Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

In a recent post, I presented three questions I've heard young people ask--people who think highly of Jesus and even seem to want to become Christians and follow Him, but worry they can't without sacrificing their rationality, their decency, or both.

I addressed the first question in my last two posts. Here is the second question:

Question 2: Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

(I've also heard some related questions, such as Why would God send anyone to hell? and Why would a loving God send me to hell just because I'm not convinced Christianity is true?)

A proper look at this issue requires a lot more than a blog post. But I can explain, rather briefly, one reason people who worry about this issue don't need to worry. That reason is that Christian theology doesn't necessarily say that the people they're concerned about–the ones who live and die without hearing the Gospel properly explained–are all going to hell.

There are different views on this sort of thing within the area of soteriology (the study of salvation). Here are two of the generic views:

Exclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, and that only those who follow Christ in this life will be saved.

Inclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, but that some who do not follow Christ in this life will nonetheless be saved through Him.

Obviously according to Inclusivism it is not the case that everyone who hasn't heard about Jesus goes to hell. This is the view of C. S. Lewis as well as the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. So you can be a Christian and not even bother asking the question!

Of course, the really important question is: Will Cinnamon be there when I get to Heaven?
 

Different versions of Exclusivism are outlined in a very good little book by Robert Wittmer. One of these versions is Soft Exclusivism, the view that, to anyone who responds properly to general revelation (the sort of revelation Paul talks about in Romans 1), God will give sufficient special revelation (the sort of revelation God gives through Jesus, an aposle, or a prophet) to be saved. Now a Soft Exclusivist can be an optimist or a pessimist. An Optimistic Soft Exclusivist thinks this actually happens sometimes; a Pessimistic Soft Exclusivist thinks it never happens. Wittmer himself is a Pessimistic Soft Exclusivist. My old theology teacher William E. Bell, is an Optimistic Soft Exclusivist, and even thinks there is some, admittedly ambiguous, biblical evidence for this view.

Obviously, if Optimistic Soft Exclusivism is correct, then Question 2 is not a big deal: People don't go to hell just for not hearing about Jesus. People who respond to God's general revelation properly will hear enough about Jesus to be saved, and there are some such people.

---

To sum up: There are orthodox views in Christianity that implicitly deny there is even any need to ask Question 2!

---

To sum up my last three posts:

There are three big questions that keep people away from Christianity.

Question 1 is: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution? And the answer is: Yes. (But you don't have to.)

Question 2 is: Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus? Maybe the best answer to this is another question: Who says God does?

Evolution is a poor test for rationality

In my last post, I presented three questions I've heard young people ask--people who think highly of Jesus and even seem to want to become Christians and follow Him, but worry they can't without sacrificing their rationality, their decency, or both.

The first question is: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution? They seem to be reasoning that rational people accept evolution, but Christians don't accept evolution, and so Christians are not rational.

As I explained in my last post, Christians can accept evolution, and many do. But there's another problem with this reasoning. Many people have the idea that you must accept evolution if you're a reasonable person who has been properly informed of the evidence for it--that acceptance of evolution is a test for rationality.

But evolution is a very poor test of rationality. Let me explain.

This jacaranda tree has nothing to do with the topic of this post. But it's very pretty, isn't it?

You should know two things.

First, you should know that, in academic society, it is generally considered unacceptable to reject evolution.  Generally, in the academic circles I've traveled across America (admittedly, not that many), it is simply assumed that rational and well educated folk are evolutionists.

Second, you should also know that it is acceptable in academic society to be a theistic evolutionist. You can think God created life and still be considered rational, just as long as you think God used evolution to do it.

Now, one more bit of preliminary observation, and then in the next paragraphs I will finally get to the point. The case for evolution, like the case for most theories in science, is cumulative; you don't argue for it from a single piece of evidence; you argue that it is the best explanation of several different pieces of evidence. Now the evidence for evolution can be divided into two main categories. There is the evidence that life evolved, and there is the evidence that natural processes are sufficient to account for life on earth as we know it today. The first kind of evidence only supports the claim that it happened, while the second kind of evidence supports the claim that it happened in a certain way, that is, by natural causes. The first kind of evidence includes, but is not limited to, the fossil record. The second kind of evidence would include, for example, instances of natural selection at work creating changes in a species.

But therein lies the problem. A theistic evolutionist can believe that God, not natural processes alone, is responsible for the emergence of life on earth as we know it today. In other words, the entire second category of evidence for evolution has not convinced him. (Or else his doctrine of creation has an odd deistic region, since he thinks natural causes acted without guidance from God to create the species on earth today.)

But this leaves him with just the one category of evidence, which on its own is much less powerful than would be the evidence taken as a whole. His confidence in evolution is (or should be) proportionate to the evidence that it happened, not proportionate to the entire cumulative case for the theory of evolution.

These matters should really be discussed over tea.

---

To sum up: Theistic evolution is thought to be rational. But this means it is rational to reject one category of evidence for evolution, and this means that rejecting evolution itself is rational–or at least it is somewhat less irrational than is commonly thought.

To put it differently: If it really is rational to accept theistic evolution, then, since the evidence for evolution includes a category of evidence which does not convince a theistic evolution, it is rational to reject the overall conclusion that this evidence is supposed to support–or at least is less irrational than is commonly thought.

To put it still differently: If some people can rationally reject the second category of evidence for evolution, I don't see why other people should automatically be considered irrational just because they aren't convinced by the evidence that remains.

And if people who reject the theory of evolution altogether are irrational, then so are all the theistic evolutionists who reject one of the categories of evidence for evolution–or at least they are less rational than is commonly thought.

---

To sum up this post and my last post:

There are three big questions that keep people away from Christianity.

Question 1 is:

Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?

And the answer is:

Yes. (But you don't have to.)

Questions 2 and 3 to be addressed in future posts.

Questions my students asked

Over a period of two years I spent many hours in my office at a liberal arts college in northwest Georgia talking with a variety of students who had signed up for my philosophy classes. Many students were not Christians but were very interested in spiritual matters. A number of these seemed to want to be Christians, but were held back by various questions.

Berry College

Here are the three questions that seemed to trouble them the most.

1. Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?
2. Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?
3. Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen?

---

These are extremely important questions.

If my students are indicative of what other young people in north America (not to mention the rest of the world) are thinking, they represent many millions who think very highly of Jesus and admire a great deal in Christianity but worry they can't become Christians without surrendering their rationality (Question 1), their decency (Question 2), or both (Question 3).

Fortunately, there is no need for them to worry. Over the next few weeks I will explain why, starting with the first question, which I will address in this post and the next.

One of the many questions my students didn't ask is "Have you ever eaten monkey brains?" (The answer is "no.")
(Picture attribution: Cara Chow (Charlotte1125). From here.)

---

Question 1: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?

As bloggers report, the tension between Christianity and evolution is a huge factor behind vast numbers of young folk abandoning their faith. Here is what they seem to be thinking:

Premise 1: All (or practically all) rational people accept that the species on earth today emerged through the process of evolution. a
Premise 2: No (or practically no) orthodox Christians accept that the species emerged through the process of evolution.
Conclusion: So no (or practically no) orthodox Christians are rational.

This is a good argument in that the premises provide very good support for the conclusion. The problem is that both premises are false.

The view that God used the process of evolution to create the species we see on earth today is called theistic evolution. Many orthodox Christians accept theistic evolution. I'm not aware of any very good reason for calling it a heresy.

(As is the case with inclusivism, whether or not theistic evolution is the correct view is, of course, a different question.) (If you want a test for orthodox Christianity, research the Nicene Creed and the primary heresy it refutes. Rejecting that heresy, Arianism, is a pre-requisite for orthodox Christianity.)

Another question they never asked me is, "Have you ever eaten fried flying termites?" (The answer is "Yes, several times. They taste somewhat like peanuts. But they don't look like this termite. Go here to see what they look like.")
(Picture attribution: Discott (talk). Picture from here.)

Of course, there are better and worse ways to be a theistic evolutionist. It's important to adhere to the authority of Scripture. A Christian who is a theistic evolutionist should be a Beth, not a Chris.

I'll address the second premise in my next post.

---

Update: Other posts in this series:
Evolution Is a Poor Test for Rationality

Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen?