What if They Didn't Know?
"No man cometh unto the Father, but by [Christ]." John 14:6b
"The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." I John 1:7b
Is it possible to be saved with no knowledge of Christ? Can the blood of Jesus cleanse you if you never heard of it?
I don't know for absolute certain. But it's something I think about.
It is possible to follow God's law while knowing nothing of Christ. Nature testifies to God, and it seems that many cultures have some knowledge of a supreme Creator God. Paul writes of how Gentiles are a law unto themselves (see Romans 2:12-15) -- it is not those who have heard the law, but those who do the law that will be justified. If they follow God to the best of their understanding, and seek for more understanding as they know how, it seems that is all God would expect of them. Maybe I'm way off on that... let me know.
I do believe that many Jews who lived before Christ were saved. The deeds they did, sacrificing sheep, etc to God, didn't save them. They didn't necessarily worship Christ as Lord, and I don't even know if most believed their sins would eventually be absolved by Jesus' sacrifice. How can they be saved? It would seem that Christ's blood can save people throughout all time, even if they lived before He came and therefore never had a chance to ask for the atonement of his blood. Is it possible that God will judge 20th century Papua New Guineans who never heard of Christ, as if they lived BC?
But then what of the verses in Romans 10: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of who they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Romans 10:13, 14ab
Will Christ give them a chance to believe on him after they die as he did with "the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19)? And then those who sought to follow God during their lives will be enthralled to find out the missing pieces to their understanding of God? I don't know... and I don't think it would be right to form a doctrine based on any unclear suppositions like the one I've just made... (That's got to be about one of the worst things -- people fit to die over manmade ideas they vehemently take to be truth.)
We do know that God is Just... and while I don't profess to possess all of God's wisdom, it does not seem that justice would involve eternal damnation for those who never had a chance to choose for or against Christ. But then, I am but a woman. It's okay if I'm wrong.
I do not believe that God predestinates a select few to be saved -- having certain people born at certain times in certain places would predestine them to hell IF they had to profess the name of Christ before dying.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I suppose that whether or not people can be saved without knowledge of Christ should not materially affect our lives. Either way, our attempts at evangelization should be strong. God wants everyone to know about the Good News -- it provides answers, fulfillment, joy, and love.
But I still think about it... if you think I'm all wet, or if you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment.
"The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." I John 1:7b
Is it possible to be saved with no knowledge of Christ? Can the blood of Jesus cleanse you if you never heard of it?
I don't know for absolute certain. But it's something I think about.
It is possible to follow God's law while knowing nothing of Christ. Nature testifies to God, and it seems that many cultures have some knowledge of a supreme Creator God. Paul writes of how Gentiles are a law unto themselves (see Romans 2:12-15) -- it is not those who have heard the law, but those who do the law that will be justified. If they follow God to the best of their understanding, and seek for more understanding as they know how, it seems that is all God would expect of them. Maybe I'm way off on that... let me know.
I do believe that many Jews who lived before Christ were saved. The deeds they did, sacrificing sheep, etc to God, didn't save them. They didn't necessarily worship Christ as Lord, and I don't even know if most believed their sins would eventually be absolved by Jesus' sacrifice. How can they be saved? It would seem that Christ's blood can save people throughout all time, even if they lived before He came and therefore never had a chance to ask for the atonement of his blood. Is it possible that God will judge 20th century Papua New Guineans who never heard of Christ, as if they lived BC?
But then what of the verses in Romans 10: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of who they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Romans 10:13, 14ab
Will Christ give them a chance to believe on him after they die as he did with "the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19)? And then those who sought to follow God during their lives will be enthralled to find out the missing pieces to their understanding of God? I don't know... and I don't think it would be right to form a doctrine based on any unclear suppositions like the one I've just made... (That's got to be about one of the worst things -- people fit to die over manmade ideas they vehemently take to be truth.)
We do know that God is Just... and while I don't profess to possess all of God's wisdom, it does not seem that justice would involve eternal damnation for those who never had a chance to choose for or against Christ. But then, I am but a woman. It's okay if I'm wrong.
I do not believe that God predestinates a select few to be saved -- having certain people born at certain times in certain places would predestine them to hell IF they had to profess the name of Christ before dying.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I suppose that whether or not people can be saved without knowledge of Christ should not materially affect our lives. Either way, our attempts at evangelization should be strong. God wants everyone to know about the Good News -- it provides answers, fulfillment, joy, and love.
But I still think about it... if you think I'm all wet, or if you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment.
posted by Claire at 21:52
2 Comments:
Good topic Claire! I think that the verses in Romans previously quoted pretty much clear up the idea that God would condemn anyone based on the circumstances of his or her birth. After all, he desires all of us to come to salvation, right? From what I understand, you are saved based on the nature of your heart/soul - if you would believe in Christ, having heard of him. The bottom line is that Heaven only allows for those that would want to be in the presence of God for all eternity, on his terms. I view it as an extra joy and assurance for us to know the name and words of him who we already believe in. (Hearing makes believing easier for some. Did you believe in God before you learned of Jesus? I know I did, and it wasn't something I got from my parents!) As to the verse in 1 Peter, no one really knows what he meant by that. Some say that Jesus was telling the damned about his victory, some say that he was referring to angels that intermarried with human women in the time of Noah. As it is ambiguous and can be interpreted as contradictory to other clearer verses, I would not worry too much about it. What has put evangelism on the forefront of your mind?
P.S. Why do we say "believe on Jesus" instead of "believe in Jesus"?
"you are saved based on the nature of your heart/soul" — good way to put it, Anna.
Given Peter's reference to spirits from Noah's day, I like your second suggested interpretation of the 1 Peter verse. And I don't have any plans to worry about it.
I decided to post on the topic after reading part of "Eternity in their Hearts" by Don Richardson. He seemed to think that peoples ignorant of the gospel have been prepared by God to receive it (which is likely), but that members of such groups would not be saved unless someone told them of the gospel. I did not appreciate his viewpoint, was actually disgusted by it (while still willing to consider it in comparison to Scripture). I know he's not the only one who thinks that way, and I wonder how prevalent his opinion is.
Why do we say "believe on" as well as "believe in"? The Bible uses both. Our faith is based "on" the Rock, and we also believe in Jesus, that he won't let us down. Did you have a theory, Anna? See you in class tomorrow.
Post a Comment
<< Home