 |
| 
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 5/1/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | in light of the open view understanding of preaching the gospel, what happens to those who haven't heard the gospel?
can they be saved, or not? if they can, for what reason should we go preach Jesus to them (besides that he told us to)? and if they can't, then does that change our view or understanding of God's mercy, grace, and justice?
looking for answers. thanks in advance for your replies. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/1/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm "open" enough to let you decide.  John Sanders edited a good book on the subject, "What About Those Who have Not Heard?<" that gives three different views. Excellant starting point! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/1/2004 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I will let the Open View people post answers, as you know, I'm not Open Minded. 
Blessings,
Lee
There is no "open view" answer to this question, Lee; no one open view take on it. Same goes with exactly whether and how God "allows" evil for certain good purposes (remember the "Carlie" thread? Lot of differences there among open viewers) and Spendlake's beef with Doc's "Seeing Jesus." These are not "open view" issues. Sorry if I'm misreading ya, but it does seem to me that most are now assuming the "open theism" is a view that constrains one's options on most issues. Not so.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/1/2004 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: I do agree with you completely. The open view in many ways, to me, is simply a logical extention of Arminianism and, therefore, would see things in much the same way. There isn't many open views on a lot of things. | | Back to Top | | |
|
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 5/2/2004 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi God is Truth!
Good to see you over here...
I will let the Open View people post answers, as you know, I'm not Open Minded.
Blessings,
Lee
i take it you are the same Lee Merril from TOL?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 5/2/2004 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | ok, so it seems that no one knows of a "open specific" understanding of what happens to them. so what are your guys's personal beliefs about them?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/3/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
For me personally, I affirm, along with many theologians through the centuries and with Arminians in general that all those who never hear will be judged according to the degree of moral light they DID have (see Romans 2).
I agree, but would follow this up to affirm hope or optimism that at least some of those who are so judged may in fact be accepted. Even the strictest exclusivists affirm that those who are condemned are condemned for their sin, not their ignorance. Exclusivists simply then go on to say that since no-one at all lives up to the light they have (eg, Isaiah 64:6-7), therefore all are in fact condemned who remain in that ignorant state (eg, Ephesians 2). And thereby they arrive at the traditionally predominant (at least in the Western church) persimistic result: all who do not consciously know and accept certain propositions about Jesus are condemned (though because of their sin, not their ignorance).
Myself, I find this attempt on the part of exclusivists to excuse God from injustice unconvincing. True, it is the poison which kills me, not the doctor holding the antidote who stands idly or ineffectually nearby; but does that reasoning really uphold the love, mercy, and even justice of the doctor? More importantly, I find in Scripture - particularly in the words of Jesus - clear hope that at least some who are ignorant and, like all of us, in sin will nonetheless find welcome in God's presence. See Matthew 25:31-40, for example. In contrast, I feel that exclusivistic passages can be understood alternately in that light, without stretching (Ephesians 2, for example, can be seen as contrasting the pre-Christian and Christian lives, not as a statement on final salvation).
In short, inclusivism is controversial within the conservative evangelical community but is not without scriptural, rational, and historical warrant, nor is it without contemporary adherents in that community. Billy Graham, for example, is an inclusivist (praise God).
For more information on this controversial subject, I suggest John Sanders' No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. There are several other books I could mention, but I mention Sanders since he is a well-known proponent of the open view, and the originator of this thread expressed interest in that angle. Sanders does not raise the openness issue at all in the book, but I thought you'd be interested in what a well-known openness theologian thinks on this separate issue.
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
John 5:28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Scott,
Thanks for your response. I neglected to give my entire perspective on this. Based on the above verses and passages like Romans 2, I don't see any good reason to deny that some people will in fact be saved without a conscious knowledge of Jesus Christ. Note, in my view He will still be their Savior, though they may not have fully conscious knowledge of Him prior to their death.
Based on such passages, it presents no problem to my mind to affirm that Jesus is the only Savior, the only way to God, in addition to affirming that there remains a possibility for those who do not have conscious knowledge of Him to obey what light they do have (a la Rom. 2), and thus inherit (but not MERIT) eternal life.
It seems to me that the conditions of salvation to be met by humans are: Repentance, faith, and perseverance in the faith. Based on the nearly ubiquitous nature of propitiatory sacrifices inherent to most primitive cultures, as well as the universally inherent "law of their conscience" that Scripture affirms, I don't see why a heathen couldn't possibly realize he is a sinner in need of a Savior and repent of his sins, calling on the mercy of the Supreme Being that his conscience affirms exists (as demonstrated in Romans 1). Not that their heathen sacrifices are in fact a sufficient atonement for sin (not in the least), but they would seem to indicate a penitential state of heart.
Again, to my way of thinking this is no different from affirming an age of moral accountability, before which children and the mentally incapacitated are judged as indeed innocent. (I should add that I do not affirm the Augustinian concept of Original Sin).
How do I handle the "all have sinned" passages? I affirm them as well, though when taken in their proper context such passages merely affirm that adults have sinned, and in my view these adults have the ability to repent to the degree that they are aware of their moral or immoral actions. It is not evident how an infant can be capable of sinning. Indeed, several Scripture passages affirm precisely the opposite:
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Finally, my view does not necessitate any reduction in the missionary mandate, for more light is preferable to less, especially in moral matters.
Related to this would be my understanding that hell will be more tolerable for some than others. This is plainly stated by Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
It is not clear how one can be held accountable for that which he could by no means avoid.
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/3/2004 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 5/4/2004 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | thanks guys for the good stuff.
my only other real question is that if in fact inclusivism is true, then what reason do we have to go and share Jesus with others apart from being told to? is it just to give them more light (i.e. more understanding)? cause if inclusivism is true then sharing Jesus can't really play a part in salvation can it?
i guess my attitude right now is to preach exclusivism and pray for inclusivism.
thoughts? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/4/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
thanks guys for the good stuff.
my only other real question is that if in fact inclusivism is true, then what reason do we have to go and share Jesus with others apart from being told to? is it just to give them more light (i.e. more understanding)? cause if inclusivism is true then sharing Jesus can't really play a part in salvation can it?
i guess my attitude right now is to preach exclusivism and pray for inclusivism.
thoughts?
My thinking is that the message of the Gospel is very likely to have a profound effect upon many of those who have not yet heard, and will hopefully be just the thing to bring them to repentance and faith. Further, if we really love Jesus like we should we will not want to keep Him from others at all. (candle under a bushel--NO!)
This really goes to the heart of the missionary mandate--what motivates us to send or become missionaries? Is it to improve upon the justice of God, or because "the love of Christ compels us?" | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/4/2004 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | | John Sanders, in the aforementioned book, makes the point that we view evangelism as simply a missionary work, whereas he points out that we, as Christians, are not just saved, but are called into a relationship with God. So while those who do not hear but are saved are indeed saved, they still should be introduced to the God who saved them that they may be in fellowship with him. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|