From: kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:56:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

Derek Abbott wrote:
  
  ...If salvation is possible without having even heard the name "Jesus"
  (as in the case of an eskimo 3000 years ago) then we ask what is
  the purpose of evangelization and what is the need for doing it
  with any urgency?

Mark Christensen replied:
  
  Romans 10:13-17
  "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
  and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
  and how shall they hear without a preacher?
  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written...
  So then faith faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
  God."
  
  Those who have not heard the word, cannot believe.  Therefore they
  shall perish.  This is why missionary work is so crucial.  This is
  why Jesus gave the great commission.  It may seem unfair to you, but
  who am I, a mere man, to question God's eternal plan or righteousness or
  justice.  Salvation is ONLY possible through faith...


-----


The problem is, things may not be quite that simple.  
The verses FOLLOWING Romans 10:13-17 appear to discuss 
the objection "But what about those who have not heard", 
and the answer does NOT seem to be "well, they will perish." 

Any suggestions on what these verses mean?
The entire passage seems to be about the question that was raised
above.

Sorry, I don't have a Bible with me, so I can't quote the extra
verses here.

Kevin Megill
kmm@ector.cs.purdue.edu  or  KEVIN_MEGILL@dsu1.dsu.NoDak.edu


[Here are the verses you were presumably thinking of:

 Romans 10:18   But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for"Their 
 voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the 
 world." 

 Romans 10:19   Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I 
 will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation 
 I will make you angry." 

 Romans 10:20   Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by 
 those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for 
 me." 

 Romans 10:21   But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my 
 hands to a disobedient and contrary people." 

This seems to be consistent with the argument in Rom 1:18 - 2:29.  As
I understand this section, Paul is saying that people know enough of
God to be held responsible for responding to him, but that they will
be judged on the basis of how much they know, so that those who don't
know the law won't be judged by it, but those who do will be.  Rom
1:18 ff says that God's nature is plain to everyone, but that people
did not worship correctly.  Therefore, God abandoned them and gross
immorality resulted.  Then in 2 he warns Christians that we need to be
careful to avoid becoming complacent about our faith.  Just as he
abandoned the Gentiles because they did not serve him properly,
Christians (or Jews, which is what he is primarily talking about,
though I think the application to Christians is clear) who do not live
in the way God prescribes will suffer even a worse fate.  For God will
judge us on the basis of what we know: Jews will be judged by the law,
Gentiles apart from it.

Note by the way that Paul does not seem here to be talking about
belief, but action.  This is not an argument for natural theology,
i.e. a claim that there's enough evidence to prove that God exists and
that you have to be evil to deny God's existence.  Rather, simply
asserts that as a matter of fact everyone knows enough about God to be
responsible for how they live.  In fact the real force of it is
directed against Christians, not pagans.  The point is: if God
punished Gentiles for not properly responding to him, think what
trouble *you* are going to be in if you don't clean up your acts.  You
*know* God and what he requires.  This is an important part of the
book, because without it, his later polemic against the Law could look
like he doesn't care about morals.

--clh]