And He said Unto THEM....

by Rose

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22:14-22)

He sat down with his TWELVE disciples and He said unto THEM:

This is my body which is given for you... and this is my blood shed for you.

Most all people who are familiar with the gospel accounts -even vaguely- would assume that Judas went to Hell. If I were a Calvinist, I would say that Judas was not among the elect, those chosen to be saved.

I wonder: if I were a Calvinist, how could I read this... where we are told that Jesus HIMSELF said to the TWELVE that He was about to shed His blood for them...

how could I read that... and then still hold that Christ did not die for saved and unsaved alike - all mankind?

A conundrum.

What about the Unevangelized Part 4

by Matthew

One objection which may sometimes be raised against universal premortem opportunism is Romans 10:14:

14 ¶ How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

This verse is often cited as proof that no body can be saved unless they encounter an human preacher. This verse is a favourite in missionary talks, where it is used to pressure people into either giving towards mission or to get young people to become missionaries.

Many years ago I read “What about those who have not heard?” a ‘three views’ book edited by Gabriel Fackre. Sadly, none of the three contributors defended the view expressed in these posts, instead arguing for Restrictivism, Inclusivism and Postmortem Evangelisation. One significant absence in the debate was this Romans 10:14. Even Ronald Nash, who argued for Restrictivism omitted to mention this verse. I suspect this was because the authors all understood that this verse in no way proves Restrictivism.

Even if Paul was making this statement with the same intent as missionary speakers, it would not necessarily refute universal opportunism. Paul is not actually stating that preaching is the only way to receive the offer of eternal life. Were we to take it that way, nobody could be saved through reading a tract. Yet this is not the purpose of this statement.
All too often the famous verses are quoted while ignoring their context. A common example is James 2:19. So often one hears Christians saying things like:
“Its no good just believing and not walking the walk; even the demons believe.”

Yet as Zane Hodges has powerfully argued, James is quoting an hypothetical objector. A rhetorical device is in use here.

The context of Romans 9-11 is not the plight of the unevangelized. It is the rejection of the gospel by the nation of Israel. Paul is not giving a missionary talk, he is addressing Israel’s need for faith in Christ. In verse 14, Paul raises an hypothetical objection. What if they have not heard? How are they going to be saved if they have not heard a preacher? Yet he answers this in the following verses:

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Is. 53.1

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 ¶ But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily,
Their sound went into all the earth,
and their words unto the ends of the world. Ps. 19.4


19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith,
I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people,
and by a foolish nation I will anger you. Deut. 32.21


20 But Isaiah is very bold, and saith,
I was found of them that sought me not;
I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. Is. 65.1


21 But to Israel he saith,
All day long I have stretched forth my hands
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people

The gospel has been preached! The majority of Jews have rejected the message by which they must be saved. Yet despite this, God’s purposes still stand. Therefore, it is quite illegitimate to take this verse as some kind of proof that people can only be saved through contact with an human missionary. The possibility remains that God, in His compassion and mercy will provide light to those in darkness through dreams and visions.

What about the Unevangelized? Part 3

by Matthew

In the first post we established by argument that God’s love means that the likelihood is that He has made some way for the unevangelized to escape everlasting punishment. In the second post, we looked at the different views on the subject amongst Christians. This blogger takes the view that the best solution is Universal Premortem Opportunism; that is that God probably supplies special revelation to those who have not met any human witness. This may depend upon how they have responded to the light of natural revelation.

In this post we will consider some arguments for Universal Premortem Opportunism from the Scriptures. I will confess that they are inconclusive. The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches Universal Premortem Opportunism. We can only infer it. However, this reveals a crucial difference in methodology between Restrictivists and Opportunitists:

Restrictivists settle the question by what the Bible does not say (i.e. no hope offered to unevangelized).
Opportunitists settle the question by what the Bible does say (i.e. God’s mercy, lovingkindness and the universal extent of the atonement).

For Opportunists, the character of God is a more decisive factor than the absence of any specific statements in the Scripture.

Genesis 6:13-21

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

In this passage God reveals Himself by special revelation to Noah and warns Him of the wrath to come.

God communicated to the patriarchs directly. They had no preachers or Scriptures so far as we know. This does not prove that God reveals Himself by special revelation to the unevangelised, but it does show that God does not always work through the preaching of Scripture.

Genesis 20

3 But God came to Abim'elech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

4 But Abim'elech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

God cares enough about Abimelech to warn him in a dream that he is in danger of death. Does God care enough about the heathen to grant them a dream that they might avoid the second death?

Daniel 2

47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

The Lord reveals Himself by dream to the king of Babylon.

Jonah 4

10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

11 and should not I spare Nin'eveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

A beautifully simple statement of the Lord's compassion towards the heathen. Had Jonah continued to resist the call to Ninevah, would not God's compassion towards its inhabitants have remained?

Luke 12

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

God speaks to a man before His death. Granted this was not an offer of mercy and this man may have already been regenerated (though clearly a carnal and worldly man), but it does establish a precedent for God speaking to people before they die.

Acts 10

1 There was a certain man in Caesare'a called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

3 He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 and when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

9 ¶ On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 ¶ Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 and called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them.
¶ And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesare'a. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

30 ¶ And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

31 and said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.

33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Deut. 10.17

35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

This passage reveals God's acceptance of those who have responded to the light of natural revelation. Cornelius was such a person and he was lead to Peter to find salvation. If Cornelius had been located at a much further distance from Peter and the other apostles, he would still have been such a man that God would accept.

No doubt there are many among Islam and other false faiths who know there is a God and know that He must be feared, yet are ignorant of Him. Will God not grant to them the light of eternal life in Christ?

The Time-Share Industry and 'Free' Grace

by Antonio da Rosa

The following is a small sample of my new article at Free Grace Theology Blog. It comes from the article, How to Lead People to Christ, Installment #2: The 'Deserted Island' Scenario.

If you would like to comment on this, please direct them to Free Grace Theology Blog under that thread heading.

As a proponent of Free Grace Theology, I believe that eternal life is the Gift of God. It is not a barter between man and God, nor is it a two way transaction, nor are there required preconditions attached. A gift, legitimately spoken of, does not require anything of the recipient but its reception.


The Time-Share Industry and ‘Free’ Gifts
My sister used to work in Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico, selling time-share. She still has friends in this industry. When she was up a few months ago, she gave me a brochure that offered me a 'free' gift: an all included 4-night stay in a hotel in Cabo San Lucas. But there were catches. I had to be of a certain annual income, and I had to submit to a multi-hour meeting pitching the sales of time-share in Cabo San Lucas.

Was the vacation offered a genuine free gift? I do not believe so. There is a type of barter and two-way transaction going on here, as well as a required pre-condition. In exchange for a person’s time and attention at a multi-hour sales pitch meeting, he is given a 4-night vacation. Furthermore, in order to even be eligible for this exchange, one has to meet the condition of being at a certain level of affluence; his annual income must be at the predetermined amount.

It is my contention that well meaning traditional Free Grace theology people would be inconsistent if they did not consider this vacation a genuine free gift. Why? This scenario illustrates their doctrine of soteriology, in which they claim to be adherents of a free grace. But is their doctrine truly free grace?

One is not able to simply receive the free gift of eternal life in traditional Free Grace theology. There are preconditions to be met, which sets up a two-way transaction and barter for eternal life. In the following table we see the barter between God and man

Man’s Exchange

God’s Exchange

1. Strict Adherence to a Number of Orthodox Doctrines   a) The Deity of Christ (along with subpoints)   b) The Substitutionary Death of Christ for Sins (along with subpoints)   c) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ (along with subpoints)   d) The Humanity of Christ (along with subpoints)   e) [Apparent Contradiction] Salvation is by Grace Alone in Jesus Christ Alone 2. Must Not Hold to Any Fatal Unorthodox Doctrines   a) A Subjective Range   b) Will result in one believing in a “different Jesus” 3. Must Not Deny the Essential Orthodox Doctrines   a) A Subjective Range   b) Will result in one believing in a “different Jesus”

If man’s conditions and items necessary for exchange are submitted and in order God will perform His end of the transaction: Give Eternal Life

Just like the time-share companies, traditional Free Grace people require more to appropriating eternal life than simply receiving a free gift. This is not Free Grace Theology! Like the precondition of the time-share industry (being at a certain income level) which qualifies one for a vacation, the traditional Free Grace people have their preconditions, requiring one to be a type of orthodox fundamentalist before they are qualified for eternal life. Unless one be at some subjective level of orthodoxy (to be determined by the traditional evangelist, as you ask 10 of them what are the specific requirements and you get 11 different answers), he is no candidate for salvation.

It is as if the Scriptures do not say anymore, "And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev 22:17), but, "And let him who is orthodox come. Whoever meets these preconditions of orthodoxy, let him trade this allegiance for the water of life."

Let us make this point clearly:

The legitimate offer of a free gift comes with no other requirement but to simply receive it. This is essentially what free grace is! The conditions placed upon the lost by well-meaning, but erroneous, traditional Free Grace people are unnecessary caveats, provisos, and codicils in the saving transaction. The requirement of these things may indeed frustrate God's grace, and preclude people from eternal salvation (not to mention assurance!).

The Right Thing -- The Right Person

by Antonio da Rosa

Identity
There are many ways that organizations, such as law enforcement or businesses who deal with sensitive information, can positively identify a person: DNA, dental records, fingerprints, or retinal scan, to name a few. Determining these factors can net positive identification, or exclude one from consideration. A person can change his physical features (hair style and color, plastic surgery, makeup, etc) in a number of fashions in order that he might elude detection and identification, but these few techniques would make it hard, even impossible, to pass oneself off as someone else. Positive identification is indeed possible.


Reference
In the realm of everyday communication we are accustomed to those we are in contact with referring to other people in the course of their dialogues. We, too, speak with reference to others as we go about the business of interacting with those we relate to in the outworking of our daily lives and activities. Often, the accurate communication of the identity of a reference is made by use of a name alone. A person talking to another may invoke a name which identifies a person who is familiar to both parties. The context of the dialogue that surrounds the usage of the name may net positive results in two or more parties who share an acquaintance with the one being referred to. In some circumstances, the parties may know multiple people with that same name so other indicators of identity will have to be given, such as the reference's last name, spouse's name, place of employment, or any other distinguishing characteristic. In this way, precise reference to the individual under consideration may be realized for the purposes of the communication.


Misconceptions are not necessary killers to identity or reference
We must note that whether it be the FBI or your best friend, positive identification and reference to individuals is possible, even in the presence of misconceptions about an individual. In the case of a federal investigation, descriptions of a suspect may be faulty due to an individual purposely changing various aspects of his appearance in order to circumvent exposure. Any number of drastic courses of action may be taken by the criminal to hide his identity, but the verification of any unique distinguishing characteristic, such as a DNA test, will provide positive identification, even in the face of wild misconceptions. So, too, in the course of everyday communication, positive reference to an individual can be realized through the testimony of a single, unique, distinguishing characteristic despite abounding misconceptions.

One may be under the impression that Barak Hussein Obama is a native of Indonesia, a Muslim, and Reaganesque in his policies, while another believes him to be the American Messiah, a humanist, and a communist. But when these two come together for communication and invoke the present President of the United States, the 44th President, in their communication they have made positive reference to Barak Hussein Obama, despite their misconceptions.

Positive identification and precise reference of individuals can be accomplished through one unique distinguishing characteristic.


The Red Herring of a Desperate Separationist
If you are familiar at all with the blogosphere debate over the last 2-3 years, you no doubt have seen a statement of mine quoted out of context literally dozens and dozens of times. The quote is:

"The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same"

The Mormons not only refer to Jesus with one unique reference, but with many unique historical references. See my post here: Offenders for a Word

What I argue is that since Mormons refer to the Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible that they are referring to the same historical Jesus as the Evangelicals do. By virtue of established unique distinguishing references and characteristics of this Jesus, the Personage whom they refer to is adequately delimited to the bona-fide historical Jesus of Nazareth. Of course they have a multitude of various misconceptions about Him, many being outright blasphemous. But when it comes to making reference to the historical Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, the case has been made that the Mormons actually do so.

In light of the above line of undeniable argumentation, an opponent of consistent Free Grace Theology has conceded these things:

Yes, in a historical sense the Mormons are referring to the same Jesus that orthodox Christians are.

We know they [the Mormons] are referring to the same historical person we [orthodox Christians] are

The interesting thing about this is that the one who has plastered my above statement all over the Internet has stated that he agrees with the writer of the preceding two statements!

Let us put them both together for comparison:

My statement: The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same [historical person].

Opponent of consistent Free Grace Theology's statement: We know they [the Mormons] are referring to the same historical person we [orthodox Christians] are.

It is manifestly unethical for someone to bring my character into disrepute for a statement that they, for all intents and purposes, said they agree with (albeit in a slightly different form).


The Right Person
Jesus of Nazareth can be positively identified and referenced with only one unique distinguishing characteristic. [Parenthesis: Yet in all reality, no one who is met with the claim of Jesus of Nazareth that guarantees the present possession of irrevocable eternal life to whoever believes in Him will only be aware of a single characteristic of Him. Wherever He is preached, He is presented in the context of the New Testament narrative.] Such an argument becomes stronger when more than one unique historical characteristic is appealed to.

Delimitation of identity and reference to the bona-fide Jesus of Nazareth can be accomplished in a limitless number of ways.

Example #1
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) Born in Bethlehem
B) Lived in Egypt for several years
C) Grew up in Nazareth
D) Mother's name is Mary, Legal father's name is Joseph
E) Baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist, His Cousin
F) Capernaum became His later home
G) Brothers names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas

Example #2
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) Preached repentance to Israel
B) A teacher who had many disciples
C) Walked on water, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, even a man born blind
D) Healed the sick, gave wholeness to the lame, and cleansed lepers
E) Cast out demons
F) Fed 4,000 men and 5,000 men by multiplying a small amount of bread and fish.
G) Preached the ethical standards of the Kingdom of God

Example #3
The Jesus that I am referring to:
A) God in the Flesh
B) Sinless
C) Perfect humanity
D) Executed on a cross by Roman soldiers
E) Buried in a new tomb, hewn out of solid rock
F) Rose bodily from the dead
G) Ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand of God

In each of the three examples above the Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament was certainly referenced. Any number of combinations of characteristics could be used to identify and reference Jesus. By so doing, we have invoked the Right Person, Jesus the Christ, who is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him.

As a statement of fact, identity and reference can be made certain by:
1) Any unique characteristic or
2) A combination of characteristics that creates a unique distinguishing picture


The Right Thing
In the Bible, and in some sectors of Evangelical Christianity, the sole condition for appropriating the present possession of irrevocable eternal life is faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. In the last section, we have discussed ways how one may acknowledge and identify the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, the One who is the Christ, guaranteeing everlasting life to the believer in Him for it.


The Right Thing in the Right Person
However one may come to identify Jesus of Nazareth and become persuaded that this Jesus guarantees his eternal destiny by faith alone, it is manifestly shown that he has exercised the Right Thing (faith) in the Right Person (Jesus of Nazareth).

Jesus stated, "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). What are Jesus' words? "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). Who did these words have the authority of?

John 12:49-50
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

On the authority of God the Father, whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life!

When someone has identified Jesus, by whatever means, and placed his/her faith in Him for everlasting life, however he was persuaded, that person has

the right thing

in

the right Person

What about those who have not heard? Part 2

by Matthew

There are essentially three positions on those who have not heard, though these can be subdivided. They are Restrictivist, Agnostic and Opportunist. With regard to the deductive argument I outlined in the last post.

Restrictivists- Do not accept the conclusion.

Agnostics- Consider that the conclusion opens up the possibility of a means of salvation for the unevangelised.

Opportunists- Accept the conclusion and are confident in expecting a means of salvation for the unevangelised.

Let us get a little more specific and look at the specific positions.

Restrictivists

Restrictivists hold that the only means to obtain eternal life is through the witness of believers.

The majority of Calivinists take this view. Some Arminians also share it, though they may be accused of inconistency in doing so.

Calvinists who adopt the Restrictivist view do so because they see only those who hear the Gospel message as falling within the scope of God's salvific decree. Arminian Restrictivists do so for two main reasons; firstly because they do not see evidence in Scripture to the contrary and secondly because they believe the responsibility to share the Gospel has been given to believers.

Pessimistic Agnostics

Pessmistic agnostics believe that God's merciful character raises the hope of some means of the unevangelised being saved, but the apparent silence of the Scriptures disinclines them to the idea.

J.I. Packer, a Calvinist, takes this view.

Simple Agnostics

Simple agnostics acknowledge both the lack of Scriptural data and God's merciful character, but refuse to take a position either way. They are often concerned that discussion of this issue will hinder missionary endeavour.

Optimistic Agnostics

Optimistic agnostics acknowledge the lack of Scriptural data, but are hopeful that God may have provided a means of saving the unevangelized.

John Stott takes this view.

Inclusivists

Inclusivists hold that God's revelation in nature is sufficent to enable a person to find salvation. They are argue that all or most religions provide some knowledge of God's character and therefore a person can come to know Christ implicitly through faith in these religions.

This view is prominent amongst Roman Catholics and is highly favoured by those who are more liberally inclined in theology. Nevertheless, it was held by such a conservative one as John Wesley.

Postmortem Evangelisation

Some who are not convinced by Inclusivism suggest that perhaps God may give a second chance after death to the heathen.

While this view accounts for God's merciful character it is seriously lacking in Scriptural support.

Universal Premortem Opportunism

This view holds that God most likely provides special revelation to the unevangelised before their death. The granting of such revelation may be conditional upon a positive response to natural revelation.

This view was advocated by Thomas Aquinas, Jacob Arminius and the Calvinist J. Oliver Buswell. There is an Eastern Orthodox tradition that John the Baptist appears to the heathen before they die to preach Christ.

This is the view that I will defend in this series.

What about those who have not heard? Part 1

by Matthew

I want to tackel the thorny subject of those who have not heard the Gospel message during their lifetimes. There are a number of views held amongst Evangelicals as to their fate. Some Christians have hold to a strict Restrictivist position that holds that such people have no opportunity to receive eternal life. To show this is problematic, I will use a deductive argument.

(1) God loves all individuals.
(2) If God loves an individual He desires for her the greatest possible good.
(3) Eternal punishment is contrary to the greatest possible good.
(4) Therefore God wants all individuals to avoid eternal punishment.
(5) If God wants all individuals to avoid eternal punishment, He will desire to use some means to enable them to avoid eternal punishment.
(6) Therefore we can expect that God has provided some means for all individuals to avoid eternal punishment.

All Christians except some Calvinists agree with (1). I find it difficult to see how one could argue that (2) does not result from (1). Of course, God may have some other desire that means He is unable to make possible the greatest possible good for an individual, but He must at least desire the greatest possible good for all.

I think this argument is pretty sound. In the next post on this subject, I intend to consider the different approaches to the question of the unevangelized.