What about all the unsaved indians??

I think every Christian who shares the gospel comes across the standard post-modern cry, "If you have to hear the gospel in order to be saved, what about all the North American natives who lived prior to Columbus? Is it fair that they weren't given an opportunity to come to Christ??"Perhaps the argument came in another flavor, "what about all the abortions in America? Do these guiltless infants go to hell?"However the slant, the root of such questions is the notion that God cannot be fair and just and at the same time send anyone to hell who hasn't heard the gospel, etc. etc.Paris Reidhead, in Ten sheckels and a Shirt makes the point that such are not going to go to hell because they didn't hear the gospel - that they will be going to hell because they are sinners who love their sin - a conclusion I whole heartedly concur with.Nevertheless, there is some room biblically to answer these questions. The bible does say that God ordains borders, peoples and times - that is, that every birth is ordained by God, and everyone is born into the time and place that God has chosen for them according to the life that they are going to live. This isn't found in any one verse of course (how easy that would be), but rather from teaches found throughout scripture.When I find myself offering apologies of this variety I answer as I have explained - but I was curious to know how others answer this sort of query? Perhaps there is room for edification on this account?Dan/\\/\\/\\

Hi Dann,Generally I treat this question by going back to the very root of our accountability before God and the things that constitute that accountability. For example, everyone has a conscience that they are born with and a general sense of right and wrong. George Fox came to the US once and asked an Indian if he felt it was wrong to tell a lie- the indian replied that he did feel it was wrong to lie. Had he been taught it was wrong to lie? No. He had the law of God written upon his heart in a very basic sense. This 'law' as dim as we may think it to be, is still a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our pathway. The question then becomes, what will man do with the path that is lit before him? Will he walk in it or not? If he will walk in it- I believe it to be consistent with scripture that God will give 'more' light. No matter how He has to pull it off in time and place- God will make sure that the man 'hears' and knows the Truth. I am thinking of an account of a drunk man falling into a ditch during the Hebrides revival and waking up born again (as they say) without as much as one to lead him to Christ. How can that be? God could have appeared to him in a dream or anything. This is but one possibility of how a person 'could hear' even though they may not have had a physical preacher; a preacher none-the-less- but not a 'physical' one. Another case in point is Paul the Apostle. Yet, what is man's trouble? Is it that he does not have enough light? No. Jesus said that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. This hatred was manifest when they saw the Light of the World and hung Him upon a tree. Maximum light leveled a most sore response. We all have the light of conscience and creation. The light of the law of God written upon our hearts. Yet, unregenerate men have wicked hearts. What their God fearing conscience approves- their wicked heart hates and what their wicked heart loves their conscience rejects. Therefor unregenerate men are at WAR with themselves and there is NOTHING we could do to cause the light that is in them to give them peace. Sinners are at war with themselves and would not be satisfied even if we altered the Gospel to accept everyone. Their unrepentant heart would love such a notion- but their conscience would declare it false. What? They would say; shall a man be saved without repentance and faith? Will God allow man to sin with impunity? so though their wicked heart would love the message- their conscience would reject it. Finney deals with this phenomena in "God Cannot Please Sinners." God Bless,-Robert

Perhaps the argument came in another flavor, "what about all the abortions in America? Do these guiltless infants go to hell?"The standard evangelical answer would be that the atonement 'covers' them, but you are right in really asking 'why' does it and does it 'cover' any one else? The Roman Church resolved this and got themselves even more problems by inventing limbus infantum; a place which is neither heaven nor hell, but a place for all unbaptised babies, including the millions of abortees.My understanding puts me out on a limb (not the first time) but I have given in much thought over the years. What do you make of this statement of Paul to the Athenean idolators? “for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:28-31, ASV) What is the timing of that 'now'. Up until that 'now' God 'overlooked this ignorance' but 'now' there is a change.Surely this means that whatever that 'now' is, up to that point 'ignorance' was 'overlooked'' not conscious sin, but ignorance. So is that 'now' Calvary or is the point at which the word of God comes to the hearer? I think it must be the point at which the truth is heard. If not, these Atheneans had been under God's scrutiny and judgment for the years between Calvary and Acts 17. This would put your 'indians' and those aborted babies on the same footing. They are ignorant and as such their ignorant behaviour is 'overlooked'. But Robert's point is valid too, that where there is knowledge, even though partial, we are held accountable for it. If I know not to steal but do, my sin is accountable.

If you have to hear the gospel in order to be saved, what about all the North American natives who lived prior to Columbus? Is it fair that they weren't given an opportunity to come to Christ??"I hear this type of objection very often when speaking with others about Christ. My response is very similar to that of Robert. I usually go to Romans 2;For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom 2:11-16)If a man shows the work of the law written on his heart, then I believe that God will move heaven and earth to get the gospel of Christ to that person or Jesus will mainfest Himself to that person.But I always try to end with something like, "but we do have the gospel of Christ and we will be accountable before God for our response to it" in order to get the focus back on the subject of their own soul. Their objection was just an attempt to deflect the painful Light of truth.In Christ,Ron

as a Native american, I was told "don't what if, do". as a christian I'm told to be a do'er of the word not just a hear of it.Lets win souls here and now for the kingdom of Christ.

I hear this type of objection very often when speaking with others about Christ. My response is very similar to that of Robert. I usually go to Romans 2;It would have been my next port of call too. I think we forget too easily that the gospels and their warnings took place among a people to whom God had said; “Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:1-3, KJV)

The replies given to your question are so meaty, so much food for thought. My reaction to this question is: why are you diverting the focus away from yourself to something we know little about and have no control over? I suspect these people do not want to face their own position before God, and do what they need to do. This is just my thought....Ginnyrose

"What about all the unsaved indians??"They are not saved. :-( RT

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"Genesis 18:25The Lord is just and would never send anyone to perdition without a good reason. Just trust the Lord and leave it in His hands.In regards to infants, Jesus said "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." My pesonal opinion is that, in reference to the above scripture, children that die before the age of accountability automatically go to heaven.

ReceivedText wrote:They are not saved. :-( Actually, the thread isn't a question about the unsaved Indians - it is a discussion about apologetics related to answering this "kind" of question.Dan/\\/\\/\\

dann,Totally hear ya. Just had little time to respond, but thought it a great issue.I have heard this question brought up many times in different forms at home and abroad. I think the problem the modern church has in responding to this question has its root in the gospel that gets preached. When the emphasis is not on the guilt of the sinner and the benevolent mercy of the Saviour, questions like these have a hard time hitting target. People who haven't come through the strait gate into the kingdom of God, having the weight of their sins heavily upon them are unlikely to understand this issue. How much more those who are outside the ark of safety listening to a gospel of temporal health and wealth? How much more those who are told of God's wonderful plan for their life and nothing of their sin?When we preach righteousness and the fact that we are all "condemned already," only then will people understand that God is NOT OBLIGATED to save anyone. Feelings of entitlement come from the deepest root of self-centeredness and pride. Sometimes I think that the devil has his strongest roots into self-righteous people. It seems so much easier to come into a place in the demonstration of God's power with miracles and turn lowly, humble, poor people towards Christ under threat of 1040 window government persecution, than it is to freely walk up to a wall street broker and share the gospel with him.Pride is a strong force in this world. It is the sin of the Devil. Only folks who recognize their utter hopelessness and helplessness are the ones that run to the Saviour for His Salvation so full and free. They know that God was not obligated to send them His Son. They are grateful to escape the wrath of God, so they run to Him while it is still called today, lest they pass one second beyond the day of grace.The spirit of unjust entitlement is a kind of self-worship, and self-exaltation. Everyone who tries to exalt themselves will be abased.God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Maybe we should see this issue in this light. Hope it helps the discussion.RT

Thanks RT,Your comments are both welcome and helpful in this discussion.Today's "post modern culture" readily accepts that there may be a God - but has this same culture has been raised to believe that all paths lead to Rome - that is, that as long as you are sincere and nice - you can go to heaven/nirvanna/paradise, no matter what religion you follow. The only evil in such a culture is intolerance. Truth is said to be subjective, what is true for me is really true for me, even if it happens to be false for someone else.In such a culture, a question such as the "What about the natives living for almost 1500 years before hearing about Christ - do they all go to hell because they didn't accept Jesus?" is used to dismiss Christianity's particular path to 'enlightenment' because the gospel has been watered down to so as to become an incomplete exhortion: "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you can go to heaven, but if you don't you will go to hell."Sin and repentance are not mentioned, nor is God's righteousness in damning the sinner - all of it has been slowly laid aside as the modern gospel has become more of an intellectual acknowledgment than a turning away from sin and towards the only salvation offered to man.Either way, I have found this thread interesting.Dan/\\/\\/\\

When the emphasis is not on the guilt of the sinner and the benevolent mercy of the Saviour, questions like these have a hard time hitting target.I too have heard this question countless times. The concern seems to be that those who have never heard don't have a fair chance, compared to those who have heard. But I say, there are many who have heard the gospel countless times and still don't "get it". I am one of them. I was "saved" without any awarenes of my sin, or my trust in my works. Thankfully the Lord himself called me into true salvation. I have to say that not one person truely led me to the Lord. They all thought I was saved. But God overruled. PTL I say, people can be truely saved without hearing the message from man. I know it is happening. I hear of those in Muslim countries who are being visited by Christ in dreams and are being moved to true salvation. (now, that is a great cost to them)Romans 1 reminds me that all nature reveals God's divine character. That verse is in the context of God's JUDGMENTS, his wrath, displayed through nature. So no one is without excuse....It seems like the most primitive of tribes connects their troubles through nature to the judgments of a deity. Am I right? If so, that would speak of a certain degree of God-consciousness.... so all are without excuse... Diane

My pesonal opinion is that, in reference to the above scripture, children that die before the age of accountability automatically go to heavenI think, my brother, that it is more than just a "personal opinion". I think it is Biblical. Earlier on I didn't really know (biblically) how to respond to the question: "What if a baby died? Is he/she going to hell?".Then God showed me two verses from the Bible that are the key to answering this question:And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding... (Nehemiah 10:28, note: my Bible translates the bolded part of verse like this: all those who had come to the year of distinction) And...a verse from Deuteronomy that also says something like that...can't find it :-?It's difficult to draw a line in this matter, saying: "until 3 years of age all children go to heaven". It differs from child to child. The one is able to understand the Gospel at the age of 5, another is able to understand it at the age of 8. This is also a reason for me to believe that most of the people with a spiritual handicap will surely go to heaven, because some of them are not able to distinguish "good" from "evil". And about those "unsaved" Indians...I have a deep love for these people (especially the Indians of North America). When you dig somewhat deeper in their culture, you will see that, unlike the pagan-nations surrounding Israel, many tribes (like the Sioux and Cheyenne) worshiped the invisible, omnipresent Great Spirit (Manitou). The only problem was, that their religion was mixed. They also worshiped eagles, other spirits etc.Please read the following piece of text in which Red Jacket (chief of the Seneca - Iroquois)addresses the white religion...pretty straight-forwarded...and much to ponder about:On the religion of the White ManRed Jacket"Friend and brother; it was the will of the Great Spirit that we should meet together this day. He orders all things, and he has given us a fine day for our council. He has taken his garment from before the sun, and caused it to shine with brightness upon us; our eyes are opened, that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped, that we have been able to hear distinctly the words that you have spoken; for all these favors we thank the Great Spirit, and him only.Brother, this council fire was kindled by you; it was at your request that we came together at this time; we have listened with attention to what you have said. You requested us to speak our minds freely; this gives us great joy, for we now consider that we stand upright before you, and can speak what we think; all have heard your voice, and all speak to you as one man; our minds are agreed.Brother, you say you want an answer to your talk before you leave this place. It is right you should have one, as you are a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you; but we will first look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what we have heard from the white people.Brother, listen to what we say. There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seats extended from the rising to the setting sun. The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other animals for food. He made the bear and the beaver, and their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over the country, and taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth to produce corn for bread. All this he had done for his red children because he loved them. If we had any disputes about hunting grounds, they were generally settled without the shedding of much blood. But an evil day came upon us; your forefathers crossed the great waters, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small; they found friends, and not enemies; they told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men, and come here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat; we took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down amongst us; we gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return. The white people had now found our country; tidings were carried back, and more came amongst us; yet we did not fear them, we took them to be friends; they called us brothers; we believed them, and gave them a larger seat. At length, their numbers had greatly increased; they wanted more land; they wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place; Indians were hired to fight against Indians, and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquor among us; it was strong and powerful, and has slain thousands.Brother, our seats were once large, and yours were very small; you have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets; you have got our country, but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us.Brother, continue to listen. You say you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind, and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost; how do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book; if it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit; if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers, and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us their children. We worship that way. It teacheth us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all; but he has made a great difference between his white and red children; he has given us a different complexion, and different customs; to you he has given the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes; we know these things to be true. Since he has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may we not conclude that he has given us a different religion according to our understanding. The Great Spirit does right; he knows what is best for his children; we are satisfied.Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it from you; we only want to enjoy our own.Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings, and saw you collecting money from the meeting. I cannot tell what this money was intended for, but suppose it was for your minister; and if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them; we will wait, a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.Brother, you have now heard our answer to your talk, and this is all we have to say at present. As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends."I certainly don't agree with everything Red Jacket said, absolutely not...but he has a clear view on Christianity. And in my opinion...we white people messed things up pretty badly. And today we can still see the fruits of it: a nation that consists mostly out of alcholics, drug-addicts, un-employed persons, people who have lost all hope and even try to earn a little money by performing acts that in fact, mostly, dishonour their history, and by running lots of casinos. This really makes my heart weep. To me these people are special...just take a look at some of these pictures:That's all...In Christ, the Light of the whole world,Paul

Diane,I appreciate your transparency as it helps us deal with all of the angles in this discussion. You wrote:The concern seems to be that those who have never heard don't have a fair chance, compared to those who have heard. This issue of fairness is a great one to take up. What I am about to write doesn't apply to you personally, but to this thought you seem to hold. Maybe you haven't thought of things in the way I am about to write. So nothing personal. Here we go.1. What is "fair" is that the soul that sinneth shal die. God is fair in sending the whole world to hell on the basis of their sin.2. It is "beyond fair" that ANYONE gets to receive eternal life. No one deserves it. It is the benevolence, or grace of God that assures this gift to anyone.3. There are NO guarantees by God that everyone will hear the gospel. This is NOT promised. What IS promised is that eventually the gospel will be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations. (Matt. 24:14) After this happens, we are told that the end will come.4. So hearing the gospel is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. This should be one of the reasons it is so precious to us. This should also be one of the reasons we do everything we can to spread it to the ends of the earth and to every creature.5. Jesus taught us that some would receive greater reward because of His generosity and goodness. See the parable of the laborers in the vineyard:"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?:"[Matthew 20:15]He taught us that it should be nothing to us who He spares and who He does not spare:"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."[John 21:22]If this is so with His own apostles, then how can we assume He acts with those who have never heard of Him? This is indeed hard to swallow. But do we have the courage to look in the mirror and say, "What is that to me?" Shouldn't this cause us all to glorify God for His abundant mercy to US? And also make us long even more to go to the regions beyond and preach the gospel to them that have never heard before it is too late for them?I say, people can be truely saved without hearing the message from man. I know it is happening. I hear of those in Muslim countries who are being visited by Christ in dreams and are being moved to true salvation. (now, that is a great cost to them)I too would not limit God to utilizing means other than the church (such as angels, or direct visitations from Christ) for the evangelizing of the lost. Deep in my spirit I have to believe that if a person seeks after God, they will find Him. If the Lord appeared to Paul, and He is not a respecter of persons, then I cannot doubt that He has appeared to many more.I cannot doubt that there will be Native Americans in heaven who sought after God and who received a visitation from Christ before the Europeans ever came. Draw nigh unto God, and He..well, you know the rest of THAT promise.But is it possible to reach heaven without the knowledge of Christ? We must answer a most decisive NO! There is no other name under heaven, given among men whereby we MUST be saved. This is NON-NEGOCIABLE. Having said this, I do believe that the primary responsiblity of reaching the world rests with the church. This is her chief mission on this earth.RT

What about the scripture: To him who is given more, more is expected." Does that not refer to degrees of spiritual enlightenment? Diane

What about the scripture: To him who is given more, more is expected." Does that not refer to degrees of spiritual enlightenment? What did it mean for Cornelius?Remember, scripture interprets scripture. Here's the verse I referred to before:"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."[Acts 4:12]Either that's true or it's not. Pretty clear to me.RT

Really, really blessed by this thread!Sin and repentance are not mentioned, nor is God's righteousness in damning the sinner - all of it has been slowly laid aside as the modern gospel has become more of an intellectual acknowledgment than a turning away from sin and towards the only salvation offered to man.This spoke to my heart.Been struggling with thought of the 'justness/rightness' of God because of the existence of hell. And when in intercession was often confused, (standing in the gap to 'protect' sinners from an angry God?)I never really saw God's side of the story.I forgot all men were on death row, already condemned, dead, useless and totally depraved, only good for destruction.For God to be just and right, he must destroy man.But God in mercy, destroyed his Son in man's place.(destroy may not be the best expression)'that saved a wretch like me'Now takes a whole new meaning!Praise the Lord! I see better the salvation of the Lord!INTERESTING PARALLELS"What about those who didn't hear?' is an argument in Kenya too!Red Jacket called the gospel a white man's religion.Same here. Some say "We had a totally relevant system of worship and right and wrong, the white man brought this gospel to exploit and ensalve us!"I remember hearing a preacher in answer say,'The gospel isn't a white man's religion, it's not even a Jewish religion. It's from above!But I guess when I confess Christ, it becomes 'my' religion and is judged by the unbeliever as such.God bless,Richard

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."[Acts 4:12]Either that's true or it's not. Pretty clear to me.It was, of course, a personal response to a personal question. The answer was given to 'Annas, Caiaphas, John and Alexander, and as many as were the kinred of the high priest' who asked the question 'By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?' The 'this' was the healing of the cripple at the Beautiful Gate. The previous chapter shows the focus on 'the name'. The name speaks of the nature to the Hebrew mind. There is nothing magic in the name or its pronunciation. It is the person. This is simply saying that salvation is centred in Christ and Christ alone.The significance of this word to the Jewish leaders is that it locks them in to Christ or nothing. For them is cannot be a matter of opinion. It is the continuation of God's revelation to them and of their reception of it. He came to His own but His own received Him not.The question we are addressing here is not only what of those who have not had the Christian revelation but 'what of those who have not had the OT revelation?' This is why I think Acts 17 is so instructive. There is no preaching of a broken law in Athens. In fact, Paul tells them that he knows their unknown god, and says (don't jump on me) they have been worshipping Him, but in ignorance?!?The coming of the gospel however changes everything and is the 'now' of Acts 17:30. Up until that time God had overlooked their ignorance. He does not even call it sin. However he does make pointed reference to a coming judgment and I think this is could be our point of reference to 'the world without a biblical revelation'. The reference to 'whom much is given much is required' is relevant here too. In the Luke 12 record this spoken not to ignorant Gentiles but to his 'servants' who abused their trust, ignored his will, or did not know it and OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN IT. This whole passage is about stewardship. The 'ignorant' world 'without a bible' will be judged in terms of its stewardship of what it did know. There is a fascinating verse in Corinthians which may have a much wider application that we have given it credit for...2Cor. 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. This reference to 'willingness' immediately links in my mind to Ron's (inthelight) earlier quotation from Romans 2“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;” (Rom. 2:8-9, KJV)Certain judgment awaits the 'unwilling' but is that so for the 'ignorant'?