Recently Rob Bell released a rather controversial book entitled “Love Wins” in which he challenges the traditional orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell and salvation. Despite the current hullabaloo surrounding his borderline (if not outright) heretical statements, this is nothing new. Over the years this argument has come up over and over. Rob Bell is not the first person who’s conscience was burdened over the prospect of people going to Hell “unjustly” who then decided to abandon Scripture and tradition After all, how could God damn to Hell a person who never heard the Gospel or had an opportunity to respond? What if this is a good person who worships god as they know it and lives a moral life within the confines of their given worldview (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.); wouldn’t God recognize their effort and redeem them apart from Christ? They make the argument that God’s love is bigger than His own name.
I have heard this referred to as “anonymous Christians” because they are saved by Christ, they just don’t know it yet.
This sounds really good, right? People try hard and God rewards them for it. But this isn’t how Scripture defines the Gospel, humanity, or grace.
While the doctrine of exclusivity is exceedingly difficult (I resonate with the Psalmist of Psalm 131!), it is necessary to maintain a consistent character of God that balances His love/mercy/grace with His justice/holiness/righteousness. I might do a series defending the doctrine over upcoming weeks, but for this post I just wanted to touch on a comment I Tweeted that seemed to cause some confusion.
The word “gospel” literally means “good news.” This is what Christ called it, what Paul called it, what the early church called it, so it seems they understood the life and message of Christ as something positive and freeing. Christ commanded us to share this message with all peoples in all places.
Let’s reason this through.
I would rather live in ignorance leading to salvation than knowledge leading to damnation. If this is the case, wouldn’t that make Christ a jerk for telling us to go and spread condemnation to the ends of the earth? Can you imagine a physician so concerned about the plight of AIDS that he finds a cure and wants to make sure everyone has access to it so he goes to places where AIDS is not present and starts injection the “cure” into people, thereby introducing AIDS to a previously uninfected area. Not only that, but not everyone will take advantage of the cure! Unfortunately, all will be touched by the disease. There is no good news in a cure that only heals you after infecting you in the first place. I’d rather just stay disease-free to begin with, thank you very much.
That is what I meant by my tweet. Sending missionaries to unreached people groups is not good news for those people if the missionaries’ presence only breeds responsibility before God leading to damnation apart from Christ where there previously was “anonymous” grace. This seems patently antithetical to God’s character and thus I must reject such a theory.
Like I said, I will try to write more soon about other reasons I hold to a doctrine of exclusivity, but for now, maybe this will help to show my concern with undermining evangelism and missions by deluding ourselves into thinking people are not currently dying and going straight to Hell all over this world because we are more focused on our next car than with sacrificing of ourselves to be Christ’s love to someone helpless and in need of rescue. This is insidious, evil, and unproductive. Which is more useful, denying the thief outside the door or calling the police to arrest him?
Let’s reason this through.
if the Gospel = good news;
And
not hearing the Gospel but living morally or worship your understanding of God = salvation;
But
introducing the Gospel to an unreached people group now means they can go to Hell;
therefore
the Gospel = bad news
I would rather live in ignorance leading to salvation than knowledge leading to damnation. If this is the case, wouldn’t that make Christ a jerk for telling us to go and spread condemnation to the ends of the earth? Can you imagine a physician so concerned about the plight of AIDS that he finds a cure and wants to make sure everyone has access to it so he goes to places where AIDS is not present and starts injection the “cure” into people, thereby introducing AIDS to a previously uninfected area. Not only that, but not everyone will take advantage of the cure! Unfortunately, all will be touched by the disease. There is no good news in a cure that only heals you after infecting you in the first place. I’d rather just stay disease-free to begin with, thank you very much.
That is what I meant by my tweet. Sending missionaries to unreached people groups is not good news for those people if the missionaries’ presence only breeds responsibility before God leading to damnation apart from Christ where there previously was “anonymous” grace. This seems patently antithetical to God’s character and thus I must reject such a theory.
Like I said, I will try to write more soon about other reasons I hold to a doctrine of exclusivity, but for now, maybe this will help to show my concern with undermining evangelism and missions by deluding ourselves into thinking people are not currently dying and going straight to Hell all over this world because we are more focused on our next car than with sacrificing of ourselves to be Christ’s love to someone helpless and in need of rescue. This is insidious, evil, and unproductive. Which is more useful, denying the thief outside the door or calling the police to arrest him?
0 comments:
Post a Comment