A few thoughts, Michael. You mention a single path, but how might this single path be taken by someone who has never heard of Jesus (because they pre-dated Jesus or because they know little to nothing about Jesus)? Might not their path be different to someone who has good knowledge of Jesus? A second question: what of someone who has reasonable doubts that Jesus said those words from John about him being the exclusive path to the Father and who also doubts that the words in Acts were Peter's rather than being authored by the unknown author of Acts. The way you have set up this exclusive pathway can be challenged as unreasonable on epistemological grounds. Are people with reasonable doubts damned for not believing what can be reasonably doubted?
To respond to the second point first: the key is not the authorship of Acts or John, it is the resurrection. Did it happen, and what did it mean? One isn't saved by believing in the authorship of Acts etc nor damned for denying it. I venture to say also that one is not saved by believing in the uniqueness of Christ, either. Mind you, if resurrections happen to others or don't happen at all, then we're talking about a refusal to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, which seems to be a refusal of the Christian gospel itself. So I would say the epistemological basis for the uniqueness of Christ is the resurrection, which underpins both the sayings in Acts and in John.
(Mind you, you paint the 'reasonable doubter' as a kind of fair-minded sceptic innocently condemned. Scepticism has its own spiritual pathology in the same way that fundamentalism does. But that's another story.)
The character of God writ large in creation is key to the first question, it seems to me. My claim here is ontological primarily: that is, salvation, wherever it occurs, is exclusively by the name of Christ. I don't limit God's power to redeem those who've never heard of Christ - indeed, Hebrews 11 would indicate otherwise. What we know is that Christianity is a missionary faith from the git-go, because the name of Jesus saves.
Thanks, Michael, for your considered response. A couple of follow up questions. 1. With respect to someone who has never heard of Christ, what would be the basis for salvation for someone who grew up in a community and culture that worshipped their ancestors who, effectively, were deity to them? On what basis would one such person be saved and another not? 2. what of a person in our own time and place - here in Australia, say, who has carefully studied all of the evidence both for and against the resurrection of Jesus and has concluded on balance of probabilities that it did not happen - and that there have been no resurrections - and, nevertheless, has attempted to live a life of integrity, compassion and respect. There are any number of Christians who have come to similar conclusions. It would seem that salvation by knowledge (which might not even be knowledge, but rather belief) is required by your account. Am I wrong?
Of course, the answer to all your questions might be to embrace universalism, but I think that universalism is itself a case of epistemological overreach. Are you a universalist these days yourself?
1. I don't stand in the place of God. How he might save those who've never heard, I don't know. On what basis, I don't claim to know. It would be arrogant of me to claim to know (just as it would be arrogant of me to claim that they are saved or condemned). But ... there's a wideness in God's mercy, like the wideness of the sea... I expect to be surprised!
However, Paul in Romans 1 seems to indicate that there's a universal revelation of God in creation to which human beings are called to give account. So knowledge of God is not a matter of studied neutrality in this case.
2. Once again, it isn't for me to stand in the place where only God knows the heart. I bury people in this category all the time, in church - relatively decent people, as far as I can see, who aren't particularly religious. I don't think I can stand with any confidence at that point and say 'they're saved!' - God forbid. But I commit them into the hands of a merciful God. That is the only hope I can offer at this point, though it is no little hope. (I do, by the way, contend that your sincere and very nice sceptic remains hypothetical).
I think some kind of revealed knowledge is a necessary component of faith. That seems obvious (and also deeply grounded in the tradition from Gregory of Nyssa to Augustine to Aquinas and to Luther and in both Reformed and Catholic theology since then). It is not 'salvation by knowledge' - that would be gnosticism. Remember, Peter and John were unlettered.
I very much love and appreciate your response, Michael. You are absolutely right that universalism amounts to epistemological overreach. For that reason, I could not describe myself as a universalist, though my hunch is that the limitless love and grace of God for all people throughout all of time will present us with some surprises come the end of our lives. Your emphasis on humility is spot on. Three people I highly respect - all three of whom identify as evangelical, all three of whom are academics - have shared with me their theories or conjectures about the afterlife. I am happy in private correspondence to say who they are (the sharing wasn't in confidence, but as conjecture). One suggested that each and every person on entering the afterlife will encounter God as the one who is loving kindness in essence - who has loved them always - who is, in every way, beautiful and attractive - though perhaps not to everyone, not to those who have chosen to sin against what knowledge or intuition they have received - ultimately from God. None (or few) of us will be judged on our theological or Biblical or sacred text knowledge, but on something more basic and creational- understood as in some sense as faith.
And just briefly, scepticism about particular doctrinal or historical matters - including the resurrection - is by no means hypothetical. We often need to be sceptical. To be sceptical is critical to good critical thinking - as is humility when one remains unconvinced about any number of things. I have argued to this conclusion in 'An Honest Faith: the possible friendship of Athens and Jerusalem.' Keen to get your thoughts on it when you've had the chance to read.
Yep, in my experience there are various ways to Jesus, with Jesus the Christ being the way to God
A few thoughts, Michael. You mention a single path, but how might this single path be taken by someone who has never heard of Jesus (because they pre-dated Jesus or because they know little to nothing about Jesus)? Might not their path be different to someone who has good knowledge of Jesus? A second question: what of someone who has reasonable doubts that Jesus said those words from John about him being the exclusive path to the Father and who also doubts that the words in Acts were Peter's rather than being authored by the unknown author of Acts. The way you have set up this exclusive pathway can be challenged as unreasonable on epistemological grounds. Are people with reasonable doubts damned for not believing what can be reasonably doubted?
To respond to the second point first: the key is not the authorship of Acts or John, it is the resurrection. Did it happen, and what did it mean? One isn't saved by believing in the authorship of Acts etc nor damned for denying it. I venture to say also that one is not saved by believing in the uniqueness of Christ, either. Mind you, if resurrections happen to others or don't happen at all, then we're talking about a refusal to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, which seems to be a refusal of the Christian gospel itself. So I would say the epistemological basis for the uniqueness of Christ is the resurrection, which underpins both the sayings in Acts and in John.
(Mind you, you paint the 'reasonable doubter' as a kind of fair-minded sceptic innocently condemned. Scepticism has its own spiritual pathology in the same way that fundamentalism does. But that's another story.)
The character of God writ large in creation is key to the first question, it seems to me. My claim here is ontological primarily: that is, salvation, wherever it occurs, is exclusively by the name of Christ. I don't limit God's power to redeem those who've never heard of Christ - indeed, Hebrews 11 would indicate otherwise. What we know is that Christianity is a missionary faith from the git-go, because the name of Jesus saves.
Thanks, Michael, for your considered response. A couple of follow up questions. 1. With respect to someone who has never heard of Christ, what would be the basis for salvation for someone who grew up in a community and culture that worshipped their ancestors who, effectively, were deity to them? On what basis would one such person be saved and another not? 2. what of a person in our own time and place - here in Australia, say, who has carefully studied all of the evidence both for and against the resurrection of Jesus and has concluded on balance of probabilities that it did not happen - and that there have been no resurrections - and, nevertheless, has attempted to live a life of integrity, compassion and respect. There are any number of Christians who have come to similar conclusions. It would seem that salvation by knowledge (which might not even be knowledge, but rather belief) is required by your account. Am I wrong?
Of course, the answer to all your questions might be to embrace universalism, but I think that universalism is itself a case of epistemological overreach. Are you a universalist these days yourself?
1. I don't stand in the place of God. How he might save those who've never heard, I don't know. On what basis, I don't claim to know. It would be arrogant of me to claim to know (just as it would be arrogant of me to claim that they are saved or condemned). But ... there's a wideness in God's mercy, like the wideness of the sea... I expect to be surprised!
However, Paul in Romans 1 seems to indicate that there's a universal revelation of God in creation to which human beings are called to give account. So knowledge of God is not a matter of studied neutrality in this case.
2. Once again, it isn't for me to stand in the place where only God knows the heart. I bury people in this category all the time, in church - relatively decent people, as far as I can see, who aren't particularly religious. I don't think I can stand with any confidence at that point and say 'they're saved!' - God forbid. But I commit them into the hands of a merciful God. That is the only hope I can offer at this point, though it is no little hope. (I do, by the way, contend that your sincere and very nice sceptic remains hypothetical).
I think some kind of revealed knowledge is a necessary component of faith. That seems obvious (and also deeply grounded in the tradition from Gregory of Nyssa to Augustine to Aquinas and to Luther and in both Reformed and Catholic theology since then). It is not 'salvation by knowledge' - that would be gnosticism. Remember, Peter and John were unlettered.
I very much love and appreciate your response, Michael. You are absolutely right that universalism amounts to epistemological overreach. For that reason, I could not describe myself as a universalist, though my hunch is that the limitless love and grace of God for all people throughout all of time will present us with some surprises come the end of our lives. Your emphasis on humility is spot on. Three people I highly respect - all three of whom identify as evangelical, all three of whom are academics - have shared with me their theories or conjectures about the afterlife. I am happy in private correspondence to say who they are (the sharing wasn't in confidence, but as conjecture). One suggested that each and every person on entering the afterlife will encounter God as the one who is loving kindness in essence - who has loved them always - who is, in every way, beautiful and attractive - though perhaps not to everyone, not to those who have chosen to sin against what knowledge or intuition they have received - ultimately from God. None (or few) of us will be judged on our theological or Biblical or sacred text knowledge, but on something more basic and creational- understood as in some sense as faith.
And just briefly, scepticism about particular doctrinal or historical matters - including the resurrection - is by no means hypothetical. We often need to be sceptical. To be sceptical is critical to good critical thinking - as is humility when one remains unconvinced about any number of things. I have argued to this conclusion in 'An Honest Faith: the possible friendship of Athens and Jerusalem.' Keen to get your thoughts on it when you've had the chance to read.