Oh, Vanceone, you have me in a quandary! Your positions are resulting in a blow by blow review of the Scriptural basis for an entire theological paradigm, and is boiling down to a series of exegetical résumés of some of the stickier verses in the New Testament. I will answer these as briefly but completely as possible. Let us remember that we are discussing the issue of the young Calormene officer’s salvation by Aslan, after having served Tash his entire life.
First, your citation of John 11 and Psalm 16 (I could think of a few more as well) is fine, but it does not address the issue. Those passages promise eternal life, it is true (Psalm 16 first being a promise of Christ’s resurrection, see Acts 2:25-28), but that fact hardly makes the case that the dead can “switch sides” after their earthly life has ended. They (and many others like them) merely promises the living that they have a hope in the face of
the universal human fear.
Similarly, the preaching of Christ to the captives is well and good, but nowhere in these passages from Isaiah (or anywhere else, for that matter) do the elements necessary for sustaining your position appear. They merely refer to Jesus Christ’s liberating ministry while He walked the earth (see Luke 4:18ff and Acts 10:38 for similar passages). Arguably His ministry continues to this day through His church (Acts 1:1), but neither does that sustain that “Christ preaches to captives” mean “Christ preaches salvation to the dead.”
The passages from 1 Corinthians 15 cannot mean anything other than what they do at face value: That is, that the Corinthians, a group of young Christians in a thoroughly pagan environment in which a premium was placed upon immortality as per
Greek philosophy rather than resurrection as per
Hebrew theology, were belittling the resurrection. Their disdain for the human body (cf. Platonic philosophy) had led to other problems as well, including asceticism and libertinism (see 1 Corinthians 6-7). Paul was setting the record straight. As for the passage about baptism for the dead, this is, respectfully, a red herring. A great deal of work has been done to debunk this, and the only group that I know that respects it is the Mormon Church, which is a pseudo-Christian sect (however large) and hardly adherent to the orthodoxy which Lewis espoused. For information on this passage, investigate
here and
here. More information is readily available. In short, there is nothing in the text to indicate that “baptism is being performed on behalf of those whom are dead, and that it is effective.” Rather, most hold that this is a textbook example of an
ad hominen argument on Paul’s part, that he is appealing to a commonly held belief and practice, even if erroneous, to make a point that is on his agenda at the moment. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other writer in the Old or New Testament teach baptism for the dead. Paul, in this one verse found in a context of correcting errors on the resurrection, refers to it as a practice by others. He does not endorse it.
As for 1 Peter 3:19-20, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Obviously, if one interprets this as Christ personally preaching the good news to departed human spirits so that they might believe after death what they did not (for whatever reason) while alive, then the argument is over. But let me say for one and all to read, the mainstream, orthodox view does not hold this position, and that is what I am attempting to follow. I do not by any means wish to “strong arm” the situation by appealing to biblical scholarship, but in some cases (such as confusing, difficult verses) it is often necessary. And I have already mentioned two scholars of high repute who hold that this passage has nothing to do with the evangelization of the dead. BTW, the Mormons also use this passage to justify their positions.
With great respect for what I believe and grant as a benefit of the doubt to be a sincere heart on your part, I must say that the most telling comment you make is that you admit that the concept of the Great Commission extending after death is “not in the Bible, but ...makes sense.”
That, I suggest, is where we get into trouble. Because we cannot work something out, we start filling things in, and going by our reasoning. What we come up with may make sense to our minds, but if it goes beyond what is written and stands at odds with was is written, we must rework our position.
This life is for sanctification, for molding us in Christ’s image. But that goodness comes
after we come to know Him. Your previous note applies it as a premise of qualification for His acceptance of those who have not heard of Him. These are two very different things. “When He comes, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2), and “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). However imperfect I am when He comes, the message I read in the Bible is that it is a reality of life that those imperfections are not entirely purified, but will rather be subsumed by His glory in that instant.
I am not arguing by any means that God plays favorites, that he loves some more than others, etc. Given that the largest church in the world is located in South Korea, that the greatest church growth in the world is found in Latin America, and that hundreds of churches are born every week in Africa, while Europe and North America (where most of the readers of this site are clearly from) become increasingly post-Christian, I have to say I am not entirely sure about the geographical references in your argument. But for the sake of it all, I cede the point. Again, I am not sure that I am making myself quite clear: God is already justified to condemn all, in fact, John says all who don't know him "stand condemned already." We don’t start clean, then get dirty by refusing Christ (and thus are unfairly marked “dirty” if we don’t hear of Him); we are dirty already. The story is over at the end of Genesis 3. We belong to a damned race.
This is the message of Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
I will repeat what I said before: God is perfectly loving, perfectly just, and perfectly proactive in regard to human salvation. He sent His Son to die for humanity. We all want as many as possible to be saved by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. God wants it more than we ever will in this life, for us and everyone else. I rest in that truth. Therefore I am secure as I read His word, not going beyond what is written, not filling in gaps, not “leaning on my own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). I recognize the breathtaking truth that God has commanded me to go and tell as many as possible, knowing that my response to that command carries eternal consequences.
I am not sure exactly where you are standing on this, but to me it appears we are closer together than it appears at first sight. For you, also, believe that there are eternal consequences for us not going and telling. You hold that those who do not know Christ in this life, but only receive Him after death through His proclamation to them, are stuck with an imperfect character for all eternity, since they were not able to be transformed into His image on earth. Doesn’t that put you in the same difficulty that you find in the orthodox position? Doesn’t that seem like God is playing favorites? This isn’t so easy to work out as it seems...
So I live with the difficulty that I have real, eternal responsibility. It is hard to read Ezekiel 3:18:
“When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
but his blood I will require at your hand.”
If the man is going to hear from Christ anyway, and reject or accept the message as he will, why does God require his blood at my hand? Is that merely the issue of sanctification, as you imply? Given that God is charging me with blood guilt, I hardly think that works. We must go, we must tell, they must receive, and hear, and repent, to be saved.
I have stated before that I will not put God in a box, an declare that he may not reveal Himself in a way I do not understand to a soul who has not heard. There are plenty of examples (currently, many among Muslims) of direct, special revelation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (in dreams and other means). These testimonies fill me with joy, not frustration over my theological perspective. But when the word is quite clear as to our responsibility in the light of human lostness, I will not give way to wishful thinking at the cost of a soul. Because the reality is, on the ground, if we take the position that post-death evangelism by Christ is possible, precious few Christians will spend much energy on sharing the gospel with their neighbor, much less someone of another land. I am very glad the person who told me considered the stakes as high as they did.
Emerth, the soldier of Tash, and the question of what happens to those who never heard of Christ is a puzzling one. In