The Inadequacy of General Revelation
for the
Salvation of the Nations
Gregory Johnson • Covenant
Theological Seminary • Spring 1996
Introduction
A Christian heart finds difficult the thought that many live without Christ; but far more difficult is the realization that many die without Christ. The last quarter of the twentieth century has witnessed a renewed debate within evangelicalism over questions of ultimate destiny, and positions that were once agreed upon by evangelicals are now open to scrutiny and debate. One of the most vexing problems surrounds the fate of those who never hear about Christ. Will such persons be universally condemned? Or can such persons come to faith in Christ anonymously, without ever hearing the gospel, through general revelation?[1] The reality and objectivity of general revelation[2] is not the point in contention between inclusivists and exclusivists; rather, the ability of general revelation to result in salvation is where disagreement arises. Adherents of both positions agree that it is only Christ who saves and that personal faith is necessary; thus, the debate is among Christians. But is special revelation necessary to gain such faith, or is general revelation adequate to accomplish the salvation of some who never have contact with such special revelation from God?
The
Inclusivist Argument from General Revelation
Clark Pinnock's position is that wherever God is revealed, His saving grace is revealed, even if only imperfectly. General revelation, never separated from the Spirit's prevenient work, can and does result in the salvation of many. Pinnock writes:
We refuse to drive a wedge between what God does in
creation and in redemption, because the Spirit is Lord and Life-giver in both
spheres. Creation is a gift of grace
and capable of mediating grace, which is present not only in the church but
outside as well, calling all persons to share in the life of God.... The saving
grace of God can be effective through a person's relationship to God as
creature in advance of conversion to Christ.[3]
John Sanders writes,
"General revelation is salvific because its source is the saving God....
Since all revelation is from God, 'all revelation is saving revelation. The
knowledge of God is always saving knowledge.'"[4] Even John Stott has been open to this
position, though without committing himself.[5] General revelation, inclusivists argue, is
used by God's Spirit to draw all men to salvation in such a way that many are
saved without ever hearing of Jesus.
The
Sufficiency of Scripture & the Burden of Proof
But before further discussion of general revelation, one methodological point must be made: Scripture must stand as the sufficient rule for answering whether or not general revelation results in salvation apart from special revelation. Charles Hodge writes:
The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts.... The duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning Himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible... and lest we should attribute to the teaching of the Spirit the operations of our own natural affections, we find in the Bible the norm and standard of all genuine religious experience. The Scriptures teach not only the truth, but what are the effects of the truth on the heart and conscience, when applied with saving power by the Holy Ghost.[6]
Granted, theologians must realize that God has not revealed all the facts-- no system of theology can stand without holes or without unanswered questions. And while it is realized that no human mind ever looks at the text of Scripture from a genuinely neutral standpoint, Hodge's point remains valid. The Bible is the sufficient standard for theological discourse.
Thus organic systematic links between doctrines must be present within Scripture to justify linking them. One cannot simply speculate from God's universal salvific will a doctrine of salvation through general revelation. To be raised to the level of dogma, such a doctrine would have to be either explicitly taught or taken as a necessary implication from the text. At the very least, one would have to demonstrate from Scripture a link between the doctrines of salvation and general revelation in which hope is held for those without the light of special revelation. This understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture applies to the general application of doctrines, as well. Merely establishing a doctrine of general revelation does not permit one to use it in a manner which is at odds with the manner in which such a doctrine is used in holy writ. God's charge in Deuteronomy 29:29 would seem to prohibit speculative theology.
As with any doctrine, the burden of proof therefore falls on him who would present a teaching as dogma. If one affirms a real possibility of salvation through means of general revelation, one must accept the burden of proof to demonstrate such a doctrine from Scripture-- speculation from biblical themes is inadequate. Similarly, if one is to affirm that absolutely no one is saved through general revelation, then the burden of proof must be accepted in demonstrating that position from the text. If neither point can be demonstrated from Scripture, then such a question is a mystery and speculation is not to be encouraged. With this understanding of Scripture's sufficiency in mind, the following two questions are posed:
1. Positively, does Scripture use its doctrine of general revelation to assure of salvation some incapable of explicit faith in Jesus?
2. Negatively, does Scripture deny that general revelation includes
the knowledge of God as Redeemer?
II. General Revelation's Universal Rejection
The Purpose of
General Revelation
In A Wideness in God's Mercy, Clark Pinnock states that exclusivists believe "that cosmic revelation has only a negative function, that is, that God gives it to ensure the damnation of sinners and not their salvation," correctly pointing out that this idea "does not make a lot of sense."[7] God did not write His law on the human heart or display His glory in creation with the purpose of insuring the damnation of sinners. Nevertheless, that is precisely the effect of general revelation upon fallen man.
Paul Helm makes a helpful distinction here between the purpose and the effect of God's general revelation of Himself. Commenting on Calvin, Helm writes, "In the case of Calvin it seems clear that the purpose of this knowledge is reverence and trust of God. He states the nature and purpose of this knowledge quite independently of the perverse reaction of men. The effect of perversity is to leave men without excuse, just as the purpose of God was to promote the worship of himself."[8] For sinless man before the Fall, the revelation of God would not have been damning. Such revelation can be viewed as having a positive purpose apart from its effect.
The purpose of general revelation is presented in numerous texts. In Psalm 19, general revelation is said to reveal God's existence (which is assumed by v.1), His glory and the fact of His having created (v.1). This knowledge is specifically mediated through the daytime and nighttime sky. And while such objective communication is continuous and universal (v.2-3), the structure and vocabulary of the psalm hint at another purpose behind general revelation-- to point to special revelation. In verses 1 through 6, "God" (El) is revealed through external general revelation, but in verses 7 through 14, the LORD (YHWH) is revealed through special revelation, namely the Torah. Through general revelation, it is known that God exists as glorious Creator, but through the Torah, God is known covenantlally by His covenant name, whereby the soul is revived, and wisdom and joy are found. Through general revelation, the sun gives physical light, but through special revelation the Scripture gives spiritual light. Indeed, Peter Craigie, in commenting on this psalm, points out that "there is more than a suggestion that the reflection of God's praise in the universe is perceptible only to those already sensitive to God's revelation and purpose."[9]
In Acts 14:14-18, Paul explained to the Gentiles in Lystra another purpose of general revelation. General revelation, specifically in God's providence, communicates God's goodness. Despite the idolatry of the nations (v.11-13, 15-16), God nevertheless has been kind by sending rain and crops year after year, providing both food and joy (v.17). God's existence and His being Creator are also here said to be revealed (v.15). General revelation is thus intended to teach of God's providential goodness. In Acts 17:26-28, Paul adds that the purpose of this providence is that men should seek God.
In the first chapter of Romans, Paul explains that God has revealed His existence universally through what He has made (v.20). God has assured that such communication is plain to everyone (v.19), being seen clearly and understood from the creation (v.21). This external general revelation in nature has the purpose of teaching man about God's eternal power and His divine nature (v.20).
In Romans 1:32, Paul indicates that all men know that sin is worthy of death; God's judgment is revealed. Further, they know many specific actions and attitudes that are evil.[10] The reason this is universally known is because, as Paul explains in 2:12-16, God has communicated His universal moral norm, His moral law, to the human heart; this is an internal general revelation (v.14-15). God's righteousness and justice, is also revealed (1:32). The purpose of general revelation is to communicate God's moral standard and the penalty for breaking that standard.
The Effect of
General Revelation
It is within these first chapters of Romans that Paul discusses the effect of general revelation upon mankind. While general revelation has revealed God, His nature and His law to mankind, such communication has not resulted in salvation. The knowledge of God in creation has been suppressed and perverted into unspeakable idolatry and immorality, while those more sensitive to the law, be it in nature or in the Decalogue, use the law to judge others rather than repenting. The law of God written in the created world condemns the pagan as idolatrous and immoral (1:18-25), while the law of God written on the human heart condemns the moralist (2:1-16) for knowing right from wrong yet still sinning (as even Gentiles know right from wrong, 2:14-15). An finally the law of God written in the Decalogue condemns the Jew (2:17-29) even though he did have special revelation (3:1-2). These three categories cover everyone, so that "There in no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (3:10-11). As judgment will be according to works (2:5-12, 16), "Those who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (2:12). In other words, all will be condemned.[11] No one can be right with God through the law; it serves instead to make sinners conscious of sin (3:19-20).
Sanders objects that to completely reject general revelation as saving cannot be argued from Romans 1-3, for one would then also have to argue for the complete rejection of the Old Testament as saving, since the conclusion that "no one seeks God" is held for both.[12] But this objection fails to distinguish between the arrogant and legalistic "reliance" upon the Decalogue (2:17) which Paul discusses in 2:17-29, where one seeks salvation in commandments, and the proper use of the Old Testament, seen in 3:21 where it testifies to the gospel. General revelation, Paul says, always results in condemnation, as does special revelation when received in a legalistic manner. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save (3:22), faith specially revealed through the Law and the Prophets, that is, through the Hebrew Scriptures, and now more fully revealed in Paul's gospel (3:21). Paul's argument is of a lesser-greater format. If those who do have access to redemptive revelation (the Jews in the Torah) are condemned, then all men are in trouble, whether pagan idolater, moralist or Jew.
Discussing Romans 1, G.C. Berkouwer points out that general revelation can never be discussed apart from Divine wrath, or anger:
Romans 1 points to the anger of God (v.18): the
light of the gospel shines into the darkness of unfaithful human life that
holds back the truth in unrighteousness (v.18), that substitutes the image of a
perishable man for the majesty of the eternal God (v.23), and that honors and
worships the creature above the Creator (v.25). Because the general revelation of God is placed in Romans 1 in
this uncontradictable context, it ever remains impossible to speak of the
general revelation of God without considering also the anger of God (v.18),
which condemns man's suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.[13]
Even
the Athenians' worship of the "unknown god" in Acts 17 was ignorant
(v.30), was worthy of judgment (v.31), and required repentance (v.30). The knowledge of God's goodness attained
through general revelation results only in man's further condemnation, for
fallen man is not good, but instead
engages in worthless idolatry, as at Lystra (Acts 14:15). Even if God's mercy is generally revealed,
it results only in the just condemnation of sinners who are themselves unmerciful. Bruce A. Demarest summarizes man's response to God's natural
revelation of Himself:
Through universal general revelation God has disclosed
to people His existence, perfections, and moral demands. But... sinful man consistently repudiates
this elemental knowledge of God and perverts it into unspeakable idolatry. Thus, in practice, general revelation serves
only to condemn man, not to save him.[14]
Those who do not hear of Christ will be condemned, not for denying the gospel, but for sinning when they knew better. General revelation will serve as the star witness for the prosecution that indeed all are guilty, and the guilty will receive punitive justice from God. At the very least, it can be affirmed that Scripture nowhere assigns to general revelation a saving role. The sufficiency of Scripture would therefore place the burden of proof on those who would seek to present general revelation as actually resulting in the salvation of some who have no access to special revelation.
Excursus
#1: Were the "holy pagans"
saved through General revelation?
Yet a primary argument used in rebuttal of this negative assessment of general revelation's ability to save is to argue that Scripture does, in fact, present cases of men coming to faith solely through general revelation. Specifically, people like Enoch, Job, Noah, Melchizedek, Abimelech, Jethro, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezzar, and the inhabitants of Nineveh are all alleged to have come to saving faith in God through general revelation.[15] Yet R. Douglass Geivett and W. Gary Phillips would seem correct in criticizing this assertion.[16] All of these individuals were either the objects of special revelation or had contact with those who had special revelation available (See chart, page 8). Jethro, for example, knew God by His covenant name YHWH, a knowledge that would have required special revelation, and Melchizedek called upon God as El Elyon, just as did Abraham, perhaps assuming either special revelation or contact with one who has received special revelation. Considering this access to special revelation and considering Scripture's general uninterest in how these figures came to faith, it would be improper to assume that their faith came about strictly through means of general revelation. Further, not all of these figures are expressly said to have exercised saving faith.[17] Such "holy pagans" are treated by the Old Testament as rare exceptions rather than the norm-- individuals placed by God in history in such a way as to aid the advancement of God's covenant people. Millard Erickson summarizes, "There are no unambiguous instances in Scripture of persons who became true believers through responding to general revelation alone."[18]
|
Contact of “holy
pagans” with Believers or Special Revelation Enoch Genesis 5:22 Job Job 39-42 Noah Genesis 6:9, 13ff. Melchizedek Genesis 14:18,22 Abimelech Genesis 20:3 Jethro Exodus 18:11 Naaman 2 Kings 5:15 Queen of Sheba 2 Chronicles 9:1,8 Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 4:34-37 People of Nineveh Jonah 3:5 |
III.
General Revelation's Non-Redemptive Content
Law &
gospel?
As earlier discussed, Paul argues in the first three chapters of Romans that external general revelation, internal general revelation and the Law in the Old Testament have all been abused or suppressed by sinful man, leaving no one righteous and no one able to seek God. But starting in Romans 3:21, Paul argues that what general revelation and a legalistic approach to the Law have been unable to do, namely to save sinners, the special revelation of Jesus has accomplished. God's saving justice is revealed in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus. One thing is clear here, general revelation must give way to the special revelation of Jesus if anyone is to be saved. Specifically, law must give way to gospel, that condemnation might give way to salvation.
Though it could certainly be argued that a right relation to God is never possible apart from special revelation (as special revelation was necessary for right relation to God even before the Fall), the entrance of sin into the world has clearly made matters more urgent, for the knowledge of redemption is nowhere present in general revelation. God's existence is revealed, as is His creation. God's providential goodness is revealed, and even His universal moral norm. But Scripture nowhere teaches that the gospel is generally revealed. Bruce Demarest writes, "Divine truths needed for salvation find no imprint in general revelation."[19] The Knowledge of God the Redeemer is not to be found in nature. Leon Morris writes:
God has not left himself without a witness. His general revelation has been productive
in the life of man.... But the critical
point is that this knowledge does not bring man salvation. Man does not come to know God as he is. When we reflect that general revelation
gives us no information and can give us none about any of the central doctrines
of the Christian faith we appreciate the limits of its usefulness.[20]
Thus, special revelation, that is, redemptive revelation, is necessary.
Bernard Ramm writes, "Special revelation is remedial because it is God's means of reaching the sinner with saving, restorative truth. It is the knowledge of God adjusted for, and given for, sinners."[21] Special revelation is necessary because special grace is necessary. An intense knowledge of one's own unworthiness and a determination to do better, even with the gospel, is not salvific. Faith must be consciously placed in the gospel of Jesus. The difference here is the difference between knowing the standard for which man was made and receiving God's provision for the standard-breaker. It is the difference between law and gospel.
Clark Pinnock presents two criteria by which those who have never heard the gospel may be saved. First, they must fear God. This God, Pinnock says, must be either the only God or the highest God. "People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus Christ has not yet been proclaimed." Pinnock's second criterion is that people must pursue righteous behavior. "One can make a faith response to God in the form of actions of love and justice." Pinnock goes on to suggest that perhaps even the atheist can be saved if he has at least "responded positively to [God] implicitly by acts of love shown to the neighbor."[22] Even if only this second criterion of righteous behavior is present, it may be considered saving faith. Pinnock writes, "Someone might be an atheist because he or she does not understand who God is, and still have faith."[23] Fear of God and pursuit of righteous behavior are the standard by which those under general revelation are saved, for these two characteristics are themselves responses of faith. And for atheists, Pinnock argues, only a desire to do good is necessary to be saved by Christ. The net effect would seem to be that all "good" people go to heaven because of Christ.
Yet law, God's universal moral norm whether found innate upon the human heart or inscribed upon tablets of stone, cannot save fallen man. To equate a positive response to such law with salvation--even if purchased by Christ--is to presuppose an incipient legalism whereby hatred of sin is equated with saving faith. While saving faith always implies good works, good works themselves often do not imply saving faith. Yet Pinnock goes even further by equating the works themselves with saving faith. This concern becomes evident with Pinnock's positive assessment of the inclusivist teaching from Vatican II:
How can anyone deny the essential truthfulness of these words: "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."[24]
Such a system does present itself as a grace theology, but not as a faith theology. A grace-works theology is a hypothetical possibility in light of the law available through general revelation, but a grace-faith theology is not. Justification by grace alone through works is not the biblical gospel. To be conscious of the need for salvation is not to be actually saved. To be saved requires faith, which requires the gospel as its object. The gospel is not generally revealed, and faith in the gospel is therefore not possible apart from special revelation.
The Final Word: Jesus as the Conscious Object of All Saving Faith
But the question arises, is it possible to have saving faith in God apart from faith in Jesus? Clearly Abraham did not know the name of Jesus-- Old Testament Jews were saved without knowing of the cross. Is faith in God a possibility apart from knowledge of Jesus? In Hebrews 1:1-2, the author of that letter writes that, while God had spoken in many ways prior to the coming of Christ, with the incarnation the focus of God's special revelation has narrowed to His Son. While before the incarnation, faith in Yahweh was necessary and sufficient, now the historical Jesus must be the object of the Jews' saving faith. This was Jesus' point in John 14:6-7, where Jesus explained to His disciples that no one was able to approach God except through Himself (v.6), that the only path to knowing God is through knowing Jesus (v.7).
Old Testament believers were saved without knowing the name Jesus. In Romans 3:25-26, however, Paul explains how Old Testament believers were saved without having heard of Jesus. Paul explains that it was God's covenant forbearance that saved them (v.24)-- forbearance on a loan that came due and was paid by Christ (v.25). Since this salvation was specially revealed even in the Old Testament-- as the examples of Abraham and David illustrate (Rom. 4:1-8; cf. 3:21)-- such pre-messianic believers could place faith in Yahweh with the hope of salvation. Such salvation was not through means of general revelation.
With the coming of Jesus the Mediator in history, a redemptive-historical change has occurred whereby not even Jews, who have special revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures, can be saved apart from explicit faith in the specially revealed Jesus. Even Judaism, which is far more redemptive and moral than and other non-Christian religions, is viewed by the New Testament authors as a competing religion, a false and idolatrous religion within which salvation is no longer found, but wrath instead (see, for example, 1 Thess. 2:15-16). Even "devout men" such as the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2:5) are now required to repent and to be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to be forgiven of sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19). Religious Jews in the synagogue were required to believe in Jesus in order to be justified (Acts 13:38-41). Again in Rom 11:14 Paul assumes that Jews are unsaved unless they turn and believe in Jesus. Jewish worship, no matter how sincere or zealous, only serves to anger God all the more. Thus some truly can perish due to a lack of knowledge. Paul explains in Romans 10:1-5 that his desire is that the Israelites be saved (v.1), that is, that they believe in Christ (v.4), even though they are zealous for God (v.2). The problem, Paul explains, is that their zeal is not based in proper knowledge (v.2-3). To have God as the object of zeal is inadequate to save; explicit faith in Christ is necessary. Despite great continuity between old and new covenants, the coming of Jesus presents a discontinuity with (or, better, a permanent development and fulfillment of) the old covenant, in that from the time of His coming forward, Jesus must be the conscious object of all saving faith. Even for those born within the covenant, repentance and conscious faith in Jesus are now necessary to remain within the covenant. There can no longer be saving faith in Yahweh apart from conscious faith in Jesus.
In Acts 4:8-12, Peter presents to the Jews Jesus as the only conscious focus for all saving faith. Peter explains to the elders and teachers of the law that the miracle he had just performed was accomplished by the name of Jesus-- it was Jesus who miraculously healed when His name was called upon (v.8-10; cf. 3:3:6). Further, this Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish leadership (v.11). Peter tells the Jewish elders and rulers that they can find salvation nowhere else but in Jesus. This is because God has only given one name to humanity which all men must call upon for salvation (v.12). Peter is not here merely describing the metaphysical basis for the salvation the Jewish rulers now enjoy. Peter is calling on these rulers to repent of murdering the Son of God and to call upon Jesus, for otherwise they will not be saved. Jesus is not simply presented the only source for salvation, which inclusivists such as Pinnock and Sanders emphatically affirm. Jesus is further presented as the only name to be called upon in order to receive that salvation. As already presented, for faith in God to be saving in this new covenant era, such faith must be in the historical man Jesus and His propitiatory work.
Can redemption
be found in non-Christian religions?
Inclusivists such as Pinnock and Sanders are not afraid to affirm that Christ works redemptively through other religions, even saving by grace through faith in the context of these religions without special revelation. Pinnock writes, "Insofar as [other religions] bestow order and meaning they are not evil.... Only as they claim ultimacy for themselves are they demonic." He continues, speaking of Christ's active involvement in transforming other religions, and asks, "Why balk at transformation in the sphere of religion? Why turn up our noses at the bhakti tradition in Hinduism or the insights into grace in the Japanese Sin-Shu Amida or other positive changes in Buddhism?"[25] Yet Christianity is not a mere set of principles to be correct or incorrect, but the special revelation of the historical Jesus on a cross in history. Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Baal is not more redemptive or closer to the truth than a legalistic, works-oriented Baal worship. The message of salvation cannot exist apart from the act of salvation (the cross), nor can it exist apart from the person of salvation (Jesus). The person of Christ in His saving work as the existential focus of individual and collective faith is necessary for a religion to be redemptive. There can be no saving religion without a conscious theology of the cross.
Without regard to their religion, Paul assumed that the Gentiles to whom he first brought the gospel were not already reconciled to God. In Paul's recounting of His commission from the risen Jesus in Acts 26:15-18, Jesus told Paul that he was being sent to the Gentiles to "open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." In this passage, one sees that all Gentiles are assumed to be closed to the things of God, in darkness and in bondage to the power of Satan. The Gentiles did not already enjoy forgiveness through their response of morality to general revelation, but were instead in need of forgiveness. The Gentiles must turn to God and be sanctified by faith in the historical and resurrected Jesus. The Christian may assume no hope for forgiveness but through explicit faith in Jesus. Nonbiblical religion is not a vehicle God uses to bring men to saving faith. Saving faith cannot exist apart from the knowledge of Jesus.
Carl Henry writes, "The notion that... Christ is present in nonbiblical religious history from the beginning, is alien to biblical teaching and arbitrarily correlates religion in general with revealed religion.... While God's saving design in the Bible has certain universal implications, it does not welcome the world's works-religions as prefatory to the propitiatory work of the Redeemer. The nonbiblical religions and religious writings are not oriented to Christ."[26]
Even in grace-religions there can be no salvation. Take for example bhakti, which Pinnock deeply admires and considers salvific.[27] Without explicit knowledge of Jesus and His cross, the bhakti's expectation of grace is itself cause for further condemnation, as their grace religion expects God to be other than just. Again, Carl Henry explains this well:
Is bhakti, India's so-called religion of grace,
properly regarded as an approximation of Christian redemption--as some
claim--in view of this Hindu movement's intense devotion to a personal
god? According to some scholars, the
term bhakti corresponds to Paul's emphasis on one's total commitment to God in
love and trust, and thus implies the complete inadequacy of human nature and
the need for dependence upon God for forgiveness and life. The emphasis falls on God's reaching out to
me as a petitioner when I surrender and stretch out empty hands for his
filling. There is no concept here,
however, of mediation and substitution.
The New Testament by contrast emphasizes God's redemptive grace as
decisively manifest in Christ, that Jesus was "put to death for our
sins" and was raised to put us right with God (Rom. 4:25; cf. 1 Pet. 2:24,
3:18). Forgiveness of sins without
substitution and satisfaction is biblically inconceivable for it would impugn
God's justice (Rom. 3:21-26).[28]
Without knowledge of the Divine promise of grace or of God's gracious appeasement of His justice in the punishment of Jesus for human sin, such an expectation of grace is presumption. Grace theology apart from cross theology must presuppose either a God who is not just or men who are not guilty.[29] Indeed, Paul's gospel was Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
Further, belief in Christ's operating within other religions implies that the Spirit's ministry can be separated from the proclamation of the gospel. This is difficult for, as Carl Henry notes, the Spirit's ministry is to give "an explicit witness to the historical Jesus as the mediating Messiah." Henry writes, "It is, after all, by the Spirit's express witness to Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished today from false spirits."[30] It would be incorrect to provide for God's effectual ("internal") gospel call apart from God's general ("external") gospel call. The former is only presented in Scripture as presupposing the latter. In God's sovereign plan, word and Spirit are not to be separated.
Preachers
Needed
Perhaps the passage that most emphatically insists upon explicit faith in the historical Jesus to receive salvation is Paul's discourse in Romans 10. Throughout Romans Paul teaches that the salvation Jesus accomplished comes to individuals, whether Jew or Gentile, only through explicit faith in Jesus (1:16-17; 3:28-30; 15:15-16, 20; 16:25-27). In Romans 10, Paul makes the implications of this for those who do not hear explicit: they can only be saved if they hear about Jesus. Paul begins in verses 1-4 by expressing his sorrow that the Israelites are not saved due to their failure to grasp faith-righteousness in Jesus. In verses 5-13, Paul expounds upon this faith-righteousness. Salvation comes by confessing, "Jesus is Lord," and by believing in Jesus' resurrection by God (v.9). Heart and mouth are both necessary for salvation (v.10)-- reconciliation with God presupposes a certain level of cognitive knowledge-- knowledge that Jesus exists, that He was raised by God, that He is Lord. Jesus is the only Lord for Jew and Gentile, and everyone who calls on Jesus will be saved (v.12, 13).
But a problem arises: If explicit faith in Jesus is necessary in order to be saved, then those who have not heard of Jesus cannot be saved. Paul provides the solution for this problem in v. 14-15. They must call upon Jesus, but must believe in Him first. And they must hear of Him to believe in Him. And they must be preached to if they are to hear about Jesus. And preachers must be sent if they are to be preached to. Thus, it is a good thing to bring the gospel to others (v.15). Paul is not here embarrassed to place such a burden on His fellow Christians-- the salvation of others depends partly on the obedience of Christians in obeying Christ's missions mandate (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8).
But
Paul is here concerned particularly with the Israelites-- his fellow Jews. In
verses 16-21, Paul discusses their denial of the gospel. Faith comes only through the message about
Christ (v.17), and many Jews have rejected this message (v.16). Most Jews have rejected the gospel they
heard, not through general revelation (as the original context of Psalm 19:4
might imply[31]),
but from Jesus and His apostles. This
rejection is in accord with what Moses and Isaiah had said earlier
(19-21). Most Israelites, Paul argues
in the following verses in chapter 11, have in the past been hardened while
only a small remnant is chosen by grace (11:1-10).
In light of such testimony, salvation apart from special revelation can be ruled out as even a possibility, while salvation with special revelation is possible but not certain. The proclamation of the gospel is necessary for salvation, but it is not sufficient, in that all who hear do not believe. None of this, however, rules out completely the possibility of God's specially revealing Himself through dreams or visions or some other supernatural means. Nevertheless, Paul's argumentation in Romans 10 makes such a hope weak, and the speculative nature of such a proposal makes it unfit for teaching as dogma in biblical churches.
Excursus
#2: What about Cornelius?
The conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, recounted by Peter in Acts 11:5-17, has led many to assume a saving faith apart from the knowledge of Jesus through means of general revelation alone. But such an interpretation is not warranted by the text. Cornelius is identified by the text to be a Gentile "God-fearer" (10:2), the use of such a phrase not indicating that Cornelius is here a saved believer, but instead being a general term for Gentiles holding to Jewish beliefs while refusing to undergo circumcision.[32] To be a God-fearer implies nothing about whether or not saving faith is present. Within this passage, an angel (special revelation) appears to both parties to insure the human communication of the specially-revealed gospel to Cornelius. It is through this message that Cornelius and his household will be saved (11:14). When Peter arrives at Cornelius' home, he tells his hearers that they already know the rough outline of the gospel-- good news and peace through Jesus, who is Lord over everyone (10:36). Further, Cornelius and his family already knew that the Holy spirit had anointed Jesus to do miracles (10:37). As Peter was continuing on about the crucifixion, resurrection, coming judgment by Jesus and forgiveness of sins through faith in Him, the Holy Spirit came on those who heard and they were then accepted as fellow Christians. In 11:18, this is said to be an example of repentance unto (eternal) life. Cornelius was not saved prior to his encounter with special revelation through Peter's proclamation of the gospel. This was a genuine conversion from moral but non-saving religion to eternal life. The account of Cornelius provides no hope for those who seek salvation apart from explicit faith in the Jesus who lived, died, and rose from death in history.
IV.
Conclusion
In the Introduction to this
paper, it was argued that the sufficient Scripture requires that the burden of
proof be accepted in arguing for a teaching's reception as dogma. Two specific questions were raised. 1) Positively, does Scripture use its
doctrine of general revelation to assure of salvation some incapable of
explicit faith in Jesus? And 2)
Negatively, does Scripture deny that
general revelation includes the knowledge of God as Redeemer? It has been argued that Scripture does not
use its doctrine of general revelation to assure of any salvation through such
means. Thus, inclusivism is not fit to
be accepted as dogma in Christian churches.
Further, it has been argued that Scripture specifically denies that
general revelation includes the knowledge of God as Redeemer. Special revelation from God is necessary if
any is to be saved. As Scripture is
clear on this point, Christians may not consider this an area of mystery. Churches must teach the necessity of
explicit faith in the historical Jesus as a necessary precondition for the
salvation of the nations. It has been
suggested that the possibility of God's specially revealing His gospel through
supernatural means is not contradicted in Scripture, elevating that possibility
to the status of mystery, leaving some small room for hope.
The stakes in this debate are high. Fundamental teachings such as the depravity of fallen man, the nature of saving faith, the Christian doctrine of God, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus and His role as Covenant Mediator are all involved. In discussing the claim that Abraham's faith serves as a model for adherents of nonbiblical religions who "recognize their wickedness and seek divine forgiveness, even though they do not know the specific name of Jesus of Nazareth any more than did Abraham, " Carl Henry writes:
We may properly challenge this claim, ...for God's
covenant with Abraham, bringing blessing to the nations, has for its context
revealed religion that already focuses on the Mediator-Messiah, involving as it
does a divinely approved sacrifice, if only in an elementary and preparatory
sense. If God's covenant-relationship
is attenuated merely to man's repentance and divine forgiveness, we imply that
God is tolerant of sin in a manner that Old Testament faith precludes;
moreover, we anticipate Judaism's later error of essentially identifying the
covenant with a works-religion. The God
of the Old Testament is angry with mankind in sin; only the satisfaction of his
righteousness and the expiation of sin by the perfect sacrifice of the promised
Mediator renders him propitiatory. A
religion that speaks of forgiveness without a doctrine of substitutionary
mediation and atonement has nothing in common with either Old Testament or New
Testament religion.[33]
The burden here is clear. It is impossible to provide for the reception of the gospel through general revelation without changing the gospel. And it is impossible to change the gospel in this way without adopting an non-Christian doctrine of God-- an unholy God whose saving grace is a necessary divine attribute rather than a free act toward those with no basis to expect it.
There is real tension between the revelation of God the Creator which damns and the revelation of God the Redeemer which saves, but that tension is not the tension of an inconsistent theological system. That tension is the tension between damning guilt and unmerited favor-- such tension is the tension of grace. General revelation cannot be a basis for the salvation of those who do not hear, not only because they universally reject such revelation, but even more so because the gospel of Jesus Christ is nowhere contained within God's general revelation of Himself. The proclamation of the special revelation of Jesus Christ crucified remains the only hope for the salvation of the nations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berkouwer, G.C. "General and Special Divine Revelation," in Carl F.H. Henry, ed. Revelation and the Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958) 11-24.
Brown, Harold O.J. "How Crowded Will Hell Be?" Christianity Today Vol. 36 (September 14, 1992) 39-40.
Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977).
Craigie, Peter C. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 19: Psalms 1-50. (England: Word (UK) Ltd, 1983).
Cranfield, C.E.B. Romans: A Shorter Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985).
Crocket, William V. and James G. Sigountos, eds. Through No Fault of their Own? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991).
Demarest, Bruce A. General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
Walter A. Elwell, ed. Topical Analysis of the Bible. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991).
Erickson, Millard J. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994).
Erickson, Millard J. How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996).
Helm, Paul. The Divine Revelation: The Basic Issues. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982.
Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation and Authority, Vol. 6: God Who Stands and Stays. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983).
Morris, Leon. I Believe in Revelation. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976).
Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994).
Ockholm, Dennis L. and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995).
Peterson, Robert A. Syllabus to "The Bible and Its Interpretaton" (Covenant Theological Seminary, Fall 1994).
Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God's Mercy. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992).
Pinnock, Clark H. "Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 33 (September 1990).
Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Ramm, Bernard. Special Revelation and the Word of God. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961).
Sanders, John. No Other Name. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992).
Sanders, John, ed. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Stott, John. The Contemporary Christian. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
Weeks, Noel. The Sufficiency of Scripture. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988).
[33]Henry, 369.