March 1, 2007
-
Uncertainty
My pastor is an incredible man. There’s no question he is a true scholar and man of God. There has rarely been a single thing he has said I disagree with- the only thing there has simply been his perspective on divorce, in that he feels there are certain times when it is better to end the marriage then to continue it. I’m not strongly bothered by that, but I’m still not certain I agree- but I don’t consider it a top level issue, either.
However, last night at a Bible study he did share something that bothered me. I’ve really delved into some issues and gotten some heavy Biblical study on them- we’re talking years of delving into some of it, but in the end, the most important guide has been, I feel, the Spirit as to what to make of the Word of God. After all, it is the Holy Spirit which allows our minds to open up and receive the truth- a man with a spirit that is ‘unregererate’ (has not been renewed by the Holy Spirit, after having accepted Jesus as having been sacrificed on his behalf, and thus been ‘saved’ by the grace of God) cannot possibly fully understand the things of God, as is said clearly in the Bible.
What bothered me was on a rather controversial topic. Two things actually bothered me about it but the most vital of the two is the fact that to me, it bordered on a concept that can potentially lead to universalism (the idea that Jesus sacrifice was enough for everyone, regardless of whether they know him or not or choose to accept him). The concept that it is possible for a person to go to heaven even if they do not know of and accept Jesus Christ. Of course, when asked, my Pastor’s response was that the Bible makes clear that those who reject Jesus will not receive eternal life but he feels that nowhere does it say that it is the same for those who do not know who he is. It is a convincing argument, but what bothers me is that it is convincing not for its scriptural soundness but because of its emotional appeal.
‘There is no one righteous, no not one’. Our pastors perspective is that we are born with the inclination to sin, the tendency to do so and when we are capable of making that choice we will do it- but we are not born guilty, rather born innocent. Likewise, he feels those who never hear of Jesus will be judged based on their own tendency towards light.
Quite honestly, all of those beliefs have an emotional appeal. After all, based on our concept of fairness, we don’t WANT to think that unbelievers around the world who never hear about Jesus will go to hell. And what parent EVER wants to imagine that if they have a child that dies before being capable of accepting Jesus… well, need I really complete the thought? It’s appalling. The fact is, on that regard, I *feel* in my heart God does provide for that- God is a loving God, and as Dr. Andre Rogers once said he personally feels those children and people who never reach a point to be capable of rejecting Christ are with God… but, there is not enough scriptural evidence to make a doctrine of it, and he has to admit that he cannot really say he knows. If pressed, he would have to say “There is no clear evidence for it.”, but he’d never tell a grieving parent that if possible- he himself lost a child right after it was born, and so it was not easy for him to admit it, but it is, he felt, the truth. Where there is no strong scriptural evidence, we cannot build a doctrine- we can only have an opinion on a lower level than other matters.
And I feel very very strongly on the matter of unbelievers. God ‘reveals himself’ in general revelation- that is, through our conscience, through the world around us, through our natural sense of right and wrong. So we KNOW we are doing wrong- people who have never met a Christian, naturally know some things are right and some are wrong. Thus by their own conscience they are guilty- and so, however ‘unfair’ to our limitted sense of justice it is, ALL are guilty of sin and ALL will be seperated from God UNLESS they receive ‘special revelation’ (are told about Jesus’ sacrifice for them) and accept it rather than reject it.
It is based on this believe that missions is driven- if we DO NOT tell the world about Jesus, they will never receive that opportunity, and they will die both physically and spiritually because of their sin.
Principal belief
I believe this much very strongly. So it deeply dissapointed me to be told last night, by my pastor, that he did not believe this. I will have to think about it further and decide how critical a matter it is- I know that God is with our church and so I don’t think it is a matter worth steping out on, but it is still a matter that bothers my spirit. I plan to do a lot more research on the matter- I mean, I just wrote a ten page doctrinal statement relating to sin and salvation last August, so I’m kind of brushed up on it.
So, pray for me as I try to wrestle with how to best handle this major difference in perspective.
-Patrick
Comments (7)
*Disclaimer… It’s 1 in the morning*
John 14:6 declares “Jesus answered ‘I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.’”
But there is also GRACE. It says that Abrahams faith was accounted unto him as righteousness. Jesus had not come yet, so therefore, Abraham was not sanctified by the blood, and the atonement that Jesus made was not yet there. However, Abraham knew God, and walked with Him. And the Grace, and justice of our God will ensure he is in heaven. I believe it also to be so with those who have not heard the gospel. This does not include those who listen but don’t understand. Hearing, I find, is different to listening. I always feel for the incas, and myans, that died before the missionaries came; but God knows the heart of the man. Do you remember in The Last Battle by C.S Lewis, a Talamarine looked into the face of Aslan and loved him, even though he had followed Tash all his life. He was confused, and questioned Aslan about it. Aslan responded with “Whatever you did for Tash, you did for me.” I am unsure of the scriptural reference that Lewis had for this (if you know, please pass it on) but I believe it to be something along the lines of, if you didn’t know any better, and you followed something faithfully, then perhaps it may be counted as righteousness. That may be incredibly flawed thology. Even writing it doesn’t feel comfortable. I was told once, that even the ancient pagans had a choice, and that the ‘God shaped vaccuum’ would have been there… but if you aren’t given the option to choose something else… see what I’m trying to get at? (miserably)
With children, especially babies, I feel that God has a special love and place for them. Especially those that do not conciously sin (infants and children under, say, 2) It says in Romans somewhere, that without the law, you cannot know right from wrong. Small children, until told and they understand the law, do not know what sinning is. They are still born sinful, and they are definately not innocent (even newborns work out pretty quick how to manipulate mum and dad *grin*), but they do not have the capacity to make the decision to accept Christ. Adam finds this with also with the disabled people he works with. The ones who were born disabled, we agree, will go to heaven. They do not understand enough to make the conscious choice to seek salvation. However, that being said, those with an acquired brain injury, depending on the age of the infliction, will more than likely go to hell, because they had the opportunity (perhaps) to accept Christ whilst they were whole. Now, I probably threw the cat among the pigeons right there… but everyone only has a limited time to accept Christ. It’s a bit late after you are dead. (physically or mentally)
Again, we cannot know the thoughts of God. They are too lofty for us, and his utter justice is beyond our fleshly comprehension. He will make sure everyone recieves what they deserve. Though he loves everyone, he did give clear guidelines about what will save us from eternal damnation. He also allowed us free will. It is not His fault if we choose to ignore Him.
I also found this, which may be helpful. It has all the scripture I couldn’t think of
I knew the stories, but I thought I had sprouted enough stuff without biblical backing, so I held my tongue. Anyway….
Do babies and others incapable of professing faith in Christ automatically go to heaven?
People often wonder about the eternal destiny of the unborn, babies, and those unable to intellectually understand the gospel. That question is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the Bible offers us no explicit answer. However, based on several passages, as well as an understanding of God’s character and His dealings with men, we can develop a good idea of how He works in such situations.
Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven. Though the verse doesn’t explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child. Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young.
If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart. However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion. First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children. Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 affirm the Lord’s love for them. Jesus not only used children as an example of the qualities of kingdom citizens, but also taught that they each have guardian angels (Matt. 18:10). Those verses don’t state that children go to heaven, but they do show God’s heart toward children. He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance.
The psalmist reminds us that God is “full of compassion and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth” (Ps. 86:15). He is the God who became flesh that He might carry our sins away by His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the God who will comfort Christians in heaven, for “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death; nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain” (Rev. 21:4). We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love. These considerations alone seem to be evidence enough of God’s particular, electing love shown to the unborn and those who die young.
However, another point may be helpful in answering this question. While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God’s revelation-whether general or specific-not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8). Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God’s general revelation that renders them “without excuse” (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ’s atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.
(http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven7.htm)
© 2000 Grace to You
Hmmm.. thought provoking. I was raised that those that decline the offer of salvation are those that are given the judgement of hell. In order to decline- run from or otherwise deny- you must first KNOW of the offer. Hell is judgement. It is the judgement of those that have declined Jesus’ offer of salvation. Those with free will, those that have heard the gospel, those that can consciously make the choice. Hell is punishment. So if this baby has never sinned (albeit he is born a sinner, and WILL sin), or this tribe in Africa has never heard of God, or this person isn’t mentally capable of making that sort of decision (or ANY decision) do I think MY God would place the judgement of Hell on them as PUNISHMENT? No. But to come up with a doctrine to prove that, you are correct- the bible is very clear that those that don’t know him, or banished to Hell.
Very thought provoking..
And RYC: Loved the story of your honeymoon at Disney- sounds like that restaurant is a ‘must eat’. I will put it on the list! Thanks for the review.
I will say to Abbass, that I have done a lot of scriptural research as well as research on the various opposing views. Years ago, several times, I already debated about the issue and found what the Bible had to say about it.
It’s easy to make an emotional decision on this- but we have to be careful NOT TO PERFORM EISEGESIS- that is, interpreting the Bible according to what we want/prefer it to say. We must perform EXEGESIS- attempting to discover what the author intended it to say. I learned after years studying scripture and differing ways of interpretting it that I have to *let go* of my preconceptions and stop seeking to judge God based on my own corrupted sense of justice and what is fair/right and use the Bible as my bedrock for making those choices.
On the baby issue- I believe that God made provision for them, BUT I do not believe scripture can be used to back that up as a doctrine. It is a strong feeling I have based on who God presents himself to be, and there are lots of encouragements from scripture such as Jesus’ strong love for children, etc. But you CANNOT say scripture gives it an iron-clad case at all.
I believe, though, that DIFFERENT Than babies are unbelievers around the world. Babies are still developing and not capable of deciding- adults, even ones who have NEVER HEARD, ARE capable. Read Romans 1:18-20… the Bible says that God gives us all general revelation, the world around us, our own consciences. It is NOT enough revelation to be saved (Special revelation is that of the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, the Bible is special revelation, etc), but it IS ENOUGH to convict us as guilty for our sins.
-Patrick
Very good discussion. Abbas_Princess, Romans 3:25 makes it clear that the blood of Christ was the basis for the OT saints. All the OT sacrifies was a covering for the sins of God’s people and looked for the once and for all sacrific of Christ. Patrick, you are on the right track here. This pastor, even though a great guy, is on the road to universal salvation. Romans 1 and 2, as you know, deal with the moralist, the Jew and the pagan and Paul concludes in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Only faith in Christ alone can save anyone. To reject Christ is to reject the grace of God (Gal 2:21) If man can be saved because he follow natural revelation (which he doesn’t do perfectly) they Christ died for nothing. As far as babies, as a pastor I can give great comfort to the children of believers because of I Cor 7:14 where Paul says the children of believers are holy. As for unbelievers, I would have to agree with Adrian Rogers. We don’t know! The Scriputures are silent and I would have a tough time telling an unbeliever that their baby is in hell. But I do not speak where the Scriptures do not speak. Sometimes the God of the Bible is not the God we have make Him out to be. That is why we need to get our view of God from the book He revealed to us. Thanks for letting me give my two cents worth.
Blessings to you, brother!
Hey Patrick!
It’s been a while. I’m doing some backreading on some of the blogs I haven’t visited in a while since I was busy trying to get married. It worked, by the way! I’ve been a wife for 10 days now.
But, I wanted to mention a couple of things about your post. I can really understand how this declaration by your pastor would disturb you. One of the things that I have come to over the last couple of years is that we need to allow people room to grow and change in their belief system. Everyone’s thoughts on various matters evolve over time. Take, for example, C.S. Lewis, who is almost universally respected in the Christian world. His opinion on this very matter changed quite a bit over his Christian life, from very evangelical Christian beliefs, to those most evangelicals wouldn’t claim at all. He even defended these various positions in books that he wrote. The thing is that he was thinking through it all, and was doing so in faith, and in Christ the entire time. People grow and change. They have crises of faith. They have doubts and questions.
A frustration of mine with the church is that we do not leave much room or respect for this kind of exploration of our faith. We are expected to be settled on certain issues, and not to question them. And if we do question them, we are expected to eventually settle on the “right” answer, once and for all. But that’s not always the way it is. Especially for pastors, where in their lives is there allowance for this type of exploration? There isn’t. We expect them to study, and research, and to always, without question, stay within our beliefs. But the very nature of study is that it is influential, and causes minds to be challenged. But what pastor could admit that his beliefs are “evolutionary”? People often rely so heavily on the confidence of the pastor in their beliefs, that the pastor’s job is at risk if he admits to such things. I think it’s harmful, because the congregation then also doesn’t feel the freedom to explore. We study apologetics with the aim of defending beliefs that we never thoroughly studied to begin with. I’m not suggesting this is you. Just generalizing.
I think that there is a lot of room for this type of exploration in our faith, as long as we are questioning toward Christ, and not away from him. But its a scary place to go, because the church, and especially us Bible college folks, really like to have our faith well-defined. There are a lot of risks that go along with it. But I think that the benefit of having a more well-thought diverse church, and not such a cookie cutter congregation, who for the large part is expected to think the same way on everything important, is worth it. Consider the diversity that you bring to the table as a more independent thinker when it comes to politics. Your views are unacceptable to much of the evangelical world, because of deeply spiritual reasons. But you also hold to your political beliefs because of deeply spiritual reasons. Even though your political beliefs will change, guaranteed, and you will probably hold to those just as strongly. That’s the nature of humanity. I can’t tell you how many soapboxes I’ve had over the years, all for “deeply spiritual reasons”. I’m not discounting those beliefs. I think we need to have more respect for the evolutionary nature of our minds.
I guess that got kind of long. The better for you to enjoy it, I guess!