The Hitler Problem

A curious moral dilemna was raised some time ago on the site True Freethinker. The article is here:

http://www.examiner.com/messianic-jewish-in-national/what-if-adolf-hitler-had-repented

Sorry: still haven't figured out how to make a link that works without cut and paste.

The question was one that has sometimes reared it's ugly head on forums and in the back of my head. It is this:

Suppose Adolf Hitler had repented?

It is generally supposed that Hitler did NOT repent, that he committed suicide with the full knowledge that his glorious Thousand Year Reich would never come to pass--a fitting end to one of history's greatest villains.

But suppose he had? Doesn't Christian theology maintain that, no matter HOW dire one's sins are, one can always repent before the end of one's earthly existence? And if he did repent, wouldn't that represent a breech in God's justice?

The author of the article (and owner of True Freethinker) does not quite stop there however; he adds an even greater moral problem, one in fact, that I would argue is the true moral issue here:

The rub comes in the form of the conclusion that, according to Christian theology, if Adolf Hitler, the Jew hating mass murdering racist maniac, would have repented then today he would be enjoying the glories of heaven whilst innocent Jewish children whom he murdered would be suffering the torments of hell.

What is truely disturbing here is the final, enboldened phrase. Never mind where Hitler went: what about those innocent Jewish children? Their fate remains the same, whether the man responsible escaped justice or not.

And further, the author does not even attempt to resolve the issue. Instead, he concentrates on the problem of Hitler repenting. In doing so, he merely turns the tables on the atheists who are attempting to besmirch God, by saying:

According to Atheism, Hitler got away with it.

On the Atheist view Hitler struggled to survive as the fittest: mein kampf—my struggle.

What Hitler did was evolutionarily beneficial since he rid the gene pool of the less fit.

On Atheism, Adolf Hitler lived a wonderful life (from his own perspective) as he gained and enjoyed his power, he had thousands of faithful adherents, he did as he pleased and when he decided it was over—it was actually over. Metaphorically speaking, Hitler is now enjoying, as it where, a sort of perfect peace of annihilation whereby there is no such thing as Hitler anymore.

Thus, on the Christian view there is ultimate judgment and accountability and on the atheist view there is not. Therefore, since Atheist offers no ultimate justice Atheism itself is unjust.

Granted, two of Atheism’s consoling delusions are the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy and the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability.

On their view evil is for the benefit of the evildoer who gets to enjoy it and, ultimately, gets away with it.

Thus, the fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting Atheism.

Lastly, when we consider the reality of the matter the issue of Adolf Hitler has Christianity having him pay for his crimes and Atheism has him enjoying them and getting away with it.
.

I've seen these same essential arguments surface on episodes of The Atheist Experience. A theist will call in arguing that if there is no hell, as atheists beleive, then there's no justice for the wicked. The problem is, that this is completely false-at least when it comes to Hitler. He was cut down in his relative prime, and did not live to comfortable, ripe old age. Hitler experienced crushing defeat by the Allies, and killed himself unable to bear the knowledge that all his glorious dreams had come crashing down. Not every evil person meets so deserving a fate, but I would argue that Hitler most certainly did.

Does this really sound like he "got away with it"?

The auhor evades the real question of a repentent Hitler, however, by sticking to the almost certain fact that he did not. The thing is, for this particular problem, we don't even need Hitler. There are, in fact, other spectacularly evil men, who do appear to have repented before dying. Randy Alcorn, the pastor of Eternal Perspective ministries argues that notorious serial killer Westely Dodd may be in heaven:

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/18/westley-allen-dodds-eternity/

Who is arguing for injustice here, Alcorn, a fundementalist Christian pastor, or the atheists, who don't beleive in any god at all?

Undertand: I am not disagreeing, essentially, with Alcorn's point that even the most monstrous human beings can experiece repentance and salvation. I do not beleive that there are indeed sins had are simply so dire that they are beyond God's mercy to forgive. If God truly is infinitely more merciful than ourselves, then shouldn't He be able to do so? This is what we would expect from a God who really is merciful. The desire for revenge among humans, even if partially fueled by the desire to see justice done, is fed by the emotion of anger and untempered by mercy and willingness to forgive. God is thus capable of doing what we humans are so often terribly and tragically inept at doing.

Here is what I beleive, however.

A truely wicked man who preys on the innocent but then sincerely repents will not be enjoying bliss for all eternity. Such a person if truly repentent, and thus a candidate for heaven, would desire first of all achance to redeem himself of his past crimes. He would also need, and desire spiritual growth. There may indeed be possibilies present in the afterlife as part of God's plan of redemption. I am not certain that person's suffering would even end, as repentence might include some very grueling tests. Who knows? This is all mere speculation of course. But our common perception of the Christian afterlife as (seemingly pointless) eternal bliss and one hand and eternal torment on the other, is far too simplistic to be accurate.

But the truely disturbing thing here is not that a wicked man who truly repents in his heart may be saved; let us return to the matter of the innocent Jewish children. "According to Christian theology" is very misleading as there is much disagreement even among Christians who who does and doesn't get into heaven.

Would they be saved? Depends on who you ask.

Most Christians nowadays, it seems, hold that the need for personal faith in the Savior is waived in the case of children who are not yet old enough to truely understand the need for a committment to Christ. But not all. I had a recent pastor who beleived that even infants who die in infancy are doomed to hell because of their inability to beleive and therefore to accept Christ.

Such beleifs as these, are, I beleive, nothing less than Satanic, becuase they envitably, whether consiously or by design, paint God as hideously unjust. Would that not be precisely what Satan would desire? Why else would atheists deliberately use such argmuents to draw people away from the Christian faith?

Why, then, do Christians themselves use them? The reason, it seems, as I'll explore in a future post, is that without fear of God's wrath, how are we suppose to scare people into following the Lord? As though most people come to know Christ out of fear.

But I'll deal now with the actual question: what about the innocents who died in the holcaust--and I'm talking here about innocent victims in general, not just children, but the adults as well. The unfortunate response by far too many Christians is that those people were not truly "innocent." Not because they were Jewish per se, but becuase they didn't have Christ's blood atonement necessary to enter heaven. Now, though there are such thing as Jewish Christians, who have accepted Jesus and retained their Jewish heritage (the author of True Freethinker, in fact, claims to be one), they ould not have been spared in Nazi Germany. And many would argue that child victims of Hitler's evil would not have reached the age of accountibility yet.

But I would go even further than this. Inclucivism, the position held by C. S. Lewis, holds that a person may be saved if s/he is seeking Truth. This would hold no matter what society they had been raised, no matter what beleifs others had attempted to impose upon thier impressionble minds while children.

Next time, I'll review two books written by Christians that expose (unintentionally) what is largely wrong the state of Christianity nowadays.

Twisted Christianity

A common Christian objection to atheism is that atheists can have no moral standards by which to live. As Alex Rosenburg (about whose book I just discussed) points out, there are two versions to the theistic approach to objective morality. Either

1) Morals are objective because God declares them so. Or

2) God knows what is right and wrong and sets up the rules us accordingly.

Rosenburg states that (2) is unquestionably the most preferable. And I agree with him. Too many Christians, however, hold to the idea that whatever God says, goes. This runs into trouble, of course, if God were declare the slaughter of innocents morally correct. Worse, there are Scriptures which delare that, at one time, He did just that--which is the main reason I'm an unorthodox believer. This is nothing more than a "might is right" argument.

But even more antithetical to their common charge that athesm leads to rampant immorality, is the very common insistance that Christianity itself has nothing to do with moral behavior. "Faith, not works" is very true; yet that truth is not what is commonly preached, and the the reality is wildly misinterpeted. I have talked before about the Calvinist doctrine of Eternal Security; but this is merely the most extreme form of this twisting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3VrFFjp0LY

When a person recieves Jesus Christ into his or her heart, that person is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. From that moment forward, the person is compelled to follow and obey only Jesus. Yes, there may be lapses of faith, and that person may still struggle against sin; but s/he is at least striving to obey the Lord in every area of life.

Here is an example of the sort of "twisted Christianiy " that I'm talking about.

I recently watched a clip from The Atheist Experience on Youtube, as I often do. On this particular program, Matt Dillahunty gives a very accurate summary of this "twisted version" of the truth of Christ. What is truely tragic though, is not only has Matt bought wholeheartedly into this deception and is trying to convince others, the same false idea that Christianity has nothing to do with behavior, (and thus constitutes a completely amoral belief system) is being regularly preached by Chistians themselves.

The Atheist's Guide to Reality by Alex Rosenburg

Alex Rosenburg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality, is, as its author states, not a book for theists but for those who already "know the truth." However, be warned: this is bound to be a tough pill to swallow, even for some of the most hard-core atheists around.

Like Harris, Rosenburg rejects the idea of free-will, beleiving that all human behavior is predetermined by causal events. Unlike Harris, however, and unlike the majority of unbelivers, Rosenburg truely does reject the idea that objective moral truths can exist.

You read that right.

For Rosenburg, objective morals belong in the same catagory as God, Satan, angels, ghosts, dragons and unicorns. That does not, however, make him a moral relativist, at least in the most common sense of the term. What he advocates is nihilism, the essential menainglessness of life, but he refers to it as a "nice nihilism," and assures his readers that loss of ultimate purpose--and meaning--is not really that big of a deal, anyway.

Why not? Well, basically, human beings, having evolved for "niceness," (which he extraporlates in detail) will simply will not want to relenquish our "core morality." What Rosneburg terms core morality consists of those moral truths that are agreed upon across cultural bounderies. Though Rosenburg doesn't say it outright, this might, in fact be essentially the same as that which contributes to human well-being cross-culturally (not including the particular twists, such as female circumcism, et. al., that are particular to certain cultures)i. e. what Harris considers to be objective moralism. Therefore, we may be able to reach moral concensus on controversial issues by reference to this agreed upon core morality. When it comes to abortion, for example, Rosenburg beleives that there should be no blanket prohibition, but that there are certain times (according to core morality) when abortion should be prohibited, even when the mother insists that it is her "natural right." Natural rights, along with God-given rights, he argues, simply do not exist.

Another thing interesting is that Rosneburg's beleif that all human actions are predetermined has led him to the position that (again in accordance with core morality), in regard to even hienous crimes, prisons should be places of rehab only, NOT punishment. What I find especially interesting is that this is, in fact, a very Christian position, no matter what social conservatives might say. Let's face it--most people who beleive in being "tough on crime" favor draconian tactics, and most especially capital punishment, not so much as a deterant, but as a form of societal revenge. And revenge, according to the New Testament, is NEVER the moral course of action. If indeed we reach the point where prisons truely are instutions for rehab only, we will have made much moral progress. That indeed we HAVE made much moral progress already is a belief also argued by Harris. There have been, indeed, moral peaks and valleys. Those who object are apt to the point to great atrocies of the twentieth century, most notably under the Communist and Nazi regimes. Nevertheless, Harris's reflection on the horrors of racism in the US a century ago, and the fact that they are looked on with astonishment by most of us today, demonstrate that progress has been made and will very likely continue.

And the fact that humans as a species are maturing morally (and by implication, spiritually) offers evidence that there really is a benevolent deity behind it all, guiding humanity along, whether athiests like it or not. The presence of great evil in the world merely shows, and abundantly, that true evil does exists, and we are engaged in warfare, one that hopefully, we are winning.

Another very thought-provoking book.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

It has been a very long time since I have added anything to this blog.

I promised, well over a year ago that I would get around to reviewing Sam Harris's new book The Moral Landscape. It has actually been out for more than a year now itself, and I have already read it.

Harris's main thesis here is that, contrary to the assertions of many theists, objective moral truths really do exist, and reason and science should serve as tools to discover them. One of the main areas in which I find myself in agreement with atheists is the issue of unquestioning obedience. A common criticism aimed at atheists is that without a god, we are therefore free to make up any rules we like, even though very few atheists are true moral relativists. The problem is that unquestioning obedience to scripture, which is often implied, is the alternative to reason, runs straight into serious moral problems, especially when it comes to the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners, and also the atrocities committed in the name of God in the Old Testament. The reason fundementalist Christians hold fast to both of these, as I'll argue further in another essay, has nothing to do with morality at all. And I might offend some Christians with what I am about to say next.

When it comes to moral guidence, I do not rely, first and formost, on scripture. I rely on prayer.

Harris, who literally calls for the end of faith, would do away with scripture entirely. And since he does not believe in faith, he would also, of necessity, do away with prayer as well.

Science and reason, he beleives, are the most reliable tools we have, not only for discovering facts about the material universe, but facts regarding morality as well. Since, as a theist, I agree with him that moral objectivism is correct, I also agree that objective moral truths may indeed to discoverable through rational inquiry. The thing is, as Harris demonstrates in his book, the moral truth in some areas may be very difficult to discern. Since most of us are not scientists, and do not have the toos of scientific inquiry at our disposal, prayer and intuitive reasoning will have to suffice for the short term.

In the past, Harris has defined true morality as a question of happiness vs. suffering, but think it is fairly obvious that this definition is not quite sufficient. Consider a virtual reality program in which all the inhabitants are kept in a state of everlasting bliss. Would such a state represent the peak of moral good? Few people would actually answer "yes." Part of the reason is that such a world would be an utter sham, and we tend to place high moral value on the quality of Truth. The apparent pointlessness of a state of eternal euphoria, too, is also a problem, and part of the reason the common perception of heaven is, in fact, fraught with moral difficulties. Using the degree of happiness vs. suffering as a yardstick to determine morality, indeed, leads to difficulty, as may be seen by Peter Singer's now notorious defense of infanticide:

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide

Harris, who seems to have realized the problem inherent with "happiness vs. suffering" prior to writing this, alters his definition of morality somewht however, to "Human and animal well-being," indeed, a definition with a far closer proximity to the truth. It is true that most of us can generally determine how "moral" a thing is by its contribution to human well-being. Harris is critical of the supposed "morality" of suicide bombers on precisely these grounds. Morality cannot be simply a matter of "pleasing God," even though there are scads of both Christians and Muslims who would define it thusly. While we can rationally argue that if the actions of Muslim terrorists tie directly with the writings of their holy book, than it is a reasonable assertion that their faith itself is in error. It is my beleif that the same charge cannot be brought to bear upon the Christian faith. Don't beleive me? Name any terrible act done allegedly in name of Jesus Christ, and it will, of necessity, go diretly against His teachings.

Writes Harris:

Because most religions concieve of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of recieving supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious beleivers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., with ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly pereptuate human misery, while beleiving these actions are morally oligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.

A scathing indightment of morality= "pleasing God." Indeed, very many religius folks, when faced with addressing the immorality of homosexuality, often fall back on the arguemnt of "it's not my opinion; it's what God's Word says." What they (and Harris) neglect to mention (and perhaps even to consider), is that anything branded as sinful by the Bible does, or did (indeed there were some prohibitions, like eating shelfish, that were verturned by the time o Christ), contribute to human harm. I won't go into the health risks associated with homosexuality, but they are leigion. I will mention briefly that the fact that so many innocent children contracted HIV back in the eighties, and were themselves aften the targets of persecution by the fearful, was largey a result of homosexual activity and drug abuse, is appalling to say the least, polliticaly incorrect as it is. So far as contraception, it may be right in some cases, and wrong in others depending on the circumstances. I might add that there is no Biblical passage at all even suggesting the immorality of contraception. That it has become a religous issue to such an extant has far more to do with the need to preserve culture and tradition than any connection with the teachings of Christ, or even of Moses. Ditto with homosexuality; while I explained the immorality above, and the fact that it is indeed prohibited by scripture (if not the actual teachings of Christ) the chief reason so many conservative Christians seem opposed to gayness, and gay marriage in particular, has more to do with a perceived threat to the nuclear family. Is the tradtional, nucelear family the most conducive to human welfare? Quite possibly, in most cases, it is. In others, perhaps not so, which is why adherence for rules for rules sake offers little reliable guidence for moral conduct.

Harris's book does, however, make some fascinating insights into the socio-cultural biases which tend to affect that which we percieve as moral. According to a study he cites, socio-political liberals tend to view morality in terms of harm and fairness. Conservatives tend to view morality in terms of harm, fairness, respect for authority, and group loyality. Notice that conservatives do not jettison harm and fairness, but add the two additional qualities. Harris beleives that conservatives may still be thinking on terms of harm, though it may be a different sort of harm considered by liberals. Perhaps conservatives also consider "harm to one's group," as equally immoral. This rather demonstrates that there is a tribalitic bias at work in conservative thought, and tribalism tends to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. One thinks of the associations of "God and country," and the often aggressive pro-millitary stance of the Religious Right. On the other hand, Harris cites an additional study which demonstrated that liberals tends to harbor a strong, yet appantently unconscious, racial bias in favor of minorities. According to this, liberals were eager to sacrifice the life of single white person to save the lives a group of non-whites, but not he other way around, all the while maintaining that the issue of race had not entered into their consideration.

The Moral Landscape is indeed a thought-provoking book, and it will certainly contribute to the debate surrounding how humans ought to regard right and wrong.

Help Save a Life

At church the other night a guest pastor came and drew our attention to the persecution of Christans around the world, especially in Muslim countries. There is petition to save the life of Asia Bibi, who is under a sentence of death by a Muslim theocracy. Her crime? Being follower of Jesus Christ. Please cut and paste-I do not know how to make links that work.

http://www.callformercy.com/

I urge everyone reading this blog to contribute.

Review of Pete Turner's Whisper a Scream

Whisper a Scream is a Christian horror novel by Pete Turner, a friend of mine. The story concerns Solomon Noche, a man with a haunted past and an uncertain future. I'm not sure on just how much the author drew from his own experience, but Noche is a psychologist and a former Christian rock singer, the same as the author. But unlike Turner himself, Noche is suffering from deep personal loss: his wife and children died in a terrible accident, and Noche has never quite come to grips with this dreadful tragedy. In the prologue, we are treated to a flashback sequence in which, while in his father's church, the young Noche witnesses a man becoming possessed by a demon who identfies itself as "Miyah." The incident hints that Noche may harbor some type of sixth sense, as he is the only one who sees what's really happening. As a grief-torn adult, Noche finds himself blaming God for his family's loss (a coping strategy that is, unfortunately, quite common, even among Christians), and, in spite of his own psychiatric training, now finds himself drifting away from his relationship with Christ.
His real desscent into darkness begins, however, while routinely mowing his front lawn. He uncovers the entrance to an underground passage in his front lawn, which, naturally, he sets out to explore. What he uncovers is evidence of a sinister Druid-like cult which once throve in his isolated town of Retesville, including a sacrifical dagger, an pagan altar, and a strange journal belonging to a minister named Elija Darius. Excerpts from said journal are interspersed throughout the novel, giving tantelizing clues to the past. The cult is of Dagon, an ancient near-Eastern fertility god opposed by Yahweh, and who demands the blood of children. The journal reveals that Darius has witnessed these very atrocities. Has Noche really uncovered as sinister chapter in Retesville's history, or is his sanity, loosened the loss of his loved ones, finally beginning to slip?
There is an interplay between dreams, visions, and reality here that is never entirely clear. Are these visions merely products of a disturbed mind, are they truely demonic manifestations, or is Noche somehow experiencing the literal past? Noche also becomes haunted by visitations from a creature identifying itself as Miyah, which resembles a hideously deformed child. While the back-cover blurb is ambiguous as to whether Miyah is good or evil, the demonic nature of this creature is fairly obvious almost from the first time it shows itself. Both the Dagon cultists and Miyah refer to Christ, derisively, as "The Nazarene," and boast of the their power over him. Noche's bizarre experiences take on an increasingly real quality, until he finds himself facing what might be the ultimate nightmare for a Christian. Rest assurred, Noche DOES make the correct moral choice here, but on second thought, he is spared what might REALLY be the ultimate choice--if it were his family, not himself, that were threatened. If that had happened, I'm afraid I'd be rather confused, and I'm somewhat grateful Sol was spared that. I'm convinced Christ would not ask us to give up the lives of anyone else. On the other hand, He did ask us to deny our own lives, including our families, for His sake!
But now I've gone off on a tangent, as the story does not address that issue. What it does address is Sol's ability to renew his own faith in the Lord. At one point, he prays, saying in effect that there must have been a reason for the Lord's taking them. This of necessity assumes that God WAS rsponsible for the deaths, but for a higher purpose tha we humans, with our flawed wisdom, are unable to discern. This, in itself, is a matter or controversy tying in witht the "problem of evil"--does God control everything that happens, including all natural catatrophes which result in the loss of human life (even to the point of banishing free will, as the Calvinists beleive)? Does he simply not interfere (as a rule) in the natural world. This explanation actually works for me, becase if God were continuely suspending the rules of nature to save lives, the world could not function! I'd say that God basically leaves things alone--but back to the review.
The ending to the story is entirely unexpected, and it really came as a shock. I won't reveal anything here, except to say that it emphasizes that Noche's entire experience was indeed ultimately to bring him back into God's grace. The incident which occurs in the very last paragraph left me slightly confused, though. Part of the message that I got here was that Noche's allowing himself to blame God had damaged his relation with Christ, and had thus left him open to demonic attack. Now that the has renewed his relationship with Chirst, how do you account what occurs in the final passages?
All in all, this was a very thought-provoking read about the reality of spirtual warfare.

Buy the book on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Whisper-Scream-Pete-Turner/dp/1453655220

What is The Fate of Pagans?

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 constantly 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 answer 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 Montezuma 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 Montezuma 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 make 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.