In Reformed soteriology, there are some clearcut groups of people. The primary distinction is between elect and reprobate. That's fixed.
An overlapping distinction is between regenerate and unregenerate. It's overlapping because election and regeneration go back to God's timeless choice, whereas regeneration occurs in time. The elect can be regenerated at different stages of life. Unlike election and reprobation, regeneration is fluid in that respect.
There are other related, generally clearcut distinctions. You have a group of people who live and die outside the pale of the Gospel. You have another group who are devoted to atheism. Likewise, you have a group who consciously repudiate the Christian faith.
There is, though, an in-between group, or type of group. For instance:
Since Christian faith is primarily trust rather than intellectual mastery, even a young child can give a credible profession. In judging what is credible leaders must take into account the capacities of the one who is expressing faith.
For very young children, the children’s response to their parents is the primary avenue for expressing their relation to God. Parents represent God to their children, by virtue of their authority, their responsibilities, and their role as a channel for God’s blessings. Children first learn what God is like primarily through their parents’ love and discipline. The Fatherhood of God is represented through a good human father. God’s forgiveness of sins is represented primarily through the parents’ forgiveness and patience towards their children.
http://frame-poythress.org/linking-small-children-with-infants-in-the-theology-of-baptizing/
Although Poythress is referring to young children, the principle raises questions about analogous situations. If a parent, especially a Christian parent, can be a temporary stand-in for God or Christ, and if trusting a parent is implicit faith or vicarious faith, then can some adults, who are not professing Christians, be saved indirectly because a Christian friend or family member subliminally represents Christ to them and for them?
They are the closest that some people come to Jesus. Insofar as that they love, trust, and admire their Christian friend or family member, and do so in part for his Christian virtues and graces, are they believing in Jesus via a Christian representative? Does he stand for Christ in their affections, even if they don't consciously make that connection?
There are certain passages where believing in or acting on behalf of a Christian representative is equivalent to believing in or acting for Jesus:
The King will reply, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Mt 25:40).
The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me (Jn 13:20).
Unlike inclusivism, which cuts the nerve of evangelism, this still depends on a Christian witness and Christian presence.
Some people, due to social conditioning, have a tremendous impediment to Christian faith. An impediment they never entirely overcome. Are there situations where a Christian friend or relative forms the bridge? What I've discussed is too speculative to furnish a firm answer. It may be enough to give reason for hope, but not enough for confidence.
What I've discussed is too speculative to furnish a firm answer. It may be enough to give reason for hope, but not enough for confidence.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. I haven't closed the possibility to that. I'm convinced God's normative way of saving His elect is through them hearing and believing the Gospel in this life. God has only revealed one clear way of salvation since the coming of Messiah, so we should always be zealous to share the gospel and have people come to a conscious faith in Christ. Positive inclusivists are risking the eternal destinies of souls by their preaching/teaching.
Having said that, it's interesting that Job prayed for his children and made sacrifices for them lest they seriously sinned against God. Paul talks about how the children of marriages where one is a Christian and the other one isn't are holy and not unclean. While I'm a credobaptist, I'm open to paedobaptism. Paul taught household baptisms. If that included children who hadn't reached an "age of discretion", maybe they were in a salvific state (at least for a time). Who knows, this may include their slaves. I suspect that God's saving grace is wider than His intentionally narrow public revelation regarding salvation. I leave it up to God whom He saves, and focus on God's explicit normative teaching regarding salvation and condemnation on account of believing or not believing the Gospel.
I would warn worldly professing "Christians" that they might not be saved and/or need to repent. However, for all I know, God may save some of those half-baked/"saved" Christians. I think of Biblical characters like Solomon, Lot, Isaac (etc.) who didn't seem to be very committed to God. Peter wrote about the "righteous soul" of Lot (2 Pet. 2:8 KJV), but I suspect he did so charitably like God and the prophets spoke of David.
There are also Near Death Experience testimonies of people who claim they went to hell for a brief time but were saved out of it because (allegedly) God told them the prayers of their believing Christian family members was taken into consideration.
@AP: I'm uncomfortable with anything other than extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has been the original teaching of the church and and (istm) the blatant teaching of Scripture. I'm also concerned that unbelievers with praying Christian family members may see a "loophole" and continue in their unbelief.
ReplyDeleteBTW did any of those who had the near death experiences you mentioned convert?
I'm uncomfortable with anything other than extra ecclesiam nulla salus, ...
DeleteIf I recall, Job was not a Hebrew or in any way a descendant of Abraham. Like Melchizedek, Job seemed to have a positive relationship with God apart and distinct from (possibly prior to) the progressive revelations through the line of Abraham and his descendants. Yet they seemed to have likely been saved, and that apart from the NT church or the OT congregation/assembly of Israel (the LXX uses the word ekklesía for the OT "congregation" that the NT would later use for "church"). As a Calvinist I do believe that all are accountable to God on account of General Revelation and culpable to God for our personal sins. I even lean to the Calvinistic view that Adam's guilt was passed on to his descendants (though non-Calvinists and non-Calvinist Christian traditions deny that and only affirm a propensity to sin is passed on).
...which has been the original teaching of the church and and (istm) the blatant teaching of Scripture.
Re: Scripture, I think the Bible can be interpreted that way. But I'm not convinced that it completely closes the door to other possible extraordinary exceptions. What of the mentally handicapped and infants who die in infancy (or aborted), many of whom weren't born into a Christian family or culture. I think it's not impossible that God may save some of them on the basis of Christ's work without their conscious acceptance of the offer of the Gospel. God is sovereign and it seems to me that He has the right to save anyone He wants if He so chose to. Even a pagan died of old age and never heard the gospel. The question is, has or does God do so? The Bible is silent on that. Though, Melchizedek and Job might be hints. I'm not a postive (gnostic) Inclusivist. I'm a Particularist, even an Exclusivist but I'm not a Hard Restrictivist. I'm a Nonrestrictive Exclusivist. Broadly defined, Particularism can also encompass some forms of Inclusivism. Narrowly defined, Particularism is limited to Exclusivism (barring Inclusivism). The Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World also refers to pessimistic agnostic particularism as well as optimistic agnostic particularism. In my Particularism, I'm so agnostic that I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic.
Re: Church, I'm planning on reading Terrance L. Tiessen's book Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. I get the impression that he's going to claim that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (a concept that ante-dated Cyprian's coining of the phrase) may not have been as universal a view in the early church as is likely believed.
Other folks that Inclusivists like to cite are Jethro, Abimelech, the Magi who came to Jesus, Cornelius, Jonah's sailors, Namaan, Cyrus, the people of Nineveh during Jonah's time, the Roman centurion who interacted with Jesus, Abel. Notice that all of them (with the exception of Abel) actually did or likely would have encountered fully or partially Revelation through the Abrahamic line either directly or indirectly.
CONT.
I'm also concerned that unbelievers with praying Christian family members may see a "loophole" and continue in their unbelief.
DeleteI'd make it clear to them that their greater knowledge makes them that much more accountable, culpable/guilty for their rejection of the gospel. Jesus said one is either for Him or Against Him. I don't think that falls under the category of a false dilemma/dichotomy because along with a sufficient exposure to the gospel comes a sense of it's ringing true on account of the sensus divinitatis. It's not necessarily rational. In it's weakest and diluted form it can be analogous to a familiar fragrance. Sinner ought to recognize the call of their Maker in the Gospel. Of course, it can be further diluted by Christian heresies like Islam [sic] and Mormonism. Folks exposed to these types of Christian heresies ought to want to investigate the real Jesus for themselves, and so ought to come to true conclusions based on the Bible. Nevertheless, family members who have been sufficiently exposed to the gospel cannot justifiably claim to be delaying a response, but that in itself is a response Jesus interpreted as rejection. IF God does saves some on account of praying family members, that's an expression of grace. Grace is always unobligated, and this would be even more unobligated. God would be within His rights and promises to deny saving anyone on the basis of someone else's prayers alone. So, it shouldn't give any comfort to unbelieving family members.
BTW did any of those who had the near death experiences you mentioned convert [to Christianity]?
In the case of Craig Gottschalk, yes. See chapter 9 of Rita Bennett's book To Heaven and Back. I think I've heard other similar NDE claims.
BTW, it seems to me that spending ANY time in hell would appear to violate a strict enforcement of penal substitutionary atonement coupled with limited atonement. Which slightly bothers me. I prefer the L in TULIP, but I'm not dogmatic on it.
Some TYPO corrections for clarification's sake:
DeleteEven a pagan died of old age and never heard the gospel.
---> Even a pagan who dies of old age and never hears the gospel.
may not have been as universal a view in the early church as is likely believed.
---> may not have been as universal a view in the early church as is [OFTEN] believed.
Nevertheless, family members who have been sufficiently exposed to the gospel cannot justifiably claim to be delaying a response, but ["BECAUSE", not "but"] that in itself is a response Jesus interpreted as rejection.
@AP: thanks for your thoughtful reply. Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, and others needn't have been in the direct covenant line, but their relationship with God may well have come from a pre-Biblical revelation than any variation on the noble savage theme; Mel and Jethro were priests, and I'm sure they weren't self-appointed. The Magi way well have been acquainted with God through Daniel; Cornelius may have had contact witht eh synagogue, and Naaman would have been overawed by the God if Israel. Thus one needn't deviate from extra ecclesiam nulla salus. As for the pagans, well, no covenantal connection means no hope - at least as how the Reformers read Scripture.
DeleteWow, great piece! It really has made me think about something I thought I had settled in my mind. Not to be condescending, but I don't see the scriptures cited as proving your point. I could be off base, and maybe I missed something.
ReplyDeleteMatthew 25 is referring to brothers within the church, so I fail to see how that fits with unbelievers being saved through a Christian subliminally. I'd argue the other two refer to someone actually hearing the Gospel from a preacher being sent and either accepting/receiving the truth and thus being saved by believing that disciple, though not actually the disciple but Christ revealed through the teaching of said disciple. Again, it requires mindful acceptance and not something subliminal.
So, that said, what about these cases in scripture where there seems to be a paradox (which I'm sure someone smarter than myself has answered somewhere, somehow).
Romans 10:14 (and Romans 1:18-21) where it says that someone cannot be saved without hearing the Word and that God has been revealed through every part of creation to the ungodly. Obviously, there are other passages that can be cited in support of this, but these two came to mind immediately.
In contrast, what about Lydia and her household in Acts 16. Granted, they may have been Hebrews who had faith in the coming Messiah and thus we already seen as covered by Christ's righteousness (a la Abraham, Moses, et al). Perhaps the story of the jailer in Acts 16 would be more apropos.
Or even Paul's remarks about marriage between a Christian and a pagan (1 Cor 7:12-14) setting the unbeliever aside for God. I suppose being set aside for God could mean set aside for judgement since the unbelieving spouse has clearly seen Christ in the spouse, but I don't think I've ever heard it explained that way.
The unbelieving spouse's holiness may be a set-apartness for the privilege of a godly spouse and covenantal community, even if mere adherents.
DeleteMatthew,
DeleteThere are two principles. One principle, enunciated by Poythress, is that Christian parents function as a temporary surrogates for Christ. Of course, kids eventually need to outgrow that. If we grant the soundness of that principle, it raises the question of whether it can be extended to analogous situations–assuming there are analogues.
The other principle is that we find situations in Scripture where the way in which a one treats a Christian representative is reckoned as if that's what one did to, for, or against Jesus himself. A vicarious principle. A certain functional equivalence.
I'm not suggesting that either principle, whether separately or combined, is a slam dunk. I just think it raises a possibility that may be overlooked in the conventional framework.
I'd make a few additional points. Islam developed in conscious opposition to Christianity. By contrast, Buddhism and Hinduism antedate Christianity. They developed independently of Christianity. Even though they are antithetical to Christianity, a folk Hindu or Buddhist doesn't have the same built-in theological hostility to the Christian faith that a Muslim does.
Suppose you have a folk Hindu or Buddhist with a Christian relative. His Hinduism or Buddhism is hereditary. Due to the power of social conditioning, he can't quite make the jump to Christian conversion, yet he's drawn to his Christian relative. He sees something different in his Christian relative.
Question is whether that's a different category than the garden-variety unbeliever.
Thank you! I think I was misunderstanding what was being said. The clarification makes sense and helps me understand.
Delete