5. The Lutheran Views

This chapter will present the views of those who are considered the theological heirs of Martin Luther, and who have adhered to the tenets of the Lutheran confessions.¹ Since its inception, Lutheranism has gone through many theological changes. During the 17th and 18th centuries it was impacted by both rationalism and pietism. The former exalted reason over divine revelation. And the latter promoted personal piety over intellectualism (whether orthodox or heterodox). To the degree that Lutheran theologians embraced rationalism, they strayed from the teachings of scripture and the traditional Lutheran orthodoxy.² Differing views on the subject of the unevangelized may therefore be found among members of the broader Lutheran communion.

Orthodox Lutherans

Those Lutherans who would be considered orthodox adhered to the conviction that salvation comes only through hearing the gospel. Speaking of the post-reformation era, Robert D. Preus says: “Can one be saved who does not know Christ and the Gospel? With one voice Lutheran orthodoxy answers in the negative.”³ He quotes Abraham Calov (1612–1686):

The Gospel sets forth those things that are sufficient to believe for salvation. The Gospel and faith are related and belong together. In the Gospel the proper object of faith is revealed, and there can be no knowledge of this object and thus no faith that applies this knowledge . . . apart from the Gospel. Only the Gospel brings . . . Christ to us, the Christ in whom we are to believe and in whom alone we have life eternal . . . . Apart from the revelation of the Gospel there is no knowledge of Christ . . . . Because the Gospel is the means that has been divinely ordained to incite faith, it is called the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes . . . . Through the Word of the Gospel faith is born (Rom. 10:17).⁴

Likewise, Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) said: “God saveth all those and onely those that with perseverance believe on Christ in time . . . . And inasmuch as it (the gospel) pronounceth that salvation is to be sought for onely in Christ, it presupposeth that without Christ all is concluded under sinne.”⁵ Also, Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) said: “Therefore we should know that the church of God is the assembly which is bound to the voice of the ministration of the Gospel. And outside of this assembly, where there is no voice of the Gospel and no invocation of Christ, there are no heirs of eternal life.”⁶

With regard to natural revelation, Preus states: “(T)here was complete agreement among all the Lutherans that natural theology is never sufficient for salvation.”⁷ Rather, there developed a general consensus that God used natural revelation to prepare people for the gospel.

Gerhard wrote:

That there is a God, even the book of nature sheweth . . . . But there is a more certain, evident, and perspicuous knowledge to be fetcht out of the book of holy scripture . . . . The eyes of our understanding are blinded by our fall: and from these it is that we cannot so readily make progresse and proficiency in the book of nature . . . . The end of that Natural knowledge of God is according to the Apostle, To ‘seek the Lord,’ Acts 17.27 . . . . Nature herself confesseth that her book is imperfect: and therefore she must, as it were, leade us by the hand, to finde out a more perfect revelation in the Church.⁸

He is stating that God may use natural revelation to awaken a search for God.

Chemnitz similarly comments:

Why has God revealed this natural knowledge of Himself to the gentiles? It was not revealed . . . in such a way that they might have fulfilled, with their good works, the righteousness of God insofar as it was known to them, and in this way be saved without Christ. For Christ specifically says in John 14:6, ‘No one comes to the Father but by Me.’ But there are other reasons why God has bestowed this external knowledge of Himself upon the minds of men. In the first place, He has done so for the sake of the external discipline which God wants all men to observe, even the unregenerate. Paul explains the second reason in Acts 17:27 with the words ‘to seek the Lord.’ This expression has been placed in the causal construction, ‘because of or on account of our deficiency.’ Thus there is absolutely no doubt that this knowledge has been revealed so that we will seek God . . . . Since all men by nature acknowledge that there is a God and that He is to be glorified as God, and at the same time they are compelled to confess that they do not know how He is to be worshiped, God has ingrafted into them this knowledge, so that they may seek the proclamation of divine revelation in the church. And in order to give this proclamation great visibility, He has made this teaching so conspicuous throughout the whole world that all nations can clearly see the light of the heavenly teaching, not hidden under a bushel but placed high on a candlestick. But the same thing has happened to mankind as befalls bats who are blinded by the brilliant splendor of the sun. These people have become so darkened in their mind and their understanding that they become more blinded to the clear light of the divine Word. To this the Holy Scriptures bear witness concerning even the wisest of the heathen, such as Galen, Plato, and others.⁹

Franz Pieper (1852–1931) summarizes the orthodox Lutheran perspective:

As to the practical result of the natural knowledge of God, Scripture teaches two things . . . . In man’s present condition the natural knowledge of God is entirely insufficient to attain salvation. It arouses the conscience of man, but it cannot quiet the awakened conscience; it shows man that there is a God and a divine Law, but it does not enable man to keep this Law. The natural knowledge of God leaves man with an evil conscience and under the curse (Rom. 1:19, 21; 1:32; 2:14–15). Without faith in the Gospel, man remains extra ecclesiam Dei and in a state of hopelessness and despair (Eph. 2:12: ‘Being strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world’) . . . . Nevertheless the natural knowledge of God has a positive value. First, it is the foundation of civil righteousness . . . . The natural knowledge of God is of value also for the Church. For one thing, the Church has its temporary home in the body politic; and civil righteousness, which maintains order and peace, thus serves the Church indirectly . . . . Furthermore, the Law written into the heart of man serves as the point of

contact when the Church preaches the Law . . . . Our Lutheran theologians are very careful when they discuss the natural knowledge of God. On the one hand, they set forth its value in great detail; on the other hand, they stress its inadequacy and utter insufficiency in bringing man to salvation. They condemn those who deny that there is a natural knowledge of God as well as the great number of those who admit men to heaven on the basis of their natural knowledge of God. And in this criticism they spare neither friend nor foe.¹⁰

Notice his comment that “a great number” did believe in the salvific efficacy of natural revelation in his day.

Lutherans sometimes speak of God’s “indirect” or “general and pedagogic” call through nature. David Hollaz (1648–1713) spoke of it in these terms:

It is that by which God more obscurely and as it were from afar invites and brings to the gate of the Church, sinners who are outside of the Church so that they are thereby led to seek for the true worship of God and His Church. This He does (a) objectively, by the revelation of His government and by the divine beneficence towards His creatures; (b) effectively, by an efficacious influence and divine impulse by which alike from innate theoretical and practical ideas and from the tokens of divine beneficence, practical suggestions and conclusions are aroused in the minds of the unbelieving, though in an unequal degree, so that they search out the true worship of God; (c) cumulatively, by the growing report concerning the Church which is spread throughout the whole world.¹¹

Adolf Hoenecke describes the relationship between the natural and special revelation of God in these terms: “The natural knowledge, according to Scripture, should indeed lead one to seek God. The supernatural knowledge should certainly lead one to find God in his true essence. Thus, the effect of the natural knowledge is, at best, great unrest of conscience; the effect of the supernatural knowledge is peace and bliss in God (Jn 17:3).”¹² Notice his distinction between the role of conscience in bringing conviction of sin, and of the gospel in bringing peace of heart.

As Lutherans believe that God wills all to be saved, they often speak of the “universal call of God” through the gospel. They speak of the call as universal in three senses: it is “serious, . . . efficacious, . . . and universal (meant for all).”¹³ It is serious in that “it arises out of the deepest purpose and good pleasure of God who seriously desires the saving illumination and conversion of all men.”¹⁴ It is efficacious in that “(i)t is accompanied by an actual divine working sufficient in itself to its ends. Power goes with the Word.”¹⁵ Orthodox Lutherans believe that God’s efficacious grace always accompanies the proclamation of his word. The only reason that this efficacious power is not realized is because the individual resists God’s grace. As Weidner puts it: “Although it falls short of its effects, it is hindered by men presenting an obstacle, and thus becomes inefficacious by fault of the evil and obstinate will of man.”¹⁶

It is common also to find Lutherans holding that God’s call through the gospel can come in either an “ordinary” or “extraordinary” way. Weidner says: “The ordinary is through the preaching and teaching of the divine word. The extraordinary is that which departs from the ordinary means, and is divided by the old divines into immediate and mediate. The immediate is that in which God calls men without means, in His own immediate person, as He called Abraham and Paul. The mediate is that in which he employs extraordinary media or means such as miracles and similar modes of reaching man, as the appearing of Jonah to the Ninevites, the star which called and guided the Magi.”¹⁷

J. A. Quenstedt (1617–1688), however, expressed skepticism concerning the continued use of the extraordinary call: “The extraordinary call is special and very rare: formerly, indeed, under the Old Testament and in the commencement of the New, it occurred; but now, since the Gospel has been universally preached and the Church planted by the apostles, it has clearly ceased.”¹⁸

The gospel is usually conceived as having been universally proclaimed at three times in history: first, after the fall; second, after the flood; and third, during the time of the apostles.¹⁹

As to why there remain nations and peoples that seem to be destitute of a gospel witness, the response of Schmid is not uncommon: “If then, in the course of time, some people be found who are entirely ignorant of the preaching of the Gospel, this does not militate against the universality of the call, but arises from this, that these people did not faithfully preserve the truth preached to them or did not lay it to heart, in consequence of which their posterity have to suffer. It is through their guilt that the call which God designed to be universal became particular.”²⁰

Hollaz stated:

That nations formerly and yet in our own day and many people, are destitute of the preaching of the Word, is their own fault, not the fault of a fixed will or counsel of God, absolutely denying them the light of the Gospel; for 1) these nations despise and maliciously reject the Word of God; 2) that vocation and idea concerning Christian doctrine and ceremonies, in general, which through report is at this day universal, they neglect; 3) the pedagogic effective vocation (by this he means natural revelation) they do not employ to its proper use,—to search out the true worship and the true Church of God; wherefore they deprive themselves, by their own fault, of this salutary vocation which is through the preaching of the Gospel.²¹

Quenstedt, echoing a Calvinist perspective however, sees the source of these distinctions in the sovereign pleasure of God: “That God bestows the light of the Gospel upon one nation, while another is neglected; that some Turks, Americans, and other barbarians are converted to the faith, others who are their equals are left in their unbelief—this must also be ascribed to the hidden and unsearchable judgment of God. It must be acknowledged that God does some things in regard to the order, mode, time, and degree of the call according to His sovereign pleasure.”²² Others, such as Gerhard, are more cautious: “But let us admit, that in these and similar special cases, we cannot find out and explain exactly the causes of the divine counsels; nevertheless we must by no means have recourse to the absolute decree of reprobation, but adhere firmly to those asserted general statements, I Ti. 2:4; Ez. 33:11.”²³

The discussion of August Pfeiffer (1640–1698) is particularly noteworthy:

God is no more bound to send apostles for all times, especially where He knows that His call will be rejected, than he was in the time of the Jews to promulgate the law always in that solemn manner. But just as the divine law imposed the duty on parents to instruct and establish their children in the law, so was it the duty of those before the flood who received instructions from Adam, of those who had been taught by Noah, and of those American tribes and all the heathen nations to whom the apostles preached, to proclaim to their posterity the gracious call of God, as they had received it for themselves and for the descendants. But since they themselves despised the call and permitted their descendants to grow up wild, their damnation is perfectly just and God is not to be blamed, since He does not deprive them of His gracious call absolutely, but according to the desert of their wickedness. If a ruler should bestow a rich manor on one of his knights, and the latter should forthwith begin to manage things carelessly, and his heirs should be more extravagant still, until finally the family should lose the manor, who could find fault with the ruler for not giving them another? . . . . Furthermore, they say that the descendants can not be blamed that their ancestors despised the grace of God; for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father or be responsible for his carelessness, thanklessness, and wickedness . . . . But to this, too, we reply that the descendants are not without blame; for they should have asked their parents for information, not followed them blindly in their wickedness. Besides, God’s all-seeing eye saw full well that these very descendants would not only walk in the perverse footsteps of their parents, but also add still more wantonness to their inherited wickedness . . . . Then they allege that in America certainly no knowledge was ever obtained as to where the true Church is to be found. To prove this, however, they must show that the American tribes at no time had either the actual information or any opportunity to obtain it. For aught that we know some men driven out of their course may have landed there, who never returned to their own country, and of whom those barbarous races can give no account. It is not at all impossible that in this way they may have obtained both information as to the true Church, and the fundamental knowledge of the Christian religion; but if they wantonly destroyed such men, they would again have all the blame for their own destruction. Truly, God’s sincere mercy and unceasing faithfulness is so great that we can boldly say that He would have omitted nothing by which such sinners might have been converted to the Lord, if they had given the least ground for hope and the confirmed wickedness and extreme hatred of such men against the Word of grace had not rather been known to divine omniscience long ago. This is certainly the only way to account for the various vestiges of the knowledge of God, of heaven and hell, of forgiveness of sin, etc., which, as certain writers inform us, are found among the inhabitants of the New World. Now, that information in regard to the Church as well as actual preaching of the Word would have been of no avail among this people we can infer with much probability. For we find implanted in all men such a knowledge of God as can be obtained by the light of nature, namely, that a God must exist, and that we are in duty bound to honor Him; that we are not permitted to serve Him according to our own fancies, but are held to obey His own command; and that this must be specially revealed. Such natural knowledge, I say, dwells in all men alike, and was therefore also found among those American tribes. Nevertheless, they have by their wicked and wanton life suppressed and extinguished even this spark of knowledge. Therefore they are without excuse and must confess that their damnation is just; ‘because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened.’ Rom. 1, 21. No one could accuse a father of injustice, who, if he should see his son wasting a dime that he had given him, should hesitate to give him a dollar. Since, therefore, these nations thus abused the natural light that was given them, God has a righteous cause for not giving them the supernatural light, inasmuch as they have thereby shown that they would also despise the latter. For as Christ also says: ‘He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.’ Luke 16, 10. And to apply the immediately subsequent words of the Lord to those perverse nations we might say: If, therefore, ye have not dealt faithfully with the light of nature, ‘who will commit to your trust the true riches?’ But suppose some one should offer this case: An American Indian or other barbarian makes the proper use of his natural knowledge and learns from it that God must in a certain way have revealed to men how He would have them honor and worship Him, and resolves to gain further information on the subject, but is in the midst of such thoughts and endeavors taken away by death. How will you harmonize this with your doctrine? We reply that such a person we must consign to the grace of God and suppose rather too much in his favor than too little. For as God is not bound in all cases to His general means, He can easily in an extraordinary manner bestow the saving knowledge on a person in this state, who does not wantonly resist . . . . Our opponents say that God would be acting in a very partial manner if He should let the light of the Gospel shine brightly in one place notwithstanding the wickedness of the inhabitants, and yet require others to strive for that which was offered to the former in vain. For it is very probable that, if the Gospel were proclaimed as richly and extensively in some places as in others where it is but lightly esteemed, it would effect more good than in some of these latter places

. . . . To this we reply that it is sufficient for us to know that God gives every man enough assistance and opportunity to come to the saving knowledge of the truth. For God does not owe it to any one; on the contrary, every one has it only by grace, through which sufficient occasion is given to all, that they might seek the Lord where He may be found. Now, what more could a man, who with humble heart follows such divine guidance and permits God to lead him, desire than through such a proffered opportunity to attain to salvation? It can not be denied, indeed, that God does not dispense His favors to all men in one and the same way, but that He grants such opportunities oftener and more richly to certain men. In the first place, however, He has His holy and hidden reasons for such a course. We the same thing, too, in the ordinary gifts of body and soul. For God has His own holy purpose in giving to one man great understanding, to another feeble powers of mind; to one a healthy body, to another all kinds of infirmities; to one riches, to another poverty: much less can our feeble reason set bounds to divine omnipotence in its disposition of spiritual gifts. In the second place, men have no ground to murmur against God either for debarring them from heaven and His grace, for He gives them all sufficient opportunity to come to the knowledge of the truth; or for giving more spiritual gifts to one than to another, for this He owes no one; for ‘who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?’ Rom. 11, 35. ‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?’ saith the Lord, Matt. 20, 15 . . . . If an earthly father has a number of sons whom he loves equally well and whose welfare he seeks to promote, he is certainly not required to spend precisely as much on one as on another, but only to give them all sufficient support and assistance. Thus no one would expect him to spend as much money on a son employed in learning a trade as on one engaged in studying under great expense; he has done his duty when he bestows so much on all his children as is sufficient for their care and training. In the same way God gives to all men sufficient means for their eternal welfare, though He does not bestow them in equal measure upon all, and no one can require more of His goodness and mercy.²⁴

It is especially noteworthy that he suggests the probability that God would in an extraordinary way reveal the truth of the gospel to a sincerely seeking person during whose lifetime the gospel never came.

Lutheran Rationalists And Pietists

As Lutheranism became more and more influenced by the rise of rationalism, views on the unevangelized changed as well. John Pye Smith (1774–1851), an English Calvinist, made the following comments: “The modern Lutherans generally hold, either that the light of nature is not only hypothetically sufficient, but actively effective, for the salvation of men; or that, in the state after death and until the final judgment, the calls of the Gospel and other means of grace are continued.”²⁵

Luther believed that God could be known through his general revelation. In fact, he believed that had people responded appropriately to natural revelation, they would have been saved. He wrote concerning those who might respond properly to natural revelation:

If they had . . . said: ‘Look, we know this: Whoever this God, or this Divinity, may be whose nature is to be immortal and powerful and able to hear those who call upon Him, let us worship and adore Him, let us not call Him Jupiter and say that He is like this or that image, but let us simply worship Him, no matter who He is (for He must have being),’ then without a doubt they would have been saved, even though they had not recognized Him as the Creator of heaven and earth or taken note of any other specific work of His hands.²⁶

However, because of man’s sin, Luther believed natural revelation is of limited value.²⁷

A greater openness to the role of reason and natural revelation can be seen, however, during the seventeenth century in for example, John Gerhard (1582–1637) and Johannes Musaeus (1630–1681). Concerning Gerhard, Walter Hansen comments:

It is true that in the writings of the dogmaticians of the seventeenth century one will not find such a break with the basic assumptions of Luther’s theology. In the case of some of them—Leonhard Hutter, for example—natural theology plays no role at all worth mentioning. But it is all the more important that in the doctrinal tradition established by Johann Gerhard the clear-cut break between man’s natural relationship to God and his faith relationship to Him, as it existed in Luther, is constantly weakened more and more, yes, obliterated.²⁸

Concerning Musaeus he says: “(T)he last representatives of orthodoxy, like Johann Musaeus, fought against adherents of the enlightenment, such as Herbert von Cherbury, with blunted weapons when they undertook to prove to them the ‘insufficiency’ of the natural knowledge of God. Musaeus indeed was not wrong in stating that it depended on whether the natural knowledge of God was sufficient ‘for salvation’—which must be denied. But he did not draw the necessary conclusion: that for this reason it could lead only to ‘damnation’ . . . .”²⁹

Dorner describes Musaeus’ conception of the relationship between natural and revealed theology as being complementary in nature:

(H)e regards the connection existing between natural reason and positive revelation, with all their diversity, to be similar to that between a vital need and its supply . . . . Man’s conscience finds, he says, in Christianity the satisfaction of its wants, and nature and grace enter into a fruitful alliance in the reason that is enlightened by the truths of Christianity . . . . If the distinction between reason and revelation is chiefly that they are but different sources of the same knowledge, theology would have placed itself in a difficult position by conceding to reason an independent knowledge . . . .³⁰

He attributes to Musaeus the idea that natural man still has “vague longings for salvation.”³¹

Hansen summarizes his view of the ensuing course of German theology: “The development of ‘natural theology’ is the march of history from Luther’s primal experience . . . up to the Enlightenment. It ended with the ominous error that Christian faith in God and ‘natural knowledge of God’ are essentially identical.”³² It is not surprising, therefore, to find over the course of the development of Lutheran theology, an increasing openness to a salvific role for natural revelation. Hansen’s comments have particularly in view the rise of purely rationalist theology in Germany. But many who considered themselves orthodox or evangelical were also influenced by the rationalist environment in which they lived.³³

We find for example, in Gottingen Professor, and biblical theologian Gotthilf Traugott Zacharia (1729–1777) sentiments similar to those of Musaeus:

(I)f one refers to a very generalized calling of the people, one distinguishes the direct, proper and immediate calling from the indirect and remote calling. The former takes place with those people who are being taught directly through the Christian religion, and have opportunity to get to know it from close up, as for instance the non-believers that live among Christians; the latter takes place when people do not know anything about the Christian religion, but have acquired from nature some general knowledge of God and of our natural relationship to Him, or who have the capacity to develop an understanding by observing nature through the right use of their faculties. Through this latter knowledge they will not immediately and directly be led to a state of blessedness, but they will be made desirous to learn more of the deeper truths such as are contained in the Christian teachings . . . . Therefore, through availing themselves of the Christian teachings directly, the former will be led to blessedness and to the order of salvation connected with it, the latter will be called to the Christian religion in order to be guided by it to the state of blessedness. Therefore the possibility of recognizing God in nature, the true awareness of God through nature, the possibility to be awakened to a desire for a better religion through such recognition and consequently the search until finding the Christian religion, and the true recognition of the divine intention to lead all people into a state of

blessedness through Christ, all these things are interpreted as ‘calling.’ Thus we speak of a remote and an immediate calling.³⁴

We see in Zacharia a positive conception of the role of natural revelation and reason in preparing the unconverted for the gospel, by instilling in them a hunger and desire for salvation.

Leipzig Professor Samuel Frederich Morus (1736–92), however, is an example of a Lutheran theologian who went much further than Zacharia. In his Epitome Theologiae Christianae he wrote:

Will there be . . . a decree against those men as regards their future happiness, against those who were ignorant through no fault of their own? Will there be a decree against them because they were ignorant? Without a doubt, God will judge no one in accordance with knowledge he did not have, but rather He will judge them in accordance with that which he did have. And as for those who have lived honestly in accordance with natural religion, will it profit them absolutely nothing for the time to come to have lived honestly, because they were nevertheless ignorant of our religion? Indeed it will profit them, as Paul teaches: for it will be harmful to some if they have neglected natural religion. And if God now in this world approves of a pagan man who using his own knowledge lives honestly and piously, i.e., if God bestows his benefits on the man who has been zealous to act rightly according to the measure of his own knowledge: will God, then, in the time to come, simply sentence him to misery, because he was ignorant of our religion, even though he lived honestly? Indeed the sacred books teach that they to whom the Christian religion has become known and who have made use of it, will be raised to the particular level of heavenly happiness which is proper to them; but at the same time, they teach that God will be a most just judge of others, considering their knowledge and their deeds. Let us wait therefore for the future.³⁵

Morus’ view was identical to that espoused by most Arminians.

Gottlob Christian Storr (1746–1805) and Karl Christian Flatt (1772–1843) were conservative Lutheran theologians who also espoused views favorable to the salvation of the unevangelized.³⁶ They stated their position in the following comments:

The condition, on which adults or those who have attained the use of reason, obtain the salvation purchased by Christ, is faithful obedience to the voice of conscience. (Rom. 2:12–15.) Conscience urges them to reverence for an invisible Judge, whose being and attributes they can learn from his visible works, with a clearness proportionate to the degree in which they cherish and obey her monitions. These are moreover, occasionally, in the providence of God, excited to the highest degree of sensibility by external circumstances, such as blessings or misfortunes of unusual magnitude . . . . Those also who lived before Christ, (or since that time,) and yet knew nothing of a Redeemer, will doubtless partake of that salvation purchased for every individual of the human family, if they have only cherished a faith in God as far as their circumstances rendered it possible, and acted in obedience to the dictates of this faith. Nor will the fact that they knew nothing of this atonement prevent its application to them³⁷

Under the heading “Salvation may for Christ’s sake, be extended to those also who are not acquainted with Revelation,” they stated:

The reasons why, before the time of Christ, as well as since his resurrection, so many nations were not favoured with that revelation which was given to the Jews and also to other nations after the ascension of the Redeemer, are as little known to us, as the reasons of many other things which are under the guidance of divine Providence (Rom. 11:33). But this we know, that only from him shall much be required, to whom much has been entrusted; and that to entertain a different opinion concerning the dealings of God, would be irreverent. Hence we know that those who have enjoyed but few means and helps to piety and virtue, though they will not, if disobedient, escape punishment shall be ‘beaten with fewer stripes’ than those who had been favoured with more and better means of grace and incitements to piety, and who yet neglected them; and on the contrary, that those who have been faithful in little, will hereafter partake of the qualifications which they have here attained.³⁸

Concerning those who do not have the gospel, Storr and Flatt stated:

It is not incredible that the sensibility of conscience may also be awakened and rendered more acute by the internal influence of the omnipresent God, upon the souls of those who are obedient to her first emotions; as well as by the contemplation of the works of creation, and by the strong impression made upon them by some important occurrences in their lives. And the feelings of gratitude to God, of reverence for him, of confidence in him, and of longing for him, can rise beyond the sphere of distinct knowledge: for the Spirit helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Rom. 8:26. Nor is it at all unworthy the Redeemer of men (I Tim. 2:3) to give additional knowledge by immediate communication to such conscientious (Acts 10:35) individuals as have faithfully improved the knowledge possessed by them; if such additional knowledge is necessary to the tranquility of their minds and to their stability in the course of virtue and religions. Mark 4:24, unto you that hear shall more be given; for he that hath, to him shall be given.³⁹

The fact that Storr and Flatt were counted among the champions of “orthodoxy” suggests that these views were widely accepted, not only among the more liberal rationalists, but also among conservative Lutherans of their time.

George Christian Knapp (1753–1825) was a pietist who taught theology at the University of Halle. He likewise shared similar views regarding the unevangelized.⁴⁰ In his Lectures on Christian Theology he wrote:

When treating of the conditions of salvation established in the Christian scheme, we speak in reference to Christians—i.e., those who have opportunity and capacity to become acquainted with Christianity, and to convince themselves of its truth, without undertaking to say what means for attaining salvation God may give those who are ignorant of Christianity, or who remain unconvinced of its truth through unintentional mistake, and without criminality on their part. God is not limited to one single method, which he is compelled to employ equally at all times and among all men The Bible says, indeed, that God will punish the heathen on account of their sins; not, however, because they did not believe in Jesus Christ, if this was not their fault, but because they did not act agreeably to the knowledge which they possessed, and the law of nature with which they were acquainted; Rom. i. 21, seq.; Ephes. ii. 1, 2. The holy scriptures, therefore, never regard the heathen merely as such, as excluded from salvation. Such passages as Mark xvi. 16 do not relate to the heathen who are innocently ignorant of the gospel. The word apistein does not signify not to believe, but to DISbelieve, and always implies guilt . . . . No one will ever be condemned for guiltless ignorance, or for unintentional and innocent mistake; but only for guilty rejection and contempt of the truth, or for living contrary to the truth when once known . . . . God has not seen good as yet to bring all nations to the knowledge of Christianity. And, little capable as we are of understanding the plan of God in this respect, we ought not to conclude from this circumstance that the Christian revelation is unnecessary and may easily be dispensed with. It has pleased God to leave many nations for thousands of years in a barbarous and savage state. But can we conclude from this fact that intellectual cultivation and moral improvement are superfluous and useless, and therefore missions are unnecessary? Nor, on the other hand, can we conclude . . . that God cannot save the heathen, because they have not enjoyed the light of Christian revelation . . . . But it is expressly asserted, that God does not demand more from any one, than he is able, with his knowledge and abilities, to perform, Luke 12:48, seq.; and also, that he who faithfully serves God according to the knowledge and means which he enjoys, and does what he considers to be his duty, is acceptable to him, Acts 10:35 . . . . According to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, God will have reference in determining the character and conditions of men to the knowledge they have had, the dispositions they have cherished, and the actions they have performed. We may confidently expect from the goodness of God, that since he has heretofore given to so many nations only the light of nature, he will not make them miserable for the want of that higher knowledge of which they are innocently destitute. And since there is a future life, we may trust that he will there lead them to that higher degree of happiness and clearness of knowledge which they did not attain in this life, because, without fault of their own, they were here incapable of receiving it. To such a dispensation in the future world there is at least an allusion in Rev. xxii. 2, in the tree of life, by the river of life, whose leaves serve for the healing of the nations . . . . Many modern writers have treated this subject in such a way as to lead to a feeling of indifference towards Christianity; but this result need not be feared from the scriptural representation here given.⁴¹

Johann Christian von Hofmann (1810–1877), was professor of theology at Erlangen. In his work Der Schriftbeweis, he voiced similar views. He believed that Paul, in Romans 2:14 “holds out the prospect that the thoughts prompted by the testimony of conscience may perhaps lead the heathen to justify themselves before God on judgment day, and that this self-justification can be graciously accepted . . . . This may, however, result in behavior on the part of the heathen whom God will reward with eternal life on the day of that judgment John saw after the resurrection of the believers.”⁴²

August Tholuck (1799–1877) was professor of theology at University of Halle. He was considered orthodox, but was influenced both by rationalism and pietism.⁴³ His views regarding the unevangelized are evident in his commentaries on John and Romans. In his comments on John 3:21 (“But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God”), Tholuck remarks: “En theo, that is, so that the works have God as their source. It is in John we find direct expressions, according to which even those not yet converted can stand in a fellowship with God, (viii. 47, xviii. 37.)”⁴⁴ The two later texts in John which he references describe those who are “of God” (8:47) or “of the truth” (18:37) as hearing the words of God (8:47) or hearing the voice of Jesus (18:37). In other words, Tholuck interprets these texts as implying that people are in fellowship with God prior to hearing the gospel. On John 10:16 (“I have other sheep who are not of this fold”) he says: “Many of the Gentiles also, are ‘children of God,’ (xi. 52,) in virtue of that internal sympathy with Christ, by which they will be enabled to know his ‘voice.’”⁴⁵ On John 14:6 (“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me”), Tholuck says: “De Wette, not improperly, adds: ‘The particularistic principle, that no man cometh to the Father but through Christ, in its bearing on those who have never known him as an historical personage, is softened by the fact that he is also the Eternal (ideal) Logos.’”⁴⁶

In his commentary on Romans 2:6 (“who will render to each person according to his deeds”), Tholuck says:

The erga of a man, are the manifestation of his disposition. His disposition cannot be sanctified otherwise than by his being filled with the Love of God, and that can only take place when he is penetrated with the belief of things divine. Hence, the text in which salvation is made dependent upon works, do not stand in contradiction to those, where it is made to depend upon religious faith. In a certain degree, even the morality of the heathen may rest upon religious faith, and in so far be pure.⁴⁷

Views On Future Probation

Milton Valentine (1825–1906) taught theology at Gettysburg Seminary. In his Christian Theology, he rejects the idea of a probation after death. But in speaking of this idea, he writes:

A further check to over-confidence in the theory (of probation after death) is the fact that the Scriptures seem to teach that the heathen, as well as others, will be judged according to the religious light they have had; so that on the basis of an actual atonement in Christ for the sins of the whole world, there will be not only a just but a merciful judgment which may accept even such as know Him not according to the gospel, if they have lived according to the light afforded them. Indications pointing to the salvation of some heathen may be traced as follows: (a) We start with a concession of advantage in the possession of the gospel—‘much every way’ (Rom. iii. 1–2). The Jews had much light; the Gentiles little. But advantage as to salvation has no logic for utter exclusion of all without it. (b) Such little light puts the heathen under moral responsibility and opens possibilities of some obedience to God. (c) Obedience to given light may show the obedient receptivity, under the Spirit of truth, ready to move into the higher obedience of faith, as and when truth comes. Such recipiency has thus, in a measure, the nature of implicit, though not explicit, faith . . . . (d) God’s acceptance of such seems to be clearly asserted, e. g., Acts x. 34–35. In these words of Peter a general principle is clearly drawn from a particular case, the heathen centurion, Cornelius. St. Paul elaborates the logic of the situation (Rom. ii. 6–26), and opens to view a vision of the universal judgment which exhibits divine recognition of the sincere endeavor of pagan piety. (e) And linked with this view, illustrative examples are on divine record: e. g., Abraham himself, as reaching a divine acceptance of faith while yet in his uncircumcision (Rom. iv. 9–11); Job (Ezek. Xiv. 14; Jas. V. 11); Melchizedek (Heb. Vii. 1–4). These were without the gospel and the Bible, but not without God, even in their gentile privation. (f) The atoning value of Christ’s humiliation and cross extends to ‘the whole world.’ ‘He tasted death for every man.’ The world is under a mediatorial probation, and all humanity sustains a different, and it may be open, relation to forgiveness and healing grace. Let it be distinctly understood that such heathen are not to be thought of as saved on the ground of their own virtue, merit, or righteousness; but because Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world, such as have not heard of Him, yet ‘feel after Him that they may find Him’ are counted as His . . . .⁴⁸

Others believed that there would be an opportunity to embrace the gospel after death. The British Methodist theologian John S. Banks (1835–1917) said that, “Probation after death for the heathen, and for those in Christian lands who have had no adequate means of knowledge in this life, is held by Lutheran divines and by many in this country and America.”⁴⁹

German theologian Isaac Dorner (1809–1884) characterized nineteenth century German theology in these words:

The assumption that the termination of the earthly life is, in every case, the termination of the Day of Grace, has been pretty generally given up, on account of non-Christians who, never having heard of the Gospel, cannot be ripe for judgment. This has been a step towards naturalizing an alteration in the Reformation doctrine held concerning the intermediate state—an alteration which teaches that, even in the other world, a spiritual development, nay, probably a process of conversion, is conceivable . . . .⁵⁰

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Yale professor George P. Fisher (1827–1909) stated the idea was to be “found among the German evangelical theologians” that “an opportunity of hearing the Gospel, (is) to be granted, beyond the bounds of this life, and prior to the last judgment, to those who have not heard of Christ here, or have imperfectly apprehended his Gospel.”⁵¹ George A. Lindbeck (1923-2018) states: “The great majority of Protestant exegetes since the middle of the nineteenth century have held that the obscure passage in which Christ is said to have preached to the spirits in prison (I Pt. 3:19, cf. 4:6) reflects a belief in the early church that those who die in sin will still, in the mercy of God, have a chance to respond to the gospel.”⁵²

German theologian Julius Muller (1801–1878) advocated this view: “The way of return to God is closed against no one who does not close it against himself; therefore, those who have not yet closed it against themselves, in that the means of salvation, the Redemption of Christ, has not yet been offered to them, will indisputably hereafter, when beyond the limits of this earthly life, be placed in a condition to enter upon this way of return to God if they choose.”⁵³

Theologian August Hermann Cremer (1834–1903), who studied under Tholuck, was another advocate of a post-mortem probation. In his book Beyond the Grave, he wrote:

But there are so many who here below have not had the opportunity of deciding for or against God, because they do not know him and the provisions and works of his redeeming love. They belong partly to the remote heathen nations; or the influences and tendency of their education, or their position in life, has at best brought them into contact with only the extremest wave-circle of God’s word and of Christian spirit and life. Relations that have become historical, the environment into which they were born are largely to have brought the gospel near to such, are themselves to blame, or at least are sharers in the blame of their repugnance to it. And then so many must die before they have opportunity to know the gospel and become aware of the grace of the calling . . . . Therefore it is scriptural, and not contrary to Scripture, to believe in the possibility of conversion in the realm of death . . . .⁵⁴

Dorner himself was a chief proponent of this view. In his book On the Future State, he states concerning the view that the opportunity for salvation ends at death:

(T)his view is impracticable, and that even on moral grounds. Not only would nothing of essential importance remain for the judgment, if every one entered the place of his eternal destiny directly after death; but in that case, also, no room would be left for a progress of believers, who, however, are not yet sinless at the moment of death. If they are conceived as holy directly after death, sanctification would be effected by the separation from the body; the seat, therefore, of evil must be found in the body, and sanctification would be realized through a mere suffering, namely, of death in a physical process, instead of through the will. Moreover, the absoluteness of Christianity demands that no one be judged before Christianity has been made accessible and brought near to him. But that is not the case in this life with millions of human beings. Nay, even within the church there are periods and circles where the Gospel does not really approach men as that which it is. Moreover, those dying in childhood have not been able to decide personally for Christianity. Nor is the former view tenable exegetically. As to the Old Testament, it does not teach that all men enter directly after death into blessedness or damnation. They rather enter Sheol, which is described as an abode of the departed who are without power and true life. The pious and godless are not thought of as separated therein. This agrees with the statement that Christ first prepared the place of blessedness, to which belonged his person and work . . . . Further, we may apply here what was said . . . respecting the descent into Hades which implies that a salvation through knowledge of the Gospel is possible also to the departed. Christian grace is designed for human beings, not for inhabitants of earth. It is not said: He that hears not shall be damned; but he that believes not. Jesus seeks the lost: lost may be sought also in the kingdom of the dead. The opposite view leads to an absolute decree of rejection for all who have died and die as heathen, whereas Christian grace is universal. A proof that, according to the New Testament, the time of grace does not by a universal law expire with death, is found in Christ’s raisings of the dead, e.g., the youth at Nain received by being raised from the dead a prolonged term of grace, through which Christ’s love became first known to him. And if Tyre and Sidon had seen what the Jews saw, and had repented in sackcloth and ashes, they would have been saved; which therefore involves that if the term of grace expired for them with death, they would be damned, because, through no fault of their own, they had not seen and experienced Christ. When, further, Christ says of one sin that it is forgiven neither in this nor the next life, whereas other sins find forgiveness without restriction to this life, there is involved a testimony that other sins aside from the sin against the Holy Ghost may yet be forgiven in the next world. And how can the place of itself be expected to settle the question of moral worth and capacity for redemption? When the Epistle to the Hebrews says: ‘It is appointed to man once to die, and after this there awaits him krisis,’ we are not to understand with the old theology that the eternal salvation or woe of every one is decided immediately after death. As to the time of the final judgment, after death, the passage says nothing. Moreover, not only is the last judgment a crisis, but death also brings one in its own way. Of course the importance of the bodily life and the account to be given of it are taught in the New Testament. The passages quoted above, according to which the pious enter at once a better place, exclude a purgatory as a state of punishment or penance, but by no means exclude a growth in perfection and blessedness. Even the departed righteous are not entirely perfected before the resurrection, but their souls must still long for the dominion of Christ and the consummation of the kingdom of God. Thus there is yet a status intermedius even for believers, and not an immediate passage into perfect blessedness, whereby the value of the resurrection would be lost, which occurs only along with Christ’s second advent.⁵⁵

Mention should also be made of the Danish theologian Hans Martensen, who also embraced Dorner’s view:

But here the old question returns, whether there be a terminus peremptorious for human conversion, i.e., an utmost limit beyond which true repentance and conversion are no longer possible. But we dare not venture to fix this limit arbitrarily at any point within the course of time (e.g., at the end of this life); but we are unconditionally compelled to fix it at the end of time and history; and this corresponds exactly with the idea of the final advent of the Lord. While time lasts conversion must be possible, for the Christian conception of time consists in this very thing, that it is a season of testing and grace; and so long as the sinner is in time he is the object of God’s long-suffering.⁵⁶

Interestingly, the Moravian theologian Augustus Schultze (1840-1918) also believed in evangelization after death. In his work on Christian doctrine, he states:

As to the Heathen and the many nominal Christians who depart this life without having gained a saving knowledge of Christ, we cannot believe, that the majority of all these die in a state of spiritual hardening and wickedness that would make their sin absolute and unpardonable. God ‘would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (I Tim. 2:4), and ‘he is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him’ (Acts 10:35). And yet ‘in none other is there salvation, neither is there any other name under heaven, wherein we must be saved,’ but the name of Jesus Christ. We have Christ’s own promise, that the Gospel ‘shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations’ (Matt. 24:14), before the end comes. Does this not also include those in the world of departed spirits? It is admitted that the passages of Holy Scripture which may serve as proof-texts for this belief are few and of disputed application. However, they furnish sufficient ground for the hope that, before the judgment day, the salvation which is in Christ Jesus shall have been offered to all the dead as well as to all the living. Peter testifies: ‘For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit’ ( I Pet. 4:6). If Christ ‘preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah’ (I Pet. 3:19), what hinders us to believe, that such preaching has been continued ever since, by the servants of Christ, to all those who have died before the joyful message of salvation reached them. For this means the great majority of the human race . . . . Some indeed consider this a dangerous doctrine, because they fear it might lessen the missionary zeal of saving the heathen, before they die and are lost, or because it admits a ‘probation’ or decision after death. They hold that the time of decision for all men must be in this life and that the heathen will be judged without reference to the Gospel, simply on the ground of their works and their faithfulness, with the light of knowledge which they had of God and of righteousness. (Rom. 2:6, 8, ‘Who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life; but unto them that are factious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation.’) But if the heathen could be saved without the gospel of Jesus Christ, his salvation, his suffering, death and resurrection would avail only for a small portion of humanity, instead of being the ‘propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the whole world’ (I John 2:2). Surely the declarations of Scripture, that men cannot be saved without faith in Christ and without his grace, are plain and emphatic (Acts 4:12; Mark 16:16, etc.) . . . . This fact does not conflict with the idea that the work of preparation for salvation (‘prevenient grace’) begins even with the heathen, in their earthly life and that the response to it marks the fundamental tendency of every man. In that sense, the decision is made here, without a knowledge of Christ: The heathen may have a saving faith and the grace of God working in him; only he needs to be brought to the light and to the personal knowledge of the Redeemer, before his faith can be perfected and his calling and salvation be made sure.⁵⁷

Under the heading “Preparation outside of the Church” Schultze says:

This class includes, besides the heathen, Mohammedans and other non-Christians, the millions of nominal Christians who, though born in a Christian country and perhaps baptized, grow up without the blessings of Christian precept and example. Such men often receive a special preparation for salvation by manifestations of divine help or of divine chastisement, which attract their attention. Certain experiences which they make, whether they be of a joyful or painful nature, awaken in them a longing for something better and higher than the natural life affords. Or they are furnished an opportunity to hear and read a testimony to the truth, by coming into contact with Christian men and women who can instruct them . . . . In some cases the general revelation of God, through nature, history and the inner voice of conscience, is employed to give men the preparation for the salvation to be offered to them. In other cases a direct testimony of revealed religion through a word of Scripture of a Christian hymn which they hear, serves the purpose of making an impression or awakening an interest in spiritual matters.⁵⁸

Concerning the gospel call, Schultze wrote:

Christ has promised that, before the close of this world-period, the Gospel shall have reached every tribe of men. As for those who died before the word of salvation in Christ could be proclaimed on earth, we may conclude from I Pet. 3:19 and 4:6, that this may have been done for them in the Spirit-world, and the same hope may be entertained with regard to the heathen who are now dying without having heard the Gospel.⁵⁹

Likewise, the Lutheran Bishop Lars Nielsen Dahle (1843–1925) draws the same conclusion. On the basis of the fact that the New Testament speaks of people being judged due to their acceptance or rejection of Christ (cf. II Thess. 1:8), he says that, “the gospel, the message of salvation, testimony concerning Christ, must come to everyone before the final judgment can be passed upon him. If it does not reach him in this life, then we see no other conclusion than that it will come to him after death.”⁶⁰

It is fitting to include here the response of the Presbyterian minister J. L. Withrow to the idea of a post-mortem probation. He wrote in an article rebutting this view:

Some while ago, when this hypothesis of the Gospel beyond the grave was theoretically limited to only the pagans, who had not rejected Christ, it seemed to us that a dead halt should be called to foreign missionary labors, if the theory as then presented were true. Because, at best, the faithful missionary knows how poorly he presents Christ. And taking the theory as it first came to us, the heathen were all saved, and sure of the Gospel in Hades, provided they had not rejected Jesus in this life. Then our thought was, that we should stop sending missionaries, lest they lead the pagan to reject Jesus here, and so lose them their opportunity over Jordan . . . . But since the theory has become so expanded, that no man ‘has the power or the right’ to say what measure of the knowledge of Christ misused in life will incur condemnation, there remains less reason for solicitude about the heathen, as also about anybody else. For, according to the latest and largest views of some teachers of this hypothesis, it is going to be the very hardest thing in this universe for any soul to be lost.⁶¹

His rejection of this view could not have been stated more forcefully.

The Modern Era

All of the views described above may be found among Lutherans living during the past century. Conservatives, such as Franz Pieper, hold to the traditional view that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation during this lifetime. Pieper states this succinctly:

Not even the fact that not all nations on earth and not all individuals in any one nation have had the Gospel should move us to doubt the gratia universalis et seria which Scripture so clearly teaches. The judgments of God by which He punishes the rejection of the Gospel also in the descendants, are, as the Formula of Concord point out . . . , unsearchable. Rom. 11:33f.: ‘How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!’ In order to safeguard universal grace before the forum of human reason, some have thought that the heathen will be saved for Christ’s sake, without faith in the Gospel, merely on account of their moral striving . . . . Others have assumed that after this life an opportunity to hear the Gospel and to believe it will be offered . . . . But these are human speculations, without any foundation in Scripture. Scripture knows of no salvation for men without faith in the Gospel.⁶²

Concerning Christ’s preaching the gospel to the dead (I Pet. 4:6), Pieper rejects the notion that “Christ preached salvation, or the Gospel, in hell either to all the godless, as Marcion taught, or to the godless and the devils, as Origen taught, or at least to those who had no opportunity on earth to hear the Gospel.”⁶³

Concerning natural revelation, and the need for the gospel, the conservative Lutheran Adolf Hoenecke states:

No matter how highly natural man may develop his knowledge of God, it is still never sufficient for him to attain eternal salvation. Despite all development, the heart of the natural man remains in total darkness as far as the knowledge of God in regard to eternal salvation (Eph. 4:18). Therefore, man is without God and without hope in this life (Eph. 2:2) [sic, he most certainly intended Eph. 2. 12]. His works cannot justify him (Gal. 3:11), and the natural knowledge of God does not reveal any way to eternal salvation other than the way of works. Thus, the natural knowledge of God cannot help man attain eternal salvation. This fact is demonstrated by God directing that the saving gospel be preached to all people (Mk. 16:15; Ro 10:18; Mt 28:19). This command is the realization of his will to impart the knowledge of the truth necessary for salvation (Jn. 17:3; I Ti 2:4; cf. v. 7). God certainly would not have the gospel spread if the natural knowledge of God were sufficient to attain eternal life . . . . We dare not conclude that since the natural knowledge of God is insufficient for eternal salvation, that it, therefore, has no divine purpose at all. Rather, its very important divine purpose is to guide mankind to seek the true God (Ac 17:27). This is also referred to as the pedagogical purpose.⁶⁴

After discussing the Scripture passages relevant to the matter of a probation after death, Hoenecke states: “All of the Scripture passages just treated, especially Hebrews 3:17–19, also condemn the teaching that salvation is offered again to the unconverted in an intermediate condition after death.”⁶⁵ Though he does not believe that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation, he does see it has having a “pedagogical purpose” in that it can “guide mankind to seek the true God.” Concerning this role of natural revelation, Hoenecke further states: “In the stirring of the conscience, in the consideration of the universe, in the contemplation of the blessings and wisdom of God in his rule of the world, there can be a call to inquire about God (Ro 1:20; 2:14, 15; Ac 17:27) . . . . Through this kind of call, an obscure longing for the true salvation can be inspired but no more.”⁶⁶

Joseph Stump (President of Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, 1920–1935) also represents a conservative Lutheran position:

The necessity of the means of grace is . . . evident. Take them away, and we know of no means through which God’s thoughts can be communicated from His mind to ours. Language, which is the communication of minds with one another through signs, is the one avenue of approach by one person to another; it is the one means of persuading another. Hence if men neglect the Word and the Sacraments, they close up the only avenue of approach to themselves. And if the Church fails to send the Word and Sacraments to heathen lands, it deprives the heathen of the only means known to us through which the Holy Spirit can work in them that ethical transformation whose essence is faith in Christ . . . . That God might in some way, purely spiritual, communicate His truth to men’s minds may be acknowledged, since He doubtless has some way of communicating with angels, who are pure spirits, and doubtless has some way of communicating with the sainted dead before the resurrection of their bodies. But in this world God chooses to convey His truth to men by those very means which men use in communicating with one another. He uses signs which represent conceptions and thoughts, and brings them home to men’s minds without the use of the Means of Grace is not here the question. The fact is that He uses those means, and that we not only have no assurance that if they are neglected He will communicate His truth to any man directly, but we are told that without the Means of Grace the Holy Spirit will not produce His saving effects in the heart. We are bound to the Word and the Sacraments. God’s gracious will is recorded in His Word and set forth in the Sacraments, and apart from them there is no saving knowledge of the truth and no saving work of the Holy Spirit.⁶⁷

Note further his following statements. “So far as the plan of God is made known to us in His revelation, the salvation of men is completely dependent on the preaching of the Gospel. The measure, therefore, in which the Church lives up to the command of Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature is the measure of men’s opportunity for salvation. For how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? (Rom. 10:14, 15)”⁶⁸ He furthermore states: “Membership in the Church is necessary to salvation; and if the membership be enduring, it gives certainty of salvation. For to be a member of the Church means to be a believer in Christ; and to believe in Christ means to be saved. The membership here referred to is not that of an outward organization but of the spiritual fellowship of believers.”⁶⁹

In another place, he writes:

It is God’s will that the Gospel shall actually reach every individual. He has laid upon the Church the obligation to make the call universal in the actual sense. She is to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. But only to the extent to which the Church performs her evangelistic duty will the call reach every individual of the race . . . . Why some nations and individuals are favored above others by the possession of the Gospel is a question which we cannot answer. But the fact that we are favored with the Gospel should be an incentive to do our utmost to bring the call to all men everywhere.⁷⁰

Stump clearly emphasizes the indispensable nature of the human proclamation of the gospel.

Concerning the matter of the universality of the gospel proclamation, Stump offers the following observation:

Some of the old dogmaticians maintained the actual universality of the call on the basis of its supposed universality in Adam and Noah, and in the apostles’ preaching of the Gospel. But the apostles did not actually present their message to every individual, nor penetrate to all parts of the whole world. And while the descendants of Adam and Noah failed by reason of sin to receive the call given through their ancestor, that does not alter the fact that many of those descendants actually lived and died in utter ignorance of God’s gracious plan of redemption. To say that a man has actually received the call, when he has in fact never heard a word of the Gospel, is not a correct statement of the case.⁷¹

Regarding the possibility of a post-mortem probation, Stump states:

Another objection that is urged is that the lost might repent in hell if they had the opportunity, and that they will have the opportunity. Then, when they have repented, they will escape from hell. But how will they repent in hell? In this world men are brought to repentance by the grace of God, and not simply by experiencing the consequences of sin. And if in this world the grace of God has labored with men in vain, the same grace would fail to save them in the world to come. It will not be offered. But if it were, it would be rejected by the same obduracy which rejected it here.⁷²

Other Lutherans, nonetheless, embrace broader views. Carl E. Braaten (1929-2023) was an influential American Lutheran theologian. Braaten did not believe there is salvation apart from Christ: “On the basis of salvation through ‘Christ alone’ and justification by ‘faith alone’, Lutheran theology has no certain grounds for teaching that the religions as such are ways of salvation and that people are saved through whatever the religion into which they happen to be born. Outside of Christ and apart from the preaching of the gospel, there are no known historical alternatives that may be theologically accepted as divinely authorized means of salvation.”⁷³ However, he does state: “Can we not conclude . . . that there are preparations for the Christian gospel in certain historical forms of religion, even though they might fall short of the full revelation of God in the personal sacrifice and cross of Jesus Christ? . . . . Perhaps we can say about these religions of grace what Jesus said to the scribe in Mark 12:34: ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”⁷⁴ He cites Paul Althaus in agreement concerning the necessity of faith in Christ: “Outside of Christ there is indeed a self-manifestation of God, and therefore knowledge of God, but it does not lead to salvation, to union between God and humankind.”⁷⁵ Though Braaten believes that there may be preparations for the gospel even in other religions, he holds firmly that salvation comes only through faith in Christ.

It is partly because of his belief in the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation that Braaten believes that there must be an opportunity to believe in Christ after death: “(I)nsofar as we confess Christ’s descent to hades as the realm of the dead, we are claiming that his work of salvation is universal and reaches beyond the limits of those who preach and hear the gospel in this life. Nations and generations of people who lived before the coming of Christ and who have never been confronted with the preaching of salvation in his name are not eternally lost. Christ goes even to the dead, so that he might be acclaimed the Lord of the living and the dead.”⁷⁶ Furthermore, Braaten holds out the hope that all people might one day be reconciled to God through Christ:

We would teach a highly nuanced and qualified evangelical Christocentric universal hope. It is not a dogma, not a piece of knowledge, not something to which humans have a right and a claim. Yet, it is something for which we may cautiously and distinctly pray and hope, that in spite of everything that seems to point conclusively in the opposite direction, God’s mercy will not cast off his world forever . . . . This does not lead to a dogmatic universalism. But it does mean that we leave open the possibility that within the power of God’s freedom and love, all people may indeed be saved in the end.⁷⁷

Lutheran theologian George A. Lindbeck (1923–2018) held similar views:

We have noted that a part (sic) generation of dogmaticians such as Haring, Schlatter, R. Seeber, and, most recently, Althaus, basing themselves on such possible hints as I Pt. 3:19, broke through the limits of the old Protestant orthodoxy by no longer confining saving revelation to this life . . . . The final die is cast beyond our space and time, beyond empirical observation, beyond all idle speculation about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ deaths, when a person loses his rootage in this world and passes into the inexpressible transcendence surpassing all words, images, and thoughts. We must trust and hope, though not know, that in this dreadful yet wondrous end and climax of life no one will be lost . . . . It is possible to be hopeful and trusting about the ultimate salvation of non-Christians no less than Christians even if one does not think of justifying grace as already at work apart from explicit faith.⁷⁸

Wolfhart Pannenberg also voiced sympathy for this view:

It has often been asked: if God was revealed in Jesus for the first time, and if salvation for mankind only appeared in Jesus, what is to happen to the multitude who lived before Jesus’ ministry? And what will become of the many who never came into contact with the Christian message? What, finally, is to happen to the people who have certainly heard the message of Christ but who—perhaps through the fault of those very Christians who have been charged with its proclamation—have never come face to face with its truth? Are all these people delivered over to damnation? Do they remain shut out for ever from the presence of God which has been made accessible to mankind through Jesus? . . . The Christian faith can say ‘no’ to this urgent question. That is the meaning of the phrase about Christ’s descent into hell in the creed. We do not know whether it is the meaning intended by the men who included the formula in the creed. But it does in any event contain this meaning in the light of its New Testament origin: what took place for mankind in Jesus also applies to the people who either never came into contact with Jesus and the message about him, or who have never really caught sight of the truth of his person and his story. In a way that is hidden from us—and in a way hidden even from themselves—the lives of these people may yet be related to the revelation of God which appeared in Jesus . . . . We have, it is true, no guarantee of their salvation. Salvation is only guaranteed to the man who has definite communion with Jesus—and who has through this communion the hope of overcoming death with Jesus. But all other men, too, even those who died before Jesus’ ministry, can achieve the salvation which appeared in him—even if in ways which are beyond our comprehension. The meaning of the Christian acknowledgment of the conquest of the kingdom of death and Jesus Christ’s descent into hell lies in the universal scope of salvation.⁷⁹

Though there were some among the Lutherans who espoused views on the unevangelized similar to that held by the Arminians (that they might be saved through their response to natural revelation), many Lutherans held fast to the conviction that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, there were quite a number among these who believed that the opportunity for faith in Christ is not limited to this life.⁸⁰ And there are some who hold out the hope that all people may eventually come to faith in Christ, and thus to salvation.

---