One of the great questions of mankind is that of a person's destination after they die. Some believe that once a person dies, there is nothing for them afterward. Other people believe that after death a person reaches a higher form of existence. Religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teach that there is an eternal destination for a person based on a set standard. Within Christianity, there are many views on the destination of those who do not espouse the Christian faith, and what exactly the standard is for reaching paradise instead of punishment. By examining the various views on the destiny of the unevangelized, a broader picture of Christianity in general is obtained.
Three common ways of approaching the issue of the destiny of the unevangelized: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Exclusivism holds that Jesus is the only Savior for all humanity and that it is not possible to attain salvation apart from explicit knowledge of him. Inclusivism maintains that Jesus is the only Savior for all humanity but that it is possible to attain salvation apart from explicit knowledge of him. One can be saved by expressing faith in God based on general knowledge. Pluralism holds that Jesus is only one of many saviors available in the world's religions.
1 Even withing these three main views, there are disagreements, and a further discussion on four “sub views” will bring a better understanding of each of these three main views.
The first view is the restrictivist view. This view “advocates that salvation is restricted to those who have heard the gospel and have made a conscious decision to accept it. Those who never heard the gospel are judged on the basis of what they know or should have known. What they should have known is sufficient to condemn them, for God's general revelation of himself in creation leaves all without excuse.”
2 Those that hold to the restrictivist view of salvation point out that the New Testament “explicitly teaches that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.”
3 Some of the bible verses which are used to defend this position are John 3:18, and Acts 4:12. John 3:18 states: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”. (ESV) Acts 4:12 is perhaps one of the better known verses on the restrictivist point of view: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (ESV) Peter was telling his audience that if “there is salvation in no other name, then obviously one must make a commitment to that sole name that brings salvation.”
4 Romans 10:13 also makes the case for this view: “for 'Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (ESV)
While citing these and other verses in Scripture would be considered a main argument, those who espouse the restrictivist view also point to church history in their support. While “there has been no single perspective on this issue in church history, the restricitivst position has had a large number of weighty defenders, including Augustine, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards.”
5 All of these men believed that “Jesus’ death is the sole ontological basis for salvation and one must have a personal, explicit, epistemological faith in Jesus Christ to obtain salvation.”
6 Calvin believed that “ human nature is so sinful that people are utterly hopeless apart from Jesus”
7 and that God Himself must initiate the connection between Himself and mankind, or no one would ever decide of their own free will to come to Him.
One of the primary objections to this view is that it is unfair. There are four primary responses to this argument: 1) People are judged on a basis of what they did know, or should have known, not on the basis of what they did not know. 2) We must be careful about concluding that God is unfair, regardless of how matters look to us. 3) Many of those who embrace the restrictivist position are calvinists who believe in particular election-the belief that God selects from all eternity who will be saved. 4) One might argue that the apparent unfairness of this view actually gives the restrictivist perspective a ring of truth that the other views lack, for if there is anything that is clear, it is the fact that life is not fair.
8 Those who disagree with this position offer up “a fanciful notion that men are saved by means of a gospel of which they have no knowledge whatever. That is not God’s way. He brings men back to Him by revealing himself to them in his real character. Other religions and the light of nature are not to be compared with Christianity, as if they differed from it only in degree. They contain some truth, but have no saving power. They incite men to seek after God and are, therefore, in sharpest contrast with Christianity, which reveals God seeking men, and making known to them his real character.”
9 Some argue then that this places a stumbling block that infants and mentally disabled people can never hope to overcome. The restrictivist would answer that “perhaps the question of the salvation of infants and mentally disabled people is one of the 'secret things' of God we simple cannot know. For all we know, God may elect some infants and mentally disabled people while passing others by. If so, this is a holy prerogative, and we must trust that it is wise and good.”
10 The next view is the Universal opportunity view, that God does all that He can for the salvation of mankind. This view holds to two truths: 1) The Bible teaches that God is all-powerful. 2) The Bible teaches that God wants everyone to be saved. From these two truths it would seem to follow that if a person is willing to accept Christ as Lord, the all-powerful God will find a way to give that person the opportunity to do so.
11 This view shares with the restricitivist view that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. However, they “deny that people end up going to hell because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
12 They do not agree that God will judge those who fail to accept the gospel because they neither heard it nor understood it. Relying on the apparent willingness of God that all shall be saved, they look to verses like 1 Timothy 2:4, citing that God is a god “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (ESV) If “a person has a will to be saved, God will find a way to save that person.”
13 The believe in God's supernatural ability to reach people through extraordinary means, such as the case of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. This however, would seem to almost contradict itself, and this moves towards the realm of God's sovereignty over mans free will to decide if he wishes to be saved. This would be explained, however, that the choice is still within man for salvation, and that God just places the ingredients in his path.
Those who adhere to the position of the Universal opportunity view site two main arguments to support their position. The first is that, like the restritivist view, many in church history have come down on this side of the argument concerning the destiny of the unevangelized. They list off names such as Thomas Aquinas, Jacob Arminius, and John Henry Newman, and in today's modern times, advocates such as Norman Geisler and Robert Lightner.
14 Jacob Arminius is the man from whom the term “Arminianism” is named after, and this teaches “that man is to some degree depraved, but that he receives enough grace to counteract the effects of depravity,”
15 which is in stark contrast to the teachings of John Calvin, who believes that because “man is dead in trespasses and sins, God must regenerate him and even grant him the faith to believe.”
16 The other argument those who espouse this view use is that of simple reason. The “notion of a person going to hell because he or she was never given the chance to hear the gospel violates reason.”
17 They believe that stating otherwise would go against God's loving nature. This is the “only position that is able to affirm with logical consistency God's loving character while also holding to the necessity of belief in Jesus.”
18 Where restricitivist's stress God's sovereignty, the universal opportunity view stresses God's love.
One of the main objections to this view is that there just is not enough evidence to support it. While it is agreeable that God sometimes uses extraordinary means to bring the knowledge of salvation to someone, such as the Ethiopian eunuch or Saul of Tarsus, this is not the normal way that salvation comes to the rest of humanity. Those espousing this view offer three lines of reasoning in defense. The first is that just because there is no evidence of this happening through dreams, visions, or private revelations, does not mean it couldn't happen. Secondly, god could easily use those means to send this important message to those who seek the truth. And thirdly, there are several cases reported in recent history of groups of people who came to a knowledge of the incarnation on their own.
19 The last argument would certainly point to groups like the Church of Latter Day Saints, who believe in the “divine” revelation to Joseph Smith.
This line of thinking, while fully endorsing God's love, is in danger of extending beyond God's willingness that at least some should be saved, into full universalism, a view that believes that all will eventually be saved. The arguments for universalism generally hold to the following points: 1) The character of God is incompatible with the idea of the eternal suffering of anyone, therefore his grace extends to all eventually. 2) The power of God is sufficient to restore lost humanity. 3) God's sovereign will and purpose will be fulfilled when all are finally saved. 4) Perfected souls in heaven could never experience eternal bliss knowing the souls were suffering forever. 5) Advocates of Universalism suggest that this doctrine prevents Christians from becoming arrogant and condescending towards those outside of the faith. 6) It is the only way to make sense of worldwide suffering, because this view sees eventual terminus to all suffering.
20 Those who believe in universalism believe that it is “the teaching that God, through the atonement of Jesus, will ultimately bring reconciliation between God and all people throughout history. This reconciliation will occur regardless of whether they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium or some future state.”
21 They would argue for what could be “called a 'further light' or 'further blessing' doctrine, they argue that many have already responded in faith to what they have learned of God through the means available to them. Should some members of other faiths hear the Christian gospel, it comes to them as the gift of further light that leads them further on the path already taken.”
22 This would completely argue against Romans 1:20: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (ESV) There is a “common belief shared by many evangelicals that universalism somehow under-plays the true horror of disobedience to God. The suspicion is that universalists claim that God simply ignores sin or that sin is ‘not really that bad’”,
23 being that if all are redeemed at some point or another by God's love, then how bad really is sin?
The next group is the Postmortem Evangelism View, or that there exists hope beyond the grave. This groups seeks to answer the question of what happens specifically to those who have missed their chance in this life to either come to the saving grace of Jesus as the restricitivist position, or missed the chance for the knowledge of God by some other means as the universal opportunity position espouses. The postmortem evangelism view is defended by its supporters on two main counts. The “first relates to the general portrait of God in Scripture; the second relates to specific passages that support it.”
24 This group believes that the overarching theme of the Bible is “that the Creator lovingly and persistently pursues humans to bring them into a loving relationship with himself.”
25 They use verses such as John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 in their defense. They believe that even in death, there is still hope in salvation and ask the question: “Why should we assume that death is an insurmountable obstacle for the Lord when his most definitive act involved defeating the one who had the power of death and overcoming the grave?”
26 This group clings to two main arguments to support their view. The first is that the “church has always had a diversity of opinions on the salvation of non-Christians.”
27 They point to the teachings of theologians such as Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Ambrose. It should be noted, however, that most of the teachings of the aforementioned men have been discounted, even branded as heretical in some cases. The second argument comes from a freewill defense. In essence, “this argument states that evil exists in the world because creatures must have the freedom to choose evil if they are to have the freedom to choose love.”
28 The verse most cited against this view is that of Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for a man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” (ESV) The postmortem view claims that the author is “simply drawing a parallel between Christ's death 'once and for all' and our death.”
29 They are stating that this “simply adds one more event (or process) to this eschatology between death and judgment: the evangelization of the previously unevangelized.”
30 The second main objection to this view is that it undermines missions. After all, if God saves people after they die, then why should anyone worry about evangelizing them in life? The postmortem view believes that “motivation for evangelizing the world is rooted in the desire to obey the Lord who commands it, to share the joyful Good News of redemption with people who lack it, and to glorify God by having as many people as possible acknowledge him in this lifetime as the rightful Lord of all creation.”
31 The final view is the inclusivist view, that He has not left Himself without a witness. At first glance, this view does not appear to be altogether different from the other three. It holds to the belief that Jesus is the only savior, and that there is no other name to which humans must be saved. The agree that no one can go to the Father but through Jesus, and they agree that the pluralist position is both unbiblical and incoherent. Where the difference comes in is that they believe that while people must be saved through Jesus, they needn't necessarily know that it was Jesus who saved them.
32 The inclusive nature of this view is that it holds that “salvation is inclusive for all who have a heart that is open to Christ, whether they know him by name or not.”
33 While not a particular dominant view in church history, there are those authorities which believers in the inclusivists points to as sharing their beliefs. Men such as Justin Martyr, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, and C.S. Lewis.
34 The inclusivist view also, “allows us to embrace the exclusivity of Jesus Christ without sacrificing either the universality of God's love or the just nature of God's character.”
35 Wesley believed that mankind would give an account, ultimately, for their words and deeds, and believers and unbelievers will be separated at a great judgment, although “he was unwilling to take a hardline stance on the issue of other religions and those who never heard the Gospel.”
36 hose who object to this view often point to the fact that it can begin a slippery slope towards religious pluralism. Inclusivists respond that “God can recognize faith even in a person who has been chronologically or geographically cut off from the explicit message of Jesus Christ.”
37 This would seem to try and answer the question of what happens to those who never heard the Gospel, or even heard the name of Jesus, such as those who lived in remote places, either without or before modern communication technology. Another objection to this view is that it undermines missions. After all, what is the point of evangelizing if people can be saved without it? The inclusivist response is that “the only people not affected by it are Arminian restrictivists, for they are the only ones who consistently hold that the eternal fate of people literally hangs on whether Christian evangelize them.”
38 While there are many views as to the destiny of the unevangelized, it would be to the persons own detriment to believe anything other than what the bible has to say on the matter. It is impossible to dismiss the sacrificial grace of Jesus Christ, who died so that men shall be saved, in favor of political correctness and diversity. God gave man sufficient evidence in His word to perceive that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that the peril of men's souls comes from believing anything else. It is important, however, to understand the views of others who espouse Christianity, in order to answer for the faith that we have, as stated in 1 Peter 3:15: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (ESV)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009.
Brecht, Mara, "What's the use of exclusivism?." Theological Studies 73, no. 1, 2012.
Brewer, Kenneth W., "Rob Bell and John Wesley on the fate of the lost and those who never heard the Gospel." Wesleyan Theological Journal 48, no. 1, 2013.
Harris, George, "The Independent on future probation." Andover Review (Boston, Mass.) 7, no. 40, 1887.
Luo, Jinsheng, "Universalism in America: A Religious Perspective." Petroleum - Gas University Of Ploiesti Bulletin, Educational Sciences Series 62, no. 1B, 2010.
Lutzer, Erwin W. The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
Parry, Robin, "Evangelical universalism: oxymoron?." Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 1, 2012.
Polhill, John B., The New American Commentary. Vol. 26, Acts. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992.
Stackhouse, John Gordon, "Evangelicals reconsider world religions : Betraying or affirming the tradition?." Christian Century 110, no. 25, 1993
Root, J.R., “Universalism”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, [ed Walter A. Elwell], Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
1Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 198.
2 Ibid., 199.
3 Ibid., 199.
4 John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary, vol. 26, Acts (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 144.
5Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 201.
6 Kenneth W. Brewer, "Rob Bell and John Wesley on the fate of the lost and those who never heard the Gospel." Wesleyan Theological Journal 48, no. 1, (2013) 124.
7 Ibid., 124.
8 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 201-202.
9 George Harris, "The Independent on future probation." Andover Review (Boston, Mass.) 7, no. 40, (1887) 411.
10 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 202.
11 Ibid., 202-203.
12 Ibid., 203.
13 Ibid., 203.
14 Ibid., 204.
15 Erwin W. Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 180.
16 Ibid., 180.
17 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 204.
18 Ibid., 204.
19 Ibid., 205.
20 J.R. Root, “Universalism”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, [ed Walter A. Elwell], Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, (2001)1232-1233.
21 Jinsheng Luo, "Universalism in America: A Religious Perspective." Petroleum - Gas University Of Ploiesti Bulletin, Educational Sciences Series 62, no. 1B, (2010) 59.
22 John Gordon Stackhouse, "Evangelicals reconsider world religions : Betraying or affirming the tradition?." Christian Century 110, no. 25 (1993) 860-861.
23 Robin Parry, "Evangelical universalism: oxymoron?." Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 1 (2012) 6.
24 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 205.
25 Ibid., 205
26 Ibid., 205.
27 Ibid., 207.
28 Ibid., 208.
29 Ibid., 208.
30 Ibid., 208.
31 Ibid., 208-209.
32 Ibid., 209.
33 Ibid., 209.
34 Ibid., 209.
35 Ibid., 209.
36 Kenneth W. Brewer, "Rob Bell and John Wesley on the fate of the lost and those who never heard the Gospel." Wesleyan Theological Journal 48, no. 1 (2013) 118.
37 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 212.
38 Ibid., 212.
