What about those who haven’t heard?

[Mark Corbett]

The Bible teaches that a person is saved when they hear the gospel and respond with repentance and true belief in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13). It also teaches that belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Those who have been saved long to see others also saved. This often results in wrestling with a difficult question:

What happens to those who haven’t heard the Good News about Jesus?

Sometimes people try to use this question as a type of rhetorical weapon to demonstrate that Jesus can’t possibly be the only way of salvation. Oprah, echoing the thoughts of many before her, once asked the question in this way, as you can see in this 2 minute video clip (sorry, the picture is somewhat fuzzy, but the sound is clear):

So, what about those who haven’t heard? This is one of those questions which the Bible does not answer in an explicit, direct way. But that doesn’t mean the Bible does not address this question. Let’s consider what may be the most important passage on this issue. I encourage you to slow down and thoughtfully read this, even if you are already familiar with it:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"​

It’s as if God says, “You should be worried about those people who haven’t heard. Here’s My solution: YOU go tell them. If you can’t go, then give and pray so that someone else can go.”

Admittedly, that’s not the type of answer people are looking for. But it is the type of answer God gives in His Word, which means it is the best type of answer and the most important type of answer. It’s a practical answer, so let’s stop and think a little about some practical applications of the truth that is declared in the verses above.

Practical Application #1: People Who are Asking about those Who Haven’t Heard are People who Have Heard

If a non-Christian is asking about people who have never heard as an objection to the truth of the Bible (and I’ve heard it asked that way), it may help to gently remind them that they are not in that category. If God makes any special provisions for those who haven’t heard, these provisions would NOT apply to the person who is asking about them, since they obviously have heard the gospel. If they reject the gospel now, the Bible offers NO guarantee that they will have another chance tomorrow (Hebrews 3:15, Proverbs 27:1, Isaiah 55:6). Not only are they not in the category of people who have not had a chance to hear the gospel, most people who are asking about those who haven’t had a chance to hear have never met anyone in this category. Very likely all their friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors have had and do have many chances to hear the Good News. It’s urgent that they accept God’s gracious offer of forgiveness and eternal life in Christ Jesus (Acts 2:40).

Practical Application #2: We Should Have a Passion to Spread the Gospel Where Christ is not yet Known

Paul certainly practiced what he preached. He himself had a burning passion to continually go to new areas where Christ is not yet known. A little later in Romans he writes:

NIV Romans 15:20a It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known,​

We’re not all called to go to unreached people groups, but we should each do what we can to support such work.

Practical Application #3: Working to Overcome Language Barriers in Difficult Areas

Today, the main barrier to people hearing the gospel is not geographic distance. The main barrier to hearing the gospel languages where the Bible is not available and where few, in any, who speak that language are sharing the gospel.

There is a great need for more people willing to go long term because it takes years to learn a new language and culture and win people and disciple them.

Dangerous Speculation

Some people speculate that perhaps people who live in remote areas and who die without a chance to hear the gospel will be given a chance to accept Jesus after they die. While the Bible does not explicitly rule this possibility out, we need to consider how this speculative solutions fits, or doesn’t fit, with the logic of Romans 10:9-15. When Paul asks, “how can they believe in Him whom they have not heard”, his solution is NOT that those people will get a chance after they die. In fact, the logic of needing to go and preach would be undermined if there were chances to believe after death.

An Analogy

Here’s my own version of an analogy I’ve heard elsewhere (but I don’t remember where or from whom):

Imagine there is a man in an apartment building. He lives on the 5th floor. His building catches on fire. By the time he wakes up the four floors below him are on fire and the floor above him is on fire. Thankfully, a fire truck with a long ladder shows up. A fireman appears outside his window and calls him to come and escape.

The trapped man says, “I think there might be a hidden fireproof escape under the rug somewhere. I’ll look for that.”

The fireman yells, “How do you know it’s there? Did the builder of the apartments tell you it was there?”

The trapped man replies, “No, but it makes sense to me that there would be a fire escape under a trap door under the carpet.”

Should the man look for the fire escape just because it makes sense in his mind that there should be one? Shouldn’t he instead focus on the one way out (the fireman with the ladder)? Does it make sense for people to speculate on a chance for salvation after death? The Bible says nothing about that. The “builder” hasn’t told us such a thing exists.

How this Might All Harmonize with God’s Justice, Goodness, and Foreknowledge

Still, people are understandably concerned about those who died without hearing. But it is wrong to assume that the only way God can be fair and good to those people is if He gives them a chance to believe and be saved after death.

God has not revealed in detail how He is fair to those who die without hearing, but we should have no doubt that God is entirely just in all He does. “Will not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).

We should remember that it is not unjust for God to judge people for their sins and destroy their bodies and souls in hell (Matthew 10:28). That is what ALL people deserve based on our sins (Romans 3:23, 6:23). But there might be more to it. For example, it is possible that God has used his foreknowledge to arrange the world in such a way that everyone who would benefit by hearing the gospel does indeed hear the gospel. The Bible does teach that God determines when and where people will live (Acts 17:26). He may place those who would not have believed even if they heard the gospel in times and locations where the gospel has not been available. It is a possibility. I share this possibility not because I know this is how it works, but to counter the type of thinking I hear from some universalists and others that God essentially MUST give unsaved people a chance to repent after death or else God is not really just, good, and loving.

Conclusion

It is not wrong for us to be concerned about those who have not heard. Nor do I think it is wrong to think about the theological and philosophical implications of this issue. But God’s main response is an urgently practical one. Our concern about this issue should first and foremost inspire us to make every effort and great sacrifices to go and share the gospel with the unreached. Jesus will be with us as we go (Matthew 28:20).

This is a modified version of a post on my blog.

 

[Reformed]

Some people speculate that perhaps people who live in remote areas and who die without a chance to hear the gospel will be given a chance to accept Jesus after they die. While the Bible does not explicitly rule this possibility out, we need to consider how this speculative solutions fits, or doesn’t fit, with the logic of Romans 10:9-15.

The Bible does rule it out.

The imperative in John 14:6 excludes any other way to the Father. On that all Christians are obligated to believe.

As to the disqualification of an Open Theism view of salvation, one need only look at Hebrews 9:27. After death comes judgment.

The idea that God may save those who do not hear the Gospel is rooted in the human view of fairness and equity. At it's extreme it leads to Universalism. A fair God will save all who never heard the Gospel, but we know that is not true.

Mark, actually the fact that God does not offer the opportunity for faith after death emphasizes the point of your post. All Christians should concern themselves with the proclamation of the Gospel because without the Gospel their is no means of salvation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Mark Corbett]

I think we are agreeing on the main point (there is no Biblical basis to think that people can be saved by believing in Jesus after death. But I think you may have somewhat misunderstood what I wrote, which may be as much due to my writing as to your reading. To attempt to clarify:

The Bible does rule it out.

We mostly agree, I think. What I said is that the "the Bible does not explicitly rule this possibility out" (emphasis added).. The "this possibility" is NOT that people can be saved without faith in Jesus. The "this possibility" is that people can be saved by believing in Jesus after death. My post argues that while the Bible does not explicitly rule this out, this view does not fit with the logic Paul uses in Romans 10. So I think both of us agree that the Bible does not support the idea that people cannot be saved by believing in Jesus after death.

As to the disqualification of an Open Theism view of salvation, one need only look at Hebrews 9:27. After death comes judgment

I wasn't intending to interact with Open Theism, which is a view I don't hold. To be honest I have not studied open theism in any depth, although I am aware of the basic premise. I was not aware that Open Theism necessarily included belief in opportunities to repent after death, although I would be very surprised if some Open Theists did not hold that view. But is it actually a part of Open Theism? I guess I'm not sure why you mentioned Open Theism, or how it is relevant.

 

[Reformed]

I think we are agreeing on the main point (there is no Biblical basis to think that people can be saved by believing in Jesus after death. But I think you may have somewhat misunderstood what I wrote, which may be as much due to my writing as to your reading. To attempt to clarify:



We mostly agree, I think. What I said is that the "the Bible does not explicitly rule this possibility out" (emphasis added).. The "this possibility" is NOT that people can be saved without faith in Jesus. The "this possibility" is that people can be saved by believing in Jesus after death. My post argues that while the Bible does not explicitly rule this out, this view does not fit with the logic Paul uses in Romans 10. So I think both of us agree that the Bible does not support the idea that people cannot be saved by believing in Jesus after death.



I wasn't intending to interact with Open Theism, which is a view I don't hold. To be honest I have not studied open theism in any depth, although I am aware of the basic premise. I was not aware that Open Theism necessarily included belief in opportunities to repent after death, although I would be very surprised if some Open Theists did not hold that view. But is it actually a part of Open Theism? I guess I'm not sure why you mentioned Open Theism, or how it is relevant.

Open Theism does include the belief that a person can get a second chance of salvation after death. But like any belief system individuals in that camp may be more or less in agreement. I responded to that part of your post because uncertainty on this topic allows the wolves room to maneuver. Considering how many people read our posts precision is required when discussing eternal truths.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Mark Corbett]

Open Theism does include the belief that a person can get a second chance of salvation after death. But like any belief system individuals in that camp may be more or less in agreement. I responded to that part of your post because uncertainty on this topic allows the wolves room to maneuver. Considering how many people read our posts precision is required when discussing eternal truths.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

If it's not too much work, could you provide a reference for Open Theism including a second chance of salvation after death? It's not that I think you're wrong, it would just help me in the future to have a basis for this beyond
"someone said so in a discussion forum". If you don't have time to provide a reference, no worries. I did very briefly google this issue and did not quickly find evidence one way or the other. It does not seem to me that the basic view of Open Theism would necessitate opportunities to believe after death, but that doesn't mean the two ideas haven't been put together. Thanks!

 

[Reformed]

If it's not too much work, could you provide a reference for Open Theism including a second chance of salvation after death? It's not that I think you're wrong, it would just help me in the future to have a basis for this beyond
"someone said so in a discussion forum". If you don't have time to provide a reference, no worries. I did very briefly google this issue and did not quickly find evidence one way or the other. It does not seem to me that the basic view of Open Theism would necessitate opportunities to believe after death, but that doesn't mean the two ideas haven't been put together. Thanks!

For apologetic purposes only, I recommend you look into the teachings of Clark Pinnock. The late professor Pinnock was at the forefront of Open Theism, so much so that he is often considered the definitive voice on Open Theism. So that you don't have to take my word for it, get a hold of his 1994 book titled, "The Openness of God". Banner of Truth Publishing has an informative article on Pinnock, but it is in his own writings he makes the case for the possibility that salvation can take place post-mortem. In fact, the term "post-mortem salvation" is worth a Google search.

Pinnock fell into something called radical Arminianism. He began his theological position as an ardent Calvinist and then embraced a radical view of free will. He believed that God's holiness was a lesser attribute than God's love. It wasn't that God couldn't know the future, God limited His ability to know the future. God's limiting His omniscience is how the possibility of post-mortem salvation crept in. This is why Pinnock and one of his contemporaries, John Sanders, questioned why death ended the opportunity to know God's love salvifically.

Have a good day.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

One cannot be saved without calling on the name of Christ. Obviously, one who has never heard the Gospel cannot call on the name of Christ.

Now, that having been said, God is not caught by surprise when a man dies. He does not gasp in shock and say, "You mean you never heard the Gospel and had an opportunity to be saved?"

It is God who calls and God who saves and God will give every man whatever opportunity He deems sufficient.

I think it's reasonable to say, based on the description we see in scripture, that if a man has not heard the Gospel, but responds to the external witness of creation and the internal witness of the conscience, described in Romans, that God will continue to reveal the truth to him to the extent that he continues to respond to the truth.

But in the end, whether a man goes to Heaven or to Hell, we can trust that God has dealt with him justly.

 

[Baptist Believer]

For apologetic purposes only, I recommend you look into the teachings of Clark Pinnock. The late professor Pinnock was at the forefront of Open Theism, so much so that he is often considered the definitive voice on Open Theism.

As someone who has a lot of appreciation for Open Theism (although I am not an Open Theist), I take exception to the assertion that Pinnock is the "definitive voice" for the view. Pinnock coined the term with his book, but the thinking and theology has been around a long time. His book began a discussion within the theological community that is still being worked out. There is a community of scholars and thinkers who are doing work in that field, and I think you would find significant deviations in viewpoints regarding the subject.

Saying all of that, I have never heard an Open Theist assert that there is a "second chance" after death. I have heards critics of Open Theism posit that position, playing off of the mistaken idea that Open Theists believe that God is indecisive, not really in control of His creation, and cannot guarantee victory over evil.

 

[Reformed]

As someone who has a lot of appreciation for Open Theism (although I am not an Open Theist), I take exception to the assertion that Pinnock is the "definitive voice" for the view. Pinnock coined the term with his book, but the thinking and theology has been around a long time. His book began a discussion within the theological community that is still being worked out. There is a community of scholars and thinkers who are doing work in that field, and I think you would find significant deviations in viewpoints regarding the subject.

Saying all of that, I have never heard an Open Theist assert that there is a "second chance" after death. I have heards critics of Open Theism posit that position, playing off of the mistaken idea that Open Theists believe that God is indecisive, not really in control of His creation, and cannot guarantee victory over evil.

Read his book. Read Sanders. I stand by my assertion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

I am giving my opinion ONLY.

As one who agrees with a slight modification of the Doctrines of Grace (limit of redemption), the plight of the one who never heard the Gospel is most important.

It is God that selected before time all that would be redeemed.

Yet, there is that question of actually hearing.

So, here are my general thoughts.

First, no person may come to belief without the Father's direct intervention in their life. To that end, the Father will also provide for any need that person may have in being in contact with what is necessary for that person to believe. If it requires a personal to person discussion or some other encounter, the Father will direct in such a way as to provide that His own WILL hear His Voice.

Second, We in the "western world" and me as a Texan are confronted with ideas and thinking perspectives vastly different from our own. More often this was considered and expressed in terms such as: less human, uncivilized, savage ...

There is some thinking that a certain conformity to the gospel must come to also a conformity to the perspectives of living experiences.

Yet, time and again, this western position is weak, even frail, when we encounter believers who have endured in far greater desperate circumstances than our own, yet have thrived, and the church continues to thrive.

The persecuted church is so less thrilled with the worldly devices then the modern western church. And often are the carriers of the gospel to people God puts in their life of persecution that the western church would shrink from even trying to reach.

Therefore, where the Arminian would struggle to present a successful answer, and contrive to make excuse and a "second chance," the thinking of those of the Doctrines of Grace will spur them into mission work, discussions with the ungodly, and extensive prayers for those persecuted for the Gospel, knowing that in each there is purpose and direct interaction.

That those who God has selected as His adopted Will hear, and Will, under the total authority and direction of God, Hear and believe.

 

[Mr. Davis]

I am giving my opinion ONLY.

{ . . . }

That those who God has selected as His adopted Will hear, and Will, under the total authority and direction of God, Hear and believe.

I FULLY agree! Have you read the book, Eternity in Their Hearts?

Now, my opinion:

Just as Christ appeared in the OT (christophanies), so he has done, and continues to do so
today. Of course not to those who have already been exposed to the message. The people are not civilized and are missed by missionaries.

It is not likely that Christ will appear to civilized unbelievers. One aspect of Civilization is communication. And God will use every means to bring His children home!

None of this is to say evangelism is unnecessary.

 

[agedman]

I FULLY agree! Have you read the book, Eternity in Their Hearts?

Now, my opinion:

Just as Christ appeared in the OT (christophanies), so he has done, and continues to do so
today. Of course not to those who have already been exposed to the message. The people are not civilized and are missed by missionaries.

It is not likely that Christ will appear to civilized unbelievers. One aspect of Civilization is communication. And God will use every means to bring His children home!

None of this is to say evangelism is unnecessary.

I am not big in accepting the thinking that Christ appears as He did in the OT. Because the only time I recall His "Christophanies" was to believers (example: Abraham, Moses, prophets).

The people who are not civilized and "missed by missionaries" are reached as Christ instructed - Go, and Tell.

It remains that is the often neglected work of the believer.