Sometimes, skeptics of Christianity will criticize its approach to justice by asking what happened to the souls of all the people who died before Jesus’s ministry, assuming that since they couldn’t have had faith in him, they were consigned to Hell. But many Christians believe they can address this issue easily by pointing to Romans 2 and saying that all people will be judged “by the light they’ve been given.”
Incidentally, I can’t find the origin of that particular phrase. It certainly doesn’t come from Romans 2 — at least not any translation I’m familiar with. Perhaps some evangelist came up with the phrase years ago, and it’s made its way through Christian circles since. I don’t know.
Anyway, the idea is that people who have never heard of Jesus, whether it’s because they lived before his time, or because they were never exposed to Christianity, are simply judged by other means. Romans 2 deals with the issue in this way:
There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
— Romans 2:9-11For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
— Romans 2:14-16
Paul’s statements here get a little wordy, but he seems to be saying that people who are unaware of God’s law are not really held accountable to the law. Instead, they are saved by the “law written on their hearts” — in other words, their conscience. That appears to be a nice, tidy solution, and it shows that skeptics who try to malign Christianity along these grounds are doing so out of ignorance. Christianity actually has a decent answer to this problem.
However, when we peel back the layers even further, it turns out that things aren’t quite so simple. While it’s true that Christianity has a good answer for what happened to people’s souls before faith in Jesus was a requirement, I think Christians are pulling a bit more from it than is warranted. And I believe they’re misusing Romans 2 in the process.
What Is Paul’s Point in Romans?
Romans is an interesting book with a lot of complex themes, so to fully understand what Paul is trying to say in chapter 2, we should consider the fuller context. He states the book’s main thesis in verses 16-17:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
The gospel is the means of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. That’s the point he’s trying to make throughout the book. To that end, the rest of chapter 1 is dedicated to laying out why Gentiles were in such need of Jesus. Paul’s rhetoric here is rather inventive, as he finds a way to acknowledge that the Gentiles had no direct knowledge of God, yet still should have known that idolatry would be wrong. It’s a little long, but it’s worth reading:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
It’s pretty impressive, when you think about it. Paul knows that Gentiles never received a direct revelation from God, since the Jews were God’s chosen people. Yet, he argues that they should have known there was a God simply from looking at nature — and to be fair, most people throughout history have done that very thing. But for some reason, he thinks that they shouldn’t have strayed into paganism and idolatry.
In verses 26-32, he explains how their idolatry caused God to somehow withdraw from them even further, which led to homosexuality and all kinds of terrible things. It’s another fascinating bit of brainstorming, but digging any further into those verses would take us off topic.
Then, in chapter 2, Paul does write the bit that I started this post with: that Gentiles are simply judged by what they do, whether they knew the law or not. Good, moral Gentiles may be excused on the Day of Judgment (though it’s hard to say if any could pass Paul’s no idols policy).
But here’s where it gets more complicated: in chapter 2, Paul is talking about the law — i.e., the Law of Moses.
Yes, in chapter 2, Paul is giving some cover to Gentiles who had not been covered by the law and didn’t know Jesus. Salvation was not completely lost to them, because God would judge them in a different manner. Jews, on the other hand, were judged according to the law.
But Paul doesn’t leave it there, and that’s why it’s dangerous for Christians to point to this passage as though God will still judge people according to some non-specific moral law. Paul begins to argue at the end of chapter 2 that the law was not sufficient for the Jews either, because they couldn’t keep it perfectly. He sums up the argument in 3:9 and verses 19-25:
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
Paul believed that without God, most Gentiles were reprobates, while Jews were burdened with a law they could never live up to. In his mind, Christ made the perfect solution to both problems.
The next few chapters explore this theme in more detail, but I think we’ve covered enough to make my point.
It helps when you realize that Paul is not writing about two distinct groups of people in this book, he’s writing about three: Gentiles, Jews, and Christians. Chapter 2 is not talking about a dichotomy between “God’s people” and Gentiles who are ignorant of God — it’s simply the midpoint of an argument that states why Gentiles needed Jesus, why Jews needed Jesus, and how both groups can be saved as Christians. So really, chapter 2 doesn’t answer the question of how God will judge those who don’t know about Jesus now that Christianity is not some brand new religion.
Can Non-Christians Still Be Saved?
It’s already clear from the New Testament that perfection is not a requirement for salvation. All of Paul’s letters make that case, and we also have the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27), which clearly shows that God prizes effort over ability. But that’s how God deals with Christians. How does he deal with non-believers?
It happens that there are some very clear passages about this:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
— John 3:16,18-19Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
— John 3:36
These passages are rather plain, but to be fair, can we be sure that they apply to people who’ve never even heard of Jesus? Couldn’t these verses be talking about those who have heard about Jesus, but rejected the teachings? Let’s check out a couple of other passages:
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
— Hebrews 11:6For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all
— 1 Tim 2:5-6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
— John 14:6
To me, these passages sound like hard and fast rules. Perhaps there’s some exception buried in there, but it’s hard to see room for one. What we really need is a passage that discusses the policy that was in place before Christianity came on the scene (as talked about in Romans 2), but also explains whether or not that policy changed with the introduction of Christianity. Turns out, we have a pretty good candidate:
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
— Acts 17:30-31
The author of Acts claims that this statement was made by Paul when he was addressing a group of pagans in Athens. While walking among them, he was studying the various temples and altars to the Greek Pantheon, when he came upon an altar to “the unknown God.” Never one to miss an opening, he began to speak to a crowd and explained that this “unknown God” is actually the only God — the Judeo-Christian god who created the Universe and sent his son to die as an avenue for salvation. This particular verse is the culmination of his argument — that God had left the Gentiles to their own devices in the past (as Romans 1 and 2 state), but now “commands all men everywhere to to repent.”
Paul creates a dichotomy here. He acknowledges how things were done in the past, which is the system he described in Romans 2, and he contrasts it with how things are supposed to work moving forward. Is there room for this notion that all people will be judged “according to the light they’ve been given”? I think it’s hard to make a scriptural case for it.
Why Should We Care?
As an atheist, I prefer moderate Christianity to the fundamentalist variety, but that doesn’t mean I think moderate Christianity is some great thing. I think it gives cover to the fundamentalists, and I think it prevents many people from being able to think clearly about certain topics (we can get into those later). Most moderate Christians know plenty of people who aren’t Christians at all, and they can see that non-Christians aren’t bad people. And if they learn more about why these non-believing friends of theirs are skeptics, they can usually concede that we have some decent reasons, even if they disagree with them. This makes them question why good people can’t be saved, just because they aren’t Christians. Enter the “enough light” argument.
Hey, it’s a great notion. If there really is a god out there who would bother to judge humans on anything, I tend to think he/she would judge us on the kinds of people we are, not which superstitions we happen to hold to. So this comforting idea eases the burden that moderate Christians feel. They don’t have to experience all that cognitive dissonance about how a good God could punish good people; therefore, Christianity evolves and hangs on even longer. So even though this is not an obnoxious or offensive doctrine, I think it’s important for us to see that there’s no real basis for it in Christianity. In fact, the way the Bible deals with it throws even more doubt onto Christianity. Why would God pick the first century as the time to stop overlooking people’s ignorance, especially if he planned for his new religion’s authority to come primarily from written texts that weren’t yet written, were centuries away from being compiled, and were millennia away from being accessible and readable by the majority of the population?
Sometimes cognitive dissonance is good, because it can expose bad ideas and help us find better ones. Hopefully, pointing out the flaw in this doctrine will help sow a little dissonance.
Finding Truth 
I said this dynamic of cover “is not at all unique to Christians”, gave two non-Christian examples and said it was a “common fact of human life.”
In response, you said you “wonder why it is that atheists seem to like to apply it to christians, but not to themselves or much to anyone else.”
I very specifically cited examples where it could be applied to others. Would it help if I point out that radical anti-theists can get “cover” from the more moderate atheists? Or that anti-religious laws can benefit from “cover” from ordinary secular values and people?
It is frustrating to say “A, B, C”, only to have somebody respond with “you didn’t even say B or C.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Jon. I recognised you said it. But I was referring to the wider world than just you. It remains true, I think, that I have NEVER heard the term used in any other context except moderate christians providing “cover” for extremists – except for your comment now, and that only came after I raised the issue with William. So I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re absolutely right. But this comment makes me realize that I haven’t been clear enough in what I’ve been trying to say. While it’s useful to know what someone really means by a label that they apply to themselves, I think it’s more important from the point of view of the KKK snake-handler (and people like him). When he looks around and sees that most people identify as Christians (which he also is), there’s less need for him to question his other positions. Even if he knows that they disagree with him about snake-handling and bigotry, the fact that they also revere the foundations of his belief system makes it easier for him to never question things. He looks at the Bible (or whatever other foundations he has) and can easily convince himself that these soft, liberal, “so-called-Christians” are totally wrong and don’t understand what Jesus was really saying.
That’s how I think moderate views give cover to extremist views. Again — not saying this is the fault of moderate people. I just think this is how the relationship between moderate and extremist views works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘That’s how I think moderate views give cover to extremist views. Again — not saying this is the fault of moderate people. I just think this is how the relationship between moderate and extremist views works.’
Well said Nate. This especially applies to Islam (in my opinion).
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
It is good and helpful we’re having this discussion, thanks. But I don’t think it at all works the way you say. Studies show that one of the values of religion, and other worldviews and associations which give our lives meaning, is that they build community – sometimes just within that group (more extreme views), sometimes in the wider society (more moderate views). Often the more extreme views, either theism or atheism, are ways to deal with uncertainty, and result in intolerance of other beliefs. “Prejudice may serve as a preventive mechanism against those who challenge one’s certainty”. So rather than behaving rationally, the fundamentalist snake-handler (and the fundamentalist atheist) is more likely to react to any criticism by hardening in their views, and is most unlikely “to question his other positions. “. This will apply whether he (more likely to be male!) is faced with moderate christians or agnostics or atheists. And I think we have both seen it in action, even on this blog comments! 😦
LikeLike
@Unklee
The problem and major fault of this is that this ”value” is built upon a foundation of untenable supernatural phenomenon and the lies contained within texts called ”Holy Scripture”, whichever religion they may be from.
And worse , such lies are open to widely, open-ended interpretation and preached/claimed as truth/fact – a charge that you cannot escape either.
This we are witnessing first hand by the commenter Tom, right here on this blog and Colorstorm here on this very post who,I note you have steadfastly avoided taking to task, and especially Tom for his/their erroneous Young Earth Creationist stance.
In case you are unaware of what has transpired so far with Tom….
https://findingtruth.info/2011/03/09/contradictions-part-4-hares-chewing-the-cud/
One would have thought that, if you wished to strengthen your argument you would be the first to leap into the fray and metaphorically ”Take them to the cleaners”
Alas this is, unsurprisingly , not the case, is it?
strong>And this is the point about ”cover” that the post is making. And right here, on this blog, we can see it working. .
Perhaps it is because that once you begin to question other Christians about their blatantly anti-science worldview, YEC Tom, for example, the spotlight will be turned on you for your acceptance of other anti-scientific Christian claims,most notably, of course, the Resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
While you will no doubt come back with some sort of ”Faith First” claim you will inevitably try to bolster this with similar apologetic arguments as presented by the likes of Habermas etc.
And that may be just one slippery slope too many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As many of Nate’s visitors will not bother to read the Companion Posts Unklee is currently writing, and as I am banned from commenting on his blog, I would ask Nate’s indulgence as I believe it is important to point out just how an apologist such as Unklee will bend his beliefs to make his case.
From his blog ….
(*My highlights).
Really?
Now, if we were to read this in isolation it is clearly a false statement as not a single secular historian even recognizes any sort of resurrection.
However, this subtle allusion is almost clarified with this …
… so why include that final sentence about secular historians if not to mislead?
Also: What objective facts? There are no objective facts. This is a false statement as there is no evidence for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth outside the bible.
And not every secular historian ‘’supports’’ these claims as unklee tacitly suggests. And if we were to go back throughout history there are a number that flatly deny there is any historicity to such claims.
His phraseology is very carefully worded to suggest no overt intellectual impropriety. However, by the very wording of his final sentence he is more than suggesting that his claims have the support of secular historians
This is somewhat like suggesting that in a good light Quasimodo might feature as a cover model on GQ.
I think the popular term for this is ‘’Liar for Jesus’’.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that this doubling-down problem is a real issue. However, imagine kids who are growing up in the KKK snake-handler’s household who realize their dad’s views are not mainstream. When they’re dad points out to them that his positions stem from his Christianity, which is a very mainstream belief system, it helps provide a little bit of normalcy to his otherwise heinous views. And now, instead of having to question his entire belief system, they only have to question if he’s observing Christianity appropriately. Maybe they’ll decide he’s not, but considering how malleable scripture can be, there’s a good chance they’ll follow in his footsteps.
Now imagine the same scenario, but where “Christian” always refers to someone on the extremes: snake handlers, racists-for-Jesus, Westboro Baptists, etc. Now those children don’t see an ounce of normalcy applied to their dad’s ideas, because most people they encounter aren’t even Christians. Doesn’t mean that these kids won’t also grow up to be racist snake-handlers, but I think the odds are better that they’ll at least have cause to question those positions, because they’ll be questioning them at their very foundations.
I see the same thing happening with my kids. Atheism is not a mainstream position, especially here in Alabama. Therefore, my kids question my beliefs and the beliefs of their friends far more than most kids in this area question the beliefs of their parents and communities. It’s because they know that we’re different, and that creates questions; whereas, the typical kid in this area doesn’t have much reason to really think about those issues, because it’s what almost everyone around them already believes. No need to question it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have been debating Christians regarding their supernatural claims for the last three years, ever since my deconversion from conservative Christianity in 2014. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how much objective evidence we skeptics present, the overwhelming majority of Christians are going to hand wave it all away due to the SUBJECTIVE evidence each one of them experiences, each and every day, in their “hearts”.
And because of the perceived reality and intensity of this subjective evidence, these people cannot imagine that their belief system is simply an ancient tall tale. Therefore they construct very elaborate, very sophisticated-sounding explanations for why this ancient tale MUST be an historical fact, and if you challenge the rationality of their claims, they dismiss you as “uninformed”, regardless of the number of books you have read on the subject.
It is a ghost story, folks. That’s all it is. A ghost story.
No matter how many contorted, sophisticated-sounding rationalizations they construct, just remember…and remind THEM over and over again…it’s just a ghost story, and ghosts are not real.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gary I read an interesting article in a science magazine where a regular columnist wrote about alien abduction stories. He agreed to undergo hypnosis and after that had in his memory an alien abduction experience of his own. He said what was really disconcerting was that it seemed more real to him than reality and yet he knew as a scientist that it never happened, that his mind had created an entirely fictional account.
I immediately thought of the various spiritual experiences people claim. It seems the mind can, especially with the help of suggestion, create an entirely false memory of vivid intensity.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’ll go out on a bit of a limb. Anyone is free to challenge or run with this idea…
unkleE, for your consideration, on the topic of “cover”: would you agree that we skeptic atheists who discuss these matters relatively civilly with you “provide cover” for the more polemical ones, like Ark? Who I hear you’ve blocked from commenting on your blog.
Running with this example… For me, I’d say there are many claims which he makes which I find plausible, but I’m not convinced of (like particulars of the history behind what inspired OT stories). But I think they’re worthy of consideration, so I don’t chime in to challenge, because *shrug* maybe he’s right. And sometimes I think his confrontational tone may be counter-productive, but different people respond differently to different tones at different times – “it takes all kinds” – so I don’t challenge him on that either.
Do you relate similarly to evangelical / fundamentalist-type Christian bloggers and commenters as I do here with Ark?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Regarding this, it seems that 1 Peter proposes that Christ, at his death, proclaimed the Gospel to people had already died. It is in all honesty the best interpretation I can wring out of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6, and i’ve at least read, was a standard interpretation in the writings of the early Christians. The idea of those being “judged in the flesh” having an opportunity to be “made alive in the spirit” naturally connects with the mention of Christ preaching to spirits of those that disobeyed God in the time of Noah.
I would thus argue at minimum God offered the dead a clear presentation of the Gospel to Noahic individuals, possibly to everyone that died prior to Christ’s advent, and (here I only speculate) might by such means do so among those that presently die.
While I maintain the best response to to charges against God’s goodness rests in something like the one you are responding to, arguing God does not have any responsibility to not swiftly judge those who do wrong and such non-judgment is a gratuitous good, I think my reasoning true and in favor of the truth of God’s kindness to sinful men.
LikeLike
This is an interesting blog… atheists meditating on the Bible. Most are here to find reasons not to believe. The author of the blog gives it a fair discussion.
I think the Bible gives a clear depiction of a God that is consistent for all time. He made mankind from one man thus declaring Himself God of all. His creation cries out as a testimony to all.(Romans 1) Many reject this and are judged by it. Many suppress their conscience and are judged.(Romans 1) Before Christ, they were judged on the same criteria. After Christ, they are judged on the same criteria, even more so, since God sent his Son to save them.
The author is correct that ‘judged by the light they’ve been given’ is not a phrase in the Bible. I do think the concept is biblical. The bible always speaks of God initiating His love and it being rejected. When this happens, they are judged. The bible speaks of God ‘not being far from any one of us’ and that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes will not be judged but have eternal life.'(John 3:16)
I guess the final question is, why are atheists so concerned with biblical judgment? I think the likely answer is that God is reaching out to them. Many come to this article with rejection of God already determined. Others come more open to the possibility of God.
LikeLike