What is the fate of pagans?

[Sweet One]

I was reading the other day a book by the author David Platt called
Radical. I thought the book was so good I bought it--but I ended up
being disturbed and shaken by it. Most of the book I am in much
agreement with. He decries the poor state that much of modern
Christianity is in nowadays. Especially how most preaching puts the
self smack in the center of things. Most popular spirtual books
costatnly appeal to the self. What can Christ do for YOU. How can God
get YOUR life in order. But Platt reminds readers that true
Christianity is about denying the self and sacrificing one's worldly
possessions for the sake of the Lord. He tell us that Christ's
teachings about denying the world, disowning even one's family for Him
were indeed very radical.

And it made me wonder too: would I be strong enough to deny anything,
if the Lord were to require it?

I was actually cheering him on throughout most of the book. Until I
got to the chapter on the unsaved. Platt basically argues with an
equal egree of passion, that those who have never heard of Christ are
necessarily damned. A common beleif, but also an obviously
controversial one. Platt beleives those who have never heard the
gospel are subject to a different sort of accountability than those
who have and willingly rejected Christ. But they are denied Heaven
nonetheless. To support his postion he gives the example of an
innocent tribal bushman who dies without knowledge of Christ. Would he
go to heaven? Platt answers "Yes," then turns that answr upon itself.
The key word here is "innocent." The innocent man, according to Platt,
does not exist. In other words, we're talking about the whole idea
that God demands absolute perfection, which, of course, is impossible
to live up to, and the only answer is Christ.

To show that Heaven as a default destination for the pagan will not
work, Platt puts his readers in the position of a missionary who tells
a potential convert who previously has not heard of Christ, that
before, he had an automatic ticket to heaven, but now that he's heard,
he might go to hell! This last is a straw-man argument. I am not, and
I doubt others are, suggesting that a person who has never heard that
actual facts of Christ's life, death and resurection is going to
heaven by default. Imagine: would King Maxtla of the ancient Aztecs go
to heaven, after they sarificed hundreds upon hundreds of people to a
pagan deity? What about Caligula, not to mention the other corrupt
Romans who were into all manner of cruelty?

The inevitable reponse from a lot of Christians can almost be heard
already. The moment you bring that up, the common response is, in
general, that Christianity has nothing to do with behavior and
everything to do with beleif. The whole "saved by grace, not works"
thing. If you're an OSAS beleiver, then IF King Maxtla or Caligula had
heard the right facts, and DID have a fleeting moment of genuine
faith, then they both would be in heaven, and niether would even have
had to repent! These two examples, the Aztecs and the Romans, show
very clearly cultures dominated by sin-nature and in need of
redemption by Christ. When it comes to those who have never heard,
there is more of concern to missionaries -then promoting Christianity
as a get-out-of-hell-free ticket. Which, by itself, will only appeal
to self-interest.

But that's really the point, as far as Platt is concerned. What is
really at stake when it comes to the position of Inclusionism (the
belief that some may be saved apart from hearing the actual facts
about Christ), is the fear factor. In other words, what really worries
Platt and others like him is not so much that souls of the pagan will
be otherwise lost, but the future of Christianity and Christian
culture in this life. If we were to tell a potential convert, for
example, that he really should accept Christ, but he still can get to
heaven if he doesn't, is he still apt to convert? Humans by nature,
are conservative. And let's face it, the world is becoming
increasingly secularized. The fear that one's culture is imperiled is
understandable. However, Christ did not call his followers to be
cultural warriors, and it is the fear of cultural anhililation that
is, I beleive, behind the renewed insistence that those who have not
heard are necessarily lost.

I have long taken the position of C. S. Lewis on this on. Lewis was an
inclusionist, who took the position that virtuous pagan who ernerstly
sought truth would amke it to heaven, even if circumstances determined
that he lacked the correct facts. In other words, it is the condition
of one's that determines salvation, not access to the facts. The Word
of God is written on each of our hearts as well as in the Bible.

[Harold Kupp]

Hi Sweet One...

The pagan question etc. cannot be understood apart from the big
picture of what is going on here on earth. There is a plan and a
purpose. The harsh reality is most of mankind is merely a means to an
end for God. He drowned them like rats and will destroy the earth by
fire at the end.

The earth is a testing ground - God calls some people and then tests
them - those who will keep his commandments despite all of the world
temptations will receive eternal life.

God will judge the rest with righteous judgement according to their
deeds and those not written in the book of life will be cast into the
lake of fire to be destroyed.

I will repost the study on testing to refresh our memories...

Thanks

Harold

[Sweet One]

This paints a rather amoral picture of God. But at least this is more
honest than saying that God will send all pagans to eternal toment,
and THEN asserting that God is infinitely loving and merciful. Is the
nature of Christ, in your knowledge, different form that of God the
Father?

> > of God is written on each of our hearts as well as in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Harold Kupp]

Hi Sweet,

No Jesus was not different in nature from the Father - Jesus is the
image of the Father. The Scriptures make sense when we discover that
the Yahweh of the Old Testament was Jesus.

Harold