Wednesday, 05 November 2008
-
Is Knowing The Name "Jesus" Necessary For Salvation?
Guest post by icicle84
I am usually very careful about those sources based upon which I draw my theological views. Having attended a Christian university, much of what I hold as true (or likely true) came directly from ideas I was introduced to there (that I agreed or disagreed with). Usually I try not to let purely speculative works (especially fictional one) shape my view of God, but some, shall we say, spiritually-obsessed authors have managed to put forth complex theological issues onto paper in a way that makes you think a bit more deeply or from a different perspective.
One of those authors is Frank Peretti. His books This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness revolutionized how "pop-culture" Christians view spiritual warfare (angels and demons, prayer, the occult, etc). One of his children's books did quite well in making me re-think a position I may have held for a long time, had it not been for the book.
The classic apologetic/evangelistic question - "If there's a devoutly spiritual man in Africa who really wants to know the truth, and is seeking an omnipotent, omniscient One, whom he believes created the universe and is responsible for salvation, and acknowledges that he can't be saved by his own attempts to do right -- can this man be saved, if he never hears the name Jesus?"
In The Secret of the Desert Stone, Peretti tackles this question, and, I believe, does it in a way that isn't heretical by posing the hypothetical case of a tribe of devout "savages," in a remote part of Africa. They have their own name for God, and this is where I'll put my first point. Obviously, the "name," doesn't matter - and by "name," I mean the lexicographical construction.
In English, we say "God." In Spanish, they say "Dios." In French, it's "Dieu." In Hebrew, well many of us are familiar with "Adonai," "Elohim," "Jehovah," "Yahweh," or the sacred tetragrammaton, "YHWH."
But there are probably many people in each of those cultures who don't know the exact Hebrew (or, further back, Mesopotamian) names by which God initially revealed Himself.
This idea also applies to the name of Jesus. "Jesus," "Jeshua," "Jesu," "Iesous" - there plenty of different spellings of the name (if you got into Afrikaans, Sanskrit, Arabic or Russian, I'm sure I wouldn't recognize any of the characters, much less the pronunciations).
But the idea is the same - I hardly think that in the language of Heaven (whatever that is), that God refers to His son as "Jesus." The point is the idea behind his name. "YHWH rescues" is one translation. Salvation.
So, what would happen if, say, I were to know this savior, not as "Jesus," but as "Retter" - the German word for "savior?" And by "savior," I mean the one sent from God (or Elohim, or the "all-powerful-one") to rescue mankind from the evil present in all of us. The one in whom we must place our trust in order to be saved.
Peretti poses such a situation. However, the problem most will have is not the fact that these tribesmen don't know the literal "name" of Jesus, or that He was a carpenter who lived thousands of years ago.
The problem for most will lie in the method of the revelation. You see, these people didn't develop their theology about the "savior" due to some evangelist or missionary. They had never heard the name of Jesus, or the stories about how he turned water into wine, or walked on water, or even died crucified between two thieves.
Without going into all the details, the tribe's leader had had a supernatural encounter (theologians would call it an act of "special revelation"), where he had the realization (paraphrase), "Oh, NOW I see how it happened. I was a thief and murderer, with the enemy after my hide. But God (the all-powerful creator) sent a substitute to take the punishment for my wrongdoing. And that substitute is the one in whom I must have faith if I'm going to live a life that pleases the creator."
That's the gospel message, isn't it? The "names" aren't there, but since we've established that the power lies not in the name, but in the reality behind the name. We know that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." We also know that Paul, when exhorting people to "be saved," told them simply to believe in Jesus (savior, substitute, propitiation, messiah). It's that simple. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." No mention of a necessary knowledge of Jesus' miracles, the method of His death, the lexicographical construction of His name.
Just believe in who He is. The substitute. The savior. The one sent by God to take the punishment for our sins. Just believe in Him. Salvation.
Is the faith displayed by this tribal leader a "saving faith?" If it's genuine, and produces good fruit, I say yes. But the real question, again, is whether God would give such a "special revelation" to one who was earnestly looking for Him.
What do you think happens to people who earnestly seek God but have never heard of Jesus?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (60)
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church -
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336”
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
@QuantumStorm@xanga - though I'm not Catholic (and disagree that outside of the "church" there is no salvation), that's the perspective I've had for quite some time.
I actually asked one of my theology teachers before the first day of class, and he kind of shied away from it ...
@QuantumStorm@xanga -
Bingo!
@icicle84@xanga - I can understand why your theology teacher would shy away from that topic... indeed, it's a sensitive subject.
@scramBledmegZntoasT@xanga - I know, huh?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - very much. And this was grad school. I have been known to intentionally ask the hard questions, though.
Incidentally, I hoped this would get featured on Revelife. Most of the people I know don't much care for discussing theology, and I wanted to get other Christians' perspectives on it.
Yes, I think that person can be saved. The bible says that God has written his laws on the hearts of men, so that even if a person has never heard of Jesus, he must still possess a yearning to know God and obtain salvation. I can't recall specifically, but I believe in one of the Paulean letters (probably Corinthians) I was left with the impression that only those whom have heard of Jesus Christ and have rejected him as their savior are accountable for not believing in Christ. I am not good at remembering specific Bible verses, but I generally remember the general ideas of what I read. If this is true though, I concede that I somewhat feel evangelization might be a bit of a curse in a backwards logic kind of way. The reason being that if someone was not accountable for not knowing Jesus and you introduce the gospels to them, but they reject it, now they may be damned to eternity in Hell. However, we must remember that Jesus did say, "Go and make disciples of men" and told his disciples that he would make them "fishers of men." So I think evangelization is important, because God wants to further his kingdom on earth, because it glorify's Him. When Christ is worshipped in every corner and part of the Globe, he will be ready to return to reclaim His kingdom (or so I believe)!
I was raised Catholic, and once held the traditional view that salvation could only be found through a church. Fortunately, I no longer think that way. I believe that it takes great strength to believe in anything these days, but that we are all part of a grand plan. I believe that salvation will come to good people, people who want to believe in something bigger than themselves. No matter if they know a name, or by which name they call their higher power.
i don't believe in the sola fide doctrine, so yes it's entirely possible to go to Heaven without worshipping Jesus in name.
@icicle84@xanga - I think people shy away from theology since it can have unpleasant implications for others involved. If person A is a Catholic and person B is a Baptist, and if Mr. Catholic shares the church's views on the Bible and Oral Tradition, it may leave Mr. Baptist miffed. Vice versa: if Mr. Baptist highlights the Baptist views on the Bible, it could leave Mr. Catholic raring for a fight.
Also, discussing theology opens up the possibility of misinformation. It may not be so bad with other subjects, but since we're dealing with spiritual growth and instruction, the risk of misinformation can carry major consequences for one's spiritual formation.
I think both of those excuses are less viable with the advent of the Internet and online social networking. Both offer the opportunity to (1) gain knowledge on the matter, and (2) argue dispassionately and think through one's statements before publishing them.
@Grungefan@xanga - good points about evangelism.
I think people hate the idea of isolated special revelation (or whatever it's called), because it calls into question the absolute necessity of evangelism.
It's kind of the same critique people bring against Calvisnists. "If these people are predestined to be saved, why do you need to go tell them about it?"
I don't have the answers, only more questions.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I know what you mean. But I don't think that people argue any less passionately online. The first message boards I ever debated philosophy and theology on, passions were always very high. The ability to think before writing really didn't help anything (at least, not that I could tell).
I can't answer hypothetical questions.
But read Acts chapter 10 for an answer based on an actual event.
Personally, I don't know the answer to your question.
I would tend to think that it wouldn't even happen in that way. Christians have a hard enough time keeping sound doctrine WITH scripture at their fingertips.
@Grungefan@xanga - I don't really know what you are referring to, but I do know that Romans says that the lack of hearing the Gospel does not condemn people to hell, their sin condemns them to hell (not in those exact words of course, lol). It says that made Himself obvious to us. He made right and wrong clear, but we still disobeyed. Sin condemns us, not lack of hearing the Gospel. As Christians, we have been blessed because though we deserve God's wrath just like anyone else, His wrath was poured out on Jesus for us. AMAZING!! And not only are we saved, we are slowly formed into the image of Christ. What a merciful, gracious, yet holy and just God we have.
I'm going to agree with the Catechism. Salvation is found only in the Church. But the Catholic understanding of what constitutes the Church is not limited to an organization. The Church is also the mystical body of Christ, the union of all those who commune with Christ. And certainly, those who through no fault of their own have not heard the name expressed many different ways during the ages but live in His love are very much in communion with him and are a part of His Church.
690 (Boston Catechism)
By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation.
@icicle84@xanga - None of us have the answers. The only thing that is important is that Jesus paid the price and in exchange he asked us to evangelize in his name. It is something that we are all called to do and although it may be controversial, it is our duty! I also share in the criticism of hypercalvinism and predestination. If a person is predestined where does free- will factor into it. It doesn't seem like they really have a choice in the matter. These days I am leary of putting too much stock in the philosophy and theology of men. I only aim to know my creator and savior more intimately and to engage in the daunting and arduous task of conforming myself to His image. I'll never get there, but its the attempt that counts! As for evangelism, I do think that going to unreached parts of the world is necessary, but not at the expense of neglecting those in our own neighborhoods and communities that do not know Jesus.
Ah the plato argument.
@Grungefan@xanga - Amen.
I've tried to be less and less concerned about the philosophical part of theology, and concentrate more on what it means for my relationship with God.
But there are times (like this one) when a burning question just begs to be asked, and I lapse into the theoretical, academic areas again.
I think as long as you recognize who this God is, then yes, I think you can be saved. I mean, if God revealed to someone that he sent his son to die so that God and man could have relationship, knowing the name might not be that important.
However, we would want to know his name. And we do. We know him as Jesus (which really isn't a hebrew word, his name was actually Yeshua, but you probably knew that)
I haven't heard of a case quite like that of one you described, but you know, it's not impossible.
Futhermore, from what I read in the Bible, God tends to reveal his name (or names) in people's encounters with him. So I doubt that God would give someone such an experience without giving the name. It may not be specifically "Jesus" but maybe "Yeshua" or "Immanuel" if we're talking about Jesus in the trinity. As far as the Holy Spirit goes...maybe there's other names, but I'm only familiar with "Holy Spirit" or "Holy Ghost". And the Father...there's plenty of names. God as a whole...Jehovah Jyrah, Jehovah Rapha, etc, etc.
The Bible says that there is no other name by which men can be saved. Jesus himself says it as well....
Why are we reading for the Catholic Catechism for the answer?
Please see John Piper's sermon Holy Ambition: To Preach Where Christ Has Not Been Named (specifically read the section "The Nations Have No Excuse").
In Revelation 5 we read that those gathered around the throne are
praising the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, because He alone is the One
who ransoms people for God from every tribe, language, people & nation.
There is no salvation apart from the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12; Rev. 7:10). It's sobering but true. All the more reason to be praying for the Lord of the harvest to raise up workers for the harvest because the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few (Matt. 9:36-38).
After I read the book "Eternity in Their Hearts" By Don Richardson, I had to struggle through this concept.
The fact is that, there have been several cases in history where a missionary has shown up to an unreached tribe and they hear his story and they say oh yeah, that's "meegah" or whatever they call him.
I think the case for Divine Revelation apart from a Missionary is made throughout the Bible, I think about Romans 1, The story of God's revelation to Saul/Paul.
I find it extremely hard to believe that a God who said he loves the world, would condemn all these peoples of the world to Hell, just because we suck at accomplishing the mission he has given to us. I think he wants to use and and lets us be a part of his redeeming and reconciling work. But I don't think he is dependent on it, and can chose to reveal himself to anyone he chooses, whenever he chooses....especially those who are earnestly seeking.
I know of several former Muslims who will tell you they came to Jesus because he appeared to them in a dream or in some other form of Divine revelation.
So, I refuse to submit to John Piper's narrow teaching that God is dependent on missionaries.
@Strong_Protector@xanga - I agree that no man can be saved except by knowing the Lord Jesus and doing the will of the Father. Matt7:21 on. It is the law written on the fleshy tables of the heart that the law is written. No man can keep the law. therefore all are condemd to punishment because of thier sin.