This common question requires a
reasonable answer.
First, is there a possibility of
the existence of people who have never heard about Christ? Yes, there are
tribes, even to this day, who apparently live in isolation from the rest of the
modern world.1 So we can reasonably assume that isolated person(s),
those unaware of Christ, have been and are still in existence. This video is
about an isolated tribe in Brazil:
Second, is this isolated person a
sinner? Yes! The Bible says no one is righteous (Psalm 14: 3; Romans 3: 10), so
this isolated person is also a sinner in need of redemption.
Third, should we be concerned
about the salvation of those who may have never heard about Christ? Yes! We are
asked to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, so if we are concerned about
our salvation, we should also be concerned about the salvation of those around
us.
Fourth, the three broad and
possible theistic answers to this question are:
(1) Yes, God saves those who have
never heard about Christ.
(2) No, God does not save those
who have never heard about Christ.
(3) I don’t know (agnosticism).
(Atheists are either clueless about their post-life
destination or could assert that there is no existence after death.)
If a Christian submits (1) as a
reasonable answer, the answer implies that Christ is unnecessary for man’s
salvation!! But historical Christianity affirms the necessity of Christ in
man’s salvation.
So is Christ necessary or
unnecessary? This tension needs to be resolved when we submit (1) as an answer.
But if we submit (2) as a
reasonable answer, we need to justify the fact that these isolated people did
not get to choose the place of their birth. If they were born into a Christian
home or in the modern world, they would not have been placed in this position.
Then again, when God placed these
people in their isolated locations, shouldn’t it be God’s prerogative to ensure
that Christ is heard by them? So should not God be blamed for their predicament
especially if HE does not save them?
If we resort to agnosticism, we
are implying that the Bible does not say anything about this. In contrast, the
Bible does have something to say about this situation. If the Bible addresses this
situation, agnosticism cannot be reasonably justified.
The Bible states that God is
loving, just, and merciful. If God is truly loving, just, and merciful, HE
should save isolated people. If God does not save these people, there ought to
be a valid reason as to why HE does not save the isolated.
Now we know that God does not
save people unconditionally, for mankind is saved only by faith in Christ
through the grace of God. But the isolated people have genuinely not heard of God
or Christ, so isn’t the problem in God’s domain?
The problem does not seem to be
in God’s domain for the Bible says, “…It is not that they do not know the truth
about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the
beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power
and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made
and which are commonly seen and known, thus
leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to
acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does…”
(Romans 1: 19-21, Phillips, Emphasis Mine).
This passage states:
1. God has made HIMSELF very clear
to man through HIS creation.
2. Since creation points to God, man
knows that there is a God from that which are commonly seen and known.
So the problem is not with God. And man is without an
excuse.
I need more faith to be an
atheist than to be a theist. How can I observe the marvelous creation of God
and still maintain that this marvelous creation is nothing but a product of
randomness? Attributing randomness to God’s creation is absurd and insane.
Yet it was Marx-Freud’s view that
the theist is subject to a sort of cognitive dysfunction. But Professor Alvin Plantinga, one of the finest
Christian philosophical minds of our time, negates Marx-Freud’s contention to state
that cognitive dysfunction is innate to an atheist, not a theist. 2
The creation points to God. If I
have to choose between the causal options of ‘God’ and ‘chance,’ I would certainly
choose God as the Creator.
But does this isolated person
acknowledge God as the greatest power in existence? Or does he worship a fellow
being or a created object as the greatest being? If the isolated person
ascribes greatness to himself or a fellow being or a created object, then he
rejects God.
Because God has made HIMSELF
abundantly clear to the isolated man, he is to acknowledge God as the greatest
being. Therefore, I do not see a possibility of this person’s salvation if he rejects
God.
But the general revelation
(Creation) does not reveal God’s nature or HIS specific deeds (Trinity, Christ
and HIS sacrifice etc). Specifically and to our context, knowledge of Christ is
an outcome of a special revelation. Creation does not reveal Christ to the
isolated person.
It’s a fact that God placed this
isolated person in his isolation. Let us assume that the isolated person
acknowledges God, yet is ignorant of Christ. Let us also assume that Christ
does not appear to this isolated man in any form or manner – through
missionaries, literatures, dreams and visions.
If this be the case, would it be
justified to say that God would condemn this isolated person to hell?
Some Christians believe that God
would condemn this isolated person to hell if he does not believe in Christ. Popular
Christian Q&A website ‘Gotquestions.org’ states this, “If we assume that those who never hear the gospel are granted mercy
from God, we will run into a terrible problem. If people who never hear the
gospel are saved, it is logical that we should make sure no one ever hears the
gospel. The worst thing we could do would be to share the gospel with a person
and have him or her reject it. If that were to happen, he or she would be
condemned. People who do not hear the gospel must be condemned, or else there
is no motivation for evangelism. Why run the risk of people possibly rejecting
the gospel and condemning themselves when they were previously saved because
they had never heard the gospel?”3
This reasoning is based on two
disputable premises:
(P1) A Christian will potentially
discontinue evangelism and also prevent evangelism due to the lack of
motivation to evangelize.
(P2) The isolated man may reject
the gospel to be condemned, so it would be better off not to share the gospel
to the isolated man and thus have him saved.
Premise (P1) could be disputed by
the fact that man is saved by God through the means of evangelism. Man
does not save man, for man simply carries the good news of the gospel, but only
God saves man.
Moreover, human evangelism is not
the only way to save man. God can appear to a man in dreams or visions to save
him.
Significantly, evangelism should
not be performed as an obligation. Evangelism is an act motivated by love for
God and fellow men. Therefore, evangelism should not cease at any point in time
and for any reason.
Premise (P2) can be disputed as
well. Even before the isolated man rejects the gospel, he gets to either:
(P2.1) Accept
God (through the general revelation)
Or
(P2.2) Reject
God
Or
(P2.3) Remain
ignorant of God.
When the missionary reaches the isolated man, he is in any
of these three situations.
If the isolated man has accepted
God, the missionary’s job would be made easier to preach the gospel. Else if
the isolated man has rejected or remains ignorant of God, then he could be potentially drawn to the Lord.
If God wants to use us as HIS
channels, why should we disobey God?
On the other hand, if there is no
evangelization to the isolated man, the man who has already rejected God (P2.2),
and the man who is ignorant of God (P2.3), could end up being unsaved. So why
lose an opportunity?
Therefore, in order to save the
one who has rejected God and to save the one who remains ignorant of God,
evangelism to the isolated is necessary.
Shouldn’t the isolated man
believe in Christ for his salvation?
When the isolated man recognizes
his sinfulness (inadequacy) and accepts God through the general revelation, the
benefits of Christ’s one time sacrifice is applied to this man by God.
As in the case of the salvation of Old Testament
saints, this man will be saved on account of his belief in God (cf. Genesis 15:
6). The benefits of Christ’s one time atoning sacrifice will be granted to this
man because of his belief in God. Therefore, the necessity of Christ is
maintained.
On the contrary, the isolated man
who rejects God and does not know of Christ, will not be granted salvation for
he has rejected God to begin with. The isolated man who is ignorant also chooses
to be ignorant through his rejection of that which has been made plain to him –
God. Hence even he would not be granted salvation by God.
I do not intend to replace God or
to stand in judgment over others, but given my understanding of the Bible, this
is the best possible conclusion I can submit. Amen.
Endnotes:
1 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/rare-video-footage-shows-completely-isolated-amazonian-tribe
2 http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html
3 http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html
No comments:
Post a Comment