"Those who never got the chance to hear the gospel" argument

[cubeus19]

How would you all answer this common atheist argument.

1. It says in the Bible that God desires for all to know Him (2 Peter 3:9)

2. But yet there have been times and places in history and even today where many people never have gotten a chance to hear the gospel and end up in hell without willfully accepting or rejecting the gospel.

3. Thus does this show an inconsistency of God's love and power? Also does it demonstrate major contradictions in Bible doctrines that specificially talk about God's nature?


Have any of you all encountered this argument from atheists and if so, how do you respond to it?

Thanks and GB.

[Canuckster1127]

I've encountered that argument from other Christians. Premise 2 is not universally accepted by all Christians. Reformed theology is not the whole of Christianity although some like to believe that to be the case.

[cubeus19]

Interesting, do you know what other views of premise 2 are and where I can find more info about them?

[Katabole]

Hi Cubeus,

Yes I have heard similar arguments. Premise 2 is based on a false assumption due to Biblical illiteracy, that those who do not hear the Gospel go to Hell. The Bible says otherwise.

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. (KJV)

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

All, Everyone (good, bad and ugly) are going to be taught by God. Some have been taught by God and have passed on. Some are presently being taught about God in this life and others will have to wait until the future to be taught by God when Christ returns. No one escapes going to class. If you notice in John's Gospel Jesus says, "Every man that hath heard...". Many have not heard the Word. But they will.

If people never heard the Gospel and were sentenced to the lake of fire because of something they never learned, or had the chance of learning, I would consider that drastically unfair and it certainly would show inconsistency in God's love and power. God is not inconsistent in His love for His children and the only inconsistent thing is the assumption of premise 2.

[MarcusOfLycia]

In seeking the answer to your question, I recommend checking out the missions field. Talk to missionaries and read about them. I think you might be pleasantly surprised. God is at work in the hearts of men in places that have never interacted with Christians. I've heard stories from my own friends (I have a few who are in Missionary families that have been to many countries to do work), about people coming to Christ -before- meeting Christian Missionaries through dreams, visions, or other miracles/acts of God.

I think the premise stems from the fact that God seems distant in the Western world today, and I can see that as the case myself. However... that has more to do with what mankind has done - been given an abundance of knowledge about God and rejected it for haughty atheism in a lot of cases. God is still here, but the hostility changes how things work a little bit here, I think.

[Gman]

Have any of you all encountered this argument from atheists and if so, how do you respond to it?

This is an old question...

All explained here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html

[jlay]

Kats argument is a bit universalists in its perspective, which many of us vehemently disagree with. As there are too many place in the scriptures that do speak to those who will be condemned.

That people ignorant of the Gospel are condemned for their ignorance, is something I do not agree with, and so I would side with Kat here. But probably not for the same reasons. There is a very traditional position here, that people aren't condemned because they are ignorant. Christ says, they are condemned already. This view says, yes John three says they are condemned because they have rejected the Gospel. But, that they were already condemned because they were sinners. Rejecting Christ only confirms the state they were 'already' in. That a person ignorant of the Gospel is not sent to Hell for their ignorance, but for their sins.

This really comes down to a trust issue. Do we trust God? Is God just? Is His hand too short?

1. It says in the Bible that God desires for all to know Him (2 Peter 3:9)

2. But yet there have been times and places in history and even today where many people never have gotten a chance to hear the gospel and end up in hell without willfully accepting or rejecting the gospel.

3. Thus does this show an inconsistency of God's love and power? Also does it demonstrate major contradictions in Bible doctrines that specificially talk about God's nature?

Obviously it has already been pointed out that premise two is rejected by many believers and scholars.
Since the conclusion, which is a question, brings up God's nature, one must ask, "Will God violate His own nature to satisfy the minds of men?" Of course not. There have been many a time where my daughter could not understand my motives for placing restrictions on her. Though I would reason with her, it still made no sense. I finally came to the point where I said to myself, "her inability to understand why I am enforcing something is not a reason against its enforcement. " I'd love to say I have full comprehension on the matter, but I don't. I do like what Marcus added. When we see where and how some people are coming Christ, we should be confident in our God.
I heard Adrian Rogers say it this way. If you tell me that a man in the darkest jungles is a good soul. That he lives right and desires right. That he would never reject God if God would reveal Himself. That this man will go to Hell in his ignorance. I would tell you that God's hand is not too short. God could place a burden on a missionaries heart and have him parachute right into his village. If such a man existed.

This points out two problems with this common objection. The assumption that God is sending morally good people to Hell. That brings up a whole other topic. One's personal moral condition. Secondly it points out the doubt amongst people as to whether God will come to those who would call on Him.