bible christianity theology

gospel response

I’ve always had a soft spot for soteriological Inclusivism, the theory of Christian ultimate salvation (sometimes expressed in different ways) that holds that some can or may be saved apart from an explicit congnitive act of conscious belief in Jesus.

Exclusivism insists on a personal response to the Gospel, but most forms of exclusivism make exception for those too young or perhaps lacking the (apparent) cognitive ability to make an (apparent) response to the Gospel.  These exceptions prompt Inclusivism’s concern for the fate particularly of “those who have never heard” the Gospel. But I wonder if the very notion of ‘those who have never heard the Gospel’ might be challenged by Scripture? Perhaps a Scriptural understanding of revelation, gospel, preaching, hearing and responding is different to at least some of our modern instincts? Perhaps some biblical language suggests that “the (G)gospel” has been preached to everyone; perhaps in a mode that escapes or transcends the modern mind?

It would be one thing to entertain such notions due to some discomfort or fear regarding communicating the gospel or having people not respond to it.  But it’s quite another thing if Scripture itself actually supports the notion. And whilst we don’t want to alter the Gospel to make it more palatable, we also don’t want to go beyond Scripture and ‘add’ requirements or barriers to God being able to work in ways we don’t understand.  Two relevant passages among others are: Romans 2:12-16 and 10:9-21; and another I recently encountered again is Hebrews 4:1-11.

In interpreting the texts, we have to keep the literary purposes of the authors in mind.  Both Romans and Hebrews are engaging with the early controversy around the attitudes of Jewish and Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians toward (among other things) the Jewish Law, common faith, and table fellowship. In Romans 2, the Jewish Christian readers have just had a surprising hard word given to them about their own failure to keep the Law, which has the result of putting them on even par with Gentiles.  Interestingly, the Gentles, even without having the Jewish Law, are nonetheless able to follow the ‘Law written on their hearts‘, which apparently not only accuses them when they live contrary to it (1:18-32), but also excuses them when they live according to it (2:14). This battlefield of hearing and obeying (or not!) seems to at times be public and visible, and other times private and ‘secret’ as Paul’s language suggests in 2:16 (‘God will judge men’s secrets…’).

Oh, sure, but some will say Paul is just getting the foundation of his
argument going in Romans; it’s only chapter 2! But, we have a similar tension in chapter 10, long after Paul has made his points about both the universality of Sin and the superabounding nature of Grace. Here is actually a favourite verse of
Exclusivists, where it is insisted that ‘faith comes by hearing’; when the Gospel of Christ preached and heard, believed and finally confessed (10:9-15). However, Paul does not finish there, but then goes on to contrast the unbelief of previous generations of Israel (long before Christ) with the Gentiles of old, who along with Israel apparently have indeed ‘heard’; the pertinent difference being that (‘all’) Israel did not accept the good news due to their disobedience, while the Gentiles were apparently ‘found’ by God who says ‘I revealed myself’ to them (10:16-21). The context of chapter 10, to state the obvious, is chapters 9 and 11, which all together form a rich tapestry of argumentation exploring the way that God remains faithful to the ‘old’ covenant with Israel, even when the church must have looked mostly Gentile at the time of writing. This is precisely the point the author of Hebrews makes in chapter 4; except only the negative criticism is made of Israel, for having ‘the gospel preached to them’ yet not combining that with ‘faith’.

The first key point in all of this is that the biblical authors here seem to be quite comfortable in describing ‘the gospel’ being known to people long before Christ; much like Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 will, in passing, assert that “the Rock that followed [Israel during the Exodus] was Christ.” The other point is that it seems those outside of God’s central and standard means of revelation (Law teaching in the Old; Gospel preaching in the New) have indeed had ‘the Gospel’ preached to them (Colossians 1:23); and their response, arguably in the New as well as the Old, is not always rejection. Indeed (clearly in the Old, and possibly in the New), when those on the ‘outside’ respond more obediently than those on the ‘inside’, the latter are humbled and (hopefully) brought to their knees again in renewed repentance; or (Paul hopes in Romans 9-11) ‘provoked to jealousy’ (and hopefully faith).

Similar themes appear elsewhere.  The Gentile King Cyrus was called God’s ‘anointed one’, who was moved by the Spirit to let Israel go home. The pagan Preist Melchizidek was the agent (not the recipient!) of blessing for Abram. And Jesus set the tone for his ministry with a rousing critique at Nazareth, making clear that God’s action was not limited to Israelites.

So could it be that God is at all times, all ways and in all places preaching the Gospel, through both public and ‘secret’ channels (one thinks of the many accounts of Muslims having dreams and visions of Jesus)? Could it be, as inclusivism suggests, that some of these people can respond to such preaching with at least some form of faith?

bible christianity philosophy theology

god is like… pt 2

For all of the supposed humility of negative theology (“We’re merely saying what God could not be like…”) or metaphor (“We’re only saying what God is like, not what God is…”), Christians make the audacious claim that we are right and all other religions are wrong… don’t we?

Well, yes and no.

Yes, on one hand. We do claim that Christianity is true and all other religions are false.  But not because we think that our beliefs are more reasonable (in the sense of us thinking more reasonably than others to work out what God is really like), but rather because we believe that God has actually revealed himself fully and finally in a startlingly particular (male, Jewish, bearded, 1st century prophet and rabbi from Nazareth) and shockingly embarrassing (mocked, criminalised, dying, suffering, and a failure of a Messiah) human being.  It’s not that we are ‘right’ in that we figured out who God was with all of our theology, but that God is revealed in Jesus.  We didn’t find truth about God – the Truth showed himself to us.  Get Jesus wrong and you get God wrong.

On the other hand, no. Believing that non-Christian religions are false is not the same as saying that everything they believe is wrong.  Sticking to the so-called ‘Abrahamic’ faiths for a moment, they all share a form of monotheism ((but not that Jesus-shaped variety of trinitarian monotheism, of course.)).  In polytheistic Hinduism, there is a recognition of Brahman as unknowable and transcendent ((though, not, of course, incarnate at the same time)).  Traditional Maori spirituality has the “parentless” ultimate creator, Io Matua Kore – similar to the notion of God as a First Cause (or uncaused cause – or unmoved mover, etc.).  In fact, any religion that has any concept of God at all has (in one sense) at least something in common with Christianity – namely (as broadly speaking as possible) that there is a spiritual dimension to reality.

Allow me to quickly refer to a passage of the Bible in which we see both this ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in tension.

Acts 17 tells of when Paul, himself having moved from a militant form of Judaism ((possibly of the ‘house of Shammai’?)) to Christian faith, went to Athens.  While waiting for some of his co-workers, he observed the pervasive worship of pagan/Greek gods/goddesses, and (as a good ‘atheistic’ monotheist should) was ‘provoked’ by what he saw.  People were interested in the new gods ((“Iesous/Jesus” & “Anastasis/Resurrection”)) they thought he was talking about with some of the Stoic & Epicurean philosophers, so they let him speak.

What he does not say is, “Well, you guys are members of false religions, and my religion is the truth.”  Instead, his response begins with points of agreement and works from there to the God revealed in Jesus.

“Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in every way. For as I was walking around and looking closely at the objects you worship, I even found an altar with this written on it: ‘To the unknown god.’ So I am telling you about the unknown object you worship.”

He even draws upon their own pagan worship songs and poems to tell them about the God revealed in Jesus.

“For ‘in Him we live and move and have our being‘, as also certain of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.‘”

Lest it be thought that Paul only affirms their beliefs, he also critiques their pagan worship.

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth. He doesn’t live in shrines made by human hands, and he isn’t served by hands as if he needed anything. He himself gives everyone life, breath, and everything.”


“So if we are God’s children, we shouldn’t think that the divine being is like gold, silver, or stone, or is an image carved by human imagination and skill. Though God has overlooked those times of ignorance, he now commands everyone everywhere to repent, for he has set a day when he is going to judge the world with justice through a man he has appointed, and he has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

So, to sum up this longer-than-necessary post, for Christians believe that they ‘know’ ((not in the omniscient, list-of-facts sense, but in the relational sense)) the Truth about God, because they ‘know’ Jesus who is the Truth.  For the Christian, getting to know God equals getting to know Jesus, and you can start getting to know Him right where you are, as a pantheist, polytheist, pagan, Muslim, Jew, etc.