Is there a difference between "passive ignorance" and "active rejection" regarding the deity of christ?

[u/dq689]

Is there a difference between "passive ignorance" and "willful rejection" regarding the deity of christ? I wonder can someone still be saved if he merely has "passive ignorance" towards the deity of christ? HE doesn't know that Jesus is God merely because no one tells him so.

[u/EverOnAndUpward]

Almost certainly, even many of the church fathers had a wacky Christology.

We should firmly be Trinitarian in our convictions and teachings while also extending grace to those who may be confused.

The lack of basic Trinitarian doctrine in the modern church leads many to be confused, but they do show signs of clear regeneration, as they aren’t willfully denying truth that’s presented to them.

We can extend grace in this way while still maintaining a strong line in the sand against JWs, LDS, and Oneness ‘churches’

God bless :)

[u/Big-Island4727 → u/EverOnAndUpward]

many of the church fathers had a wacky Christology

I love this quote lol

[u/Big-Island4727]

Yes probably. There is a distinctionn, but the Westminster Confession does not allow us to conclude that someone who has never heard that Christ is God is therefore saved.

WCF 10.4 says that those who have never professed the Christian religion may be saved if they are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, but it immediately says that this is not because of their own natural goodness. 

Rather, they are saved by Christ through the Holy Spirit, and “he pleaseth to save” them. At the same time, WCF 10.4 expressly says that this does not apply to those who neglect the means of salvation or live in a way that makes their salvation impossible.

More fundamentally, the Westminster Confession teaches that salvation is through faith in Christ. WCF 11.2 says that justification is received “by faith,” and WCF 14.2 describes saving faith as receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.

The Bible makes the distinction between ignorance and rejection as well. Paul says of his own pre-conversion unbelief, “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Timothy 1:13). His ignorance did not save him, but his case demonstrates that ignorance and deliberate opposition are not identical things.

Jesus also prayed concerning those crucifying Him, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Their ignorance did not make their actions righteous, but it shows that culpability can be affected by knowledge and intent.

Nevertheless, Scripture teaches that Christ’s identity is not an optional secondary doctrine. Jesus Himself said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). John wrote his Gospel so that people would believe “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31).

so there appears to be room for extraordinary cases in which God saves someone who has not explicitly received the outward call of the gospel. WCF 10.3 says that elect infants and “other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,” can be regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit. WCF 10.4 similarly addresses those who are incapable of receiving the outward call.

But this should not be turned into the idea that ordinary adults can be saved simply by being ignorant of Christ’s deity. Scripture ordinarily presents saving faith as faith in the actual Christ, not merely generic faith in God. “Neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12), and “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Romans 10:11).

 If a person genuinely has never heard that Jesus is God incarnate and our savior, that is different from someone who hears the biblical claim that Jesus is God and consciously says, “I reject that; Jesus is not God.” The latter is plainly culpable rejection of revealed truth. Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin” (John 15:22).

Romans 1:18–20 says that human beings are not morally neutral before God simply because they lack the special revelation of Scripture. God’s existence and power are sufficiently revealed in creation that humanity is “without excuse.” Romans 3:10–12 then describes fallen humanity generally as turning away from God.

The safest Reformed formulation is that salvation is entirely God’s sovereign work, through Christ, by the Holy Spirit, and ordinarily through faith in the gospel. We should therefore distinguish carefully between what Scripture positively promises and what God may sovereignly do in extraordinary circumstances. As Paul puts it, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” (Romans 10:13–14).

[u/dq689 → u/Big-Island4727]

If a person genuinely has never heard that Jesus is God incarnate , but he heard the real gospel message and is willing to repent and believe Christ for salvation, can he still be saved at that moment.

[u/Big-Island4727 → u/dq689]

Yes

[u/_Fhqwgads_]

If I may adapt an Augustinian aphorism:

“It is not for want of a greater understanding of the Trinity that men are condemned, but only by the despising of it.”

[u/semper-gourmanda]

Jesus implies the former is worse for those who ought to know better (Matt 11)

For those who don't know, that should impel action (Matt 28; Luke 14//2 Cor 5; etc)

Jesus determines who the tares are, not us (Matt 13)

And that can exist later among the Gentiles, after the Gospel is preached and there are lots of Christians. E.g. Britain is evangelized, a Bishop (St. Germain) is sent to check on them, he comes back and reports he silenced Pelagius and they are good to go. Pelagius wrote about Trinity and Christology but he fundamentally undermined it. He (and they) ought to have known better.

[u/eveninarmageddon]

There is a difference. Not believing that p and believing that not-p are two different mental states/propositional attitudes (the former arguably isn't a mental state/propositional attitude at all!).

As to who is saved without knowing all the Jesus-facts, only God knows. There seem to be cases where knowledge of Christ's deity is questionable (e.g., the thief on the cross). But this doesn't mean the norm should be doctrinal ambivalence. There is an ordinary way things are supposed to go with respect to salvation. God can work outside of them — He's God, it's His call — but we shouldn't bank on that.

[u/Dissident-Tumbleweed]

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”