Case Study2:
Destiny of the Unevangelized
Soteriology
This is going to be a “real life” case study. You are to find a person who would be willing to sit down and talk to you for thirty minutes to an hour. This person may or may not be a Christian. This might be a family member, a co-worker, someone at the gym, or even someone from church.
With notes in hand, you are to teach what you have learned in class concerning the doctrine of the destiny of those who have never heard the Gospel.
• Cover these questions before you begin:
1. Do you believe that Christ is the only way to heaven?
2. What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? Can they make it to heaven
• After this, go through the presentation on this subject, explaining the difference between exclusivism and inclusivism.
• Then, read the case studies on the subject, asking the questions at the end of each.
• Then explain how people have always believed that the Bible teaches exclusivism using the “GOSPEL” acronym.
The object of this assignment is to present a defense for salvation through Christ alone. The goal here is not to convince someone of the truth (although that would be great), but simply to present the arguments clearly.
After you are done, write a half page to a page summary of the encounter and hand it in. Online student are to post their summary in their class forum. Grades will be based upon the completion of the assignment, not the effectiveness of the presentation. Everyone who completes this will receive credit for the case study.
Powered by FireStats
April 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Case Study #2—Soteriology
For my first case study in Soteriology, I interviewed my friend John and his wife Lindsey. John and Lindsey are both believers. I explained that we would be discussing the destiny of the unevangelized as our topic. The first question that I covered with John and Lindsey was the question ‘do you believe that Christ is the only way to heaven?’ They both responded with a yes, which they knew was setting them up for further questions. The second question ‘what about those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? Can they make it to heaven?’ prompted a good discussion. Lindsey indicated ‘probably not.’ However, she was not completely sure. She felt like it could open the door and become a slippery slope for some heretical views of salvation. John said he did not know for sure and perhaps. Those who have not heard the gospel, but realize that they are a sinner, maybe. Lindsey indicated that this could affect the cause of missions and have a huge impact on our approach to evangelism. John felt that those who do not have special revelation and are sincere in seeking God and conscience dictates that they are a sinner and need of a savior, then perhaps like Old Testament saints, they could be saved. Did Old Testament believers believe in Christ? That was how he responded. When I pinned them down, John said he was inclusivist and Lindsey said she was restrictivist. We then discussed the implications and definitions of these views and they both stuck with their original responses. For the first case study we were to review, we discussed the topic of the salvation of Old Testament saints. Lindsey had to change a diaper and put their son to bed, so she did not participate in this question. John responded that the righteousness of Christ saved the Old Testament saints. We know for sure Moses, Elijah, and Abraham are saved, because the New Testament indicates that they were saved or were with Christ. They did not know Christ by name, or the theology of Jesus, because it was not fully developed then. But they did believed God needed to save them and that they could not save themselves. They knew that God would save them through faith. The second case study involves the death of an infant and was expanded in our discussion to include the mentally disabled. Lindsey returned for this portion of the case study. Lindsey said she did not know and that all souls that are saved are up to God’s choice. She is not sure if all or some go to heaven. John indicated that the doctrines of mental capability or age of accountability are difficult to address because they vary with each person, it’s a spectrum. He did not know for sure. We then discussed the GOSPEL acronym and some verses that talk about Christ being our salvation. All though both my friends were exclusivists, John indicated he fell more on the side of the inclusivism and Lindsey indicated she fell more on the side of restrictivism.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Case Study #2:
DESTINY OF THE UNEVANGELIZED
Soteriology
My brother-in-law, Larry Myers, agreed to participate in this case study. Larry traveled from his home state of Pennsylvania in order to pay a visit to my wife and I. He was accompanied by his wife and his mother (along with my daughter and my grandson who are now residents of PA). My wife and I reside in Elkhart, Indiana.
With my notebook open to Session 11 I asked a couple of preliminary questions.
Those questions and responses are as follows:
1. Do you believe that Christ is the only way to heaven?
Response: Larry replied in the affirmative. He said, “John 14:6 declares that clearly.”
2. What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? Can they make it to heaven?
Response: “I don’t think so. That’s what my understanding of Scripture is.”
I explained the difference between Pluralism and Exclusivism. I noticed during the course of the interview that my brother-in-law was definitely an Exclusivist. I further elaborated upon the two branches of Exclusivism: Inclusivism and Restrictivism.
As I proceeded through the “GOSPEL” acronym Larry voiced his complete approval of each salient point.
I read aloud CASE STUDY 1 (Restrictivism). Larry exhibited some good insight by choosing option 3: “No, the content of what they believed was different, but the basis of their salvation was to trust in the revelation that God gave them.”
Here are Larry’s responses to the questions at the end of Case Study 1.
1. Did Adam, Noah, Rahab, Abraham, etc. trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (the Gospel message)?
Response: No.
2. What was the content of their faith (Gen. 3:15; Josh. 2:1-12)?
Response: They had a belief in what knowledge they had of God.
3. If they did not know the Gospel as we know it, and they were saved, doesn’t that mean that others don’t have to know the Gospel as we know it to be saved?
Response: “The death, burial, and resurrection had not occurred in the past, but it has occurred since then.” (In other words, in today’s world people must embrace the Gospel message in its entirety).
I continued with our discussion by reading aloud CASE STUDY 2 (Restrictivism) and then posing the objections at the end of the narrative. Larry was already familiar with the passage cited in 2 Samuel 12:23 and he tended to conclude that David’s response to his child’s death was clear evidence that the child went someplace (heaven?) where David himself would follow upon the event of his own death.
I told Larry that I struggled with the passage in 2 Samuel because I wondered if too much meaning was being “read into” the passage by some evangelicals. Could it be that David was simply referring to Sheol (as the place of the grave)?
Subsequently, Larry and I both seemed to conclude that the passages cited in support of an “age of accountability” were inconclusive.
With respect to the Matthew 18 passage - Larry and I both believe the context of this passage does not pertain to the mentally unable (such as infants) but instead supports the idea that entrance to heaven is on the basis of simple, CHILDLIKE FAITH. In other words, this passage illustrates the nature of saving faith by virtue of a small child who is mentally able of grasping the truth of the Good News versus an infant who is mentally incapable of responding to the Gospel.
Because I do not believe the Bible clearly describes the destiny of infants who are mentally unable, nor clearly articulates the notion of a “state of accountability,” I am an unsuitable advocate for the conclusions propagated at the end of Session 11. For me, the “fly in the ointment” is the doctrine of imputed guilt. TTP has taught me that I must not unduly import human notions of fairness or reasonableness into my interpretation of Scripture… It may well be that unborn and mentally unable infants do go to heaven, but I am not prepared to say so with any degree of conviction. However, I can say with a solid sense of finality (and I believe Larry agrees with this), “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25b ESV) Ultimately, we know that God only does what is right, and we can rest in that certainty…
___________________
Greg Eby
April 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I sat down for case study #2 with my wife, two of my sons; Stephen (14), Andrew (18) and Andrew’s girlfriend Lacey (17). These four are all believers at various places on their walk with Christ.
We started with the suggested initial questions: 1.) Do you believe Christ is the only way to heaven? 2.) What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? All four responded with the same general feeling that they believed Christ is the only way to heaven but they did not exactly know how God handles those who have never heard the Gospel. We agreed that God’s desire is that none perish (2 Peter 3:9) and that no one has an excuse for not knowing enough about God to seek Him (Romans 1:19-20). Therefore we concluded that God gives everyone a chance to recognize that He exists, to seek Him and in the end find the truth of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. The story of Peter bringing the Gospel to Cornelius in Acts 10:1-11:18 is a prime example of this.
We reviewed the G.O.S.P.E.L. acronym and the “isms” (Pluralism, Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Restrictivism). Lacey felt that Inclusivism may be worth considering.
Restrictivism case 1 did not stir much debate. Stephen wondered if the prophesies of Jesus on the Old Testament were understood with enough clarity to say that the people who heard them and trusted God were really, in fact, placing their faith in Jesus. However, the general discussion on this case centered on the need for faith in God for the salvation of the people in the Old Testament. It was not hard for this group to understand the concept of “Progressive Revelation”.
Restrictivism case 2 was a little harder to deal with. Immediately after reading the case, the idea of “an age of accountability” came up. We reviewed the suggested scripture (Isaiah 7:15 and Romans 5:12-21) and came to an understanding that the idea of a “state of accountability” rather than some specific age made better sense. Using this discussion of a “state of accountability” we were able to spring board into issues dealing with the mentally disabled. We reviewed “possible solution #5″ in the workbook which states that the mentally disabled have the same way to heaven (Christ), but that the requirements are different based upon capabilities. This made sense to the group, especially when we discussed regeneration being the work of God and that faith is the first response to this regeneration. Therefore, God can choose to regenerate anybody (mentally disabled, infants, etc…etc…) and they will respond with faith in Christ even though others around them may not be able to perceive this happening. In the end we agreed that there is some tension on this issue and that we need to trust in the perfect justice of God and thank Him for the amazing gift of faith He has given us.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Case Study Numero 2:
DESTINY OF THE UNEVANGELIZED
Soteriology
Alright, this time I asked an “Arch-Enemy” (not Lex Luthor….but close) to sit with me as his religion is that of 12 step programs and the “god of understanding”. His name is Ed K and he is 63 and has over 30 years in sobriety.
With my notebook open to Session 11 I asked a couple of preliminary questions.
Those questions and responses are as follows:
1. Do you believe that Christ is the only way to heaven?
Answer: Eddie was pretty sure that is what he has been taught as a Roman Catholic but he isn’t set on it. His response was the typical “who really knows god’s ways and plans but god himself?” This is a post-modern type of argument to me so I just showed him the classical John 14:6 verse “I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE (emphasis mine) comes to the Father except through Me” to which he simply replied with “maybe that is true then?”
2. What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? Can they make it to heaven?
Answer: That is up to God, isn’t it? Now, in my best effort not to sound arrogant or too “educated” (his words because he is dyslexic and therefore never really learned to read well) I did my best to explain to him both pluralism and the notorious exclusivism. Eddie doesn’t believe in exclusivism and feels that again it is all in God’s hands so why try to define things down like this. I did not want to rattle him to much this early so I immediately went into the acrostic GOSPEL:
Go
Only Way
Son of God
Pluralism
Exclusive Truth
Lake of Fire (Hell)
Ed understands about discipleship and spreading the truth but like most people he doesn’t want to “push it on anyone??” to which I replied I don’t either since I believe only an open & humble heart is receptive to the message so I avoid arguments.
Hell was a tough one to discuss since the very idea that a “good God could put anyone in an eternal fiery hell” is questionable to him and to many others who are in 12 step programs where plurality and poly-culturalism rule the roost. However, Scripture is clear on all these points and he and his family believed in Christ so he just nodded his head in semi-agreement I guess.
We went through the questions from the Case Study 1 as follows:
1. Did Adam, Noah, Rahab, Abraham, etc., all trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (the true Gospel message of the NT)?
Answer: How could they have so no?
2. What was the content of their faith (Genesis 3:15; Joshua 2:1 to 2:12)?
Answer: They had a belief or strong faith in what knowledge they had of God.
3. If they did not know the Gospel as we know it, and they are saved, doesn’t that mean that others who don’t know today’s NT gospel like we do are possibly saved as well (my words…)?
Answer: God used them and therefore saved them cause of their belief in Him. I explained to Ed that in my estimation the faith they had in what they were given was enough to save them. It isn’t about how many passages you can spit back at someone but how you live your life.
CASE STUDY 2 (Restrictivism) was next but by now I could see Ed was a bit “tired” of talking so I rushed until the 2 Samuel 12:33 which struck a chord with him as he believes children who die go to heaven. He understood the idea of “age of accountability” but doesn’t know exactly how anyone could know what that age us. We joked how many in recovery are often emotionally immature and don’t know how to deal with life so does an adult in physical years but with the mind of a child get a pass? Neither of us knew for sure and I have to admit that but that is a whole other story so I won’t go there right now because I know my human sensibilities are clouding my judgment. This is tough stuff to think about and churn through - tough stuff indeed!
In a nutshell, as I just finished the book of Jonah in church I read aloud 4:2b “for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.”
April 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Case Study #2
I interviewed a lady who teaches in our children’s Sunday school (grades 4-6). She has taught in children’s Sunday school for over 25 years and presently is also an Awana leader. During the interview, much of what she shared was laced with scripture, but some detailed a personal struggle with difficult truth.
I asked her whether or not she believed it was necessary for one to receive Christ as the only way of salvation. She quoted John 14:6 and John 3:16-18 and was definite that there was no other way of salvation. She has seen many of her students pray to receive Christ and this statement of faith has been foundational in her teaching.
We discussed Exclusivism and Inclusivism at length. As with many, there began to be a breakdown between her knowledge and her emotion (head-vs-heart). She expressed a desire for the Bible somewhere to have stated that the lost who never heard the Gospel would receive opportunity after death. She struggled with a concept of God being more concerned with wrath than love.
We went through the GOSPEL acronym. She affirmed as accurate the teaching. There was no hesitation, no wavering from the clear, accurate teaching. But then her heart spoke again: “I just don’t understand why God would create people who He knows will end in Hell. Why create them in the first place?” I believe this is where most Christians are in their understanding and practice. Few would be as active and faithful in service, but we all sometimes struggle with what we believe verses what we wished were true. I emphasized the need to let scripture be our guide and final authority. Although she agreed, she stated, “It’s still hard.”