The letter included below was written recently to provide biblical counterarguments to an essay written by my good friend, Mike. In his article (linked below; I recommend checking it out before reading my response), he makes arguments toward salvation sans hearing the gospel message.
Others have said and written much about this topic, which I by no means exhaust here, but I'm sure I'll write more about in the coming days. For more information, check out the resources listed below. This has been posted with his permission (well, he technically wanted me to put this in a comment, but I've been meaning to start blogging anyhow.) He wrote me a rebuttal, which I assume will be posted on his blog.
My dear friend Mike Daniels,
I read your recent blog post, “Prevenient Grace, Soteriology, and Inclusivism” and, in accord with Rule #1, have a few dissention and disagreement regarding some assertions you made.
In the post, you said, “I believe that there will be people in heaven who have never heard a verbal articulation of the gospel. I believe that there will be people in heaven who do not understand the doctrine of the incarnation. But here is my point: according to scripture, none of these are requirements for salvation. The only way to be saved is to believe that God can forgive your sins…”
I read your recent blog post, “Prevenient Grace, Soteriology, and Inclusivism” and, in accord with Rule #1, have a few dissention and disagreement regarding some assertions you made.
In the post, you said, “I believe that there will be people in heaven who have never heard a verbal articulation of the gospel. I believe that there will be people in heaven who do not understand the doctrine of the incarnation. But here is my point: according to scripture, none of these are requirements for salvation. The only way to be saved is to believe that God can forgive your sins…”
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that, regardless of any other ideas about the nature or character of the Diety, if you believe the doctrine that said diety (or deities, to stretch the claim to its logical end in pluralism) is capable of forgiving transgressions, then your sins will be forgiven. More importantly, you are claiming that this forgiveness is not connected with an apprehension of the gospel message, but that the gospel will merely “give people a clearer and more persuasive argument to follow God.”
I appreciate that you desire your view be formed and tempered by Scripture, else you would not have included “according to scripture” in your main point. However, I must disagree with the content of that point, since, according to scripture, the gospel is repeatedly identified as the only thing that effects our salvation. This is both explicitly stated in certain passages, and is the salient motif through the whole corpus of the canon. I will demonstrate this with a few notable passages. With your love for the Scriptures, I’m sure that as you see the theme, other verses will come to mind that echo the point.
The gospel is important. Not only is the gospel identified as the only thing that brings about salvation; it is held as the most important teaching in Christianity. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15.
“ 1Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.” (emphasis mine)
A few observations are in order. This passage is primarily about the gospel. Paul says that the gospel is something (we don’t know what it is yet) that he preached to the Corinthians, and that it was something they received. So, it was a message of some type- something verbally trasmitted. The next most important observation for our discussion is that the gospel is something “by which you are being saved”. We could infer here, based on other verses littered throughout the New Testament, that the reception of this message activated the salvation here mentioned. Paul goes so far to add a qualifier to the salvation: “if you hold fast to the word (the gospel) I preached to you”. We could faithfully render this, “if you move away from the gospel, you are not being saved”. This further connects the gospel with salvation.
The connection is made again in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”
Clearly there is a solid link between “the gospel” and “being saved”. But, what exactly is “the gospel”? That is, what is the content of the message Paul preached? This next passage seems to be the only concise, comprehensive statement of the gospel given in all of Scripture.
“3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” (I Cor. 15:3-5, emphasis mine)
Note that Paul says this is “of first importance”. This isn’t an ancillary doctrine. The gospel isn’t take-it-or-leave-it. If biblical teaching was arranged in an arch, the gospel would be the capstone. On these next words, the whole of our understanding of God (and perhaps everything else) rest; remove it, and the whole structure falls apart. It was foretold and anticipated by Torah “in accordance with the Scriptures.” It is a message of fact, attested to by living witnesses, and recorded in human history.
“Christ died for our sins… he was raised on the third day.”
It is this message that must be preached. When it is apprehended by the hearer, or “believed”, or when a hearer put their faith, or trust, in the message, broadly stated, salvation happens. Look now at Romans 10, at a verse that you cited to support your claim, though it’s a peculiar choice, since it seems to be contradicting your view.
“…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:9,10) Paul presents two basic requisites for one goal, which is “you will be saved”. One is verbal, one internal; both are remarkably specific.
Both of these have to do with the status and actions of a person. The person is Jesus. His status is Lord. His act is having been raised from the dead. This is not something that can be seen in “general revelation (i.e. their observations from science, philosophy, and creation) and common grace (the cosmic love present in every corner of the universe that draws all people in the direction of God and can be manifested in visions, revelations, and prophecies).” It is too specific to be seen in the sciences. The Mount of the Holy Cross, in Colorado, would not have reminded people of the cross, had they not first known about The Cross.
It is also more specific than “that the God of the universe can forgive our sins, [then] we will be saved, regardless of if we’ve heard about Jesus the person.” It is more than a theological principle. The gospel is about the person of Jesus, how He died for our sins and conquered death through His resurrection. These details are essential, and aren’t transmitted through the created order, nor are they implanted supernaturally in the human soul.
If this were not so, why would Paul have penned the next verses? “14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent?... 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14, 15, 17, emphasis mine)
Let’s break that down briefly, because he’s using rhetorical questions that, when stated outright, gives the reason for missions- and it’s a far cry from giving “a clearer and more persuasive argument to follow God.”
1) People can’t call on him in whom they have not believed.
2) People can’t believe in him of whom they have never heard.
3) People can’t hear about him without it being preached to them.
4) People can’t be preached to unless preachers are sent.
But you might say, “the Bible talks about creation playing a role in salvation”, and if you did, you would be right! But to say that it gives enough knowledge about God to save people would be like saying an automobile starter is what makes the motor function. It certainly plays a role, but a limited one. Without other key elements, a starter would never make a motor function; it just gets some things moving. I agree with the statement made by Thomas Oden, “[Common grace] bestows upon fallen man the conditions for experiencing some preliminary knowledge of the existence of God and his attributes”, but that “preliminary knowledge” takes us much further from salvation than where you seem to think. Let’s examine the context of another verse you cite for support in Romans 1.
“18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For 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. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (emphasis mine)
Note that the subject of the passage is God’s wrath. Creation revealed enough for people to know “his eternal power and divine nature”. People suppressed this truth. The result was that general revelation, rather than lead to their salvation, made them without excuse. It justified their condemnation.
But, let’s say that the ancients could have found salvation through general revelation[1]. If salvation could be effected by what they saw in creation in the ancient times, the Bible is clear that it won’t happen after Christ’s advent. What does Paul tell the Areopagites?
“29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:29-31, emphasis mine)
Yes, back before God’s final Word, Jesus Christ, came, He “overlooked” such offenses, but now! Now is something different! Now, He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He will judge the world in righteousness by the One whom He raised from the dead! (Do you see one of the essential elements of the gospel in there?)
Paul doesn’t give the gospel as a message to encourage people to embrace a concept they already know. To Paul, the gospel is a matter of life and death; condemnation and justification; despair and hope. It’s the fuel that makes the motor run (and the oil that keeps the motor from seizing!) General revelation just gets some of the parts moving.
We can ask the question, “What about those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel?” and I’m not negating the validity of the question. But, we must approach the question with intense biblical scrutiny and not jettison the gospel by which we are saved, in which we take our stand, if we hold fast to the word- unless we have believed in vain!
Mike, I hope this letter is received in the intention that it was sent. You are becoming a great thinker, and I greatly respect you as such. I always enjoy our talks, and desire that this will prove to quicken and focus them; that the fat and gristle of frivolous topics will drip off and fuel the fire of lively conversations; that we would unrelentingly goad one another in the pursuit after Truth. I hope, also, that you will see the logic in my arguments, and point out the flaws, or where they could be better. I know you are busy with many things, but please respond if you get a chance. Or give me a call if you know that you won’t have time for writing.
Also, know that I would have posted on your blog but for a few reasons. First, it is too lengthy. Second, it addresses the whole aim of your essay, rather than one or two points, and could be taken more personally, which would make something that’s cordial in private turn insulting in public. Yet, if for the sake of showing an interesting interchange you would like to post it somewhere, you have my permission, along with your public rebuttal, if you like.
Although, if you do, I might drill a hole in the oil pan of your next vehicle when you’re not looking.
Sincerely yours,
Tait Sougstad
Ps. All Scripture quotations are from the ESV, provided by www.biblegateway.com
[1] Though the messianic promise began with Adam (“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Gen 3:15) and was in enough common knowledge that it was known by the Chaldean Abraham and recorded thousands of years later by Moses
AUDIO RESOURCE:
No comments:
Post a Comment