The well known apologist C.S. Lewis addressed this question in his book Mere Christianity (p. 65): “Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” Lewis affirms what is clear in Scripture yet admits that not all our questions are answered to our satisfaction.

Other Christians are not as satisfied to just let the matter lie at that. It seems to them that there must be still another way. Dan Story in his book Defending Your Faith broadens out the question of salvation through Christ alone by appealing to general revelation and the unity of the Godhead. He writes: “If God’s judgment of us is based on how much we know about Him and how we respond to what we know, then the question becomes, In what way has God revealed Himself to the heathen? Acts 14:17 states that God has given everyone a witness of Himself. This witness is general revelation through nature and our moral conscience. Hence, the heathen who have never heard of Jesus will be judged according to how they respond to this general revelation. Because God the Father and God the Son are one in essence, members in the triune Godhead, rejecting the Father is tantamount to rejecting the Son. Both the Father and the Son are one God.”

There are problems with this logic, and even Mr. Story admits that “we do not know for certain just how God will ultimately deal with the heathen.” One problem is that no where in the Bible is anyone ever counted as saved through a positive response to God’s general revelation. The fact is merely stated (in Romans 1) that all have some knowledge of the reality of God, and that those who deny God’s existence have “suppressed the truth,” and God has given them over to the “lusts of their hearts.” It is evident in almost any culture that in the absence of faith in the true God, a “god” or a plurality of them will be invented. Can a “god” created out of man’s reaction to general revelation come anywhere close to the truth of who God really is, especially given our propensity to distort and “suppress” the truth, and to exchange “the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:25)?

The remainder of Story’s argument attempts to provide a possibility for salvation outside of Christ, or at least a condition of lesser condemnation, by appealing to such propositions as:
The possibility of “degrees of punishment,” where “sins done in ignorance are less blameworthy than sins done in the full knowledge of God’s disapproval.”
God was not judging heathen people for worshiping false gods out of ignorance because salvation through Christ alone had not yet been revealed.
The punishment of the heathen lies not in their rejection of Jesus but rather in their rejection of God the Father.
God will judge the heathen according to the degree of information about God available to them, the opportunities they had to acquire this knowledge, and how they chose to respond to this knowledge.
Each of these suggestions fail for lack of scriptural support. The first is discounted by the fact that punishment in eternal condemnation is not described in degrees, but is a universally horrible torment for all who are there (Matt. 25:46; John 5:29). The second is discounted by the clear fact that the worshiping of false gods was not out of ignorance of the gospel, but of a rejection of the true God Himself (Romans 1:21ff). The judgment on the heathen is unmistakable: “Men are without excuse…God gave them over in the sinful desire of their hearts…” (1:20,24). The third point attempts a separation of the Godhead, forgetting the words of Jesus: “He who has seen me has seen the Father…I am in the Father and the Father in me…I and the Father are one…If you had known me, you would have known my Father also…” (John 14:9, 1; 10:30; 14:7). A rejection of Christ Jesus is a rejection of the Father. The final point listed above again tries to resort to a system of “degrees” alien to the scriptures. God will judge them based not on their deeds (except as public evidence of their prior lack of faith, Matt. 24:31ff), or the level of their sincerity, or according to our assessment of the fairness of their exposure to the truth. They will be saved and judged based on “faith alone”: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18)

In the end Mr. Story again admits that we do not know how God will deal ultimately with the heathen. Yet, he says, that “it is still our responsibility to bring them the word about Christ. In spite of the fact that the heathen may receive salvation through Christ if they respond to God the Father through general revelation, it is far more difficult for them to do so independent of a clear gospel presentation.” (p. 128)

There is still a horn of dilemma in this reasoning. For if we admit the possibility of salvation through both general and special revelation, then the door is wide open for admitting that Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are only one of several possible ways to heaven, and that there are indeed other means. This must still be reconciled with Jesus’ own claim to be THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life (John 14:6).

This is not an unpopular path to take, as is evident even in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In the document on the Church from Vatican II it is stated: “Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of their conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an
explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace.” (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 35)

Yet does this square with the clear words of Holy Scripture? How do we explain those who “sincerely seek God” apart from true faith, which comes only “from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”? (Rom. 10:17) And how are they “moved by grace” apart from the very means through which that grace is imparted? Is this grace available to men apart from means? The Confessors of the Lutheran Church were emphatic in rejecting the “error of the Enthusiasts” who “imagine that God draws men to himself, enlightens them, justifies them, and saves them without means, without hearing God’s Words and without the use of the holy sacraments.” (Book of Concord, FC, Epitome, II, 13, Tappert p. 471. It is admitted that man’s reason or natural intellect “still has a dim spark of the knowledge that there is a God, as well as the teaching of the Law.” However, in the same breath it is also admitted that this reason or natural intellect “is so ignorant, blind, and perverse that when even the most gifted and the most educated people on earth read or hear the Gospel of the Son of God and the promise of eternal salvation, they cannot by their own powers perceive this, comprehend it, understand it, or believe and accept it as the truth. On the contrary,
the more zealously and diligently they want to comprehend these spiritual things with their reason, the less they understand or believe, and until the Holy Spirit enlightens and teaches them they consider it all mere foolishness and fables.” (FC, SD, II, 9, Tappert, pp. 521-522

Furthermore, it should be noted, that according to Paul in Romans , the “dictates of conscience” merely inform us of the presence of God in general, and with that revelation comes a consciousness of the law, not of grace. (Romans 1:32, 3:20). Furthermore, attributing hope of salvation to those who “strive to live a good life” is again, driving a person only to the Law, through which no man is saved: “No human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Rom. 3:20)

Still, for many Christians there is a terrible dilemma in trying to reconcile this clear statement of Law with the other equally clear statement that "God is love.” Using C.S. Lewis’ phrase, it seems to them to be “frightfully unfair” that some people never get the one chance to find salvation just because they were born in a place and time where the name of Jesus was never spoken. Sir Norman Anderson approaches the seeming dilemma by looking to those who came to faith in the Old Testament. He points to such great men of faith as Abraham, Moses, and David, who, he says, “enjoyed both forgiveness and fellowship with God,” and yet, he concludes, “they did not know Jesus and the salvation he was to effect – except a vague hope of the future which they proclaimed but only dimly understood.” (From “A Christian Approach to Comparative Religions,” quoted in Understanding Non-Christian Religions by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, p. 197). He then goes on to the “more ordinary Jews,” who “convicted of sin by God’s Spirit, turned to him in repentance and faith, brought the prescribed sacrifices, and threw themselves on his mercy…Where they not, too, forgiven and accepted – not because they had merited salvation, for no man can do this; nor on the basis of their animal sacrifices, which could never atone for human
sin; but, rather, on the basis of what the God of love was going to do in the unique ‘Lamb of God’ who was till to come, and of that atoning death to which all the Old Testament sacrifices were designed to point.”

Anderson then takes this situation, as he has describes it, and attempts to use it as a guideline to the solution of this “burning problem” of those “who have never heard.” Emphasizing that no one can earn their salvation, he nevertheless asks: “But what if the Spirit of God convicts them, as he alone can, of something of their sin and need; and what if he enables them, in the darkness of twilight, somehow to cast themselves on the mercy of God and cry out, as it were, for his forgiveness and salvation? Will they not then be accepted and forgiven in the one and only Savior? And if it be asked how this can be when they have never so much as heard of him, then the answer must be that they will be accepted on the basis of what the God of all grace himself did in the Christ as the cross; for it is on that basis, alone, that a God who is light as well as love, just as well as merciful, can welcome and forgive repentant sinners.” (p. 198)

Thankfully Anderson admits in the next sentence that “It cannot be claimed that this is the clear and unequivocal teaching of the New Testament, where the primary focus is on the Christian’s duty to share the Good news of God’s love with the whole world.” For within his theory there are some scriptural contradictions that must be addressed:
He admits that the Old Testament people were saved through the proclaimed message of the Gospel in Christ, the Lamb of God (even though he waters it down to “a vague hope of the future…only dimly understood”), and yet he then proposes that the pagan, who has no connection at all with any of these promises, somehow finds God in the “darkness of twilight.” Even if such a thing were possible, scripturally speaking, is it even close to the norm for an unbeliever to do this? In Romans 2 Paul says that without the grace of God in Christ Jesus, “none is righteous…no one understands, no one seeks for God.” (vss. 10,11). Back in chapter one he states quite clearly that the general tendency of man without the gospel is to “suppress the truth.” (vs. 18). And what about faith? It comes, as was shown before, only through the means of the Gospel itself: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.” (10:17). Indeed, Paul does say that “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” (vs. 13) But note two things: 1. He calls on the “name of the Lord,” not some vague conception of God, and 2. This “name” comes to him by revelation (note vss. 14-21).
Anderson does say that the “Spirit of God” must convict them. But how is this done? Where in the New Testament does such a thing happen apart from a proclamation of the Word? It is common Reformed belief that the Spirit works independent of the Word, but is this found in the scripture? From the beginning in the Book of Acts, where the story of the “coming of the Spirit” is told, it is always in connection with the means appointed by God. The men are “cut to the heart” in Acts 2 only after hearing Peter’s sermon. In Acts 10 the “Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the Word.” (vs. 44). And again in Ephesus we read that the Holy Spirit comes not independent of the work of the Apostles, as unique as this instance may be in and of itself, but in connection with the word and instruction of the Apostles.
-5-

However, Anderson brings up Acts 10:34, 35 as an example to the contrary, asking: “But may it not means that the man who realizes something of his need, and who casts himself on the mercy of God with a sincerity that shows itself in his life, will find that mercy where it is always available – at the cross where Jesus died.?” Again, we must ask, is this example of Cornelius an example of a man who threw himself on the mercy of God without any prior knowledge of that mercy? And was he heard simply because of the “sincerity that show[ed] itself in his life”? A careful look at the context will reveal that this pious gentile was “keeping the ninth hour of prayer” in his house (vs. 30). Looking back further into the tenth chapter we discover that he was a man “who feared God with all his household, gave liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.” (vs. 2). Cornelius was anything but a pagan. Like many gentiles in the Land of Israel, this man had heard the message of God through His Word and came to faith. When Peter describes him as a “godfearing” man, he is describing a man who has come to faith, not an unbelieving, albeit sincere pagan.

In the end Anderson must fall back on God’s general revelation as the means through which men come to faith. He says that it is through this general revelation, “vouchsafed
in nature and in all that is true (including, of course, the truth there is in other religions), and that equally fundamental fact of our common humanity, that the Spirit of God, or the ‘cosmic Christ’, brings home to men and women something of their need."” (p. 200)

But general revelation is just that – general. It does not bring a person to the knowledge of the love and mercy of God. A cursory view of primitive religious structures from the animistic tribes in the interior of Africa and Australia to the remnants of indigenous American tribes we call “Indians,” all show how man is inclined to react spiritually when confronted with only this general revelation. He sees the “invisible nature” of God, “namely his eternal power and deity.” (Rom. 1:20) And what does he do? Does he react with repentance and cry out for mercy to the true God? Quite the contrary. Over and over again they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.” (vs. 23). Furthermore, they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” (vs. 25). As appealing as it might seem, scripture will not allow us to use general revelation or natural theology as a means through which men can come to faith.

But have we answered the question we began with? Have we solved the seeming contradiction or dilemma? Not really. And that is indeed what we must deal with. Human logic needs to work out every contingency according to its own perspective and reason. Yet, that is not possible, whether one deals with the spiritual and supernatural dimensions, or the natural dimension. To this day, after years of study and searching, we still cannot explain the mystery of the brain. Certain aberrations in its functioning still evade our complete explanation. The universe continues to amaze us and perplex us at the same time. We know much, and yet the more we know the more we realize we have yet to discover. How many scientific theories have been revised or abandoned over the years in light of a new, unforeseen discovery? We view all things from a fairly limited box. Our sight is not unencumbered.

So too with the things of God. St. Paul wrote: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who ahs known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” (Rom. 11:33,34) Truly the fate of the unbeliever escapes our understanding on more than one level. Aside from one’s opportunity or lack of opportunity to hear a clear message of hope, there is the equally baffling matter of why anyone, once exposed to such a message, would ever choose to reject it.

Dr. Francis Pieper in his Christian Dogmatics wrote that “The true Lutheran Church does not attempt any solution of the question at all, but regards it as an unsolvable mystery, which human reason should not try to explore.” (p. 251). He says that there are two truths which the Bible holds which must be maintained: 1. God’s grace is universal (available to all), and 2. We are saved by grace alone. “The two truths regarding man’s salvation which Holy Scripture clearly reveals are: a.) Those who are saved are saved by grace alone, without any merit on their part; b) those who are lost are lost through their own fault. Beyond these two revealed facts no Christian theologian dare go.”

Dr. Pieper points out the errors one falls into when one attempts to go where “no Christian theologian dare go.” (p. 251) The one error is to particularize salvation, as do the Reformed after the teaching of Calvin, who asserted that some where indeed predestined for damnation even before their birth, and that Christ came to die only for those elected to eternal salvation. On the other hand, the error addressed most in this paper, is that of synergism, where something more than grace alone is required, usually some effort on the part of man to choose or decide to accept what God gives.

Beside the points made above, there is also the issue of the attributes of God. Rabbi Harold Kushner, in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981) when faced with a similar spiritual dilemma (as suggested in the book’s title), felt forced to sacrifice at the expense of God’s word regarding the true nature of God, rather than accept the mystery. He states three things that most people, he says, would like to believe, but in his estimation are irreconcilable: a.) God is all-powerful, b.) God is just and fair, c.) Job is a good person (the book is primary about the dilemma of Job’s suffering as recorded in the Old Testament). In the end Kusher decides to accept “b.” and “c.” and rejects “a.” “God would like people to get what they deserve in life, but he cannot always arrange it,” he wrote. “Forced to choose between a good God who is not totally powerful, or a powerful God who is not totally good, the author of the Book of Job chooses to believe in God’s goodness.” (p. 43)

Aside from the fact that Kushner misunderstands the Book of Job, does he not in the end also present to us a God who is less than God? For if God is anything but all-powerful, then he is no different in the final analysis than the petty pantheon of gods in whom the Greeks and Romans believed, each limited in power, each vying with the other for control.

It is true that human reason struggles to reconcile the many attributes of God. In the case of the unbelieving man we feel that the quality of justice is pitted against the qualities of
-7-

love. We cannot deny that based on God’s just decree that the “soul that sins should die” (Ezekiel 18:20) all who sin rightly deserve punishment and even death. This was made very clear right from the beginning in the Garden of Eden: “For in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Gen.. 2:17) It was the devil who contradicted this and entered in that lie that they would not (Gen. 3:4). But does it mean that when God issues a punishment for wrongdoing that He is therefore somehow unloving by contrast?

All parents have wrestled with this dilemma as their little one protests a punishment with “You just don’t love me.” We realize their immaturity and know that not punishing them would be lacking in love, for the punishment is designed to help and protect in the long run. Thus, it is quickly proved that love and justice are not necessarily in contradistinction.

But again, to the question at hand. We cannot argue with God’s right to punish those who sin, since his decree was plain enough for all to know (even to the pagan who has the law written on his heart). Yet what about his love? Does God love these people for whom it appears he does nothing? Therein is one crux of the issue. God does indeed do something for them, even if it seems inadequate to us. As Jesus prepares to ascend into heaven he commissions the church to “make disciples of all nations.” (Matt. 28:19)

Then in the Book of Acts we see that he also provides the power for such a great mission to be carried out: He sends the Holy Spirit who will bring those who hear this Word to faith. The devil will attempt to hinder the work of the church to share with life-giving message of Christ, but, still again, there is assurance: “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18).

Theodore Engelder in his article “One the Question of the Salvation of the Heathen,” addresses the very dilemma of this paper and leaves us squarely in with the very means through which God expresses his love for all. After admitting that these questions “touch upon a domain which is utterly closed and hidden to us,” he then says that “The question is not: Has God done his duty toward the heathen? The question is: Are we doing our duty? With that, faith concerns itself. Doing that, it rests content.” (quoted in Baal or God by Herman J. Otten, . 244)

We may want to comfort ourselves by devising a way to reconcile our internal dilemma. That is understandable. We want to be able to maintain all that we believe about God and still remove the seeming contradiction. It is inconceivable for us to sacrifice anything of God, as Kushner does. But it is tempting to add to what we know – to speculate, if you will – and make it work out that way. But that is dangerous. For as has been shown, adding to a perceived dilemma can result in creating unforeseen contradictions of our own. The question becomes then: Can we accept not knowing everything? Can we accept a mystery and still maintain our faith in what we know? Certainly even the most cherished doctrines of our faith require this to some extent. For who can fully comprehend the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, or the interaction of God’s sovereignty and man’s limited freedom of will? In fact, the very heart of our faith, namely the “word of the cross,” is, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, “folly to those who are perishing.” (vs. 18) We preach Christ crucified even knowing that it is “a stumbling
block to the Jews and folly to the Gentles.” (vs. 23) We do this because we know that “to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than man.” (vss. 24,25)

So, what about those who never heard? At this point I will stay with Engelder who says: “Here begin the mysteries of God, into which we cannot and should not search.” (p. 244) I can only affirm what I know in scripture. Outside of that it is up to the will of God if any more should be revealed.

Pastor Donald V. Engebretson
Lent 5
2000