|
Must Christians be Exclusive? "I am the Way the Truth and the Life"
One of Jesus's most well known sayings is, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."1 This passage is a significant source of exclusivism but the Christian posture should not be surprising to libertarians. If Jesus says he is the only way to the Father his followers are in no position to correct their Lord and Savior on doctrinal points. If Jesus is who Christians think he is and the Bible is what they think it is, they are certainly not incorrect to maintain this position. Therefore, one cannot simply wish away this verse or expect Christians not to be as exclusive as they are. It is a package deal. We can't simply isolate and strip out what we don't want under most Christian paradigms. But must we interpret this passage with such an anachronistic and rigid literalism? Must we maintain that knowledge of the events that occurred 2,000 years ago is essential for salvation? Is knowing the gospel story essential for salvation? When Jesus spoke to his followers in Palestine in the first third of the first-century, did he mean to imply most of the outside world was hellbound? How many countless millions of people lived during the time that Christ walked the earth but never met or heard of him? Are they all condemned? Infants who die in infancy do not ever say the sinner's prayer or consciously accept the Biblical Jesus into their lives as their savior. Are all children who die in infancy automatically hellbound? What about prophets like Moses? Isaiah? Is Abraham--a man willing to sacrifice his own child on an altar for God---condemned to everlasting hell because he did not consciously know Jesus or his sacrifice? This is a very difficult doctrine to embrace. Instead of saying "Blessed are the poor" Jesus is saying "Condemned are those who have unfortunately never heard about me". Instead of saying "the meek shall inherit the earth" Jesus is saying "those who were born before the first century are condemned".
If Conscious Faith in the Incarnated Jesus is Necessary for Salvation the following seven corollaries emerge:
Logistics of the Situation If I said P is a Requirement for Q then there can be no Q without P. If I said a Car Requires Gasoline to Run then G is a requirement of C. Without gas (C) you car cannot run. Likewise, if conscious faith in Jesus is required for salvation then there can be no S without J. The logic is rather simple.
C.S. Evans asked a question on this topic: "Can we maintain that awareness of God's historical incarnation is necessary for salvation and at least hold that some of those who lack such historical knowledge are saved? Logically, one cannot hold that p is necessary for q, and also hold that q can be achieved without p. One must clear-headedly hold on to this logical truth and not allow sentiment to fuzzy up our thinking on such matters."3 A Biblical Answer to the Dilemma Jesus is the only way to heaven! That is a premise that this article grants While it may be affirmed that the only way to the Father is through Jesus this does not mean that a person must have conscious faith in the historical image of Jesus found in the Christian canon to be saved through him. As C.S. Lewis said, "Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself."2
In this view Jesus is the only way to the Father but knowledge of the incarnation is not a prerequisite for salvation, though it may be a very good way of attaining it. This view eloquently solves all the difficulties presented up above. Not only that, it also alleviates a few other difficulties such as religious pluralism. Am I to believe that a pious Jewish woman who prays and loves God with all her heart, mind and soul is going to spend her eternity separated from God and all that is good because she grew up in a different religious tradition and could not accept certain "problematic" (from her reference frame) statements about a Jewish man who lived 2000 years ago as factually true? Should I further believe without ANY good evidence that she has intellectual difficulties with Christian doctrine because she is evil and that it is her wickedness which suppresses the truth? A friend of mine described this situation well: "How would you like it if I came up to you and said "You know, I don't think you truly know what loving your wife is really all about. I however, through the depth of my love and faith do know how to love your wife properly. I'd like you invite you to learn to love your wife with all the depth and passion that I have."5 It is a slap in the face to tell those devoted and sincere adherents of other religious faiths that they do not love God or that they do not accept the factuality of Christian dogma because they are evil. Babies who die prematurely, the mentally handicapped, those who have never heard, those who preexisted Christ and even those victims of poor witnessing can be saved. When a person hears the "good news" and rejects it are they rejecting a) the veracity of the news itself from a fallible messenger or are they rejecting b) Jesus? It is not impossible or implausible to think that they are not explicitly rejecting the love of God or Jesus here. Intellectual difficulties may prevent them from accepting the authenticity of the "good news" that is being presented to them. Furthermore, there has never been guarantee that the apologist will not caricature the good news in some form causing the person being witnessed to have an aversion against it. Misinterpretation can turn good news bad. It may be that people will be judged based upon the light they are given. The more we are given, the more is expected. God also may know what would have happened in the case of more light being shed: Matthew 11:21 and Luke 10:13 record Jesus as saying, "If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."In regards to those who have never heard the gospel, Christians may argue that God knows who would have responded in faith to the good news if presented with it and made it so that everyone who would have responded in faith actually heard the good news. Some may even use the passage above as a 'proof-text' from scripture in support of this view. But it is empirically false in that it cannot be seriously maintained that none of the billions of people who have lived in cultures not exposed to the Gospel message would have responded in faith to it.
A Wider Hope Theory Historical faith in Jesus is an effective means of obtaining "salvation" but the knowledge is certainly not necessary for obtaining salvation. Otherwise Moses (et al.), children who die in infancy and the mentally handicapped cannot be saved. Historical faith in Jesus is however effective as is evidenced by its track record during the last two millennia. The Jesus story does effectively mediate grace. Saying that belief in Jesus is sufficient for salvation but not necessary has several positive aspects. It adequately deals with all the difficulties presented above and there are a few scriptural compatibilities with this that have really nice fits. For example, in Mark 2:5 Jesus pronounces the sins of the paralytic to be forgiven. This occurred before his sacrificial death. People in the Old Testament were truly forgiven by God before the event of the Incarnation just as Jesus forgave the paralytic. Evan's image of God is refreshing, "a loving merciful God would welcome into his kingdom all those who truly wish to be there, excluding only those who wish to exclude themselves and could thereby only be brought into the kingdom by coercion." Evans laid out the meaning of this wider hope theory in a lucid fashion:: "Such a view does indeed imply that salvation can be gained apart from any knowledge of the historical career of Jesus. But this does not imply that salvation gained in such a manner is independent of the work of Christ. One may still maintain that Christ's atoning work is objectively necessary for their salvation. Nor does this imply that such people have no subjective awareness of Jesus the Christ. After all, it is part of the narrative itself to maintain that Jesus is identical with the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. Such a Jesus is the Word by who all things were created and who comes into the world to 'enlighten everyone'. Such a Christ may reveal himself to other people in other forms. Thus, such people may have an awareness of Christ, even if they are not aware of his historical existence as Jesus. The faith they have which makes salvation may still be faith in Christ, even if they do not know that it is Jesus the Christ who is the object of their faith. Thus, some knowledge of Christ may be necessary for salvation, even if knowledge of the story of Christ's life on earth is not." God may even clarify things after death. Therefore, it can be affirmed that Jesus is the only way to heaven (John 14:6) while thinking that people outside the Christian faith can be saved. Humans are justified by their faithful response to God in a variety of cultures and faiths today based upon the light they receive in their specific situation but the chance of salvation may not be strictly limited to this life. One day everyone will stand before the love of God and all or most of the objections, questions and complaints will fade away. As with Oruale's gripe in CS Lewis' Till We have Faces, reading her complaints to the gods answer itself. On that day, like Oruale, many people may well learn why God utters no answer. For when they stand before God, his face itself will be the answer. 6
Vincent Sapone 1. John 14.6 NIV Translation |