What is the Destiny of the Unevangelised?

Alan Nairne New Year 2001

I. Why this discussion?

II. Source materials

1. Church Fathers
2. 19th.C
3. 20th.C

III. The Biblical data

1. Covering the eternal destinies of all

2. Covering the elect in Christ

a) Calvin's "five point" scheme

b) Atonement universally accessible

3. Covering this "wider hope"

a) Concerning God's will for all to be saved

b) Concerning an unlimited atonement

c) Concerning the implications of an unlimited atonement

IV. The traditional norms of interpretation

1. Calvinist predestination
2. The "wider hope"

V. Toward an answer

VI. Post-mortem evangelisation

1. If the godly are in heaven, who will evangelise?
2. Christ's presence is universal - He "fills all things"
3. Suitable garments for heaven await our resurrection
4. Christ unwilling that those open to repentance be damned
5. Conformity to Christ's image continues in the "after-life"
6. Hasting the coming of the Day of God

Appendix A On the destiny of infants and the mentally retarded

I. WHY THIS DISCUSSION?

I wrote last year two Biblical essays for this web site. The first was an examination of Scripture to see if it promised any future for national Israel apart from the Church. The second was to see whether the Scripture could substantiate a one thousand year "golden age" described as the millennium.

The reason I went into print was because I felt that what I wrote could be credibly substantiated from Scripture. By which I meant (upon my presuppositions!) that there was not an overriding alternative. To believe this is my privilege. No doubt, since the debate on these matters will long continue, others feel that they can exercise their similar privilege on an overriding alternative! [There was a third essay on the absence of an occultic relationship to homoeopathy, but that could not be described as Biblical.]

But although this essay will be Biblical, I do not say that I offer something that can be substantiated without challenge. In fact, I have to say that you will not have to be very clever to rebut the proposals. Although discussion is invited, controversy is not its purpose. I wish that I could be as confident as in my previous essays, but Scripture only hints at perhaps several answers to the title of this essay. So why have I gone into print?

Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly I believe I have the best of the answers, given the Biblical boundaries within which I wish to work. Secondly I believe that the majority of Christians ask, and have been asked, the question. Thirdly, the majority of Christians do not read sufficiently widely to obtain possible answers. Fourthly, The doctrinaire positions held by the majority of evangelicals, discourages open discussion. To do so suggests a whiff of heresy. But this ought not to be so - the question and its answers have orthodox precedent and should be discussed within "the family" at least. As an author that I refer to later has succinctly put it - 'If sin, damnation, and the love of God are all part of the problem of evil, then the issue of the destiny of the unevangelized is also part of that problem, and it ought to be addressed forthrightly.' (John Sanders No Other Name Wm. B Eerdmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1992 p.18. I have not come across a UK edition, but if there was one it is doubtless out of print). Fifthly, possibly forty years ago I read a contribution to the subject by an author whom I respected, which I found to be very helpful, and as satisfying as anything that I had come across. I have since found nothing to modify or improve it. And finally, I hope that some readers of this article may find it similarly helpful, and be encouraged to be like the Bereans of old and to further search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so, (or could be!)

II. SOURCE MATERIALS

Evangelical teaching on the fate of the unevangelised has generally followed Reformed theology, and any systematic theology by an accredited author [e.g. Chas. Hodge, Louis Berkhof] will set it out. Despite my third point above, although I cannot claim to have read widely on the subject, I have read significantly, and, as the position of the various proponents of ideas has not changed vastly over the generations I think that I have grasped the main thrusts of the problem. Much scholarly work, back to the Church Fathers, has been researched, brought together, discussed and evaluated by John Sanders in his 300 plus pages volume No Other Name mentioned above. Sanders is an instructor at Oak Hills Bible College, Bermidji, MN and an adjunct professor of philosophy at Bermidji State University. This volume I have found valuable for the source material references. In his introduction (p.2) he states that a detailed study such as he gives has not been attempted for ninety years.

Nevertheless, in my reading I have found internationally known conservative evangelical authors who express their reservations with the traditional evangelical view. Three such authors, are Clark Pinnock, John Stott and Roger Forster with Paul Marston. Pinnock has written widely. For example the subject crops up in his Unbounded Love (Paternoster Press 1994) p.87ff. His The Grace of God, and the Will of Man (Zondervan 1989) and A Wideness in God's Mercy (Zondervan) deal specifically with the subject. John Piper classes him as neo-Arminian (The Pleasures of God Multnomah Portland Oregon 1991 p.70ff.) John Stott has gone into print on the subject in his dialogue with the liberal David L Edwards in Essentials (Hodder & Stoughton 1988) pp.306-331, and Forster and Marston in Yes, but... (Victory Press Eastbourne 1971) #20 #22. But we need to bear in mind that whoever goes into print on the subject, echoes the work of authors dating, in many cases, back as far as the Church Fathers. As will be seen below there is an extensive bibliography since all these authors have written on the subject.

To reassure my readers of the orthodoxy of the question we are discussing I give Sanders (No Other Name pp.211ff. quoting sources) lists of the following groups who held what he calls "wider hope" views.

1. The Church Fathers. Melito, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ephraem, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and others. Augustine, whose influence in so many areas of interpretation extends down even to the present, opposed such views, and laid the foundation for a rigid predestinarian theology. The subject remained dormant with his views prevailing largely until the 18/19thC. The reason for this, partly, is that the existence of large numbers of peoples beyond the confines of his world was for long largely unknown. Since the majority were baptized into the Church, the majority were conceived of as safe within its bosom.
2. But this position changed and by the 19thC. well known expositors as Lange, Dorner, Delitzsch, Cremer, Godet, Meyer, Van Oosterzee and others both in Europe and America were broaching the subject again.
3. The 20thC has seen a veritable explosion of works with commentators such as Farrar, Konig, Beyschlag, Wayne Grudem, Cranfield, Beasley-Murray, Leckie, Bloesch, Forsyth, Elwell, Pannenberg and many others on both sides of the Atlantic discussing the subject.

I can only say, if any one thinks that discussion of this subject is heresy, then put me among those illustrious names above! But truly, in much theology "there is nothing new under the sun!" If any would like details of Sanders' sources for the above information I shall be pleased to provide them through the internet link.

One final point deserves mention. Whilst it is true that inside evangelicalism universalism is not a popular doctrine, outside of it it is. Although it is not my position, those evangelicals who espouse universalism should not be branded as having liberal views.

Concerning the fifth point above, the other author to whom I am greatly indebted from all those years ago is G H Lang. He is not well known today, but I do not apologise for quoting him. In certain rarified circles he is considered a heresiarch (arch-heretic) - quite unjustly, I hope I hardly need say! After all, he contributed several articles to the Evangelical Quarterly (edited by Prof. F F Bruce.) Bruce has written a forward to a number of his works, many of which were published by the respected Paternoster Press. If you have not come across him, by all means, if you are interested in prophetic interpretation (he will keep you on your toes!), and the life of faith and holiness, you may be encouraged to keep an eye open for his works. Like me, you may not agree with much of what he writes, but his work is always of spiritual blessing. But unless any of his works have been reprinted in USA, you could try and obtain some, probably with difficulty, on the UK used theological book market - he was never a "popular" writer, and those who have his works seem to hang on to them. So there is my apologia (defence) for using him!

III. THE BIBLICAL DATA

1. Covering the eternal destinies of all

Dan.12:2 is the first Scripture on the subject

• ...many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Its counterpart in John 5:28,29

• ...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.

The solemn words of our Lord in Matt.25:41 and 46

• Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels... these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into lifeeternal.

In the book of Revelation - 14: 10,11

• :...and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night...

Mark 3:29 and II Thess.1:9 are to the same effect.

It is clear that these Scriptures speak of resurrection to an eternal destiny in heaven or destruction in the lake of fire. For most evangelicals there is no problem with these doctrines. But for a number of respected conservative evangelical teachers of the Word, eternity of suffering presents a moral problem, and today they feel that the concept of annihilation reflects more the true character of God (e.g. Stott Essentials p.320). As this is only an amelioration of the suffering of the lost, it is not germane to the discussion of our subject, and will not be discussed.

That there is no salvation outside of the atoning work of Christ, received by faith, is clear from Scripture. That such have been chosen (the elect) in Christ is equally clear. I give a few typical Scriptures. As they affect the believer in Christ there is wide agreement, and an extended list is unnecessary.

2. Covering the elect in Christ

• He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16:16
• He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him John 3:36
• Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me John 14:6
• And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent John 17:3
• Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved Acts 4:12

I Cor.3:11, Eph.2:12, 4:18, I John 2:23, 5:11-12 are all to similar effect

But it is at this point that interpretation divides.

a) Calvinism's "five point" scheme postulates an atonement that is limited to the elect in Christ. It is argued that irresistible grace will ensure that all such will have the opportunity to hear and accept salvation during this life. All others, therefore, who do not hear cannot be elect, and will perish outside of Christ. For those not familiar with this scheme it is easily memorised under the mnemonic T - U - L - I - P:

Total Inability

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

e.g. See Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co Philadelphia 1932 [15th printing 1971]) pp. 433-436 for explanations.

b) Other evangelicals would see that there are Scriptures that indicate that the scope of Christ's atonement is to be made accessible universally. That is, that Christ died for mankind - i.e. Christ died for an elect of possibly the majority of mankind. Please note that this is different from "universal salvation". The main Scriptures that are used for this "wider hope" are firstly those which express God's desire for all men to be saved. (The logic used by Calvinists to rebut "wider hope" conclusions [saying that if God willed for all to be saved they would be {since what he wills must come to pass}], and since they are not all saved therefore he does not will all to be saved, is doctrinaire, and I cannot accept it). I give below the main Scriptures covering this position, this group being subdivided under three headings.

3. Covering the "wider hope"

a) Concerning God's will for all to be saved

• ...God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved,... I Tim.2:3,4
• ...the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. I Tim.4:10
• The Lord...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Pet.2:9

b) Concerning an unlimited atonement

Then there are those that proclaim the unlimited atonement of Christ

• ...he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. I John 2:2
• But we see Jesus...he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Heb.2:9
• For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,... Titus 2:11
• ...to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;... II Cor.5:19

Finally we have those verses which set out the implications of the universally atoning work of Christ

c) Concerning the implications of an unlimited atonement

• And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32
• ...for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,...and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Col.1:16, 20
• Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Rom.5:18
• Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow... Phil.2:9

IV. THE TRADITIONAL NORMS OF INTERPRETATION

1) Calvinist predestination.

All who are familiar with this doctrine will understand that it is firmly based upon the atoning work of Christ, and that outside of receiving this by faith there is no salvation. As far as that, most evangelicals would those principles very happily. But the principles are, as we have seen, based upon a very limited elect, and that is the sticking point. However, in defence of it, it is argued, why would God go to such lengths to send Peter (Acts 10) to preach the gospel to the God-fearing Cornelius? That is, he was not saved until he accepted the Gospel. Doesn't a later Scripture explicitly state this (Acts 11:14)? Is not the same thing taught in Acts 17? Paul in Athens observed that the culture was very god conscious - There was even an altar to "AN UNKNOWN GOD". He pointed out that God had made men with the faculty to be able to seek him, hopeful of finding him, but in pointing out their ignorance and lack of success, he really did not seem to think that could be depended upon. Why else would he have preached the Gospel of repentance, conversion, and belief in Jesus who in being raised from the dead God has appointed judge of all men if Christ can be found outside of this election limited to this life? After all, the revelation of God in nature is not sufficient to lead to salvation. Only, apparently, sufficient to condemn. So, it is argued, regardless that the majority of the human race who have ever lived have never heard the Gospel, only those who have heard and accepted the Gospel will be saved.

That this means only a tiny minority will be saved is no embarrassment to them. After all, does not Matthew 7:13-14 (small gate and narrow way, with few finders) indicate such? And is not Luke 18:8 - "...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith faith on the earth?" to the same effect? If we still have a difficulty, were not only eight saved in the ark of Noah while the rest of mankind perished?

So how do Calvinists cope with their perception that countless billions are predestined to eternal destruction?

Charles Hodge in his classic Systematic Theology Pt3. VIII. #2. G, (1872-3) in considering that class of Scriptures which refers to "all men" says that

• ...[we] do not deny that Christ died for all men. What [we] deny is that he died equally and with the same design for all men. He died for all that He might arrest theimmediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, ...that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God on condition of faith and repentance...By this dispensation it is manifest...that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault....He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of His people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world....In the second place...they mean all kinds or classes, and not each and every individual...and while he is often called the Saviour of mankind..what is meant is...that He is ...the Saviour of men rather than of angels...of all men who come to him.. [emphasis mine].

Note that. In their scheme "all men" does not mean all mankind, only all classes. Other authors see God being glorified in the destruction of the majority of mankind, and they would quote Romans 9:17. Sanders quotes two contemporary authors who demonstrate the same approach. 'R C Sproul argues that "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 in his heart" [Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids Zondervan 1982) p.56]. Carl Henry concurs."...all men are condemned for their revolt against the light that they have...in a real sense, a man who has never heard the name of Christ rejects him nonetheless, every time he sins against whatever light he has"' [Giving a Reason for Our Hope (Boston: W A Wilde, 1949) pp.40,42] Quoted from No Other Name p.47.

Another respected writer from their camp says

• 'Those who are providentially placed in the pagan darkness of western China can no more accept Christ as Savior than they can accept the radio, the airplane, or the Copernican system of astronomy, things concerning which they are totally ignorant. When God places people in such conditions we may be sure He has no more intention that they should be saved than He has that the soil of northern Siberia, which is frozen all year round, shall produce crops of wheat.' Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p120.

Boettner does, however, modify this seeming callousness by suggesting that not all will share the same degree of punishment. But many of us would find it impossible to reconcile this with the picture of a lake of fire and Rev.14:9-11 and 20:15. His quotation from Cunningham is interesting - 'Calvinists have always regarded it as a strong argument....in favor of their own views of the sovereign purposes of God...[that] so large a portion of the human race have been always left in entire ignorance of God's mercy, and of the way of salvation...' (p.121). [emphasis mine]. I have always understood that in selling it is good technique to make a strong point out of a weakness, but in theology!!!???

I have used the word "doctrinaire" earlier in this paper. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990) it means "seeking to apply a theory or doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations". Whilst there is a great appeal to Scripture, I cannot but feel that the word exactly fits their approach in their desire to maintain a system of dogma.

But where is the MORALITY of all this? It raises all sorts of questions. What does this position make God who created mankind apparently with the purpose of predestining the majority to everlasting destruction? If God is omnipotent and has provided a cure for sin, then why does he not, in irresistible grace, provide for all? Thomas Talbot, the Reformed philosopher suggests that this sort of love attributes Satanic qualities to God by suggesting that God merely toys with the damned and does not truly love them. (Sanders, No Other Name p.72).

In case this last suggestion sounds extreme, consider the way the horrified Arminian John Wesley expressed himself, as if addressing the devil, when confronted by George Whitfields' developing Calvinism.

• Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that He doeth it more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decree to leave thousands of souls in death compels them to continue in sin till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned, for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men?...
  O how would the enemy of God and man rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he cry aloud and spare not! How would he lift up his voice and say, 'To your tents O Israel! Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish! But whither will ye flee? Into heaven? He is there. Down to hell? He is there also. Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent almighty tyrant...Sing O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof! Here, O death, is thy sting! Here, O grave, is thy victory!...Let all the sons of hell shout for joy! For the decree is past, and who shall disannul it? From Sermons on Several Occasions, pp.366-7 quoted by Arnold Dallimore George Whitfield (Banner of Truth Trust 1970) p.312.

That sermon deserves reading carefully a couple of times to get the full sense.

I think we have demonstrated sufficiently the position of Calvinistic Predestinarianism to show that despite its commendable insistence upon a personal faith in the atonement of Christ to secure salvation, its caricaturises God as providing a doctrine of atonement for believers who hear the gospel in their lifetimes, with its concomitant foreordination to damnation of all others who do not hear.

It may be that holders of "five point" Calvinism will protest that I have "not dealt adequately" with their interpretation. I realise, of course, that they really do have an argument for all opposing views, plus many more for their own. But I cannot possibly hope to canvas every question 'for or against' within the scope of a paper such as this. My purpose is to provide an overview of the options so as to provide a framework showing their relationship. It will help us forward in finding a credible answer to the question "what is the destiny of the unevangelised?"

We now turn to discuss those Scriptures which surely indicate a "wider hope".

2. The "wider hope"

It is clear that whilst there may be minor differences of interpretation among predestinarians (which cannot concern this study), by and large they present a remarkably united front. It is a very tight scheme. This has, naturally, commended itself to all who acknowledge the inspiration and authority of the Word of God. But, as we have seen, the way it is applied leads us into what many feel is a libel upon God's true intentions toward all mankind. Perhaps because of this, most contemporary evangelicals do not espouse limited atonement, and therefore do not follow Augustine and Calvin on this point (Sanders No Other Name pp.30, 83). I have not found his sources for this information. But since the traditional dogma is that few are saved, if what he says is so, it seems to be an academic shift - perhaps for humanitarian reasons, the same as caused a shift from all unbaptized infants being regarded as lost, to all being regarded as redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. As I am not a sacramentarian this angle will form no part of my discussion, but a brief survey of the development of ideas on the topic will be provided in Appendix A.

But any academic shift among evangelicals relating to infants is endemic in the liberal universalist camp. Concepts which have a philosophical and humanitarian origin are frequently used. In fact, John Hicks flatly rejects certain biblical texts (Sanders No Other Name p.85 n.2). Since this study is within the bounds of evangelical belief, the views of such universalists will not be considered.

Considered from within the boundaries of evangelicals who have embraced universalism, it is interesting to note that two main planks of their argument are (with Calvinist predestinarians) election and irresistible grace. (No Other Name p.90.) After all, why not postulate unconditional election to universal salvation (unlimited atonement) as it is done for limited election for a limited atonement? Again, if God can without prejudice to his moral character (as predestinarians believe) use this irresistible grace to save only some, it is just as admissible for universalists to apply the same grace (in their view commending God's loving character) to save all. But obviously, this approach, while satisfying certain concepts, still leaves much Scripture which, to most Evangelicals, will not yield to further universalist treatment.

Again, within the evangelical universalist camp there are difference in views of free will. Some are "determinists" arguing that God's all-powerful will overrides human freedom to bring all people to salvation. The majority, however, preserve the freedom of the will for all human beings to accept God's salvation. But such an issue is not really germane to our answer and will not be discussed. Similarly, from their viewpoint, whether heaven is reached directly or via hell will not be discussed.

We have already referred in III.3.c. to Romans chapter 5 as being important to the universalist interpretation. In this section (vv.12-19) Paul draws an analogy between the first and second Adam. The first brought sin, condemnation and death. The second, Christ, brought righteousness, justification and life - "even so, by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (v.18). Again, Romans 11:32 summing up all that has gone before - "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Ergo! Universal salvation.

Further significant Scriptures for the evangelical universalist are Acts 3:19-21 concerning "the restoration of all things". Eph.2:9-11 - confessing "Jesus as Lord" entails in the universalists' view receiving salvation. I Corinthians 15:22-28 is also important in the universalists' armoury. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." It suits their interpretation to regard both "alls" as coextensive.

But how do universalists deal with texts such as those in Matthew 25:46 concerning the sheep and goats, and Mark3:29 concerning the eternal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Sanders explains (p.87ff.) "[The authors] utilized the strong language regarding eternal loss in order to bring individuals to a commitment to God. They were calling for a serious decision, and the nature of their existential preaching required graphic imagery to portray the importance of the choice." Another line of argument used is to assert that the "two-group" texts (i.e. saved and lost) are not final, eternal. They must be subordinated to the "single group" texts referring to the consummation. A further line of argument differentiates between the "God as Judge" texts, involving punishment, condemnation and separation, with those referring to "God as King". This latter metaphor points to the final unity of the kingdom in eternity.

Finally, not surprisingly, great use is made of the attributes of God, omnipotence and love (sovereign love), God's eternal persistence and his justice. We may rightly object that much of all this seems to be special pleading. But it behoves us all to ensure that we escape this criticism. After all, each group has doctrinal presuppositions which determine the amount of weight given to Scriptures which do not wholly support those presuppositions. But if most of us cannot accept universal salvation, what is there we can further consider?

V. TOWARD AN ANSWER

In offering some suggestions to answer our question, there are five Biblical elements that I wish to preserve in seeking a solution

These are

• Salvation must be made universally accessible. The Scriptures in III.3.c) make that clear.
• It is necessary for all to fully hear and understand the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
• Salvation will ever only be by "Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone."
• God's usual method of imparting the Gospel through human agency will be used.
• An act of faith in accepting what has been imparted and understood is needed. This will always involve repentance and coming into a personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.
• All must come to a final decision. Those who come to an irrevocable decision in preferring their own ways, God will grant them this in eternal separation from himself in the company of all who make the same choice, demonic or human. After this, there is no "second chance".

These tenets are very orthodox, and if a solution can be found within these boundaries, then I believe we should be prepared to consider it as a possible answer.

You may notice that no reference has been made as to when all persons will hear the Gospel.. It has been traditional to accept that without exception "death seals destiny". But we have seen from Calvinist predestinarianism that this creates a problem, for only a small minority of the world's population have ever heard the Gospel. The "death seals destiny" concept is traditional and its origins date back as far as Tertullian and Cyprian, and by the time of Augustine the Western church had accepted it as dogma (Sanders No Other Name pp.165, 209). It is complementary to the medieval Catholic doctrine of purgatory; purgatory being, in that theology, an intermediate state for those who have died within the bosom of the Church. Purgatory is still a valid concept in the Roman Catholic Church for those whose destiny has already been decided as in the favour of God, for they would have been baptised members in good standing.

But in seeking to answer the difficulties in reference to the unevangelised, they have a curious theory that every such person at the moment of death has an encounter with Christ to enable them to accept or reject Him. No Scripture is offered. It is a theological hypothesis. Another theory has been propounded (not specifically R.C). This is termed "middle knowledge", and is based upon the concept that He knows everything that would happen in any state of affairs if one of the conditions were different in any way. So that, if He knows that a person would have accepted Christ had they had the opportunity, then upon that basis they would receive salvation (No Other Name pp.164-170). Again, as this is a purely theological hypothesis without Scriptural basis, I cannot entertain it, and I shall not, therefore, discuss either of them.

But does death seal destiny? Certainly, where there is outright rejection of Christ's testimony (John 8:21,24; Matt.12:31,32; or the Gospel (II Thess.1:3,10), then there is no second chance. But we are thinking of those who have never heard or understood, and these must, therefore, if they are going to hear, have the opportunity to hear and respond after death. The Scripture generally adduced to rebut this idea is Heb.9:27, "...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." But it tells us only two things, and no time span between the two is given. It really has no bearing on the question.

To the contrary, the Scriptures are really very clear in showing that God's dealings with individuals continues up until the Day of Christ, His second coming. Paul anticipated that when he wrote to the Philippians (1:6), and to Timothy (II Tim.1:12, 4:8). John also (I John 4:17 and Rev. 21:25) was clear in his writings.

So, I wish to propose an answer to our problem: The evangelisation of all who have never heard and understood in this life must take place after death.

This in no way commits us to universalism. My final tenet made this clear. But it does make possible my first tenet, that salvation must be made accessible to all.

VI. POST-MORTEM EVANGELISATION

For this convenient term I am indebted to Sanders. Only some of the Church Fathers and others down the centuries have subscribed to this form of the wider hope, but there are sufficient of them to indicate that we are not beating a particularly original track.

If we are going to work within our previously defined tenets, then we now come to an application of the fourth tenet in section IV, which is that God has mostly used human instruments to share knowledge of Himself and the Gospel. But, we may ask, how can this be, for did not Christ release his captive OT people from Hades so that they went to heaven with Him at His ascension, and do not all believers now go straight to heaven? If this is true, then who are the humans who will do the evangelisation of the dead?

1) If the godly are in heaven, who will evangelise?

In answering this question we must ask why was David left behind? For, after all, Peter on the Day of Pentecost specifically said (Acts 2:34) "David is not ascended into the heavens." We who believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture will have to accept that as fact. Therefore David was not left behind because none left the place of waiting of the OT saints at Christ's ascension, or at any other time! And, surely it could not be. After all, if David had ascended, as Lang (Firstfruits and Harvest 1940 p.54) pithily states, otherwise "the point and conclusiveness of Peter's argument were gone. Its cogency lay in the fact that no one but Jesus Christ had ascended: therefore He and He alone fulfilled the prophecy; for if any one else had ascended from the grave to the throne of God, how should it be certain he did not fulfil the prediction?"

It is true that the popular explanation of Eph.4:8 "When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men" is that he released the godly dead of the OT to heaven, but there is no whisper of suggestion that this is to be found in it. The commentators I have consulted (F F Bruce, H C G Moule, H Alford, Coneybeare and Howson) do not even acknowledge that any commentator has ever made such suggestion. Unanimously they interpret the Scripture as a picture of a returning conqueror leading back to his capital a host of the most noble captives in his triumphal train (cf. Judges 5:12); the reference is to Christ's spoilation of the hosts of darkness (see Col.2:15). Although commentators are divided whether Christ's descent referred to His incarnation or to his descent into hades, as Bruce (Paul Apostle of the Free Spirit Paternoster Press 1977 p.437) points out, any such "harrowing of hell" took place on the cross, not in hell. The sense of the passage is entirely against the idea of captives being released

Lang (ibid. p. 55), interestingly quotes from Bishop Pearson's great work on The Creed (Art.5, He descended into Hell)

• 'Bishop Pearson shows how little basis the opinion in question has. He says: "The next consideration is whether by virtue of His descent, the souls of those who before believed in Him, the Patriarchs, Prophets, and all the people of God, were delivered from that place and state, in which they were before; and whether Christ descended into Hell to that end, that He might translate them into a place and state, far more glorious and happy. This has been, in the later ages of the Church, the vulgar opinion of most men...
  "But even this opinion, as general as it hath been, hath neither the consent of Antiquity, nor such certainty as it pretendeth. Indeed, very few (if any) for above five hundred years after Christ, did so believe that Christ delivered the saints out of Hell, as to leave all the damned there. Many of the ancients believed not, that they were removed at all, and few acknowledged that they were removed alone."'

2) Christ's presence is universal - He "fills all things"

The other passages generally adduced as implying that believers now go to heaven are Acts 7:59,60 where Stephen says "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." But this only reiterates what Solomon said concerning all mankind "...the spirit shall return unto God who made it." (Eccl.12:7). Even Jesus yielded up his human spirit to His Father. The personality resides in the soul, not the spirit. Then we have Paul's statement "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain...to be with Christ; which is far better:..." Paul's "to die is gain" had reference to the casting off the burden of his earthly tabernacle chained as it was to a Roman guard so that he would have a clearer and less interrupted apprehension of the presence of Christ. He experienced something of this (II Cor.12:1ff.) "...whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth" when he was caught up to the third heaven and heard unutterable revelations. The Scripture (Eph.4:10) indicated that Christ "ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things." So his presence can be known throughout the universe, embracing realms earthly ("where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst..." Matt.18:20, heavenly, and that realm termed "Paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" Luke 23:43 and 16:22 where all the godly dead, awaiting the resurrection of the body are to be found.

3) Suitable garments for heaven await our resurrection

Whilst undoubtedly there is a garment relevant to the disembodied souls of believers to which Paul refers in II Cor.5:1ff. this is not that "glorious body" which awaits the resurrection at the second coming of Christ, and with which we shall ascend to the very throne room of God Himself. The former garment is, compared to the latter, merely to cover nakedness (v.3). No, our entrance to share Christ's glory in its throne room fullness awaits our resurrection clothed in glorious bodies like His (Phil.3:21, cf. I Cor.15).

4) Christ unwilling that those open to repentance be damned

The other factor that we must not forget is that, despite what our predestinarian brothers will accept as what they feel is not out of keeping with the character of God, I do not feel it is in keeping with what we know of His character to believe that He condemns those who are yet open to entreaty and repentance. One thinks of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ concerning Tyre and Sidon, that, if the mighty works done by Jesus had been done in those places "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" Luke 10:13, Matt.11:21. Whilst we cannot speak with certainty on this matter, does not "post-mortem evangelisation" fit in well with the stated will of God that upon repentance He desires the salvation of all men? I Tim.2:4, II Peter 3:9.

Dare we forget the words of Paul in Romans 2:5ff.- speaking to mankind without distinction "...God; who will render to every man according to his works: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish..."

It is not said that those who seek good will find eternal life now, but when will they find it? Well, as it says in verse 16 "...in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ..." That time I take to be at the "last day". The day of grace will extend until then.

Peter's words were similar concerning the God-fearing Cornelius and his friends, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34). This does not say that they are saved by their works, but, as expressions of seeking truth God respects them, and with that respect is given the opportunity to embrace salvation in the Lord Christ. In Cornelius' case it was during this life. In others, I am persuaded, it will be during the next.

There are other verses which have a bearing upon this theme, but one, last, will be sufficient. Concerning those who are judged at the Great White Throne it is recorded in Rev. 20:15 RV "...if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." How can we possibly read this as representing the great majority as being consigned to the lake of fire? Surely the reverse is the inference? Lang develops this theme in The Last Assize (1958) Ch. XII p.69ff.

Some may think it strange that I do not use the passage in I Peter 3:19 ("[Christ] preached to the spirits in prison" and 4:6 ("...the gospel preached also to them that are dead...") particularly as it is so widely used by those advocating post-mortem evangelisation. The reason for this is that, as Lang points out, the term "spirits" is never used of human beings. Certainly, human beings have spirits - but although the term is applied some 380 times to man, he is never once called a spirit. Did not Jesus say that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39)? But that in Hades men are without bodies does not make them spirits. Rather, it is the soul that goes to Hades, while the spirit returns to God (Eccl.12:7). For the same reason the Scripture cannot be used to teach that Christ released the OT saints during his descent to Hades. Again, the Scripture says that Christ was "quickened by the Spirit". In the NT this means uniformly the giving of life to a body in resurrection, or to giving spiritual life to those spiritually dead. Therefore Christ preached after his resurrection, which is not the usual teaching concerning those OT saints. With so much uncertainty surrounding the exact thrust of this Scripture, little can be built upon it, and it is best to leave it on once side. Lang discusses at some length this whole subject (The Last Assize pp.73ff.) and can be consulted to profit.

5) Conformity to Christ's image continues in the "after-life"

We have already said that our entrance into the very throne room of God awaits the change of our bodies into glory in resurrection at the final coming of Christ. Do we really conceive that in the moment of death our moral character, undergoing as it was, continual change "from one degree of glory to another", is instantly changed to perfection? I am not referring, of course, to the righteousness of Christ which, judicially, is ours when born again, but to that transforming of the mind and ways (cf. Rom.12:2) toward which Paul so frequently exhorts us. Whatever boost to this the loss of these bodies of our humiliation may provide, surely "He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil.1:6) means precisely what it says?

It is part of the revealed ways of God to discipline His children so that they learn His ways (Heb.12:5ff.). This began back in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Is not "pilgrimage" a key word when considering the lives of the people of God in the OT as well as the New? Does not that great chapter (Hebrews 11) concerning the "heroes of faith" end with the words "they without us should not be made perfect?" They did not instantly enter into God's full purposes at death. "When that which is perfect is come" (ICor.13:10) is surely nothing less than the second coming of Christ? If we learn His ways and are instantly transformed into moral conformity to Christ at death, to what purpose all that he has put into place for us even now? Like Paul, I trust that we can all magnify the work of God in us (Rom.11:13). But how can it be otherwise than we feel we might have moved on in that grace so much more? I can only say for myself that I am grateful for any further opportunity the Lord gives me even up until His coming.

6) Hasting the coming of the Day of God...

In the very context of God being unwilling that any should perish, and that all should come to repentance (II Peter 3:8ff.) Peter exhorts us to holy living and godliness by which means we hasten the coming (A.V. mgn.) of the Day of God. Despite much talk in certain circles today of us being the "last generation" before the second coming of Christ, and as salutary as it may be, a little thought may be healthful. Thank God for the progress of the Gospel in many parts of the world. Yet, for all this, vast numbers are unevangelised and still outside of Christ. Evangelisation takes time, whether on earth, or, as I am adopting, in the after-life. It is to be hoped that many of the influences which blind, deceive and deter mankind from accepting the Gospel now will be removed. But still time is required to bring all to repentance who are not incorrigibly evil, and those who are, perhaps, mercifully a minority, because they will not repent will be eternally lost.

Furthermore, I trust that we can all see how the Spirit of God has used us to the blessing of others in conversion and building up in the faith, yet, whatever measure of blessing we have known, surely we cannot but be left feeling that we might have done more by God's grace? I certainly do, and I shall be grateful if the Lord of the harvest is pleased to continue to use me to that end in the after-life. I trust, too, in this context it will be seen that post-mortem evangelisation is not, per se, conducive to laziness in sharing the Word of God in our present sphere.

Enough has been said to provide a starting point for those who may be open to consider what I believe the Scripture clearly indicates. Many subjects concerning the constitution of man, the place and state of the dead etc. have been broached. Space forbids further development. I can only say that I would be happy to amplify them if discussion would help.

So, with these thoughts I shall close.

"And now, brethren, I commend you to God,
and to the word of His grace,
which is able to build you up,
and to give you an inheritance
among all them which are sanctified."
Acts 20:32

Appendix A On the destiny of infants and the mentally retarded.

A complementary question to that of the destiny of the unevangelised is that of those who die in infancy, and of those who are mentally retarded. As I have said, I am not a sacramentarian, and I do not believe that whether infants (or adults if it comes to that) are baptized or not, nor whether the infants have Christian parents or not makes the slightest difference.

Even among Reformed expositors considerable juggling with the concepts as to the status of infants in respect of election has taken place. The Scriptures that are used to teach the salvation of all who die in infancy (II Sam.12:23, Mk.10:14-15, Matt.19:14-15, Luke 18:16-17) when closely considered tell us nothing in answer to our questions. But it seems to me that all such juggling is misplaced. For to say that all infants who die are elect suggests that the election takes place either at death or just before. But Scripture assures us that our election took place even before the very foundation of the world (Eph.1:4).

If we are to believe that maturation of the saint, and, indeed, of the sinner being given that opportunity also, takes place, why may we not also believe that all infants and mentally retarded people will have a similar opportunity to grow in personality? Then their election will have the opportunity of being worked out by the same post-mortem evangelisation process as for all others in keeping with the tenets previously laid down.

* * * * * * *

Alan Nairne