The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate - Research Paper Example

?# THE DESTINY OF THE UNEVANGELIZED RELIGION AND THEOLOGY # # 9 MAY The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate What will happen ultimately to the multitude of people who have never been evangelized? Will they be eternally damned, or will they be saved since it wasn’t their fault that they have not been evangelized? Christian theologians are divided in answering this question. The issue of the fate of the unevangelized is, actually, one of the most controversial issues among the Christians scholars1. This issue is closely related with the issue of divine election/predestination. The view that one will adopt on whether divine election is conditional or unconditional will determine in a big way the position that one will take on the destiny of the unevangelized debate. In the Christian tradition, we have two schools of thought on divine predestination: the Calvinism and the Arminianism 2. The proponents of Calvinism are of the view that divine predestination is unconditional, while the proponents of Arminianism hold the contrary view that divine election is conditional. On this basis, we can broadly view the debate on the fate of the unevangelized as the debate between the Calvinists and the Arminianists. This paper evaluates the debate on the destiny of the unevangelized and analysis the philosophical arguments used to support the various positions on this debate. Also, the paper evaluates the biblical verses used to support the arguments, and at the end of the paper, a clear position is taken based on the critical analysis of the issues raised in this paper. The paper begins with an analysis of the four views expressed by Boyd and Eddy on the debate about the destiny of the unevangelized 3. The following are the four views on the fate of the unevangelized that are discussed by Boyd and Eddy in their book, Across the Spectrum. Restrictivist View Restrictivist view of the fate of the unevangelized is actually, an extreme exclusivist view of salvation. The proponents of the Restrictivist view are of the view that evangelization and knowledge of Jesus Christ is a prerequisite for salvation. According to this view of the destiny of the unevangelized, all people who have never heard about Jesus Christ will be ultimately damned. This position has been the predominant view among many Church theologians including, the great Catholic theologian St. Augustine of Hippo, and John Calvin, the reformist theologian4. There are a number of people in the modern world who still hold this view. The proponents of this position argue that some biblical verses like, John, 3: 36, and 1 John, 5: 12 support the restrictivist view. A literal translation of these two verses shows that Jesus Christ is, indeed, the only way to God and that the knowledge of Jesus Christ is a requirement for salvation. Also, in the book Through no Fault, Darrel L. Bock cites Acts, 10: 12-43, to support his Restrictivist view and he argues that unless the non-believers are evangelized, believe in God, and repent their sins, then they shall all be damned 5. Darrel argues that the ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will lead to damnation because unless one has knowledge of Jesus Christ, one will not be able to dedicate their lives to God and to repent their sins. He cited Acts, 17: 30-31, to support his claim. A critical look at the restrictivist view of the destiny of the unevangelized raises one pertinent question: How can a loving and just God condemn to eternal perdition those who, through no fault of their own, did not hear about the Gospel?6 Can a just God punish one for a mistake over which they had no control? Although there are a number of biblical verses that seem to support the restrictivist view on the destiny of the unevangelized, the proponents of the restrictivist view would be hard pressed to answer these two questions. Universal Opportunity This view on the destiny of the unevangelized hold that, ultimately, all Gods people will be saved, whether they are Christians or not; Universalists are of the view that in the end, all people will be saved through the merit of Jesus Christ. The Universalists, however, differ on how, exactly salvation will take place. But they are all in agreement that, ultimately, the loving and caring God will save all people. Some Universalists are of the view that despite people’s choices, God out of His mercy and love will in the end save all people. Other Universalists are of the opinion that God will continue working with his people and directing them, even the rebellious ones, till in the end they accept him and turn away from their evil ways. In the history of Christianity, Origen is credited for being the first theologian to write extensively on universalism, but his views were not accepted by many theologians. Later, after the reformation, universalism gained momentum again; both Catholics and Protestants started adopted Universalist view of salvation. In the Bible, there are a number of verses that supports universal view of salvation. In 1 Timothy 4: 10, St. Paul speaks of Jesus as being a saviour of all men. This means that if Jesus Christ is, indeed, the saviour of all men, then He will save all people, including the unevangelized and the rebellious ones. Titus 2: 11, states that the grace of God is for the salvation of all men. A literal translation of this verse would also suggest that, ultimately, all people will be saved. In John 12: 32, Jesus states that when he is lifted, he will in turn lift all men to him. This suggests that Jesus Christ will save all people in the end. Universal view of salvation therefore enjoys strong scriptural backing. The main strength of the universal view of salvation lies in the fact that the view is in agreement with the revealed attributes of God such as, loving, caring and just7. This view seems to be more appealing than the restrictivist view because the restrictivist view of salvation presents God as a cruel and unjust God. On the other hand, the main weakness of the universal view of salvation lies in the following question: if everybody will in the end be saved, then why did Jesus advocate for the spreading of his Gospel to all the corners of the world, Acts, 1.8? If Jesus Christ new that, ultimately, all will be saved, there would have been no need of him commanding his disciples to spread the Gospel to all the corners of the world. Inclusivist View This view is the middle position/view between the two extremes of restrictivism and universalism. This view hold that on the merit of Jesus Christ, all genuine seekers of God will be saved, including the non-Christians who truly seek God according to the teachings of their religions. This view also holds that even people of no religion, those who have never been evangelized, will be saved as long as they live morally upright lives. Unlike Universalism, inclusivisist view of salvation hold that people who are not genuine seekers of God will ultimately be lost. Among the Christian Theologians who have strongly supported this view include, John Wesley, the founder of Methodist, and C.S. Lewis, a prolific Christian writer. The inclusivists are, however, divided on how, exactly, God will save all the people who truly seek him. Some inlusivists contend that God give every person an opportunity to hear about him and to make a free choice whether to accept him or to reject him. Another group contend that there is some form of evangelization that take place after one has died, for those who have never heard about Jesus Christ, while another group argues that since God knows us all, he will judge those who have never heard about Jesus Christ on the basis of how they would have responded if they had heard about Jesus Christ. For scriptural support, the inclusivists use both texts used by the exlusivists and the Universalists but interprets the texts differently. The inclusivist position is consistent with the Goodness of God, and at the same time it emphasis the important role that our freedom of choice plays in our salvations8. This view of salvation holds that we are free to choose God or to reject him. In the modern word this position has many followers. Post-mortem Evangelization Post-mortem view of evangelization holds that knowledge of God or of Jesus Christ is not a pre-requisite for salvation. The proponents of this position contend that God’s power and love cannot and should not be limited to our earthly lives. According to this view of salvation, evangelization, actually, continues even after death and those who did not have the opportunity to hear about the Good News in their earthly lives will get an opportunity to hear about it when they die. The proponents of this position argue that salvation is accessible to all, without exclusion. They also hold the view that knowledge of Jesus Christ is essential for salvation. And since the only reason why one would be condemned to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ, God, therefore, cannot condemn to hell a person who has never heard about Jesus Christ. For this reason, those who die without having experienced the Good News will be given another chance, after death, to learn about Jesus Christ and to make a free decision, whether to accept Jesus or to reject him. There are a number of scriptural verses that support the Post-mortem evangelization view. For instance, in Ephesians, 4: 8-10, Paul says that when Jesus ascended to heaven, he led many people to heaven after he had descended into the lower part of the earth. Other verses that seem to support the post-mortem view of salvation are John, 5:25, and Matt, 12:40. A review of these four views on the destiny of the unevangelized shows that each of these positions has both strengths and weaknesses; the review also shows that each of the four positions is based on the teachings of the Bible, and therefore, each of the positions has strong biblical backing. To critique and to take a clear stand on the debate on the destiny of the unevangelized, there are some facts that we should bear in mind. First, we ought to acknowledge and respect the strong points of each of the arguments, especially, on the fact that each of the four positions is based on the teachings of the Bible. Secondly, we need to recognize the fact that faith and reason do not conflict, but rather they complement each other as St. Tomas Aquinas taught us9. And on this basis, we should realize that whatever position we adopt, the position should be consistent with reason, especially, with our knowledge of the attributes of God. Thirdly, in supporting the positions that we will adopt in this debate, we should not read the Bible selectively, but rather we should take into consideration all the relevant biblical literature on the destiny of the unevangelized. With these three guiding principles, we will end up with a more holistic and balanced position on the debate on the destiny of the unevangelized. Among the four views on the debate on the fate of the unevangelized, I find the Post-mortem view to be more tenable than all the other three views. But the Post-mortem view, also, has a number of weaknesses, although, overall, it is by far the more plausible view. All the other three views have serious weaknesses that render them rationally untenable. The following are the reasons why I subscribe to the Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized. To begin with, Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized is consistent with the attributes of God that we know. By holding that a loving and caring God cannot possibly condemn his children to eternal perdition just because they did not have the chance of knowing him in their earthly lives, the proponents of this position argue that God will give such people another opportunity, in the other life, to know him and to decide whether to accept him or to reject him10. This position is clearly consistent with the loving and caring nature of God. Again, the Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized hold that we should not limit God’s power and love to the earthly life; If God is the all-powerful and almighty God, then there is no reason to think that God cannot continue the work of salvation for His people, even after their death. The other three positions do not take into account this fact, but consider salvation as being possible only in our earthly lives. Also, the Post-mortem view take into account the fact that salvation is not the work of God alone, but we also have a role to play. This is contrary to the Universal claim that holds that all will be saved in the end, without any exception. But if everybody will be saved, then, what is the need of preaching the Gospel? Post-Mortem view, therefore, is the middle position that although salvation is for us all, we nevertheless, have a role to play, whereby we may decide either to accept or to reject salvation. The other Strength of the Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized is the fact that the Post-mortem view takes into account and is consistent with most literature on the fate of the unevangelized. Just like the restrictivist view, the Post-mortem view agrees with the biblical verses supporting the view that knowledge of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but unlike the restrictivist view, post-mortem view does not limit knowledge of Jesus Christ to earthly life. And just like the Universalist view, the post-mortem view agrees with biblical verses supporting the view that salvation is for all, and all people will be saved. But differs with the Universalist view on the ground that even though salvation is for all, we are, however, free to either choose to accept salvation or to reject it. God cannot force salvation on us. And just like the Inclusivist view, the Post-mortem view holds that we are, indeed, free to either accept Jesus Christ or to reject him and that even non-Christians who have sincerely sought God in their lives and lived morally upright lives will be saved. But Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized differs with the inclusivist view in that the Post-mortem view contend that even those who have not sought God in their earthly lives will be given another opportunity when they die, to decide whether to accept God or to reject him. Despite the many strengths of the Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized, the view, however, has some weaknesses. For instance, if salvation will continue even after we die, if after death we will be given another chance to know God and to decide whether we want to choose him or to reject him, then what is the purpose of preaching the Gospel in the world? Should we not just leave people to live their lives as they wish because we know that when they die they will have a chance to know God? This is a challenging question that the proponents of Post-mortem view would be hard pressed to answer. In conclusion, the debate on the destiny of the unevangelized is a difficult debate. The difficulty comes from the fact that there is plenty of biblical literature that support varied views on this debate. Although none of these four views can be said to represent the unquestionable truth, each of the four views however has some element of truth in them. But overall, the Post-mortem view on the destiny of the unevangelized is more rational and holistic. Bibliography Anderson, N. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism. USA: Inter- Varsity, 1984. Boyd, G.A. and Eddy, P.R. Across the Spectrum. USA :Baker Academic, 2002. Crockett, W. V. and James G. Sigountos, eds. Through No Fault of Their Own. USA: Baker, 1991. Dybdahl, J. ‘’Is there Hope for the Unenvangelized?’’ An International Journal of Faith, Thought, and Action. Web. Fides et Ratio, Encyclical Letter, John Paul 11. Web. Netland, H. A. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. USA: Eerdmans, 1991. Pinnock, Clark. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. USA: Zondervan, 1992. Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. USA: Eerdmans, 1992. The Theology Programme. The Theology Notebook Soteriology. USA: Biblical Studies Press, 2002. Unger, W. ‘’The Destiny of Those who Have Never Heard: A Bibliographical Essay’’. Directional Journal. Vol.23. No. 1.(Spring 1994) pp. 54-64. Read More