Protest Letter from a Postmodernist

One of the things that turned me off from my Protestant upbringing was this judging of others salvation that is so prevalent. I never could grasp how the Protestant message that so elevates the “personal Savior” aspect of Christ, could in the same breath impose their own judgment on whether another was “saved” or not. Either it’s between the individual and God, or it’s not.

It’s important to know how other religions view God and Jesus, but my experience with a “comparative religions” crusade at the church of my youth was very much about pointing out how other’s weren’t “saved” and blatant misinformation that even as an adolescent I could see was biased and lacking charity. Rather than offering information about what other’s believed (as this presentation was advertised) the experience was one of bigotry, self aggrandizement, and spreading fear. I don’t know if it was from the same group that the writer of the letter experienced—it sounds very similar–but the presentation I saw was in the early 1980s and also went through major religions.

One thing I remember particularly was an emphasis on the Catholic religion and erroneous claims about idolatry. I remember listening to the presentation that was in a “documentary” format and pretty much accepting everything that was being said until it made claims that Catholics worshiped Mary and believed that statues were little gods and that Catholics made offerings to these idols. I knew that wasn’t true, and it cast doubt on the entirety of the presentation. Actually, it was one of the things that led me OUT of that church and after a long road of study INTO the Catholic faith. I’m fairly certain that’s not the goal of the Campus Crusade…but hey…something seemingly similar brought me home, so it worked for me.

Here’s the Catechisms statement on…

The Church and non-Christians

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 “the first to hear the Word of God.”327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Michael,

The person that wrote this letter has a point to a certain extent, I believe. While Campus Crusade has a right to present their beliefs concerning other religions they should do it in a respectful manner. What does it profit them to misrepresent beliefs or make fun of strange sounding words? Perhaps somebody of another faith was at least interested in learning about Christ and attended the lecture only to find their religion mocked and denigrated. Would this person be more or less likely to inquire any further? Sometimes the whole religion is judged by the actions of a few.

In fairness, the letter, does sound like the person pre-judged the event and had an axe to grind with Campus Crusade. Nevertheless I believe there are better ways to contrast Christianity with other religions.

ChadS

I think the positive lesson that Christians can learn is that we must always be fair when discussing other religions and we should treat them the way we would want to be treated.

However Jesus clearly states in the Bible that he is the only way and that it would be rahter unmlving not to tell others that Jesus is the only way. It seems that author of the letters equates sharing the gospel with “spitting in the face” of believers of other religions. That would only be true if Christianity was not the truth and/or that Christians did not really believe it was the truth. If Christianity is the truth and Christianis believe it is so then there is no way that evagelism is spitting in the face of a believer of another religion. In fact not evangelizing would be more akin to that. If one loves another then they do not want them to go to hell. So trying to get them to believe and not go to hell is loving. Not evagelizinfg would be aki to saying that Christians do not care if others go to hell or not. But in the end we shoudl take the postive criticism and make sure that we treat other religions with fairness in our presentations.

BH- CARL

I feel for this person, because I have had similar thoughts, and this post kind of reminded me of the post you posted before about “do we really believe in Hell”. But I think the fundamental miss-understanding this young man is having is on His understanding of sin and God’s holiness. Below I’ve listed a quote from Dallas Willards book, Renovation of the Heart, the chapter that I’ve quoted is titled, “The Radical Evil in the Ruined Soul” and hopefully it will help to shed light on just how stained with are through our sin.

Taken from Dallas Willards book, Renovation of the Hear (pg 56-57),

“Lost persons, in Christian terms, are precisely the ones who mistake their own person for God. They falsely identify, and cannot recognize, what is closet to them-themselves. Then, as we have noted, everything becomes delusional. Such as one really does think he is in charge of his life-though, admittedly, to manage it “successfully,” he may have to bow outwardly to this or that person or power. But he is in charge (he believes), and he has no confidence in the one who really is God. As we have seen, such ones “do not see fit to center their knowledge upon God.” Their god, as Paul elsewhere wrote, is their “belly” (Philippians 3:19) the feeling center of the self. They are willing slaves of their feelings or appetites (Romans 16:18). They “want what they want when they want it,” as the song says, and that is the ultimate fact about them. If they do not get it they become angry and depressed, and are a danger to themselves and others.

Edith Schaeffer, in one of her penetrating discussions of abortion, points out:

“The philosophy of living with an underlying motive of doing everything for one’s own personal peace and comfort rapidly colors everything that might formerly have come under the headings of “right” and “wrong”. This new way of thinking adds entirely new shades, often in blurring brushstrokes of paint that wipe out the existence of standards or cast them into a shadow that pushes them out of sight. If one’s peace, comfort, way of life, convenience, reputation, opportunities, job, happiness, or even ease is threatened, “Just abort it.” Abort what? Abort another life that is not yet born. Yes, but also abort the afflictions connected with having a handicapped child, and abort the burdens connected with caring for the old or invalid. Added swiftly are the now supposedly thinkable attitudes of aborting a child’s early security in his or her rights to have two parents and a family life; aborting a wife’s need for having her husband be someone to trust and lean upon; aborting the husband’s need for having a companion and a friend as well as a feminine mate; aborting any responsibility to carry through a job started.”

Thus self-idolatry rearranges the entire spiritual and moral landscape. It sees the whole universe with different eyes. If it is not abortion that is at the center, it will be something else; but the fundamental pride of putting oneself at the center of the universe is the hinge upon which the entire world of the ruined self turns.

John Calvin said that “the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves.” Yet self-obedience seems the only reasonable path for nearly everyone: “So blindly do we all rush in the direction of self-love, that everyone thinks he has a good reason for exalting himself and despising all others in comparison.” What an exquisite eye for detail Calvin had! He would find today’s scene very familiar.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words capture the scene: “Whereas the primal relationship of man to man is a giving one, in the state of sin it is purely demanding. Every man exists in a state of complete voluntary isolation; each man lives his own life, instead of all living the same God-life.” Well of course. Each is a god unto himself.

Thus no one chooses in the abstract to go to hell or even be the kind of person who belongs there. But their orientation toward self leads them to become the kind of person for whom away-from-God is the only place for which they are suited. It is a place they would, in the end, choose for themselves, rather than come to humble themselves before God and accept who he is. Whether or not God’s will is infinitely flexible, the human will is not. There are limits beyond which it cannot bend back, cannot turn or repent.

One should seriously inquire if to live in a world permeated with God and the knowledge of God is something they themselves truly desire. If not, they can be assured that God will excuse them from his presence. They will find their place in the “outer darkness” of which Jesus spoke. But the fundamental fact about them will not be that they are there, but that they have become people so locked into their own self-worship and denial of God that they cannot want God.”

Hope this is useful.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

It appears that you guys are taking for granted that this group actually misrepresented these other religions — this gentleman failed to provide even one example of them doing so. Perhaps they did make fun of certain words, but how do we know in what context they did so? There could have been a premeditated purpose in so doing — this man simply does not provide us with anything more to judge the matter. I think its also worth noting that this gentleman hasn’t demonstrated a sufficient understanding of any religion (to include Christianity) in order to critique others as misrepresenting these other religions — it is entirely possible that they were represented fairly and accurately (yes, in 30 minutes) and this man simply did not have enough knowledge concerning them to know it.

He said: “Is this a study of comparative religions, I asked myself, or a study of religions compared to Christianity?” Let us suppose that the latter was true and it was a study of religions compared to Christianity — so what? Where is the problem with using Christianity as the starting point and judging these other faiths by it? Does not the Muslim do the same? I think the real problem here is that this gentleman had already made up in his mind that all ways were a way to God and salvation and to hear a group of Christians say the opposite outraged him — but then isn’t he guilty of the same intolerance that he accused this group of? Why is it ok for everyone to have their beliefs except for Campus Crusade for Christ? And if he is supposedly a Christian, then why wouldn’t he have been prepared for what he was going to hear? It is the belief of Christians that there is no salvation outside of Christ.

I think his fundamental problem is a severe misunderstanding of Christianity and this can be seen in his stating: “I only wish its members could pull off the Jesus-tinted glasses and see that people all over the world are managing just fine without believing Jesus Christ is their savior” How exactly does one whose faith in Christocentric pull off the Jesus-tinted glasses? It’s almost as if he is contending for the myth of neutrality, like anyone could be absolutely objective in anything. I think it is fair to keep on the Jesus shades and allow room to change views when necessary, but what he is arguing for, this seeming universalism is not necessary (imho).

man…now I don’t know what to believe…wow…this guy presented some complling arguments….oh boy…

In this whole arena (the possible salvation of non-Christians, since isn’t that really what it comes down to?), I am lately finding the Catholic approach to be more persuasive. When I heard Jimmy Akin describing it on Catholic Answers Live, I was very surprised, since I figured Catholics were still squarely in “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” mode. They have tweaked the meaning of this dramatically while still being able to retain the phrase, and I tend to agree much of it.

More recently, Catholic Answers Live addressed the issue again, in a broadcast entitled “Are only Catholics going to Heaven?”. If you have iTunes, you can go to the podcast section, type in Catholic Answers and then download just that one episode from a couple of weeks ago. Well worth the listen.

While I believe that there is only one way to Heaven, through Jesus, I am willing to accept that “by way of Jesus” can mean something more than we have traditionally considered. Of course, NOT being a Calvinist (with its predestinations), makes this a better fit with my larger understanding.

Here is one provocative, if slightly tongue-in-cheek, point that I have wrestled with. Do I want to spend eternity in heaven with the folks that conservative soteriology says will be there? What would heaven be like knowing that 99.9% of all of the humans that ever lived are burning in Hell, most of whom never heard, nor could have heard, the Gospel message?

Dan Wallace responded to this basic question by saying that God’s justice would still be fair since we ALL deserve to burn in Hell forever, so any he predestines to save is an act of mercy. Yet, we are made in the image of God and have an innate sense of what IS just and right, and what does it mean that everything in my being, down to its very core, screams UNFAIR, UNJUST, and I am left with a deep sense of disgust at the very concept of that result?

No, I am not settled on this issue yet, and may never be. But I am definitely prone to be less dogmatic and judgmental on the issue in the meantime.

Vance,

I don’t have Itunes (can you just download that file in mp3 format a computer?), so I’m not sure if they covered this in that broadcast, but if that type of reasoning is correct:

How does one explain Paul’s passion (as well as the other Apostles and early Church’s) for evangelizing (certainly trying at least, whether successful or not) everyone they came in contact with? I find it difficult that the Apostles and early Church had the mindset that these people around them who didn’t know Jesus WEREN’T going to perish in Hell. Especially in light of the many who laid their lives down for getting the Gospel out.

I hope my post does not come out as “attacking”, (I am not trying to be, it’s a genuine curiosity):

What do you believe the term “by way of Jesus” means? And what would you consider the way we “traditional considered it”?

While I recognize that emotional of “unfairness and injustice” is there (as I have often reflected upon this issue and had the same appeal), I also recognize that I have had those feelings in regard to things where I simply did not have enough information for, and upon receiving additional data those emotional feelings changed. And I think this is where Paul is moving in Romans 9:18-21, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom he desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”

This in my mind communicates, “Who do you think you are trying to question God? Don’t you know that God can do whatever He wants, and that His thinking is far and above your own.” This ticked me off for a while (mainly because of my pride), but I think I’ve come to accept it, especially since it’s where Paul leaves it, so it seems that that’s the way God wanted to communicate it to us, at least for now.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

This guy would be very comfortable in the church of “A.A.” They espouse that ANYTHING can be your “god” and all are equally valid.

Josh, I am still pondering all of this, but I can at least tell you what I think the Catholic position would be (since I have alluded to it). They say that evangelism is still essential because coming to be “in Christ” is dramatically easier and more assured if you are given the full Gospel message. If you are in total ignorance of the Gospel message, or have heard it in a distorted or even false way (ie, someone raised in Islam), it is very difficult.

Now, here are some thoughts on the issue, not by any means a systematic theology of it, and may not even be a correct presentation of the catholic view:

“By way of Christ” means by way of the message of Love and Grace that Jesus came to give us, and by way of the sacrifice that God made once, for all. “What must I do to be saved?” “Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” This was Jesus’ plan of salvation, plain and simple. And, He took on the sins “of the world” to enable this simple plan to be effective. So, those who loved God with all their heart (whether they have the exactly correct concept of God or not) and who love their neighbor as themselves, would be follow Jesus path to salvation even if they have never heard of Jesus, would they not?

Now, if you are preached the Gospel message, two things happen. First, you are made aware of “what you must do” and can strive to do it (as opposed to just following that conscience of such matters planted in every heart), and you also have a responsibility to profess Christ directly, since now that you know the truth, and understand it, to NOT CONFESS Jesus would be to DENY Jesus.

Again, just some thoughts to ponder, as I am doing. I know there are lots of holes in this, and lots to object to, but it is something I am at least open to considering.

I was looking for that file in their archives and their online archives only seem to go back a week, whereas their archives on iTunes goes back for months and months. One incentive to downloading iTunes, even if you don’t have an mp3 player, is that you can download all of the old Theology Unplugged Podcast episodes very easily and store them on your computer!

Vance,

Thanks for the helpful information.

I realize you aren’t a calvinist, but I’ve listened to Roger Olsons interview (from this website on “Converse with Scholars”) who is an ariminian. I believe he said that traditional arminians accept the doctrine of total depravity, they would just qualify it differently than Calvinists would, (i.e. all men are in a state of total inability to chose God, but God through His mercy and grace “neutralizes” the darkness found in mans heart, so that they can “truly” have free will to chose accept the Gospel or reject it.[if I have miss-represented or miss-understood, someone please correct me])

I am not sure where Rome stands on this, but I can’t imagine Luther (bondage of the will) and Calvin (who most people go to when talking about predestination), where close “friends” of the Catholic Church, so I can’t comment in that regard.

Obviously you have affirmed that there are holes in this concept, but doesn’t this one issue, seem to demolish the whole concept (as I believe you explained in an earlier post that Dan Wallace posted regarding Gods mercy)?

From the total depravity of man doctrine (inability is a better word) it seems that you simply CANNOT love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself in a way that is glorify to God, UNLESS, God brings about a radical change in you, that is, the “new birth”. This is not to say that people cannot do good things, it is to say the motivate and the heart of the individual cannot do in such a way that is glorify to God because no such desire truly exists within them.

Again I am not saying you haven’t thought about these issues, I’m trying to see if you can “play” someone in that position and try and see how they would respond, because you have good ability to have a broad perspective on issues like these.

On a side note, I have no idea what to do with texts such as the one about Balaam (numbers 22:12 etc), where God speaks to those outside His people (Israel), where it seems that there is no evangelism taken place or any contact that would have caused Balaam to know God (at least from the text) and it appears to be divine revelation to an individual. Curious your perspective on that.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Oh, you are right, God would have to bring about this change in every heart, and empower them. The question is whether this can only happen to those who have heard the message of the Gospel and would explain their beliefs using those concepts and terms. From the Calvinist perspective, God elects who He wills, and it is not for us to complain about it, as you say. So, at best, we are left with determining the elect by the “indicators” of belief, etc. But who are we to mandate what those exact indicators must be? What if God has elected those who we would not consider “Christian” in the sense of explicit profession? As you say, we could not gainsay God in this in the least.

Is predestination better seen as a doctrine of exclusion or inclusion?

From an Arminian perspective, there is a degree of involvement, no matter how small and how much that involvement is made possible by God’s grace. We are totally depraved, but God has, by His grace, given us ability to turn our face to God. To open the door when God “knocks”, etc. It is still ALL God, in the sense that even this ability is given to us BY God. But this gets us off into the entire Arminian/Calvinist debate, which is definitely off-topic. My point is that there is a potential for this type of consideration within both frameworks, since from the Arminian perspective, God could give each person the ability to turn to Him in some mysterious way.

The Balaam issue is a very interesting one, as well as Melchizidek. How did these folks come to be right with God outside of Israel and the Covenant (well, Melchizidek was before “Israel”, but you get the idea)? What was their understanding of God and the process of getting, and staying, right with God? I really don’t know, and I would hesitate to say that it supports the direction I am considering, but it is possible. I would love to hear Michael’s thought on that one.

Vance,

Fun stuff.

“What if God has elected those who we would not consider “Christian” in the sense of explicit profession? As you say, we could not gainsay God in this in the least.”

I don’t want to get this off topic, but I think the vast majority of calvinist would say, the elect would only be those whom God has chosen to whom would accept Christ as their Savior. They simply would not be elect, with out having Christ.

The issue I have with this whole ideology, is: where is the idea of repentance, and repentance from what? Doing “bad things”, in the sense that they feel bad for doing them (everyone has these at one time or another). Or repenting that they have offended a righteous and holy God? It seems if one is (I mean this in the most polite way) “doing their religion” in seeking God, and doing good things, but have no repentance (of their offenses against God, not just of bad things), wouldn’t that qualify them for being in the state of depravity? And the message of repentance is very strong in Jesus and the Apostles ministry.

I’ll throw another wrench into our discussion about Balaam etc, I have heard a bunch of interviews (one on this site I believe) with J.P. Moreland, and in it Dr. Moreland describes doing some interviews who missionaries who are saying recent Muslim converts are having visions or dreams of Christ coming to them, and then they convert. So I have no idea what to do with that one lol. Curious your thoughts on it.

Its funny we want to put God into a nice systematic theology box so that he can be manageable, and every time we try He just seems to burst out lol.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Assuming the letter writer’s representation is accurate–that they poked fun at “weird” sounding words–I probably would have been almost as annoyed as he was at the presentation. (I wasn’t there, so I won’t try to pass judgment on the speaker, but I’ll respond in general terms.)

It is very easy to see various beliefs as “weird”, and Christianity is no exception. Some aspects of Christian theology will sound weird to those on the outside. (They sometimes seem weird even to some of us on the inside!) And this isn’t limited to religious beliefs; I could easily present quantum theory in a way that makes it sound ridiculous. It is not helpful in any way to laugh at differences. It is not good apologetics–truth isn’t determined by weirdness. It does not prepare the listeners to deal with opposing worldviews. Not is it good diplomacy–it’s just going to offend non-Christians. And if I’m going to offend a non-Christian, I want it to be because the message of the gospel is a stumbling block, not because of my own manner.

That said, the letter writer is choosing to make no distinction between an unsophisticated mocking approach and any and all exclusive truth claims. His approach is hardly better than that which he was criticizing.

And that would give us all the excuse need to write him off and dismiss him.

The saddest thing is that he views himself as a Christian, but rejects the worldview of the One he claims to follow. He rejects the exclusive truth claims that Jesus made, and rejects the gospel that He preached as being intolerant and narrow-minded. As we respond, our aim should not be simply to demonstrate that he’s wrong. We must not simply seek to satisfy ourselves that we are right and he is wrong.

We can dismiss him, or we can try to reach him. We need to do some serious thinking. Not simply about how we can prove post-modernism wrong, but how we can minister to those held captive to its seductive appearance of reasonableness and “tolerance.” How can we best speak the truth in love, with grace?

Yes, God can be slippery that way! 🙂

And I think that is what I am ultimately getting at. There is a tension that will always exist between two important truths:

1. God is Divine and “His ways are not our ways” and He makes it clear, in Job and elsewhere, that our limited human faculties can only understand the things of God to a limited extent, we can only see “through a glass darkly”.

2. God has made us “in His image” with the ability to reason and understand, and must surely want us to seek out the Truth and “rightly divide” it from what is false. There IS ultimate truth and, to some extent at least, we should be able to understand it, through the combination of revelation and God-given reason (thus the entire Reclaiming the Mind Ministries).

But how do these two work together? Do we not tend to slide either one direction or the other, depending on how humble or how God-empowered we feel at the moment? Right now, I am going through a very “humble” phase, I suppose, since I am sensitive to fooling myself that I can see too clearly, that I can grasp too much of “God’s ways”. I am having a wave of “Eastern Orthodox” acceptance of the mystery, and realizing that our human attempt to pin down a tight systematic theology (including soteriology) is a bit hubristic.

On the issue of repentance, is such a true heart of repentance exclusive to those who have explicitly and knowingly professed Christ crucified? I always have in my vision an aboriginal Australian of 5,000 B.C., as an exemplar. Is there any possible way in which that man or woman could have been saved? How would God’s grace work in that instance? What indicators would there be that they had turned to God, repented and were full of God’s grace and mercy?

Sorry, my first line above was meant in response to Josh’s “Its funny we want to put God into a nice systematic theology box so that he can be manageable, and every time we try He just seems to burst out lol.”

Jugulum posted just before my last, which will remind always to include the person you are responding to!

Vance,

Ya I understand where you are coming from, and if I make the next statement, we will just restart the cycle we just went through lol.

I’m curious, given your historical background:

Do you think the western philosophy/theologian perspectives have influenced the way the West (more in particular the United States) views missiology and soteriology in our current cultural context?

Here’s what I mean, I remember reading in a “Perspectives Class” (a missions class introduced by my Church), for about 200 years the common thought among American Christians regarding the lost was, “if God in His providence decides to save the heathen, He will.” (this is a quote that was said to one of the first organizers/frontier missionaries to China, I just can’t remember his name, it’s relatively well known though)

Now (at least in other parts of the world) the majority of people view American’s as arrogant (and in some aspects I agree, at least in regard to some of our egos of “being the best” or “better than the rest” mentalities), my question to you is do you think, and if you think so, to what extent do you feel that this type of mentality plays into our view of soteriology especially regarding the lost?

Hopefully that made sense, if not just ask questions and I can clarify.

In essence its: Do you think that what the media and our culture feeds the American public, affects the way we view soteriology?

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Josh, I think you stated in clearly and it is a very interesting question. One way to answer the question is whether the average evangelical Christian in Europe would answer the soteriological question the same way an average American evangelical would. I suspect that you may have hit upon an important distinction since I think the answers might be very different.

If so, then it could be a combination of American arrogance and the prevalence of strict fundamentalism in America (which, of course, could also be a product of that same arrogance!). The practical effect of such fundamentalism, I think, is to oversimplify and then overdogmatize Christian teaching. A dangerous combination.

I can not speak much to the historical aspect, since my area of study was/is the ancient world, not the development of Christian thinking here in America. Once things get to the middle ages, I tend to lose interest! 🙂

I think that Paul’s trip to Athens and his speech from the Areopagus is extremely relevant to this question of the salvation of non-believers. Paul perceived that the men were very religious (Acts 17:22) but their objects of worship (vs. 23) were nothing more than idols (vs. 16). Paul doesn’t end his sermon by saying that their sincere seeking of god in/through idols was ok or a valid way of salvation because they had never been previously evangelized. He ends it by stating that God commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by Christ and he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead (vs. 30b-31).

Yet, in considering the ancient Greeks, many early Fathers considered Plato and other philosophers “Christians before Christ”, in that they had been given sufficient revelation through God’s Creation and the gift of their reason to come to a sufficient understanding of God and His ways to be able to realize and accept that truth. So, these fathers seemed to believe that such salvation without an explicit knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God, much less the particular Gospel of Christ.

Amen to Nick N.’s comment!

Vance,

You said, “Yet, in considering the ancient Greeks, many early Fathers considered Plato and other philosophers “Christians before Christ”, in that they had been given sufficient revelation through God’s Creation and the gift of their reason to come to a sufficient understanding of God and His ways to be able to realize and accept that truth.”

Most of those fathers were former Platonic philosophers themselves who tried to synthesize Christianity and Platonism. Their bias was there, and it led to a great many heresies (Arianism, Catharsis, Apokatastasis [Universalism], Soul-Sleep, Annihilationism, Apophaticism, Subordinationism, etc.)

Paul directly contradicts the notion that man, starting with his own reason, intuition, experiences, and feelings can ever come to know God. Human autonomy, man starting with the ultimacy of human categories, is considered apostate thought in Scripture (1 Corinthians 1:18-29 and 2:3-16).

As to the point of this whole conversation:

Romans 1:18-32 makes it clear that knowledge of God amongst unbelievers is ACTUAL, not theoretical. Their knowledge is not simply of something divine or a divine sense, but rather, they KNOW of the existence of “TON THEON”, THE GOD. Thus, there can be no “ignorance” excuse (v.20).

If God wants to communicate to men through dreams and visions, then GREAT! However, there is no remission of sins without repentance and bowing the knee before God (and yes, the true God and not a god made in man’s image) and His Anointed One.

Saint and Sinner,

I agree completely that the reason why some early fathers reached that conclusion about Plato, et al, was their own appreciation for those philosophers’ works. But my point was that, regardless of their motivations in the particular instance, DID obviously believe that such salvation of those seemingly outside of the traditional path to salvation COULD be saved.

And I agree that those who know God do so because God makes Himself known to them, not because of their own powers. But Scripture also makes it clear that God HAS made Himself known to even those who have never heard of the Judeo-Christian God, or Jesus and his work on the Cross. Psalms discusses this, IIRC and we see Paul stating the same thing in Romans 1 as you point out.

And, thus, I agree with your last point that the knowledge of God is, indeed, actual and not theoretical among even the unbeliever. Those who have never heard the Gospel still have the ability to KNOW God because of this very “self-revealing” that Scripture describes in Romans 1.

And, if they could KNOW God in this way, without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message, and could have REJECTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message, is it not possible that they could also have ACCEPTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message?

hmm, better rewrite that first paragraph:

I agree completely that the reason why some early fathers reached that conclusion about Plato, et al, was their own appreciation for those philosophers’ works. But my point was that they, regardless of their motivations in the particular instance, DID obviously believe that such salvation of those seemingly outside of the traditional path to salvation COULD occur.

memo to self: reread posts before hitting the “submit” button.

Vance,

First of all, Psalm 19 is talking about general revelation, not natural theology. Dittos on Romans 1. Natural theology, the attempt to derive God and/or the gospel from arguments that start with the ultimacy of human categories, is foreign and antithetical to Scripture.

Second, the early Christian philosophers did believe that, but it was only because of the influence of their philosophy on their view of Original Sin. If the realm of forms (i.e. mind) is perfect and incorruptible, then they are going to believe that though man’s moral compass has fallen, his intellect has not. This is the essence of the Thomistic view of Original Sin. Once that is assumed, the belief that man can come to know God apart from special revelation follows.

In other words, the problem with the philosopher’s view is that it assumes the form/matter dialectic of pagan thought.

Paul says that though the heathen have actual knowledge of “The God”, they suppress this truth in unrighteousness (1:18). As a result, God gave them over to futile speculations and a darkened heart (1:21). This is the mindset of every unbeliever, a mindset that will never submit to God (8:7-8). In other words, man’s intellect (including his ability to give noticia or assensus) has fallen as well.

This is why Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 1:21 that the world in its “wisdom” NEVER came to know God.

This is why the Psalmist can say that the heathen have NEVER come to know God’s ordinances (Psalm 147:20).

Let’s not forget Luther’s maxim in regards to the medieval scholastic Rationalism of his day:

Reason is a whore!

Vance,

Regardless of whether or not some early fathers believed that those outside the traditional path could be saved, I think Paul’s point is made in his stating that God has called all men everywhere to repent. Certainly in the context of Paul’s preaching in Athens he has in view repentance from idolatry. I’m sure we would all agree that idolatry occurs in various forms and isn’t limited to the worship of icons — so this would include the worship of any god that is not the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. Paul didn’t take the sincerity of their religiosity as valid and refuse to preach the Gospel to them as appears to be the case with the young man who penned the letter we are discussing. Paul rather took the opportunity to preach unto them the unknown God that they had dedicated an icon to and call them to repentance.

You asked: “is it not possible that they could also have ACCEPTED God’s salvation without having heard or understood the actual Gospel message”

Yes, it is possible that one can accept God’s salvation without hearing or understanding the Gospel message although I don’t feel it is very probable in Paul’s thought — Romans 1 seems to just say that they’re without excuse of any kind to include claiming ignorance of God and his righteousness — but I think the real issue is whether or not devoting one’s self to a God other than Yahweh can be viewed as accepting God’s salvation — I don’t see how it can be and I don’t see how one could argue that all gods are just different views of the same god (I’m not saying that this is your argument, but it seems to be the argument of those like the gentleman who wrote the letter).

I would use Islam as a primary example of this and contra the statements from the Catholic Catechism taken from Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate, I don’t see how any legitimate argument can be made that Muslims along with Christian adore the one merciful God when our conceptions of who God is are so radically different and mutually exclusive. And what I find funny (as a person who nearly converted to Islam in my teens) is that Muslims have absolutely no problem viewing the Christian conception of God as blatant polytheism, yet it seems to be that Christians with a penchant for post-modernism want to include everyone in the plan of salvation (except of course for the other Christians who are so intolerable as to actually believe that all views/ways/beliefs aren’t equal).

I’m just curious as to how wrong we can be about who and what God is before it’s too wrong to be saved. When does misunderstanding or ignorance become idolatry?

Nick,

That last question is one that has been discussed here very often, by Michael and Dan, etc. How BAD can someone’s theology be and still be a Christian, that is one question. Another is how bad can someone’s theology be and still be saved? And, are those two the SAME question? Most people who call themselves Christian have very little theology at all, and if pressed, could very likely fail a test of theological orthodoxy.

But you seem to acknowledge the idea that one can possibly be saved without having even heard the Gospel message, and if you in for a penny, I think you are in for a pound. If you can be saved without explicitly professing Christ (because you don’t know of Christ, or have an incorrect understanding of him), then that opens the door to all of those who lived entirely outside of the Judeo-Christian world, or lived in the tens of thousands of years before there WAS a Judeo-Christian world.

Again, consider my aboriginal Australian in 5,000 BC. Is it POSSIBLE for that person to be saved? If so, how? If he has God’s Law written on his heart, can he either accept or reject it in some way?

Saint and Sinner, I agree with your assessment of Paul and his audience, but he is talking about what happened to CERTAIN of them, those that did those things and lived that way. My question was whether someone who was in that same situation, entirely ignorant of the Jewish presentation of God and the Gospel message, could listen to that law written on their heart, and follow it? Could not God extend His grace to them to allow this, even absent their knowledge and understanding of the Gospel? Paul seems willing to condemn those particular Romans for IGNORING the Law written on their heart, which seems to presuppose that they could have NOT ignored, but instead heeded it in some way.

In short, how can someone be “without excuse” for FAILING to heed that “law written on their heart” if they equally had no ability TO heed it (with God’s grace at work in their lives)?

Vance,

You said, “Saint and Sinner, I agree with your assessment of Paul and his audience, but he is talking about what happened to CERTAIN of them, those that did those things and lived that way.”

How do you get that these were “CERTAIN” men? If you follow the flow of argumentation starting in Romans 8:1, you’ll see that those in the “flesh” are those who are not in Christ, and those that are in the “Spirit” are those that are in Christ (“us” according to Paul). There is no in between. Those who do not know the gospel (i.e., those in the flesh) *cannot* submit to God *and are not even able to do so* (v.7).

You said, “Paul seems willing to condemn those particular Romans for IGNORING the Law written on their heart, which seems to presuppose that they could have NOT ignored, but instead heeded it in some way.”

Just because they had this knowledge and suppressed it doesn’t mean that they had the ability in themselves to not suppress it.

You said, “In short, how can someone be “without excuse” for FAILING to heed that “law written on their heart” if they equally had no ability TO heed it (with God’s grace at work in their lives)?”

You’re assuming libertarianism, and thus, begging the question. As a compatibilist/semi-compatibilist, I would say that they DID have a choice to obey but no ability to do so (and nor would they want to) because of their fallen spiritual nature.

I guess what it comes down to is your Arminianism vs. my Calvinism.

Thanks for the conversation, brother.

I am new here and have enjoyed reading this thread and the contributions by Josh, Nick and Vance in specific. I would just like to add that one of the problems with North American Evangelical Christianity is not necessarily the specific beliefs although some may be questionable, but rather the fact that many North American Evangelicals fail to live the gospel as opposed to just preaching it. Our life must be a message that speaks of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ not just our words. I do not say this self righteously for I feel I fail miserably many times in my own life to live the gospel, but never the less when our words and our actions are out of synch, our words may just fall on deaf ears. So, I believe in the study of theology and apologetics in order to worship God with the mind, but I am also mindful of Pauls words to the Corinthians that we are just a noisy gong if we have not love. I working on the love part 🙂 . Remember we are a letter people read maybe long before they read the gospel letters. Ouch! Kind of wish it wasn’t so, but I don’t make the rules. Could it be that some people have not truely rejected Christ, but have rejected a charactiture of Him presented by Christians. Ok I’ll shut up and wait for responce.

Bruce

I am new here and have enjoyed reading this thread and the contributions by Josh, Nick and Vance in specific. I would just like to add that one of the problems with North American Evangelical Christianity is not necessarily the specific beliefs although some may be questionable, but rather the fact that many North American Evangelicals fail to live the gospel as opposed to just preaching it. Our life must be a message that speaks of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ not just our words. I do not say this self righteously for I feel I fail miserably many times in my own life to live the gospel, but never the less when our words and our actions are out of synch, our words may just fall on deaf ears. So, I believe in the study of theology and apologetics in order to worship God with the mind, but I am also mindful of Pauls words to the Corinthians that we are just a noisy gong if we have all knowlege and have not love. I working on the love part 🙂 . Remember we are a letter people read maybe long before they read the gospel letters. Ouch! Kind of wish it wasn’t so, but I don’t make the rules. Could it be that some people have not truely rejected Christ, but have rejected a charactiture of Him presented by Christians. Ok I’ll shut up and wait for responce.

Bruce