[For those who desire a brief look at the question, skip to view 3)]
Those Who Have Never Heard of Christ: Five Views
The gospel remains unknown or impenetrable in many countries and untranslatable in hundreds of dialects. What does God do with those who find themselves amongst these distant cultures, particularly regarding their salvation? Five broad views attempt to answer this question. The first view is a universalist-based atonement. On this view all persons are saved by the cross, regardless of whether they accept the gospel. The second view is a fundamentalists view, believing that knowledge and acceptance of the gospel are necessary for salvation. If they do not hear, they cannot be saved. The third view holds that persons unaware of the gospel can be saved by Christ’s atoning death through general revelation. I call this the biblical view. The fourth view is referred to as molinism, which applies God’s knowledge of hypothetical situations. God knows that even if these persons were to hear the gospel, they would not believe. The fifth view invokes determinism. On this view God sovereignly determined which persons would be saved through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Hence persons who never hear the gospel were simply predetermined for wrath. I will examine these five views and conclude which are viable options.
1) Universalist View
Universal atonement successfully provides a means for the salvation of those who have never heard. If Christ bore the sins of all mankind, then all people are saved. Universalists provide biblical support for their view in passages like 1 John 2:2: “[Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Universalism appears quite attractive at face value as it allows for all our loved ones to find hope. Not to mention it circumvents any difficult situations arising from questions like, “what about the millions of aborted unborn babies?” As these questions are so emotionally taxing, universalism seems to give a sense of peace and love that the other views do not. However I would invite those considering this view to reconsider. Where the universalist interpretation falls embarrassingly short is its failure to recognize the true application of Christ’s atoning sacrifice—faith. In other words, even if Christ did fully bear the sins of every individual, that payment is applied to each individual through faith. Universalism favors the beginning of Romans 3:25: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood,” but completely ignores the end: "to be received by faith.”
So then how do we make sense of 1 John 2:2 and others? Well, 1 John 2:2 happens to be very simple to exegete on this topic. John begins chapter 2 by addressing his audience, which gives the context for the use of “our” in verse 2. In the same verse he says, “not only for ours,” which again represents his audience, followed by, “the whole world.” John means to say that not only was the atonement for Jews but also for Gentiles—the rest of the world. This is evident is the conditional propositions preceding it. “But if we walk in the light…[then] the blood of Jesus…purifies us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7). “If we confess our sins, [then] he…will forgive our sins and purify us” (1 Jn 1:9). Therefore it is clear that the early apostles understood the application of atonement to be through faith, as opposed to some automatic spiritual transaction. But doesn’t that make salvation conditional instead of free? Salvation is free in that no human works or merit can achieve it, but it comes with the condition of a trusting personal relationship with Christ. Therefore, while universalism provides a satisfactory response to the prompt, it does not accurately convey the biblical teaching of atonement.
2) Fundamentalist View
In our previous discussion we concluded that salvation is applied through faith. This leads many to the more ominous view that those who do not hear the gospel cannot be saved, for knowledge of the gospel is sufficient and necessary for genuine faith, and thus, salvation. Surely this is not without biblical support. Consider John 3:16-18 and Romans 10:9. Traditional Christians often maintain this perspective, as it seems fairly intuitive—you are saved through faith in Christ, period. If they are unaware of Christ, then by default they are condemned. When looking its ramifications, this second view is truly heartbreaking.
Not only would it concede hopelessness for millions of people solely because the gospel has yet to reach their culture or languages, but it would also damn all who lived before Christ. Meaning everyone in the Old Testament would be prevented from receiving salvation, which is overwhelmingly false. Instead, according to the New Testament authors, people of the Old Testament did receive salvation:
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command…. By faith Abel…was commended as righteous…. By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death…. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. By faith Noah…condemned the world and became heir of righteousness that is in keeping with faith. By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice…. By faith Isaac…. By faith Jacob…. By faith Joseph…. By faith Moses…. By faith the people…. By faith the prostitute Rahab…. And what more shall I say?… Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, and David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised…. These were all commended for their faith (Heb 11).
[Abraham] did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why ‘it was credited to him as righteousness’ (Rom 4:20-22).
Proponents of the fundamentalist view may respond with, “people in the Old Testament were saved because they believed in the coming of Christ (i.e., the Messiah) and thus, the gospel itself.” I agree that some were saved on account of their faith in the coming of the Messiah. However these people did not know Jesus of Nazareth nor the gospel as we understand it in its fulness. People like Job likely did not understand the coming of a Messiah at all, much less a Messiah who would suffer and die for vicarious atonement. Nevertheless it remains true that they did have genuine faith. But faith in what? Clearly their was faith was not in Jesus Christ nor the gospel we speak of, but in God’s covenantal faithfulness.
Then how do we interpret John 3? Verse 16 contains a sufficient clause, not a necessary clause. It does not say, “you must believe in him or you will perish” (necessary clause), rather, it is true that whoever does believe in him will be saved (sufficient clause). Likewise Romans 10:9 teaches a sufficient clause rather than a necessary one. Moreover I am persuaded that verse 18 addresses those who come to an awareness of God’s Son; it does not address those who have yet to hear. As an additional point, it is possible that John regarded the statement, “whoever does not believe stands condemned already,” as a belief against rather than a mere absence of belief. In conclusion, although the fundamentalist view remains a possible option, I do not consider it persuasive or viable.
3) Biblical View
As we previously concluded, faith in the gospel—as we know it—is sufficient but not necessary for salvation. Abraham and others who lived before Christ had genuine saving faith without knowing Jesus Christ directly. Here is what the biblical view clarifies: although genuine saving faith can exist apart from knowledge and acceptance of the gospel, salvation is always achieved by Christ. Think of Christ—his atoning death and resurrection—as how salvation is accomplished, and faith as the means through which we receive his salvation. The biblical view addresses those who have not heard of any special revelation whatsoever. How will those people be judged? The third view teaches that people can receive salvation through their response to the general revelation that they do have (nature and conscience). Therefore, some who have never heard of Christ are damned, and some are saved, all depending on their free choice to pursue God despite their unfavorable circumstances.
Fundamental to this view is a concept of justice which states that God will not judge a person on the basis of what they do not know, rather he will judge them based on how they have responded to what they do know. God will judge all persons fairly and impartially, but not equally. For instance, one who was raised in the modern church will be judged differently than someone who was born in 10th century BC, Mesopotamia. This is a profound comprehension of justice. For while those without knowledge of Christ may lack certain benefits in this lifetime that others with knowledge of Christ have, they will be still be judged fairly. A tremendous responsibility is therefore placed on those who do know Christ. But for those who are voided the opportunity to know him, there is still hope.
Do not think that all people can receive salvation through general revelation. The general revelation rule, so to speak, is applicable only to those who do not have the appropriate knowledge accessible to them. Pleading ignorance of available information will not suffice. Most people today in western culture have every opportunity to access the gospel. Choosing not to seek the accessible message is not equivalent to those who find themselves in circumstances where the message is completely inaccessible.
Consider Pauls’ epistle to the Romans:
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).
[Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them (Rom 2:15).
People from places where the gospel is absent can still respond to what they plainly see about God in nature and in their hearts and consciences made accessible to them by being bearers of God’s image.
One objection is that this view minimizes the uniqueness of Christianity and virtually affirms a kind of pluralism, not to mention it feels like “cheap salvation.” On the contrary, this view is profoundly Christian and incomparably indicative of the biblical God—who desires all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). It speaks more of God’s abundant grace that he makes salvation available for all people, even those who are unable to put their faith directly in Christ due to their inherited circumstances. Likewise it brings all the more glory to Christ that he is able to bring people who lack the knowledge of him under his redemptive power. As Christians we should glory in the possibility of, say, an African village, where the Bible has yet to be translated, receiving salvation. To reiterate, on the biblical view some individuals can receive salvation through their response to general revelation, but all salvation is accomplished because of Christ. No one inherits eternal life apart from Christ, but some may do so without explicit knowledge of Christ.
4) Molinist View
The fourth view utilizes divine omniscience to respond to the question of those who have not heard the gospel. According to their understanding of omniscience, God possesses knowledge of subjunctive conditionals—what would happen if something were to occur. For example, if I were to drive 55mph in a 35mph zone, God knows that I would (or would not) get pulled over. I do not wish to debate here whether God has this sort of hypothetical knowledge, rather my objective is to assess its effectiveness in answering the prompt. This view teaches that even if those who died while never having heard the gospel would have heard it, they would not have believed it anyways. From the creation of the world, God knew which people would and would not come to faith in him. He placed those who would come to faith in him in circumstances where they would hear the gospel; and he placed those who would not come to faith in him in circumstances where they would not hear the gospel. Therefore those who do not hear the gospel are lost, not because of a lack of knowledge, as held by proponents of the fundamentalist view, but because they would not believe under any circumstance.
One might reject this view simply because they do not believe God has this hypothetical knowledge. This objection is far too philosophically dense to discuss in this essay. Another reason for rejecting the molinist view is more practical, namely that evangelism would seem to lose its utility. What’s the point of going to third world countries if they likely won’t believe always? After careful thought, this reason misunderstands the molinist view. Hypothetical knowledge rests solely in God. There is no way for us to know if someone would or would not receive the message. Therefore, Christians must actively evangelize as if each person would believe, otherwise evangelists run the risk of failing to reach someone who would believe. The likelihood of conversion is not less simply given the fact that they have yet to hear. Perhaps God knows that they would believe, and is actively guiding the evangelists to reach them. So what happens if God knows that a person would have believed the gospel had they heard it, but the gospel failed to reach that person?
This leads me to the supplemental point of the fourth view. Not only does it teach that those who will never hear the gospel would not believe it anyways, it adds a caveat, stating that if a person would accept the gospel message if they were to hear it, God will present them with it. Somehow and someway, to anyone who would put their faith in Christ, God will make himself known to them. This gives the proponent of molinism the assurance that even when evangelism fails, God will find some means to save that individual. I recognize this perspective can appear quite complex for those unfamiliar with molinism, but note that it does remain a viable option.
5) Determinist View
The final view holds that those who have never heard the gospel were determined to be damned in God’s divine decree. Taking the fundamentalist view one step further, not only can you not be saved as a result of never having heard the gospel, but from eternity past you were destined to wind up in hell. Determinists do not believe this to be a moral impeachment on God; they believe God’s sovereignty justifies this predetermination. To briefly discuss the biblical data utilized by determinists:
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph 1:4-5).
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30).
Determinists interpret Ephesians 1 as saying that God chooses and predestines us according to his will (i.e., the divine decree). However, without performing an entire exegesis, I believe this is a mistake. In fact, it is not God’s will that arbitrarily determines our predestination. So what determines our predestination? The molinist would say his knowledge of subjunctive conditionals; the determinist would say his will. I argue that Ephesians leaves this an open question.
Romans 8, however, appears to answer where predestination comes from. I am persuaded that Paul is teaching that God’s knowledge is the basis for which he decides who will be predestined for salvation. Here predestination does not necessarily mean predetermined. Predestination could simply be interpreted as God’s knowledge of what will happen. To clarify, I am not arguing that this passage proves molinism, but rather that it does not teach determinism.
Not only does there appear to be an absence of strong biblical support for determinism, but some passages would contradict it: “[God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). If God desires all to be saved, then, on determinism, all will be saved. But that is not what determinism teaches. And even if it were, in our discussion of the universalist view, we saw there is no biblical basis for thinking all are actually saved.
Determinism may also be rejected on ethical grounds. It is entirely within ones prerogative to challenge the goodness of a god who determines people to eternal torment. It would be up to the determinist to refute these points. Until then, I find this view to be blatantly unviable.
Conclusion
If you recall my thesis, I sought to classify each of the five views presented in this essay as viable or unviable regarding the common concern of what happens to those who never hear the gospel. We concluded that only two out of the five views are viable options for Christians: the biblical view (view 3) and the molinist view (view 4). That leaves universalism (view 1), fundamentalism (view 2), and determinism (view 5) as unviable options. So which of the viable views is to be preferred? My belief is that the biblical view (view 3) makes the most sense of the biblical data (hence, the title) and is most philosophically secure. My reason for being less encouraged by the molinist view is its seemingly high level of speculation. Fortunately these two views are not mutually exclusive. If the reader identified components of both that they would like to implement in their own view, I would encourage them to do so, although it must be coherent. I hope this discussion has provided satisfactory intellectual answers to the question of what happens to those who have never heard of Christ.
Comments