RSS

R.C. Sproul on What Happens To The Person Who Never Heard of Jesus?

15 Jul

Objection #3 To Christianity Answered: “What About the Poor Native Who Never Heard of Christ?”

Objections Answered image

As a teacher of theology I am regularly faced with a plethora of questions raised by inquiring students. Though I’ve never tabulated these queries with a computer, I am convinced there is one question that heads the list in terms of numerical frequency. The question most often raised is, “What happens to the poor innocent native in Africa who has never heard of Christ?” The query expresses a deep concern for the person who dwells in remote parts of the earth, far removed from the exposure of modern media or communication. This person lives and dies without hearing a single word of the biblical message. Where does that person stand with God?

Why is this question asked so frequently? Why are so many students plagued by it? Perhaps there are several factors that stimulate the inquiry. First of all, people in the Western world are acquainted enough with Christianity to have some idea of the central motif of the love of God. Add to that the common understanding that at the core of the Christian faith is the assertion of the unique importance of the person and work of Christ. If Christ is unique and necessary for redemption, how can one avail himself of this redemption if he has no knowledge of it? If God is so loving, why does He not light up the skies with a celestial message that is broadcast so clearly that none could possibly miss it? Why is the “good news” of redemption in Christ limited to those living in cultures that have access to it?

The question is stimulated not only by matters of speculative theology but also by a spirit of human compassion. if compassion resides within us at all, we must be ever sensitive to those who live in less privileged circumstances than we. We are not concerned here with a paternalistic or imperialistic sense of cultural privilege but with an ultimate sense of redemptive privilege. There can be found no intrinsic sense of righteousness within us that would induce God to make the means of redemption available to us in a privileged way. It might even be argued that our “privilege” is rooted in our greater need for redemption owing to our greater corruption. However, since sin is universal and not restricted to either civilized or uncivilized, Western or non-Western humanity, we can hardly find the answer there.

What Happens to the Innocent Person Who Never Heard of Christ?

Regardless of the motivations for it, we are still faced with the question. What does happen to the innocent person who has never heard of Christ? The way the question is phrased will affect the answer given. When we ask, “What happens to the innocent person who has never heard?” we are loading the question with significant assumptions. If the question, however, is asked in this manner the answer is easy and is obvious. The innocent native who never hears of Christ is in excellent shape, and we need not be anxious about his redemption. The innocent person does not need to hear of Christ. He has no need of redemption. God never punishes innocent people. The innocent person needs no Savior; he can save himself by his innocence.

When the question is framed in this way, however, it betrays the assumption that there are innocent people in this world. If that is so (an assumption which Christianity emphatically denies), then we need not be concerned about them. But we are faced still with the larger question, “What happens to the guilty person who has never heard?”

The question of innocence often slips into the question unnoticed. What is often meant is not a perfect innocence, but a relative innocence. We observe that some persons are more wicked than others. The wickedness appears all the more wicked when it occurs within a context of privilege. When a person lives wickedly knowing the details of God’s commandments and has been instructed in them repeatedly, his wickedness appears heinous when measured against those who live in relative ignorance.

On the other hand, if the remote native is guilty, wherein lies his guilt? Is he punished for not believing in a Christ of whom he has never heard? If God is just, that cannot be the case. If God were to punish a person for not responding to a message he had no possibility of hearing, that would be a gross injustice; it would be radically inconsistent with God’s own revealed justice. We can rest assured that no one is ever punished for rejecting Christ if they’ve never heard of Him.

Before we sigh too deep a breath of relief, let us keep in mind that the native is still not off the hook. Some have stopped at this point in their consideration of the question and allowed their sigh of relief to lull them too quickly into a comfortable ease about the question. The unspoken assumption at this point is that the only damnable offense against God is rejection of Christ. Since the native is not guilty of this we ought to let him alone. In fact letting him alone would be the most helpful and redemptive thing we could do for him. If we go to the native and inform him of Christ, we place his soul in eternal jeopardy. For now he knows of Christ, and if he refuses to respond to Him, he can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. Hence, the best service we can render is silence.

But what if the assumption above is incorrect? What if there are damnable offenses against God? That would change the situation and rouse us from our dogmatic slumbers. What if the person who has never heard of Christ has heard of God the Father and has rejected Him? Is rejection of God the Father as serious as a rejection of God the Son? It would seem to be at least as serious if not more serious.

What About the Person Who Knows About God?

It is precisely at this point that the New Testament locates the universal guilt of man. The New Testament announces the coming of Christ to a world that had already rejected God the Father. Christ Himself said, “I came not to call the righteous, but the sinner to repentance. Those who are well have no need of a physician” (see Matthew 9:12-13).

The biblical response to the question of the person who never heard of Christ is found in Romans 1, beginning with verse 18. The section begins with an awesome announcement of the wrath of God:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Notice that God’s wrath is revealed not against innocence or ignorance but against ungodliness and wickedness. What kind of wickedness? Both the word “ungodliness” and the word “wickedness” are generic terms describing general classes of activity. What is the specific act that is provoking the divine wrath? The answer is clear, the suppressing of truth. We must ask, “What truth i being suppressed?” The rest of the text provides the answer:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:19-21).

Here the apostle gives us a description of what theologians call “general revelation.” This means simply that God has revealed something generally. The “general” character of the revelation refers to two things, content and audience. The content is general in that it does not provide a detailed description of God. The trinity is not a part of this revelation. God reveals that He is, that He has eternal power and deity. The audience is general in  that all men receive this revelation. God does not reveal Himself only to a small elite group of scholars or priests but to all mankind.

What else does this text teach about general revelation?

First, we learn that it is clear and unambiguous. This knowledge is said to be plain (manifest) to them; that God has shown it to them; that it has been clearly perceived. Thus, this knowledge is not obscure.

Secondly, we learn that the knowledge “gets through” and finds its mark. God does not merely provide an available objective revelation of Himself that may or may not be subjectively received. We read “they knew God.” Man’s problem is not that he doesn’t know God but that he refuses to acknowledge what he knows to be true.

Thirdly, we learn that this revelation has been going on since the foundation of the world. It is not a once-for-all event but continues in a constant way.

Fourthly, we learn that revelation comes by way of creation. God’s invisible nature is revealed “through the things that are made.” The whole creation is a glorious theater which gives a magnificent display of its creation.

Fifthly, we learn that the revelation is sufficient to render man inexcusable. The passage says, “So they are without excuse.” What excuse do you suppose the apostle had in mind? What excuse does general revelation eliminate? Obviously the excuse eliminated is that of ignorance. If the apostle is correct about general revelation then none will ever say to God, “I’m sorry I didn’t worship and serve you. I didn’t know you existed. If only I had known I most certainly would have been your obedient servant. I wasn’t a militant atheist; I was an agnostic. I didn’t think there was sufficient evidence to affirm your existence.” If God has in fact clearly revealed Himself to all men, no man can plead ignorance as an excuse for not worshiping Him.

Ignorance may function as an excuse for certain things under certain circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church, in developing their moral theology, adopted a distinction between vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. Vincible ignorance is that ignorance which could and should be overcome. It does not excuse. Invincible ignorance is that ignorance which could not possibly be overcome. It does excuse.

Suppose a person from Texas drove his care to California and came to San Francisco. Upon entering the city limits of San Francisco the motorist promptly ran a red light. A police officer accosted him and gave him a ticket for going through a red light. The motorist protested saying, “I did not know it was against the law to go through a red light in California. I am from Texas.” Would this appeal to ignorance excuse the man? Certainly not. If the Texan presumes to drive his car in California, he is responsible to know the traffic laws. The laws are readily available and are not concealed by being locked up in a secret vault. This man’s ignorance would be vincible, leaving him without excuse.

Suppose on the other hand, that the city council of San Francisco were desperate for accumulating money quickly. Hence they meet in a secret conclave and pass a local municipal ordinance that outlaws driving through green lights and stopping at red lights. They decide the penalty for violating the law is a $100 fine. The catch is they decide not to notify the press or make any mention of the new secret law. The plan is to have a policeman at every intersection arresting motorists who stop on red and go on green. Could the arrested motorists plead ignorance as an excuse? Yes, their ignorance would be invincible and should excuse them.

Thus, the person who has never heard of Christ can plead ignorance at that point but cannot plead ignorance with respect to God the Father.

But aren’t the people who live in remote areas of the world religious? Doesn’t their religious activity remove them from any danger of the wrath of God? Isn’t it true that many anthropologists tell us that man is homo religiosus, that religion is universal? Such people may not be educated or sophisticated in their religious activity. Perhaps they worship totem poles, cows, or bee trees. But at least they are trying and doing the best they can. They surely don’t know any better. If they are born and raised in a culture that worships cows, how can they be expected to do any differently?

It is precisely at this point that the notion of general revelation is devastating. If Paul is correct, the practice of religion does not excuse the pagan but in fact compounds his guilt. How can that be? Paul continues his treatment of general revelation by saying:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

Here the apostle examines pagan religion. He views it as a distortion of truth. An “exchange” takes place between the truth of God and the lie. God’s glory is replaced by the substitution of the “glory” of the creature. Creature worship is religion, but it is the religion of idolatry. To be zealous in the worship of idols is to be zealous in the insulting of the glory and dignity of God. If God clearly reveals His glory and that glory is replaced by the worship of creatures, the ensuing religion is not pleasing, but displeasing to God.
Thus the fact that people are religious does not in itself mean that God is pleased with them. Idolatry represents the ultimate insult to God. To reduce God to the level of a creature is to strip God of His deity. This is particularly odious to God in light of the fact that all men have received enough revelation about Him to know that He is not a creature. Pagan religion is viewed then not as growing out of an honest attempt to search for God, but out of a fundamental rejection of God’s self-revelation.
How Are the Pagans Judged?
The New Testament makes it clear that people will be judged according to the light that they have. All the elements of the Old Testament Law are not known by people living in remote parts of the world. But we read that they do have a law “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). They are judged by the law they do not know and are found wanting. No one keeps the ethic he has even if he invents it himself.
I counseled once with a college student who was in my office as a “captive audience.” He had come at his mother’s insistence. His mother was a zealous Christian who continuously sought to persuade her son to become a Christian. The son was deeply alienated and resisted her persuasion. His rebellion was radical as he opted for a life-style that was on a collision course with his family values. As he spoke to me he argued that everyone had the right to develop his own ethic. He believed in a “do your own thing” morality. He complained that his mother had no right to “shove religion down my throat.”
I asked him why he objected to his mother’s tactics. If his mother followed his ethic she would have every right to shove religion down his throat. His mother’s “thing” was shoving religion down people’s throats. I explained to him that his mother was not being consistent with her own Christian ethic because she was so insensitive to her son. Yet she was being consistent with her son’s ethic. As we talked, he came to realize that what he really believed was that people could do their own thing as long as their own thing did not impinge on his own thing. He wanted one ethic for himself but quite another for everybody else. It is when we complain about other people’s behavior that we reveal what our deepest views of ethics are.
The pagan in Africa has an ethic. But even that ethic is violated. Thus, he remains exposed to the judgment of God. So often the primitive is idealized as being untainted by the corruption of civilization. Such idealized descriptions, however, do not fit the facts.
Thus if a person in a remote area has never heard of Christ, he will not be punished for that. What he will be punished for is the rejection of the Father of whom he has heard and for the disobedience to the law that is written on his heart. Again, we must remember that people are not rejected for what they haven’t heard but for what they have heard.
If all men have heard of the Father but naturally reject Him, then it follows that all men need to know of the redemption offered in Christ. To have no knowledge of Christ is to be in jeopardy because of the prior rejection of the revelation of the Father. But to hear of Christ and reject Him is to be in a state of double jeopardy. Now not only has the Father been rejected but the Son as well. Thus every time the gospel is proclaimed it bears a two-edged sword. To those who believe, it is the savor of glory. To those who reject, it is death.
How Can the Native Hear?
If the person who never heard of Christ is in serious jeopardy, how can his plight be alleviated? The answer comes in a simple statement made by the apostle Paul:
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:14-15).
Here the apostle reiterates the need for the mission of the church. Mission (from the Latin “to send”) begins with the love of God. It is because God so loved the world that He “sent” His Son into the world. The mission of Christ was in behalf of those who rejected the Father. The rejected Father sent the Son sent His church. That is the basis for the world mission of the church. It is the mandate of Christ that those who have not heard do hear. They cannot hear without a preacher, and there cannot be a preacher without a “sending.” The mandate of Christ is that the gospel be preached in every land and nation, to every tribe and tongue, to every living person. If this mandate were carried out by the church, the question of what happens to those who never heard would be a moot one.
The Christian must ask a second question after he has dealt with the question of those who have never heard. The Christian must ask, “What happens to me if I never do anything to promote the world mission of the church?” If the Christian takes this question seriously then his response must be equally serious. His concern for the remote native must begin with compassion, and it must also culminate in a response of compassion.
The question of the fate of the person who never hears of Christ is one that must not only be answered with words but by action as well. The action of mission must be prompted not by paternalism nor by imperialism but by obedience to the “sending” of Christ. All men need Christ, and it is the duty of the church to meet the need.

Key Points to Remember:

(1) All men know God the Father (Romans 1:18ff). The problem of the pagan who has never heard the gospel is the problem of our universal fallenness. We must emphasize that God has revealed Himself to all men. All men know there is a God. Thus, no one can plead ignorance as an excuse for denying God.

(2) All men distort and reject true knowledge of God. Since all men know God and all distort or reject that knowledge, they are not innocent.

(3) There are no innocent people in the world. People who die without hearing the gospel  will be judged according to the knowledge they have. They will be judged guilty for rejecting God the Father. God never condemns innocent people.

(4) God judges according to the knowledge people have. Idolatry as a “religion” does not please God but adds insult to injury to the glory of God (see Isa. 42:8). Idolatry does not represent man’s search for God but rather man’s flight from God.

(5) The gospel is God’s gift of redemption for the lost. God sends Christ to give people an opportunity for redemption from the guilt  they already have. If men reject Christ they face the double judgment of rejecting both the Father and the Son (see Colossians 1:13-17).

(6) The pagan needs Christ to reconcile him to God the Father. Christ Himself viewed the pagan as being in a “lost” condition.

(7) Christ commands the Church to make sure everyone hears the gospel (see Mark 16:15).

(8) Rejection of Christ brings a double judgment (see 2 Tim. 4:1).

(9) “Religion” does not redeem people but may add to their guilt.

About The Author:

Sproul R C image seated with Bible

Dr. R.C. Sproul has been a professor of Apologetics, Philosophy, and Theology at numerous Seminaries. He is the Founder of Ligonier Ministries, President of Reformation Bible College, and the Senior Minister of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Sanford, Fl. He has authored over 70 books including the following books on Apologetics: The Psychology of AtheismDefending the FaithNot a Chance; and a contributor to Classical Apologetics. The article above was adapted from Chapter 3 in his book Reason to Believe (previously – Objections Answered. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: