8. Conclusion To Part I

From the earliest days of the church, and the commission to preach the gospel to every creature, questions have been posed about the fate of those who have never heard of Christ in any meaningful way. And various answers to these questions have been given. In the earliest years, the discussion focused on the fate of those who lived outside God’s covenant community (Israel) before the coming of Christ. Some proposed that those who lived prior to Christ were evangelized in Hades by the crucified Christ. Others believed that many people who lived prior to Christ had been unknowingly led to grace through the divine Logos present to all people. Still others believed that even before the coming of Christ, salvation came only through anticipatory faith in him or in the true God, and that divine revelation had been proclaimed (naturally or supernaturally) to as many as God knew would believe (or, for Augustine, those whom God had had elected to believe).

Since the gospel was believed to have penetrated the entire world, few were concerned with the question of those who remained without the gospel. As it became apparent that there might be some on the fringes of civilization who might not have heard the gospel, most believed that if they did what was in their power, God would send the saving message to such people (if even by an angelic messenger). Some believed that those who were outside the hearing of the gospel were not of God’s elect, or had forfeited the hearing of the gospel by their misconduct and unbelief.

As greater thought was given to the status of those who did not have full comprehension of the details of Church dogma, or who were not able to be baptized before death, the theory of implicit faith in God (and his provision of redemption, however it might be accomplished), and the baptism of desire came to be accepted in the Medieval Church. These concepts were then also applied to those who lived prior to Christ, and who may not have been in possession of divine revelation. After the discovery of the New World, and the awareness of a great mass of humanity who gave no evidence of having ever been evangelized, these ideas eventually came to be applied to all who were without the gospel “through no fault of their own.” If they believed in God, and responded to whatever light they had, they would be saved. In the twentieth century, the Catholic church eventually came to believe that even those who lacked faith in God might receive God’s salvation, if they were submissive to the dictates of conscience.

With some exceptions, those who embraced the principles of the Reformation adhered to the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. Most of the Reformed believed that all whom God had called to salvation would receive the gospel in this lifetime, whether by the ordinary means of preaching, or by extraordinary and even supernatural means. Those who followed Arminius believed that if someone used the grace God had granted to all in a favorable way, God would see that they received the gospel so as to be saved, whether by ordinary or extraordinary means.

In time, however, most Arminians (some would say under the influence of a growing rationalism) embraced the idea that an implicit faith in what had been revealed generally to all people (and discernible by reason) was sufficient for salvation (though recognizing that not all of the blessings of Christ would be enjoyed until they heard the gospel). Many moderate Calvinists, and some classical Calvinists (such as Shedd), also entertained hopes that God would grant saving grace to the unevangelized, through their response to natural revelation or truth in other religions (though for different reasons than the Arminians suggested).

Orthodox Lutherans maintained the necessity of explicit faith, and believed that the gospel had been universally declared. Many also believed that those nations and peoples who lacked the saving message, had forfeited their day of grace by the rejection or neglect of the gospel in previous generations. In time, however, and many would say under the influence of enlightenment rationalism, most Lutherans abandoned this belief, and adopted either the view of the later Arminians, or the view that God would provide an opportunity for salvation after death to those who had not heard the gospel during this lifetime.

Indeed, in the course of time the number of those who believed explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (at least during this lifetime) diminished. In those segments of Christendom where confidence in divine revelation was overshadowed by confidence in personal religious experience, belief in the necessity of explicit faith entirely vanished. Religious pluralism (the view that all religions are human responses to experience of the divine, and represent legitimate ways to God) now reigns among those who have relinquished confidence in the authority of Scripture.

Among those who have maintained faith in the authority of Scripture (evangelicals), the debate over the fate of the unevangelized continues to this day. Most (though not all) Calvinists (and conservative Lutherans) likely continue to believe in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ during this lifetime, whether communicated by a human messenger or in an extraordinary and supernatural way. A minority of those who believe in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ entertain at least the possibility of an opportunity after death, for those who had not knowingly rejected Christ in this lifetime. Most evangelical Arminians (unless they adhere to the view Arminius held personally), and some Calvinists, hold to some form of inclusivism, believing that God extends at least the beginnings of salvation to all those who embrace whatever light they possess. There clearly is no single view on this matter espoused by all evangelical believers.

It would seem that one’s views are in large measure determined by his/her beliefs about the nature of God’s grace. If God, desiring the salvation of all, at least partially restores all people spiritually by granting them sufficient grace to believe, then it would seem that so long as a person uses that grace in a positive way by responding to whatever revelation he possesses, then God would in turn respond favorably to that proper use of grace, even if the person as yet does not know the gospel. Based then, on one’s proper use of sufficient grace, a person may possess a disposition to believe long before actually believing in Christ. In Wesley’s view, a person in this position has already received God’s salvation, at least “to a degree.” And in this way of seeing things, salvation is a process that is experienced “by degrees.” That is, salvation is extended to people in measure, based on the “dispensation” under which they are living. And this is determined by the degree of revelation they have received.

If, on the other hand, man is “dead in trespasses and sins” and by nature is unwilling to believe apart from God’s efficacious grace, then only those who are recipients of this grace may properly be spoken of as being saved. Though God may use general revelation in preparing a person for salvation, until that person receives this grace, he or she is lost. This is the essence of Calvinism, as well as of conservative Lutheranism. Most Calvinists believe that God’s efficacious grace is always accompanied by the gospel. And conservative Lutherans believe the same. However, some Calvinists and Lutherans, though they believe that it is God’s normal way to save people through the gospel, that this is not always the case. In their view, God sometimes grants saving grace (regeneration) prior to (perhaps a long time prior to) sending the gospel. Such people would evidence a positive response to whatever revelation they possess. Some may believe that this is a rare occurrence, while others believe it is not so uncommon. One can see that what we believe about the unevangelized is really a function of other important beliefs about the human condition, as well as about the nature of God’s grace

But what should also be evident from the foregoing study is that it’s very possible for our beliefs to be greatly influenced, not only by our theology, but by other external forces as well. Significant events, such as the discovery of the New World, or the Holocaust, have influenced the way Christians have viewed the unevangelized. No doubt, the increase in close contact with people of other cultures and religious world views brought about by increased immigration and advances in world-wide travel, and communication, is another important factor. The “unevangelized” are not only “over there,” but they are around the corner and down the street. Such events should certainly be occasions for re-evaluating our beliefs in the light of Scripture. But we must be careful that they do not shape our views in ways contrary to Scripture.

Equally, there can be no doubt that the promotion of cultural relativism and postmodern skepticism must also be taken into account. One feels in our generation the necessity of being in possession of almost overwhelming evidence before accepting significant truth claims. Add to this the growth of nationalism in non-Christian cultures, and the guilt that many in the West feel about what some would characterize as centuries of imperialistic colonialism (even if only a partially accurate perception), it is easy to see how these forces can weigh heavily when seeking satisfying answers to questions that impinge on our relationships with “outsiders.”

These factors are certainly real, and should not be ignored. But if we are to do justice to the claim to be “evangelical,” we must be vigilant to make certain our beliefs are ultimately founded on Scripture and theological deductions clearly drawn from Scripture. Not least should this be true of our views about what is required for salvation. It is to this that we will turn in the second part of this work. What do the Scriptures teach about the possibility of the unevangelized being saved apart from the gospel?