Skip to main content

The Destiny of the Unevangelized


 As Western Civilization has become more globally aware and more religiously and culturally diverse, many evangelical Christians honestly wonder about the fate of those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel—the unevangelized. Many ask themselves. “Will God really condemn people who have not even had the opportunity to hear about Jesus?” On account of this, some have abandoned the faith and embraced pluralism, denying the uniqueness of Jesus and affirming the salvific nature of all religions that promote good. Others, however, seek to stay true to the Bible and affirm that salvation is Solus Christus, in Christ alone. Nevertheless, not all evangelicals agree about the fate of the unevangelized. The Bible teaches that though all mankind, including the unevangelized, are dead in their sin and destined for eternal separation from God, God lovingly redeems those who, upon hearing the gospel in this life, place their faith in Jesus. Thus, hearing and believing the gospel is the only hope of salvation for anybody, including those who have not yet heard of Jesus.

Four Main Views in Evangelicalism

A growing number of evangelicals today are embracing what has become known as inclusivism. Inclusivists firmly believe that salvation is through Jesus alone (John 14:6). However, they also claim that knowledge of Jesus in this life is not always necessary for salvation. Thus, as John Sanders writes, “If people, moved by the Spirit of God, exercise faith in God, no matter what revelation of God they have, they are saved by the merits of Christ.”[1] In supporting their position, inclusivists begin with the general theme of God’s love for the world and his desire to save all of mankind (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Since God desires to save everybody, inclusivists contend, he will give grace to all through varying levels of revelation.[2] Thus, if one believes that God “exists and that he rewards those who seek him,” he or she will be accepted by God (Heb. 11:6).[3] Inclusivists also argue that since Old Testament believers did not know about Jesus and were saved, people today may also be saved apart from explicit knowledge of Jesus. So, for the inclusivist, there is great hope for the unevangelized as long as they respond positively to the grace they have been given.
Other evangelicals also hold hope for the unevangelized. However, they contend that the unevangelized will have an opportunity to believe in Jesus after they die. This view, known as Postmortem Evangelism (PME) or “Divine Perseverance,”[4] recognizes that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation but agrees with inclusivism that salvation is not limited to those who have heard and believed the gospel in this life. Gabriel Fackre writes, “In this world God will give us the power to spread the gospel far and wide. But the Word will also be declared to those we can’t reach, even if it takes an eternity.”[5] Like inclusivism, the argument for PME begins with the premise that God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Since God desires all to be saved, proponents of PME argue, God will persevere and overcome even death to bring the gospel to people. In supporting this idea, proponents of this view appeal to 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6. In these confusing passages, Peter seems to suggest that the gospel is preached even to those who have died. Thus, they conclude that there is hope for the unevangelized because God will give them a chance to believe after death.  
Some evangelicals reject both inclusivism and PME, but retain some hope for the unevangelized. They argue that “One way of another, all who have a heart to believe will be given the chance to do so.”[6] This position, known as the Universal Opportunity view, contends that God will use whatever means possible to bring the gospel to someone who would believe it. Norman Geisler writes, “If any unbeliever truly sought God through the general revelation, God would provide the special revelation sufficient for salvation.”[7] Thus, while acknowledging that God desires to save all people (1 Tim. 2:4), this view also firmly holds that people must believe in Jesus to be saved (Acts 4:12). Proponents of this view point to the salvation of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch as examples of the means that God will use to reach those who will believe in Jesus. So, according to the Universal Opportunity view, there is hope for the unevangelized because by whatever means possible, God will bring the gospel to those who would believe.
Many evangelicals hold a fourth position, called Restrictivism. This view represents traditional exclusivism, claiming that only those who hear the gospel and believe it in this life will be saved. Ronald Nash writes, “Christian exclusivism can be defined as the belief that (1) Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and (2) explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.”[8] While proponents of PME and the Universal Opportunity view agree with restrictivists on this major premise (i.e. they are exclusivists), restrictivists deny the possibility of an opportunity to be saved after death (Heb. 9:27) and many of the Arminian tendencies of the Universal Opportunity view. Restrictivists ground their view in the teaching of Scripture that “Whoever believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18; see also John 3:36, 6:37; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9–17; 1 John 5:12).[9] What about those who have never heard of Jesus? Restrictivists argue that they are lost because they are under sin and have suppressed the clear truth of God in general revelation (Rom. 1:18–22).[10] Yet, they contend, those whom Jesus has ransomed from every tribe, language, people, and nation (Rev. 5:9) will be saved by faith in Christ through the preaching of the gospel.

The Biblical Case for Restrictivism

            Terrance L. Tiessen, an inclusivist, writes, “I find no texts in the Bible that state explicitly that only the evangelized will be saved, nor any that state explicitly that any of the unevangelized will be saved.”[11] Inclusivists often use this supposed silence to their advantage, claiming that any passage a restrictivist might cite in support of Restrictivism is irrelevant because its context does not have to do with the unevangelized. Then, inclusivists lay down a groundwork of general themes so that “the lack of specifically gospel exclusivist texts speaks loudly” to their advantage.[12] Practically all inclusivists and most of the proponents of PME and the Universal Opportunity view begin with the major premise of “God’s radical love” for all people everywhere.[13] However, in doing so, they rarely discuss the large part of Scripture that speaks of God’s holiness and the state of all mankind.
A Positive Case for Restrictivism
            The Bible teaches that God is holy, and his wrath is revealed against all mankind because of their sin against him; yet, in love, God redeems those who, upon hearing the gospel, repent and place their faith in Jesus. When both Isaiah and the Apostle John have visions of the throne of God, they hear angels crying out, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord” (Is. 6:3, Rev. 4:8b). God’s holiness is at the center of who he is. That he is holy means that he is set apart from “everything that is sinful.”[14] He cannot look on sin with approval (Hab. 1:12–13). Thus, God’s wrath is revealed against all who sin (Rom. 1:18). Herein lies mankind’s problem: all people (including the unevangelized) are sinners who have rebelled against a holy God. Paul belabors this point in Romans 1–3. He writes that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom. 3:9). Thus, the reason why anyone will be condemned is not because he or she did not have access to the gospel, but because he or she is a rebel against a holy God. The unevangelized are not in some innocent category; they are in the same category as all mankind: guilty.
Yet, God is also vastly loving and provides a way for mankind to be redeemed (John 3:16). John writes, “The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36 NET). Contrary to what some inclusivists argue, all people are not accepted by God before they reject his revelation.[15] Rather, God’s wrath is revealed against all ungodliness (Rom. 1:18), and when someone rejects Jesus, he or she simply remains under that wrath. On the other hand, those who believe in Jesus will no longer be under God’s wrath. Instead, they have eternal life! This is truly the good news: though all have sinned, all who believe in Jesus will have eternal life (Rom. 3:23–25).
In Romans 10, Paul describes the normative process of coming to faith: the sending out of preachers, the preaching of the gospel, the hearing of the gospel, and the believing of the gospel (Rom. 10:14–15). Inclusivists are quick to point out, rightly, that the context of this passage is the widespread Jewish rejection of the gospel.[16] It is true that Paul is not speaking explicitly of the unevangelized in Romans 10. However, in the course of Paul’s argument, he clearly assumes that “People can only believe in Jesus when they hear about him.”[17] “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13), but no one can believe unless they hear the good news of Jesus (10:14). Therefore, no one, Jew or Gentile, can be saved without hearing the good news because believing is predicated on hearing. This is true throughout the New Testament: faith in Jesus—as a result of the preaching of the gospel—is uniformly presented as the means of salvation (see also John 6:37–44; Acts 4:12, 16:31; Eph. 2:1–10; 1 John 5:12).
Furthermore, a major motivation for missions in the New Testament is the lost state of those who have never heard the gospel. The impetus for Paul’s mission and preaching to the unevangelized (the Gentiles) was the fact that they were “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Jesus told Paul that he was sending him “to open their [the Gentiles’] eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18). Thus, it seems that Jesus disagrees with inclusivists who view some, if not many, of the unevangelized as those who have “reached out to God in the premessianic situation” and who simply need to be called to “come higher up and deeper in, to know God better and love God more.”[18] The purpose of missions is not to bring tidings of a richer spiritual life or deeper assurance of salvation to those among the unevangelized who already believe in God.[19] No, the gospel is brought to the unevangelized to open their eyes so that they might believe in Jesus and be saved (Acts 26:18).
Answers to Inclusivist Objections
It appears, then, that faith in Christ is the only hope for the unevangelized. However, could there be exceptions to the New Testament’s uniform testimony that salvation is through faith in Christ and that those apart from him are dead in sin? Inclusivists argue that there is. They contend that just as Abraham, Job, Melchizedek, and all Old Testament believers could not have explicit knowledge or faith in Christ yet were saved, those among the unevangelized may also be saved even if they do not have explicit knowledge of Jesus.[20] Thus, if the unevangelized believe in God as he has revealed himself in general revelation, inclusivists contend, they will be saved. However, there are two problems with these assertions. First, while the comparison of Old Testament believers with the unevangelized succeeds in the fact that neither had nor have explicit knowledge of Jesus, it ultimately fails because all the examples of believers in the Old and New Testaments had some access to God’s special revelation and promises. The unevangelized, however, do not, by definition, have current access to God’s special revelation or his promises.
This raises a second problem: there is no unambiguous support in the Bible for the proposition that general revelation has had or can have a salvific function.[21] In fact, Romans 1:18–25 seems to suggest that general revelation has only succeeded in condemning men and women because they naturally suppress the truth about God. Inclusivists often use Acts 17:26–27 as a proof text for their position that the unevangelized will reach out to God. However, even here, Paul is not hopeful that general revelation will succeed. He says that God has revealed himself generally so that people might seek him and “perhaps feel their way toward him and find him” (Acts 17:27). Both verbs in this clause (“feel and “find”) are in the optative case in Greek, suggesting that this is a “remote possibility.”[22] Thus, while the inclusivist suggestion that there is hope for the unevangelized who embrace God’s general revelation apart from explicit knowledge of Jesus may be a possibility, nothing in Scripture confirms that this possibility has actually borne results. Instead, the picture of all people apart from Christ as lost and dead and the uniform testimony to salvation through faith in Jesus suggest that faith in Christ as a result of hearing the gospel is the only hope for the unevangelized. As the Apostle John wrote, “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12).
Biblical Arguments Against PME and the Universal Opportunity View
Proponents of Postmortem Evangelism (PME) and the Universal Opportunity view would agree with restrictivists up to this point. They affirm that God is holy and must punish sin, but, in love, he provides salvation to those who hear and believe in Jesus. Proponents of PME would add that God in his love gives an opportunity to the unevangelized to believe after death, while proponents of the Universal Opportunity view would emphasize God’s love for all in making the gospel accessible to those who would believe. However, while these views admirably affirm the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, several biblical problems arise from their other arguments.  
The way proponents of Postmortem Evangelism use Scripture to support their position is extremely questionable and centers on a highly debated text: 1 Peter 3:18–4:6. Using this passage to argue for PME (or “Divine Perseverance”), Gabriel Fackre writes, “Sinners who die outside the knowledge of the gospel will not be denied the hearing of the Word.”[23] While an in-depth exegesis of 1 Peter 3 and 4 is not possible here, several problems with the use of this text to support PME must be noted. First, the fact that this passage is highly debated should give believers caution before the base a doctrine like PME on it. In fact, as Gary Phillips notes, “none of the best options support a ‘later light’ [PME] view.”[24]
Second, the “spirits in prison” whom Christ preached to (1 Pet. 3:19) do not refer to all “outside of God’s special saving history in Israel and Christ” (i.e. the unevangelized) as Fackre suggests because these imprisoned spirits did not obey in the days of Noah.[25] Thus, Peter seems to be suggesting that Jesus, in spirit, probably through Noah (2 Pet. 2:5), preached to the captive, disobedient people while God patiently waited before the flood. Finally, Peter’s statement that “the gospel was preached even to those who are dead” (1 Pet. 4:6), does not suggest that the gospel is preached to the unevangelized after death. Peter’s line of argument is as follows: The Gentiles are surprised when believers do not join them in sin and persecute them as a result (4:3–4). Yet, God, who judges the living and the dead, will judge them (4:5). Because God will judge the living and the dead, the gospel was preached to those who have since died, so that though they were persecuted according to the standards of men, they might still have spiritual life (4:6 NET). Peter’s argument has nothing to do with the unevangelized.[26] Rather, he seems to be speaking of believers who heard the gospel and believed, but have since been persecuted and died. Therefore, any use of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6 to support PME completely fails. The Bible does not present any hope of evangelism to the unevangelized after death. As the author of Hebrews writes, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27).
Most forms of the Universal Opportunity view also run into biblical problems. It is certainly true that God can use supernatural means to bring the gospel to those who do not currently have access to it. The example of Cornelius is evidence of that (Acts 10–11). However, the idea that “One way of another, all who have a heart to believe will be given the chance to do so”[27] is biblically questionable because it assumes that some people might develop a heart to believe. The testimony of Scripture is clear: “no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11b). No one can have a heart to believe unless God opens his or her heart to believe (see the example of Lydia in Acts 16:11–15). Thus, it is more biblically accurate to say that God will give the opportunity to believe to all those whom he has “appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). No one is saved because they are born in the right place at the right time, nor is anyone condemned because they are born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Men and women are saved only by the electing love and grace of God through faith in Christ (Eph. 1:3–10).
Summary
God is holy, and his wrath is revealed against all mankind because of their sin against him; yet, in love, God redeems those who, upon hearing the gospel, repent and place their faith in Jesus. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that the unevangelized, who have not believed in Jesus, have hope of salvation apart from faith in Christ. Rather, Paul writes that before he reached the Gentiles with the gospel, they were “without hope” (Eph. 2:12). Furthermore, the Bible does not present any hope of evangelism after death for the unevangelized. Death marks the end of opportunities to hear and believe in Jesus (Heb. 9:27). Finally, Scripture teaches that because of man’s rebellion against him, God must open the hearts of men and women to believe. The gospel will be declared to all who are appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Ultimately, then, Scripture teaches that hope for the unevangelized lies in faith in Christ, and God, in his wisdom, has appointed the hearing of the gospel as the normal means of faith in Jesus (Rom. 10:13–15) and given his Church the commission to preach the gospel to all nations (Mark 16:15).  

A Popular Philosophical and Experiential Objection

            The main philosophical and experiential objection to Restrictivism can be stated in the form of a question: “How can God be said to be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful if those who die never hearing about Jesus have no opportunity to be saved?”[28] Or, how can God be just and loving but not provide everyone with the opportunity to be saved? The implied answer is that God cannot be both loving and just and not provide an opportunity for all to be saved. For some, this objection is decisive in their rejection of Restrictivism.
While this is a popular objection, it ultimately fails to disprove Restrictivism because it fails to take into account the sinfulness of man and assumes that God’s love and justice must obligate him to provide an equal opportunity for all to be saved. However, no one will be condemned because they have not heard of Jesus. Rather, all who will be condemned will be condemned because they are sinners (Rev. 21:8). People do not ultimately die from a disease because they do not have access to the cure. They die because they have a disease.[29]
Furthermore, God is not obligated to provide the opportunity of salvation for anyone. What is created cannot determine what the Creator is obligated to do. Additionally, Scripture never states that God is obligated to give the opportunity for all to be saved. Rather, the Scriptures declare the riches of God’s sovereign mercy and grace to sinners who come to Christ (Eph. 1:3–14; 2:1–10). Therefore, while many today wonder why God does not save everybody or at least give equal opportunity for salvation to everybody, those who recognize the magnitude of God’s holiness and man’s sinfulness stand in awe that God would save anybody. In love, he has so worked in the world that he can be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).

Conclusion

Though all mankind is dead in their sin and destined for eternal separation from God, God lovingly redeems those who, upon hearing the gospel in this life, place their faith in Jesus.  Hearing and believing the gospel is the only hope Christians can have for the salvation of anybody, including the unevangelized (Rom. 10:17). Currently, those who have not believed in Jesus are without hope, whether they have heard of him or not, because they have rejected God and suppressed the truth (Eph. 2:12, Rom. 1:18–23). Therefore, the Church’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations is urgent. Yet, amidst the growing global awareness of religious and cultural diversity, the Church must not water-down the exclusivity of the gospel, but boldly endeavor to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15).  




[1]John Sanders, “Inclusivism,” in What about those Who have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 48, Kindle.

[2]Clark H. Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and W. Gary Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), under “General revelation,” Kindle.

[3]Sanders, “Inclusivism,” 36–38.

[4]Gabriel Fackre, “Divine Perseverance,” in Sanders, 71.

[5]Ibid., 73.

[6]Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 203.

[7]Norman Geisler, “‘Heathen,’ Salvation of,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), accessed April 27, 2016, https://www.jashow.org/artic les/guests-and-authors/dr–norman-geisler-2/salvation-of-the-heathen, under “Is It Fair to Condemn Those Who Have Not Heard?”

[8]Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 11.

[9]All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

[10]Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 199.

[11]Terrance L. Tiessen, “The Salvation of the Unevangelized in the Light of God’s Covenants,” Evangelical Review of Theology 36, no. 3 (2012): 231, accessed April 29, 2016, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

[12]Ibid., 236.

[13]Sanders, “Inclusivism,” 26. 

[14]Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 111.

[15]Sanders, “Inclusivism,” 30–33.

[16]Tiessen, “The Salvation of the Unevangelized in the Light of God’s Covenants,” 232.

[17]Douglas J. Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 351, Kindle.

[18] Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” under “Motivation for Missions.”

[19]Sanders, “Inclusivism,” 54. 

[20]John Sanders, “Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation,” The Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 255–57, accessed April 26, 2016, http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1988–3_241.pdf.

[21]Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 121–22.

[22]Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 484.

[23]Fackre, “Divine Perseverance,” 84.

[24]W. Gary Phillips, “Evangelicals and Pluralism: Current Options,” The Evangelical Quarterly 64 (1992): 234, accessed May 3, 2016, http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-3_229.pdf.

[25]Fackre, “Divine Perseverance,” 83.

[26]Ronald H. Nash, “Response to Fackre,” in Sanders, 97–98.

[27]Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 203.

[28]Sanders, “Inclusivism,” 22.

[29]Geisler, “‘Heathen,’ Salvation of,” under “Is It Fair to Condemn Those Who Have Not Heard?”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangerous Teachings of the Jesus Culture Movement

              Jesus Culture began in 1999 as a conference, called the Jesus Culture Conference, led by Banning Liebscher, the youth pastor at Bethel Church in Redding, California. [1] The music at these conferences were led by Kim Walker-Smith and the others who would become known as the Jesus Culture band. While many are aware only of their music, Jesus Culture is more than a band; it “is a movement with the purpose to ignite revival in the nations of the earth!” [2] While Jesus Culture is more than a band, it is their music that has grown in popularity. They even performed at the Louie Giglio’s Passion Conference in January of 2013 at which John Piper was a speaker. Many young Christians are familiar with the music of Jesus Culture, and many churches, Bible camps, and other ministries sing their songs in worship. However, Jesus Culture is not just a band; it is a movement that promotes false teaching and teachers, is built not on the Bible but on the supposed visions and propheci

Justification by Faith in Romans

Introduction During the height of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin wrote in an early edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion that justification by faith “is the chief article of the Christian religion.” [1] Many of the Reformers would have said the same. Many today, however, argue that justification is of secondary importance. The doctrine of “justification by faith” in Romans especially has been the subject of intense debate. In the first five chapters of this letter, Paul lays out the doctrine of justification by faith. Thus, in understanding Romans, one must come to grips with what Paul teaches about this doctrine throughout the book. In the first five chapters of Romans, Paul suggests that justification occurs when God, once and for all, declares righteous, on the basis of Christ’s death and resurrection, the one who believes in Jesus, leading to great peace, access into God’s grace, and the certain hope of glory. Definition In his letter to the Roma