Deducing from the Progressive Revelation and Illinear Salvation History
In respect to those who have never heard the gospel, I deduce from two generally agreed ideas in evangelical theology.
One of them is the progressive nature the divine revelation, which views the trajectory of God revealing himself in human comprehension being a cumulative - growing into a deeper knowledge and a more precise understanding - reaching the climax in the divine incarnation in the person of Jesus. It is widely accepted that e.g. Abraham's faith in God - a faith that was to his salvation, and Paul's faith - likewise to his salvation, are quite different in depth and systematic lay-out. Yet, both are biblically accounted as saving faith.
Another idea generally agreed upon is illinearity of the salvation history. It means that although history happens in linear sequence, where and an event follows another. Illinear view on history neglects the sequential occurrence, and rather looks at the sum of all events. (or, sort of :) ) Salvation history is widely agreed being an illinear, to grant the Old Testament believers forgiveness of sin by the death of Jesus. It is central to the evangelicalism that salvation is not apart from the cross, but that all men, throughout the world and history are saved only because Jesus took the punishment for their sin.
Now, what different is an ordinary tribal fellow from jungle somewhere in 2006 AD to a Abraham from Mesopotamia in 4000 (or whatever) BC, except that the linear history has accounted the death of Jesus to occur in around 30AD. Illinear history sums up all the ordinary fellows from all ages and places them besides the one-time-event of the death of Jesus. Furthermore, the progressive nature of revelation highlights the fact of faith over depth of philosophical system to support it. On what basis would the contemporary ignorant be asked for more than his ancient peer?
To avoid the pitfall all pluralism or simple relativism, it must be noted that the New Testament - and evangelical theology accordingly - presents salvation as following one's response to Jesus. Faith in him saves, and rejecting him results in judgment. However, the New Testament stays within the context of the ones who have heard. Only occasionally it looks beyond that, but on those we can see that there can be larger perspective to the issue. (e.g. Paul's reasoning in Romans 2)
The Gospels also present as the central task of all the followers of Jesus to proclaim the Good News about the salvation to all the world, and make all people likewise followers. But, this is not to pronounce a straightforward judgment on the ones who never got the change of hearing.
2 Comments:
Now, there you've picked an interesting topic! Far from having come to my own conclusions on this issue (Actually, I think, Biblical revelation is not sufficient to come to conclusions here), I'd like to add a couple of comments.
(1) Paul's line of thinking must be seen in light of Romans 10 -- How can they believe if they haven't heard? This does apply to the tribal guy in 2006 in a different way than to Abraham millennia ago.
(2) As soon as the slightest tendency towards pluralism arises with this line of thinking (which, I know, is not your intention), one has to be aware that it endangeres the whole idea of Christian mission. Imagine people could be saved outside of Christ -- or more precisely, without having heard of him. Then we would have to call back all of our missionaries immediately, because with them, people hear and have to make a 50/50 yes/no decision, while otherwise they could be saved just like they are. Missions would actually possibly reduce people's chance to get saved!
(3) The only statement I would venture to make about "those who haven't heard" at the moment is this: God will be just in his judgement. How he is going to do this, I don't know. But he will be just, as he's always been.
In the meantime, let's go for Matthew 28:18ff with all of our might!
God bless you, Toph.
Thanks Christoph, I'm there with you at Matthew full steam. And I would underline the point 3 you made. We don't have an clear answer to the issue coming directly from the Biblical text, but we can be sure that the just God has just way to work.
What it comes to the point 2 as pointing to some practical outcomes of a pluralistic conclusions that one could jump to from my points, I think it's bit overstating. The point I was making was that nonlinear (perhaps more accurate word that illinear) view on history that we apply to 'salvation history' together with progressive revelation provide a logical grounds to group together tribal guy 2006 and ancient brother Ab. I don't see that necessarily saying that beliving would be easier as ingonrant. Afterall, Gospel was Good News to everybody. It's twisting my point to say that preacing that good news would make it harder to belive. It can as well assumed to be the opposite. Perhaps, understanding the love of God, the righteousness God, and the power of God - all best expressed in the person, life and work of Jesus, makes positive responce easier than without it.
Like you, I emphasize the mission the church is to embrace. That mission is the church' purpose of existence and all theology that discredits the mission is to be found fatally illogical.
Post a Comment
<< Home