The Exclusivity of Christianity and the Love of God

Many who question the Christian faith sense a tension related to those who have not heard or those who have not had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Presumably, if everyone over the entire course of human history had the opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved, God might more fairly condemn those who reject Him and save those who accept Him. In such a scenario, we might argue, everyone who rejected Christ would be doing so knowingly and, therefore, would have knowingly chosen their fate. But the fact that the majority of the human race over the course of human history has not even had the opportunity to hear the gospel seems inconsistent with the idea of a God who loves all people.

This argument could perhaps be strengthened by arguing in this manner: If God loves everyone and wants people to believe in Him, why does He present Himself in such vague and mysterious ways? It’s not only a matter of giving people the opportunity to hear the gospel, but also of presenting the gospel in a way that makes the truth of the gospel clear. If God wants people to turn to Him, why doesn’t He write His name in the clouds? Why doesn’t he supernaturally reveal Himself to everyone in some kind of miraculous way so that the truth of Christianity would be clear rather than communicating through a limited number of preachers and a canon of ancient Near Eastern literature which is difficult to understand and not available to everyone?

There are two issues regarding these kinds of arguments which need to be considered. First, there is the question of what the Scriptures teach. How are these tensions dealt with within the Christian tradition? Secondly, there is a matter of our response to what the Scriptures teach. So, let me address both of these things.

First, how are these tensions reconciled within the Christian faith? Well, these questions are actually directly addressed in Scripture. First, the Lord Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 tells the following parable:

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." But Abraham said, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." And he said, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house- for I have five brothers- so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment." But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And he said, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." He said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

This parable illustrates something about humankind’s rejection of the gospel. Ultimately, those who reject the truth of Christianity do so because of their moral disposition. Apart from a supernatural work of God, individuals are destined to reject God regardless of the extent of revelation they have received. Thus, God could write His name in the clouds, send someone back from the dead, or in some other way miraculously reveal Himself, but as long as the person to whom God reveals Himself remains in a state of moral depravity, he or she will continue to reject the truth of the gospel. So part of the answer to the question of the exclusivity of Christianity in light of the love of God is that the opportunity to hear the gospel is not a definitive factor in someone’s acceptance of the gospel. The acceptance of the truth of the gospel is actually part of being saved rather than the ultimate basis for a person’s salvation. (In theological terms, salvation includes predestination, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Regeneration [or being born-again] constitutes a change in an individual’s moral disposition which then results in a positive response to the gospel. Regeneration is wrought by the Holy Spirit apart from any work or merit within the person. It produces faith in the individual which then serves as the instrumental cause of justification. Justification is a legal declaration of right standing before God that involves God’s reckoning of Christ’s righteousness to the account of the believer.)

Another passage of Scripture which has significant bearing on this matter is Romans 1:18-23. Paul writes:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here we see there is an extent to which God has revealed Himself to all people in nature. Now, it should be noted that God’s self-revelation in nature is not sufficient to lead people to knowledge of the gospel (and, again, even if it did it wouldn’t make any difference). Yet we see here that it is sufficient to leave people without excuse. Part of the reason for this is that people are not ultimately condemned on the basis of their response to the gospel. Eternal condemnation is meted out on the basis of guilt. You see, human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). In the same way that a political cartoon communicates something about the one whose image is borne in the cartoon, so too we communicate something about God as bearers of His image. When we sin we send the message that God is a liar, God is a murderer, God is an adulterer, God is unmerciful, God is unloving, or God is unjust. Yet God is a sacred being—He is holy. So whenever we sin, we violate something that is sacred. Now, we all know something of the seriousness of violating that is sacred (think child molestation). This is why sin is such a serious thing. We are all guilty of sin and failing to bear God’s image in a way that is befitting. Therefore, we all deserve to be eternally condemned. In your original question you suggested that God might be somehow unfair by not giving everyone the opportunity to be saved. Well, in addition to the fact that such an opportunity wouldn’t make any difference, also note that the fair thing would be that everyone would be eternally condemned. We have all violated God’s law and are all guilty and deserving of eternal condemnation. God would be merciful even if He only saved one person.

Above I mentioned predestination. The Scriptures talk about this in Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1. As I’ve explained, everyone is currently in a state of depravity and naturally enslaved to a life of bondage to sin and rejection of God. For this reason, no one would respond favorably to the gospel in their current fallen condition. We choose what we most desire and we do not desire to follow Christ. For this reason God must first regenerate people if they are to put their faith in Him. Predestination, then, refers to God’s election of whom He will regenerate.

Now, the reason I bring this up is that I still need to address the question of God’s love. How is it that God can so love the world and at the same time only choose some people to be saved? Moreover, doesn’t this imply that God ultimately determines that some people will go to hell? How is this compatible with the idea of a loving God?

Part of the answer to this question is that God does not love everyone in the same way. There is a sense in which God loves all people. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. All people experience blessing on some level and this blessing comes from God’s hand as an unmerited, gracious, and loving provision for their lives. Yet God’s covenant love is reserved for the elect—those whom God has predestined to be saved. These are those for whom God’s love is demonstrated in eternal salvation.

Romans 9 speaks powerfully to why this is. Why is it that God has chosen to demonstrate His mercy upon some but not others. God’s ultimate purpose—the purpose for which God created the universe—is to manifest His glory. (Some would suggest that this makes God some kind of cosmic narcissist, but to what higher purpose could he aspire? Objections to God’s pursuit of His own glory seem to impose the inappropriateness of this for God’s creatures upon God Himself). God’s ultimate purpose—the manifestation of His glory—would not be possible, argues Paul in Romans 9, without the entrance of sin, the salvation of some, and the display of judgment upon others. Hear the words of Jonathan Edwards (probably the greatest American theologian):

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably radiant, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .

Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

This is the answer to the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.

Now, everything I have said up until now is by way of dealing with what the Scriptures teach about the salvation of some and not others. Now I want to touch briefly on our response to this teaching. Despite the Scriptures logical cohesiveness on these matters, there is an extent to which the doctrine of hell offends our sensibilities. It seems to us in the modern Western world to be a bit of an overreaction on God’s part. Yet if what the Scriptures teach about our moral inclinations is true, we probably shouldn’t be too quick to put our full trust in such sensibilities.

Moreover, we are all are located within a certain historical and social context. We are located within the context of a culture in which it is believed that humankind is basically good. Those who go the wrong way are generally seen as victims of an unfortunate upbringing, lack of strong education, or other events which lead them astray. We tend to believe that people will generally do well if provided with the right upbringing and education. Human failure is related to a lack of education about how to live successfully or poor self-esteem or a lack of motivation due to ingrained attitudes of discouragement, etc. Now, I don’t want to deny the extent to which some of these things are true. I merely want to point out that these cultural perspectives influence the way we think about the truth claims I’ve been explaining. How can God blame victims of bad upbringing? But other cultures at other periods in human history and in other parts of the world would see these things quite differently. Many would be offended at the idea of a God who does not judge evil. Other cultural perspectives include a strong sense of human sinfulness and many would be greatly offended by the idea that God would overlook the smallest sin. People in some Islamic cultures have a strong belief in a God who controls all things and would be offended by the notion that God should do anything other than what He deems to be appropriate. This would include choosing to send some people to hell.

In light of the extent to which our historical and social location affects our perspectives on these matters, it would be a bit arrogant to impose our own subjective judgments upon the claims made by Scripture. While some of biblical teaching might not set well with us, we need to recognize the extent to which we are influenced by our place in society and history.

Lastly, I think if we do decide to bring these teachings into question, we should be careful to examine the beliefs we harbor which serve as the basis for our objections. For example, if we say that God is unjust in electing some but not others, we must ask ourselves about the standard of justice to which we are attempting to hold God. Who is to say what is just and what is unjust? Within the Christian tradition, God’s character serves as the basis for justice and morality. But when we impose some other standard of justice, we are really begging the question since in imposing such a standard we must assume the falsity of the Christian position (namely that justice is not based on God’s character). If we presuppose that morality is based on God’s character, then God’s actions are just by definition.

A Christian Response to Atheism

First of all, Mr. Atheist, I want to explain the nature of the issue we are discussing. You and I both have ways of looking at the world. You say that for you "seeing is believing," that you believe only what you can verify using your five senses. I will refer to this position as the "empirical view of knowledge." This is a basic assumption about the nature of knowledge that you are making as you seek to make sense of the world.

You also believe that the nature of reality is ultimately matter—the material universe is all that exists. You do not believe there is a spiritual component to reality. I will refer to this position as materialism.

Ultimately, Mr. Atheist, we all have lenses through which we understand the world. Since you are a materialist, your explanations for miraculous claims is that they are lies, illusions, myths, or otherwise non-miraculous phenomenon. For this reason you would likely regard a miraculous event which you yourself witnessed as having some alternative materialistic explanation. Similarly, you would be inclined to evaluate a given truth claim based on your empirical view of knowledge. This is what you are doing regarding Jesus about whom the Scriptures make certain claims. But this just goes to show that you have a system of thinking through which you view the world. Of course, I too have a system of thinking through which I view the world. I will refer to these kinds of systems as "worldviews."

Everything I have said up until now, I have said to make this point: the nature of the issue we are discussing is a matter of worldviews. You hold to an empirical view of knowledge and a materialistic view of ultimate reality. I, on the other hand, hold to a revelatory view of knowledge and a theistic view of ultimate reality. I believe that knowledge is based on divine revelation and that all that exists has its being because it is generated by God who exists necessarily and eternally. This is the nature of the debate.

Now, I would imagine that you would like to have me demonstrate my worldview based on your worldview. Perhaps you would have me argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data. This, however, is impossible. Our worldviews are antithetical to one another. They are contradictory. I believe that divine revelation serves as the foundation for knowledge while you believe in an empirical foundation for knowledge. If I were to argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data, then I would have to assume your foundation for knowledge as ultimate and reject my own foundation for knowledge as ultimate.

So the question becomes, where do we go from here? You assert that knowledge is obtained empirically and I assert that it is based on revelation. Can we move forward? I believe we can.

I believe that unless we adopt the Christian worldview, we can't make sense of anything. This, I believe, can be seen as we examine your own worldview. You say, for example, that you believe knowledge is gained empirically. Yet you also believe that matter is all that exists. And so the question is, is knowledge a material thing? This question really falls under more comprehensive question, namely, how do you account for the mind? Do all of our thoughts, perceptions, and feelings consist of matter? Perhaps you would say that as our brains operate in accordance with the natural laws which govern the matter of which our brains are composed, that this gives rise to our thoughts and perceptions. But this just shows that your theory of knowledge is flawed because this hasn’t been demonstrated empirically. You say that “seeing is believing,” but you haven’t seen the impersonal matter of our brains producing our thoughts, perceptions, and knowledge. No scientist in the world can tell me what I'm thinking by empirically observing my brain. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to do this, you might say. But you shouldn't believe it until that day comes if you are going to be consistent with your theory of knowledge.

But again, the real problem with saying that thoughts and knowledge are produced by the material matter of our brains is that by acknowledging the existence of thoughts and knowledge in the first place you are acknowledging the existence of something that is immaterial. Yet at the same time you say that everything that exists is material. Either knowledge does not exist, or not all things which exist are material. Your contention that thoughts are produced by matter does not have any bearing on this.

Another problem with your position is that the impersonal matter of which you assert our brains are comprised would not seem to have any interest in producing thoughts and perceptions that necessarily corresponded to reality. Take your memories, for example. If your memory is merely produced by matter operating according to natural law, then how do you know that your memories are reliable? Does impersonal matter have any interest in providing you with a reliable memory? In order to answer, you must use your memory. But if your memories are unreliable, then your answer to the question is likewise unreliable. How do you get around this?

Now, up until this point you have not explicitly stated your view of morality. Yet several things can be understood from what you have said. It is clear that you do hold to some level of morality since you seem to agree that there are some rules we ought to follow as we engage in dialog about the issues we’re discussing (you don't think that a person ought to believe something unless it has been empirically demonstrated, for example). This kind of thing is really a moral position. Anytime you believe anyone ought to do anything, you are making a moral judgment. But how can you account for this? If we were merely composed of matter operating according to natural law, then it would seem that you would have no basis to tell me that your way of settling this question of worldviews is any better than mine.

While your worldview has some inherent flaws, the Christian worldview provides a firm foundation for the existence of knowledge, the reliability of memory, the existence of universal laws, and the correspondence of our perceptions to reality—all of the things for which you cannot account given your own worldview. From a biblical perspective, these things are a part of the world God has created and they have their basis in His nature and character. Within the Christian worldview there is both a material and an immaterial aspect to reality. This framework avoids the problems of a purely materialistic universe. Likewise, the omniscient God who speaks and does not lie serves as the foundation for human knowledge. Our knowing is based on God's knowing. The laws which govern the universe also make sense given that the Scriptures teach that God created the universe to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.

The truth is, Mr. Atheist, if we reject God, we have to adopt some other point of view that will lead to irrationality. The Apostle Paul describes this in Romans 1. Paul writes, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." When we deny God, we embrace ways of thinking that are out of alignment with the way God has designed things to operate. The problems with empiricism and the problems with materialism exist because these viewpoints are at odds with the way things really are—they are out of alignment with God's nature and character. And when we embrace sinful ways of thinking we reap the consequences of irrationality that come with it.

Yet God sent his Son into to save us from both the penalty of sin and the reign of sin in our lives. The Christian faith must serve as the basis for understanding the world. It is only when we turn to God and embrace Christ by faith, that we can begin to make sense of the world in which we find ourselves. When we deny God, we become futile in our thinking and cannot live consistently with what we believe or even make sense of the things we take for granted. If you’d like to know more about embracing Christ, see this short presentation.