Further Thoughts on Non-Christians, Hell and John Piper

The part of the John Piper article cited in the previous post that I thought was nonsense was this: "Unless Muslims - and all others who deny Christ's deity - hear and embrace the good news that 'the fullness of deity' dwells in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), they will be without eternal hope."

The Christian Missionary Alliance has a point in their statement of faith that says something to the effect of, "We believe that those who never hear the Gospel are condemned no differently than those who hear it and reject it." This seems to be very consistent with the quote above.

One non-negotiable fact of the New Testament is that there is no possible way to be reconciled to God except through Christ. This is not in question. What is in question is how that looks in the lives of people. We know what a right relationship with Christ should look like in the lives of sane, healthy people who have access to the Bible. But it seems to me rather arrogant to assume we know exactly what the process of going "through Christ" must look like in the life of every person on earth. Who's to say God doesn't have some way of making the Gospel available to a Buddhist in the jungles of Malaysia as he lies on his death bed. We can say that this is not the ideal, but can we also say that it is impossible, and therefore the person has no "eternal hope"?

I know one issue that comes up is that this thinking undermines mission and evangelism. This is an important concern (I would certainly be as vulnerable as anyone to falling prey to such sin of neglect and disobedience), but the fact that God may work in mysterious ways in reaching those who've never heard the message does not mean that we have any less a responsibility to obey the Christian mandate for evangelism. A servant should not need to be fully certain of the implications and results of a command from his Master to obey it.

One underlying thing that troubles me about the approach Piper and others seem to take on the Bible (though I must qualify this by saying I need to read more of him to be certain) is what I like to call a false sense of Biblical omniscience. By this I mean the idea that there is absolutely no ambiguity and mystery in the Bible, and that once one comes to a working knowledge of the Scripture he then knows with full certainty the exhaustive meaning of every verse and the exact eternal implications for every person on earth--AKA "Fundamentalism."

Two problems with this type of thinking are 1) It fails to recognize the complexity, richness, and power of the Bible, and 2) It is a philosophy that is never practiced with complete consistency. Most Fundamentalists (and I don't know if Piper would accurately fit in that category or not) would argue something like the following when faced with implications of an interpretation of a verse that seems to be immoral or even unChristian: "Well, it may not be popular or easy to swallow, but it's what the Word of God says, and I stand by the Word of God." But what about verses like 1 Timothy 1:15, "But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." Even the boldest Fundamentalist would not say that all infertile women will be damned for eternity. But, if one accepts the typical Fundamentalist line he would have to say, "It may not be popular, but it's what the Word says." It's obvious from everything else Paul writes about how we are to be saved that the verse simply can't mean what the face value of the verse seems to say. Though the essentials are abundantly clear, we must admit that some of the ultimate implications of Scriptural truth--particularly regarding who will and won't be saved--is something we can't always know. Let's allow God to be God.

Of course, all true Christians "stand by the Word of God." That's part of what it means to be a Christian to begin with. But if we are going to be obedient to Christ, we must also be honest, thoughtful and discerning in our study of His Word.

MM