paper to reread the paper. It seems that most objections are general in nature or from the person's ideas without reference to the several scriptures which are noted in the article. If people reach a seriously different conclusion than that which I reached in the article, then I would appreciate their comments on how they would explain away those several scriptures which lead to my conclusion.

geebob
June 10th 2004, 09:48 AM
Thank you for the article David. I thought it was good.

I'm curious about a couple things. Do you know if Don Richardson is also an inclusivist?

Have you read No other name by John Sanders?

Maxentius
June 10th 2004, 11:45 AM
For the record, I am an "exclusivist."

This is a thorny issue though.

I think that God's revealed way to bring people into his kingdom is through the preaching of the gospel.

There is no other way, unless we believe we can believe by our own strength and power.

So the church is bound by God's commandment--teach all the nations, baptize them etc. It does not matter how I feel or what I think about it--it is God's command and we are his slaves. We, the Church, are bound by God's revelation, not our own speculations.

But God is not bound so, he can save anyone he wishes in pretty much any way he wishes. It is not impossible for God to have a means to "save" people he has not revealed. But because he has not revealed this we should not speculate about it. How can we be sure our theological and philosophical specualations really tell us the truth? No matter what, it is in God's hands what happens to anyone in particular, and even entire nations.

geebob
June 10th 2004, 12:06 PM
There is no other way, unless we believe we can believe by our own strength and power.

or if God has made his grace available outside the spacial temporal boundaries of the gospel. that wouldn't require our own strength and power. that would require the grace of God.

So the church is bound by God's commandment--teach all the nations, baptize them etc. It does not matter how I feel or what I think about it--it is God's command and we are his slaves.

good. that means that whether God saves people outside the bounds of the gospel or not, we should still preach because God commanded it.

But because he has not revealed this we should not speculate about it.

so we shouldn't speculate too much about it. Good thing the author of the opening post relied on scripture.

maqxentius, DavidD has carefully argued from scripture and after some of the discussion, he asked some of the critics of his vierw to respond to his scriptural arguements. no where in your post do we see an interaction with his arguements.

please take part in the discussion as it has been put forward.

There is no other way, unless we believe we can believe by our own strength and power.

it's interesting that you are allowed to speculate (which the above amounts to) but we are not? but what has been written is not speculation.

Maxentius
June 10th 2004, 03:15 PM
or if God has made his grace available outside the spacial temporal boundaries of the gospel. that wouldn't require our own strength and power. that would require the grace of God.

That is basically my point. As long as it is God's action that saves someone we are well within the bounds of orthodoxy.

good. that means that whether God saves people outside the bounds of the gospel or not, we should still preach because God commanded it.

Basically yes. But I would also add that nowhere in Scripture does God promise any salvation outside of his grace. We do not know how God works except where he reveals his will. His explicit revelation is that we, that is the Church Militant, are to make disciples of all the nations. He promises that all who believe that proclamation will be saved.

He makes no explicit promises as to those who never heard--but he does offer condemnation to those who do not believe. The real question is "what exactly is faith in Jesus Christ?" That is a very difficult question, and one I am afraid we are not equipped to answer.

For instance. If faith is cognative--do we lose our faith when we are not actively thinking about Christ--when we work hard for instance?

If faith is not cognative, what exactly is it?

I think these are very difficult questions.

so we shouldn't speculate too much about it. Good thing the author of the opening post relied on scripture.

I think you misunderstand me. I think it is dangerous to speculate where Scripture is silent regarding dogmatic issues. The Bibe is a sufficient revelation, but God did not reveal all things in Scripture. That is where the church must remain un-dogmatic.

maqxentius, DavidD has carefully argued from scripture and after some of the discussion, he asked some of the critics of his vierw to respond to his scriptural arguements. no where in your post do we see an interaction with his arguements.

I am merely explaining my view of the issue. In fact, it is not possible to deny God saves those who never hear the gospel--he does not say that. All he says is that those in Christ are saved and those outside Christ are not. It is up to God, not us, to determine who is in Christ and who is not. So, scripturally speaking, the church should concentrate on what her Lord told her to do, teach all the nations.

please take part in the discussion as it has been put forward.

I believe I have. My point is that "we don't know and speculation is idle." God does not let us in on what he does with his divine perogatives. We, his slaves, should obey our Lord and do what he tells us.

it's interesting that you are allowed to speculate (which the above amounts to) but we are not? but what has been written is not speculation.

OK, but I am speculating as to what God may do--I am not attempting to solve any dilemmas. I think that is a big difference. I do agree with the article in many places of course.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong BTW.

Sparko
June 10th 2004, 03:35 PM
I would be interested in having those who have been commenting on this paper to reread the paper. It seems that most objections are general in nature or from the person's ideas without reference to the several scriptures which are noted in the article. If people reach a seriously different conclusion than that which I reached in the article, then I would appreciate their comments on how they would explain away those several scriptures which lead to my conclusion.
David,

Your article is very long and it would take me a week or more to address it point by point, that is why I tried to summarize your conclusions in my post, then presented my counterview to that. I would rather debate the conclusion you came to rather than going through your article point by point. I apologize if this seems that I am dismissing your arguments. I just don't have the time to put into a point by point review. If I summarized your conclusion wrong, I apologize and ask for a correction so that I am not attacking straw men.

Having said that :wink:

One thing in your article I disagreed with was that the hebrews in the OT weres saved sans knowledge of Jesus, therefore gentiles can be saved sans Jesus also.

I think the animal sacrifices that YHWH put in place were a symbol of the sacrifice of the Messiah. So that the Hebrew's faith in YHWH to save them through the sacrifices was indeed the same as the faith we have in the sacrifice in Jesus. They may not have known the specific name "Jesus" or "Yeshua," but they did know of the Messiah and that he was going to make things right between man and God. I think mankind knew of the Messiah since the Garden of Eden, where the Lord said to Satan:

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."


This the first verse in the bible referring to Messiah. So I think that the Hebrews knew that Messiah was coming and that their sacrifices were only symbols and could not actually pay the penalty for their sin.

So in the OT, people could be saved only if they put faith in YHWH and performed animal sacrifices for their sins, which looked forward to the Messiah and his attoning sacrifice that would redeem mankind. Without this, there was no salvation.

In the new testament, there are two examples of Gentiles that followed God and were saved. Both of them were not saved without a knowledge of Jesus, but instead, by showing their heart to be god fearing, God sent them missionaries to preach Jesus to them, and then they were saved. These two examples are the Ethiopian who was sent Philip (Acts 8) and Cornelius who was sent Peter (Acts 10) - Both were preached Jesus and then saved. Apparently the Jews in Jesus' time (like Paul) still believed the same way the OT people did: in sacrifices based on the coming Messiah. But after Jesus came, simply believing in that way was no longer sufficient. Otherwise, the Jews would all be saved and would not to have been preached Jesus. Jesus' Disciples would not have had a job to do, preaching Jesus and the Gospel to all the world for salvation if it were possible for the Jews to still be saved by sacrifices. Do you agree?

The sacrifices were a symbol of Jesus and took the place of belief in him, UNTIL the real thing came along. Once Jesus was there, the sacrifices no longer counted because Jesus WAS the sacrifice. Therefore after Jesus died and resurrected, belief in the sacrifices was no longer sufficient, they had to believe in Jesus.

So before Jesus: Salvation through Animal (blood) Sacrifices looking forward to Jesus' Sacrifice.

After Jesus: Salvation is through the trusting belief in the ACTUAL sacrifice of Jesus.

Conclusion:

There is no example in the bible of someone getting saved by natural revelation without saving belief in:
1 - God's law and sacrifices in the OT (which were symbols of Jesus) or
2 - Direct knowledge of Jesus as described in the NT.

Any claim to the contrary is just speculation.

My speculation: If someone does show an inclination toward God through natural revelation, they will get sent specific revelation to learn about Jesus (ala Cornelious and the Ethiopian Eunich) - or God will send them a vision (ala Saul) - But they will not be saved without knowing about Jesus and making an informed choice. God is all powerful and will make sure that no one who would choose Jesus will not have a chance to do so. He controls where and when each of us is born, and who will interact with us and the situations of our lives.

No one will be able to claim that God was unfair on Judgement day, every knee shall bow, and every creature will cry "Worthy is the Lamb" :pray:

Sparko
June 10th 2004, 09:16 PM
But they will not be saved without knowing about Jesus and making an informed choice. Well, I have to eat my words :blush:

I am being very dogmatic in my stance above and I am basically dictating what God can and can't do.

Of course I am wrong. God can do what he wants to do and if he wants to save someone without their knowing about Jesus, then he can do so.

And David, after reading your article again (3rd time) I think I am being too dogmatic in my whole stance on the isssue. Your article seems a little too inclusive for my taste, but there is really nothing I can point to as a definite error - not that I am some big expert on theology to begin with.

Also I did some research to see what other people have to say on the subject and I found an article by Glenn Miller at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnohear.html which echoes many of your points and sprinkles in a few of the ones I made. It seems to be a blend between your article and my objections and has convinced me to write this post and the softening of my stance.

John Sparks

geebob
June 11th 2004, 10:36 AM
Basically yes. But I would also add that nowhere in Scripture does God promise any salvation outside of his grace.

some of What David said might be construed as otherwise, and I say that cautiously without looking through his paper again. I could be wrong. But the inclusivistic picture doesn't suggest anything otherwise. God's grace is to be found outside the bounds of where the gospel has been preached for men everywhere to respond to it.

His explicit revelation is that we, that is the Church Militant, are to make disciples of all the nations.

Indeed. even though God's grace is found outside the bounds, God still wants the relations between him and all men to move foward and go deeper, hence the commande to make disciples of all nations.

He makes no explicit promises as to those who never heard

perhaps, and even so, what is implicit in scripture is of no less value.

For instance. If faith is cognative--do we lose our faith when we are not actively thinking about Christ--when we work hard for instance?

there's excellent evidence that it isn't exactly cognitive.

matt 25
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

mind you this need not lead to salvation through works, but rather such works are evidence that these people responded appropriately to the grace of God. (As John Calvin Argued of Cornelius).

I think it is dangerous to speculate where Scripture is silent regarding dogmatic issues.

scripture isn't silent here. It is implicit at the least.

That is where the church must remain un-dogmatic.

I do have to disagree here. We are fully within our rights to look at the trajectories and aims of scripture that are not spelled out explicitely and take to them dogmatically. The condemnation of slavery by the church is one such example. slavery simply is not condemned in scripture. but you can see the trajectory there.

another example: I'll insist that most if not all illegal drugs are of the devil. only the loosest of interpretations will support that.

and of course even Jesus attempted to prove his doctrines via some observations of very implicit notions in scripture. For example, there is life after death because God is the God of Jacob and Isaak and Abraham who have all died...and yet God is the God of the living, hence if he is the God of those men, then in some way, they are alive to this day.

but again, with what we are putting forward here, I don't even think the issue is even merely pointed at. it's a very strong implication.

and finally, we cannot pretend that scripture is our only source. God gave us brains, he set us in his world and he has been teaching the church as we see in tradition. I don't see that we are to rely soley on scripture. We are to weave a consistent whole with scripture and every other truth God has given us. otherwise, we are not respecting and fully trusting that scripture can cohere with and help interpret what we see in the world.

I believe I have. My point is that "we don't know and speculation is idle."

no you haven't dealt with the scriptural arguements. for instance, just what do you do with genesis 18:18 combined with acts 17?

We, his slaves, should obey our Lord and do what he tells us.

right, so it's not that this discussion would detract from that. As a matter of fact, I have pointed out (I believe in my second post) that this position only strengthens our appreciation of the gospel and it's richness and why we need to share it with the world.

I do agree with the article in many places of course.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong BTW.

well okay. we certainly do disagree on just how good of a case can be made for this view.