Accessibilism: A Hybrid View

William Lane Craig is an Accessibilist. He thinks that one can be saved apart from hearing the gospel. But if he's an Accessibilist, then what's the point of his Molinist move that holds that those that reject natural revelation and never hear the gospel would have rejected the gospel had they heard it? To safeguard against the objection that there may be individuals who, while rejecting natural revelation, would have accepted the gospel had they heard it, so that it’d be unfair if they were damned without hearing it. This objection goes through even given Accessibilism, so still requires a response.  

So WLC doesn’t hold that any that would respond to the gospel would indeed hear it - for those that accept natural revelation would also accept the gospel - but rather holds that those who do not hear the gospel and do not believe general revelation would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it.

Still, there's an issue with Accessibilism. We'll call it the Missions Objection.  What’s the point of doing missions if people can be saved apart from hearing the gospel? It isn't just about our motive for missions but about the urgency and immense importance placed on missions in the Bible. We need to uphold both a grounded motivation and the Biblical data undergirding missions.

So I propose a hybrid view: There are individuals who will respond positively to natural revelation and thus be saved apart from hearing the gospel, so bare Accessibilism is true. But there are also individuals who will not respond to natural revelation but will respond to the gospel upon hearing it. So they will not be saved by surveying natural revelation alone, but must hear the gospel in order to believe. And we can add the middle knowledge bit here: those people that will only respond to the gospel *will* get a hearing of it.

Thus we can preserve bare Accessibilism and the motive and biblical data for missions.  Still, I decline to endorse this view.  It's just an option on the table.