Campolo: Can Non-Christians Go To Heaven? We’re Not Sure.
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, February 01, 2007
- Viewed 103
- (46) comments so far
“We are very very careful about pronouncing judgment on anybody. We leave judgment in the hands of God and we are saying Jesus is the way. We preach Jesus, but we have no way of knowing to whom the grace of God is extended.”
FOR DISCUSSION: What say you?
TAGS: Tony Campolo; Christians; Heaven
SOURCE: Read the whole article at the Edmonton Journal...
Here's an interesting answer to a question posed to Tony Campolo in a recent newspaper article. Q. Do you believe non-Christians can go to heaven? A. That's a good question to ask because the way we stand is we contend that trusting in Jesus is the way to heaven. However, we do not know who Jesus will bring into the kingdom and who He will not.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Brian on Thu, February 01, 2007
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.
In John 3, Jesus said that He came not to condemn the world, but to save it, because it was already under condemnation, as Leonard has already mentioned.
It’s very true that Christianity is to affect how we live on earth. But if that’s all that was important, then Jesus’ death was unnecessary. Because the fact of the matter is that no matter how we live, if Christ hadn’t died, NONE of us would have any hope for heaven (after we die…).
Jesus’ mission was to SAVE the world. From what? Eternal condemnation - and that means for the eternity beyond the relatively few years we spend on earth. Who did He die to save? People made in His image (yes, I believe “creation” will be redeemed - Romans 8, but don’t have all my ducks in a row on that yet…).
I must admit my surprise that anyone can get the impression that Christianity has little to do with what happens when we die. That’s what it’s ALL about. Without our salvation, we do not have the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit, we cannot live on earth the way Jesus commands - all that stuff about loving God and loving our neighbor.
It’s impossible to obey the commands of Christ fully without the Holy Spirit who we receive at salvation - you know, taking care of the “what happens when we die” thing.
If it’s not obvious from what I’ve said so far, let me say it again: Salvation of souls so they are ready for the hereafter is paramount. True salvation is seen (in my opinion) in how we live the love of Christ on earth.
Brian
Dan Moore on Thu, February 01, 2007
Tony missed it with his comment “...but we have no way of knowing to whom the grace of God is extended.” The Bible clearly says that grace is extended to the “Whosever will believe” (John 3:16). I am told that when we get to Heaven we have 3 surprises in store:
1. We will be surprised by those who are there.
2. We will be surprised by those who are missing.
3. We will be surprised that WE are there!
God’s grace - ain’t it grand! Too bad Tony waffled a bit rather than standing in faith.
Daniel on Thu, February 01, 2007
The assumption that Christianity is primarily about going to heaven when you die is quite problematic. If you’d like a glimpse into another (what I believe is far better) paradigm, read some recent scholarship (e.g. EP Sanders, NT Wright, Douglas Campbell, Richard Hays, etc.). Christianity is about the inbreaking of God’s reality and Reign into our rebellious existence.
I’d almost be ok with an emphasis on ‘heaven’ (better named, ‘life on the renewed Earth’) as long as people realized that life here and now is training for that life, and that without discipleship, all is lost (though Paul does say that some might be ‘saved as if through fire’—probably not a pretty sight). All that is not conformed to his image will pass away, including every part of us which is not thus conformed.
This is fundamental stuff which must be wrestled with. I am passionate about this and would love to see more of our church leaders engage with these ideas.
All the best,
-Daniel-
Harold on Thu, February 01, 2007
What and who did Jesus die for? This kind of liberal mish-mash penetrates Christianity more frequently than is acceptable. At least Tony’s comment freed-up part of my book budget and the next time he speaks at our church———I’m going fishing!
Right now I think I will go throw up!
Jonathan K. on Thu, February 01, 2007
Daniel,
Christianity is about the Kingdom of God, and accepting through faith God’s offer of grace and forgiveness for sins through Jesus Christ and His vicarious atonement (death, burial, and resurrection) on the cross. What you decide in your heart to believe concerning that issue will determine your eternal destiny. I agree completely that there is more to Christianity than just whether you go to heaven or not, because you DO make good points with the fact that this life is a training ground for our future experience in heaven, and that we all need to be discipled as believers. All of that is very good, but is meaningless if you do not accept Christ first as your Lord and Savior, personally.
What Tony Campolo misses out on is the fundamental question of who is a candidate for such discipleship—- you have to get saved first, you must be born again. He blurs the line and avoids the distinction in his statement, which is based on liberal, wishy-washy theology.
Blessings,
Jonathan K.
Brian La Croix on Thu, February 01, 2007
Daniel,
Jonathan K said it so much better than I did. He’s right on to what I was trying to say. Please take what I said in the spirit in which Jonathan shared!
Brian
Wendi on Thu, February 01, 2007
Leonard - I appreciate your passion and value your input. Indeed I am guilty of generalization. And I know that Tony too often mixes his politics with his religion, something I find very distasteful from the right, and must thus find equally distasteful from the left (Tony’s camp).
My point, I think, is that because some have made up their mind about Tony (as he has about others), they (we) could read this individual statement though lenses of our biases toward him. We are all subject to such. I think I read a post earlier this week about Mark Driscoll, and posted with feelings and opinions that might not have been as harsh if I’d not posted through my biases.
Others - Many have cited scripture that demonstrates only Jesus offers eternal life after death. I don’t think anything in Tony’s comment challenges that, or even soft peddles it. His point is that WE CAN’T KNOW the heart of another. That’s all. To claim otherwise seems arrogant at best.
Wendi
Peter Hamm on Fri, February 02, 2007
Wendi,
You’re right, lots of assumptions being made. We just had this discussion at a small group gathering the other night. Some have argued pretty convincingly (to them) in the past for universalism, what I call “parial”-universalism, or annhilationalism (which I SO MUCH want to believe but can’t).
Here’s a thought. If God made His son die a cruel death for our sins, but it’s possible to have our sins paid for apart from that, then God did a cruel thing to Jesus… that would make Him evil, in a very real sense. So I can’t go that way.
No, I’m not sure what is going to happen to non-believers when they die, because I’m less clear on what the Bible is talking about when it discusses Hell than I used to be, but it seems pretty darn clear that those who follow Christ will spend eternity in His presence.
Wendi on Fri, February 02, 2007
Yes Peter, and just as there are some things I really want to accept, but can’t; so are there some things from scripture I really want to dismiss or explain away . . . but can’t.
One of the most lively discussions we had in seminary was when a professor posed this question:
“What if God suddenly communicated with humanity and told us that universalism is true. Jesus’ death somehow covers all humanity and everyone goes to heaven? How would this new knowledge change the way you live your life and serve in ministry?”
Boy, the responses were wildly varied and also wild. Several said things like: “I’d go live a decadent, drunken life on a sunny tropical island.” Others said: “I’d gather everyone I love and care about, and have a mass suicide.”
My feelings were something like this:
Indeed there would be less urgency to TELL people about Jesus, but I can’t see any reason that this new knowledge would alter my responsibility to BE Jesus, especially to the poor and broken and disenfranchised. And . . . God is still in change, so I would assume He has a purpose for allowing my existence. I’d feel a responsibility to discover and live out that purpose. And . . . (based on the way the question was framed), Ro. 12:1 still applies. “In view of God’s mercies . . .” even if Jesus accomplished salvation for all through His death, the all still includes me. Gratitude for this should motivate a “living sacrifice” type of life.
His point, I think, was to get us thinking about how much of our ministry energy is given to things we think will “get people into heaven.” My conviction was that if I focus on BEING Jesus, the rest will follow. What’s that St. Francis quote? (or is it another church father?) “Tell the world about Jesus, and sometimes use words.”
Wendi
Leonard on Fri, February 02, 2007
I guess my struggle with Tony in this matter is twofold.
First he let stand the misconception that all we focus on is judging people or condemning people. He let stand the myth that we are okay, tooling along the way to heaven and if it weren’t for those judging Christians, we would all get to heaven just fine. Christians have no power to pronounce judgment but the do have an enormous responsibility to announce the judgment people are already under. Tony failed in this answer to say anything that removes that stigma.
Secondly, His response, in my opinion, weakens the message of the cross by implying in the end it might not matter that much. He implies that by saying we believe it’s Jesus but no one really knows. He implies that ultimately the cross of Calvary might not be as big a deal when we get to the entrance of eternity as we think. He states this at the expense of the church. We say this but, who knows what that wildcard Jesus is going to do. He makes these statements in the face of truths the scripture says we can know and be certain of.
Daniel on Fri, February 02, 2007
Exclusivists, inclusivists and universalists all (generalization, I know, but I still think it’s more or less accurate) have these two things in common:
- First, they don’t think anyone can get to ‘heaven’ without Jesus. Exclusivists think explicit propositional knowledge of Jesus is necessary (in this life), whereas inclusivists think (saving) ‘heart knowledge’ of Jesus is possible without ‘head knowledge’ of Jesus, and universalists think hell is remedial (viz. that after a finite amount of time experiencing their self-inflicted pain, they will reach to Jesus across the chasm and be saved). All acknowledge that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the light.”
- Second, they all (in my opinion) mistakenly allow questions of access to the ‘afterlife’ to monopolize their soteriology when, biblically speaking, it’s more of an afterthought (and the consequence of believing in bodily resurrection)—which is why I have trouble ‘picking’ any of the options above (McLaren makes some excellent comments about this in his ‘The Last Word and the Word After That’).
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Leonard on Fri, February 02, 2007
Daniel,
One point in which we might disagree is that the afterlife was an afterthought biblically. For McLaren to be accurate this has to be true but in reality I don’t think it is true. The afterlife was a huge factor in the life of Paul, John, Peter, Abraham, and Jesus even was concerned for the afterlife.
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Fri, February 02, 2007
Does it benefit the Kingdom of God to loudly proclaim the all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews are condemned to hell unless they convert to Christianity? And what about all the Christians who other (more discerning) Christians say are wrong and going to hell? What about the groups that self-identify themselves as Christians like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Nestorians, Coptic Christians, Christian Scientists, etc. that have different ideas about Jesus? And those pesky Episcopalians with their affirming ways and their gay clergy?
Is the answer that we do not know who Jesus will bring into heaven so wrong? Is it absolutely necessary that we, as Christians, answer this question with a condemnation of anyone who does not believe as we do? To say that we believe Jesus is the way to heaven but that we leave judgment in His hands seems an acceptable answer to me.
Perhaps my views are clouded by the fact that I grew up in a segregated community where judgment was very much the purview of fundamentalist church leaders, and since then have lived in some very multi-cultural, multi-faith environments and have known many honorable, righteous non-christians.
I’m not saying anyone gets into heaven without Jesus, I’m just not sure it is always necessary or helpful to pronounce this judgment upon others. Especially when I hear so many Christians pronouncing judgment upon other Christians for differing beliefs.
nora on Fri, February 02, 2007
I think Daniel rightly points out that the Good News is very much about living out the Kingdom of Heaven right now. Many have come to Christ only hoping to receive “fire insurance”. And, of course, it is about so much more. But I also think that Leonard and others have also rightly pointed out that all of the writers of the NT (and some of the Old) write about, and sometimes focus on, eternity. The problem comes when the implications of eternal heaven, eternal presence with God are not really dwelt upon or thought out. (I recommend Randy Alcorn’s book, “Heaven”). Too many Christians simply view Heaven as the “anti-Hell”—option A) eternal torment, option B) no torment, “okay I think I’ll take option B”. I think if we would imagine and try to more fully inform our thoughts about Heaven, it would offer a much better perspective, and yes, inform, the abundant life we are all called to live right now.
To get back to the original question, did Tony Campolo handle this question well? Well yes, perfectly no, but I would hate to have been in his shoes, because I’m not sure I could have done much better.
Leonard on Fri, February 02, 2007
Daniel wrote: “Does it benefit the Kingdom of God to loudly proclaim the all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews are condemned to hell unless they convert to Christianity?” I am not sure that is the right question, it certainly is not the question Jesus was dealing with when he said he came to seek and to save that which was lost and to give his life a ransom for many. I think a different question might be as follows: Does it benefit the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews to not let them know what Jesus did and that he came for them and in their already condemned state offers “Eternal Life” to those who would simply believe? The answer to that question can be known and the answer is yes, for all who believe there is son ship, forgiveness of sin, entrance into the kingdom now and into eternity.
Did Jesus answer the question and does the Bible answer the question of heaven and hell? I believe it does, even if we cannot humanly stomach the answer. Having Dialoged with McLaren on this matter, it is my opinion that he struggles with hell because he cannot understand it and feels it makes God less than he is supposed to be. It is almost as if he did not like the answer because it makes him uncomfortable with a God he loves so he changes the question to get an answer that is more palatable. The problem I see with that thinking is that it lessens the value of the cross, makes the good news kind of good news and lowered Jesus to terms that Make him just a better one of me rather than the creator of the universe, holy and perfect.
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment