Inclusivism: The Answer to the Emerging Question?

31 thoughts on “Inclusivism: The Answer to the Emerging Question?”

1. Timmy! Here I go, live and in color from Norton 195! 🙂

   Good post bro. I went back and read the four post’s by Tiessen. Honestly, I think he has missed it with the question for the ECM. I dont think it is an issue of inclusivism at all. At least I dont think the main question is that. My thinking is the very question he is heralding as the question for the ECM is only an outflow of a much bigger, and I think ultimate question for the ECM: Where are we going to come down on our view of truth. Posing the question of inclusivism comes out of a denial of biblical authority and inerrancy and infallibility. If you affirm the reality of a Spirit inspired revealtory Word of God, and you believe that it is inerrant and speaks with authority, then the question of inclusivism and the necessity of hearing and belief to be saved is settled. Scripture is clear on the matter. Paul makes it absolutely clear in Romans 10:13-17, “…everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

   The question the emerGENT church leaders and followers must answer is what they believe about the Bible. If you have a skewed view of Scripture and misguided view of truth you can fall easily into the false belief that men and women could be saved apart from the hearing and responding to the Gospel of Christ. The testimony of Scripture repeatedly denies and refutes an inclusivistic or pluralistic worldview. In light of the way you answer this question will come a conviction on being involved in the task of taking the Gospel to the nations. If there is any other way to be saved than the hearing and believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ then we might as well stay at home on the couch. Because there is not (based on Scriptural claims), we must follow the biblical mandate to the nations…

2. Jared,

   Just for the record, I want to assure you that I am committed to the complete authority of Scripture as God’s inerrant word. So, I want to suggest that you reconsider your judgment about the nature of the issue. Granted, there are many inerrantists who hear the Bible to be clearly teaching ecclesiocentrism, as you do. There are many other inerrantists, however, who do not think that Scripture speaks clearly to the matter and they remain agnostic about the issue. Throughout the church’s history, there have been others who believe that Scripture specifically gives us reason to believe that God does not completely limit his saving work to the church’s efforts of evangelism. I came to this conclusion myself, some years ago, and eventually I made my biblical case in the 500+ pages of Who Can Be Saved?

   Like a good Berean, you have the right to examine the case for accessibilism and test it by your own reading of Scripture, but I think you should be aware that not all inerrantists are ecclesiocentrists.

   Shalom,
   Terry Tiessen

3. After reading Brother Tiessen’s book for Dr. Ware’s theology class, I was left with the sense that Tiessen is thoroughly committed to trying to be faithful to Scripture and theologically consistent with a Reformed understanding of the doctrines of grace. I don’t believe he is at all guilty of belittling the sovereignty of God in salvation. Tiessen is careful to avoid relativistic pluralism yet concludes that the Holy Spirit may be at work in the hearts and minds of individuals in other religious traditions. Tiessen is adamant that accessibilism must not compromise Christian zeal for world missions and evangelism, but is also optimistic about the possibility of God sovereignly saving a portion of the unevangelized.

   I must give Tiessen credit for exploiting the weakest link of evangelicalism’s soteriology (and the broad Reformed tradition, for that matter): the salvation of infants. Nevertheless, a perfect correlation does not exist between the respective moral abilities of an unborn or infant child and the mature but unevangelized man. Because Tiessen frequently expresses his belief that God condemns sinners based upon their actual sins, an infant or unborn child does not have as much opportunity to sin, as does a pagan who has a conscience and the natural law. Thus, Tiessen’s attempt to broaden the Reformed/evangelical allowance for the salvation of infants to an accessibilist soteriology is understandable but not convincing, in my opinion.

   And at the end of the day, I just don’t think the book does justice to Romans 10:14: “How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”

4. Dr. Tiessen,

   First, I want to tell you how refreshing that scholars like yourself will take the time to discuss theological matters with others via blogs. It is obvious that you are willing to dialogue with others who desire to know more and inquire about the positions currently being held on various theological matters.

   I think it is worthwhile to mention that, although one may disagree on certain theological points, there may be others were we are in agreement. For instance, I am sympathetic to your presentation (as well as Dr. Ware’s) on compatilibist middle knowledge and the paradigm of God’s providence which you present in Providence and Prayer. However, I would disagree with you regarding accesibilism. Maybe in the future it would be worthwhile to do a little Q&A on such various theological issues with you to provide readers with a little more konwledge on matters you have chosen to address and where you stand. Would you be up for something like that? If so, I will contact you and discuss the matter with you at a time appropriate and suitable to your schedule.

5. Dr. Tiessen,

   You are right, and I do apologize for misrepresenting your view on inerrancy. It isnt fair to lump everyone believing in an accesibilism into the category of denying the inerrancy of Scripture. It is however difficult for me to understand the interpretive task of passages such as Romans 10 for example, in denying the exclusivity of salvation. Maybe I will have to pick up your book! 🙂

   Ciao

   Jared Dobbins

6. I know where you are coming from in regard to Romans 10, Jared. I preached ecclesiocentric (exclusivist) sermons at missionary conferences for years before I paid sufficient attention to the context to realize that Paul is saying nothing about the unevangelized. He is puzzling about why so few of his fellow Jews believe in Jesus as Messiah. In the process, he tries out the hypothesis that they may not believe because they have not heard. After all, there is a general principle that faith requires revelation. In fact, however, Paul concludes, the message concerning Christ has been very widely spread, so this is obviously not the reason.

   In short, this is a text about evangelized people who do not believe. (The next chapter explains that the reason for this is God’s hardening.) To draw conclusions from it concerning the unevangelized is to take the text out of context.

   My point is that everyone receives revelation in some form and that all revelation is potentially saving, but the required faith response differs, depending on the kind of revelation received. Romans 1, for instance, indicates that what God seeks from those who receive the revelation in nature is acknowledgment of God as creator and a spirit of thankfulness. Romans 2 makes it very clear that judgment is according to the revelation received. Those who do not receive the Law (Scripture) are not judged by it.

   Shalom,
   Terry Tiessen

7. Timmy,

   I’d be happy to do a Q & A some time, if you wish.

   I’m happy to hear of your acceptance of compatibilist middle knowledge.

   Shalom,
   Terry Tiessen

8. Dr. Tiessen,

   I will contact you soon.

   Over the past four months, I have been working through the various versions of inclusivism, from Karl Rahner and Hans Kuhn on the RCC side to Neal Punt’s “biblical universalism,” Sanders “believer/Christian” dichotomy, Pinnock’s “faith principle,” and your version of “universally sufficient grace.” In the near future, I hope to write a lengthy paper on inclusivism and saving faith. At this point, I have examined Pinnock and Sanders. Your model is on the docket. 🙂 Therefore, I cannot at this point feel like I can legitimately dialogue (unless to showcase my ignorance) with you regarding your model but hope to inquire about it in the future.

   If I may, I do however have a question concerning your understanding of revelation in Romans. Romans 1 and 2 are generally understood as God’s general revelation to mankind through creation and conscience. As you said, everyone receives this kind of revelation. However, are you arguing (as Pinnock and Sanders do) that people can respond positively to general revelation and it become salvifically efficacious? Does this not blur the line between general and special revelation, or is there one? Also, given that you work from a Reformed framework, do you justify that with universal sufficient grace (as compared to the Arminian universal prevenient grace)? Also, Pinnock and Sanders are adamant about the rejection of filioque, arguing that the Holy Spirit operates freely and independently from the Son. Do you agree with their pneumatological inclusivism? Secondly, you argued that judgment is according to the revelation received or not received (e.g. the Law in Rom. 2). How do you reconcile this with such passages as John 3:18?

   On another note, I realize that inclusivists will point back to the early church fathers and make the case that ecclesiocentrism didn’t set in until Augustine. I am also reading through your book Irenaus and the Salvation of the Unevangelized. Given that Irenaus was before Augustine, do you believe that the Augustinian tradition of ecclesiocentrism got it wrong?

   Again, thanks for your time and comments. I look forward to your response and possible future correspondence.

   Timmy Brister

9. Dear Timmy,

   Thank you for your very perceptive questions. I’ll try to be brief.

   1. Re: general and special revelation

   Yes, I do believe that general revelation could be salvific if the Spirit illumined a recipient, although I doubt that there are many for whom this is true, because I argue that special revelation is more widely available than is often assumed. Richard Mouw posited (in He Shines in All That’s Fair) that the line between common and special grace is sometimes difficult for us to identify and I think that this has implications for our thoughts about revelation.

   At the level of availability, the distinction between general and special revelation is very clear. Any revelation that is not available to everyone is special. I disagree, however, with those who include the saving purpose of God in the definition, which entails that special revelation is intended to be saving and general is not. On the one hand, I believe that nothing in Scripture gives us reason to believe that general revelation could not save, if there was a faith response to it. Romans 1 tells us that the wrath of God is revealed against recipients of natural revelation who suppress the knowledge of God and worship the creature instead. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone since you and I and millions of others do worship God when we see his handiwork, and we sing “How great thou art,” to testify to that fact.

   I make a less common but very important additional distinction between universally normative (covenantal) special revelation and non-universally normative revelation. Many of the things God said in Scripture were directions to individuals which were not intended for others. Like J. H. Bavinck, I am prepared to grant the possibility that people like Muhammed and Buddha were given special revelation by God but this does not make them prophets of God and it does not entail their being saved.

   2. Re: filioque

   I affirm the filioque clause primarily because I believe it is entailed by the valuable truth that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity. The Father and Son both sent the Spirit in redemptive history and this tells us something about their eternal relations.

   But, I definitely do not believe “that the Holy Spirit operates freely and independently from the Son.” Even general revelation is a work of the Son, through whom all things are created and by whom they are upheld. Thus, if a person were saved through general revelation it would be because the Spirit gave faith to someone to whom the Father revealed himself through the Son. Salvation has always been and will always be a Trinitarian work even when those being saved are ignorant of the Trinity, as was true of all Old Testament believers.

   3. John 3:18 and judgment according to revelation received

   John 3:18 is read seriously out of its context by ecclesiocentrists. John 3, like the rest of the New Testament, makes it absolutely clear that everyone who believes in Jesus is saved and that everyone who rejects him remains in condemnation. It tells us nothing explicitly, however, about those who neither believe nor reject Jesus because they are ignorant of him. John is talking about a context in which the Word had come to his own people and they did not receive him (1:11). John 3:18 makes it clear that those who know Jesus and reject him are condemned. I suggest to you, however, that the rejection of Jesus which condemns is a rejection by those whom the Spirit has enlightened about the identity of Jesus. I am certain that most if not all of the 11 disciples were saved already when Jesus called them to follow him but it was some time before they came to realize that he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” because Jesus only made his identity known gradually and the Father did not reveal the Son’s identity to them immediately. Consequently, we need to be very cautious about asserting that someone has “rejected Jesus” when they have rejected our teaching concerning Jesus. They may be rejecting us not him. The people of whom John speaks are people to whom Jesus had revealed himself and who had suppressed the illumining work of the Spirit.

   Note John 3:21, which makes a very interesting statement about people who do good deeds by God’s work in their life, prior to responding to the gospel, but whose response reveals to us the source of their pre-Christian good deeds. It is in these situations that we are unable to distinguish between common and special grace. Not every morally upright person is saved but some of them may be, even before they encounter Jesus and believe in him. Cornelius is a case in point, as both Aquinas and Calvin granted, despite their general ecclesiocentrism.

   4. Tradition and ecclesiocentrism

   Irenaeus and others before Augustine who were accessibilists (or inclusivists) tended to work from the assumption that humans are libertarianly free and that logically leads to accessibilism. Augustine’s monergism certainly sets the stage for ecclesiocentrism but it does not necessitate it. Once one believes that it is God who decides whom he will save, it is not difficult to believe that God may choose to work savingly only in those to whom he gets the gospel concerning Jesus. The critical question is what Scripture teaches. Despite the widespread ecclesiocentrism among monergists (e.g. Calvinists), I can find not one verse of Scripture that asserts that the unevangelized can not be saved. The texts that are cited to demonstrate it, such as John 3:18 or Rom 10 are read badly out of context.

   Sorry for the length, but you did open up a very large subject.

   Shalom,
   Terry Tiessen

10. Dr. Tiessen,

    Instead of sprinkling a series of questions, I thought maybe I could probe into particular points. For starters, I would like to address the idea of general revelation being salvific.

    You said that you believed that GR could be salvific under the condition that the HS provided the illumination. The way I see it, GR is in the domain of the God as Creator who provides true information of himself to everyone all the time. While I do not see that every form of special revelation has to have soteriological consequence, I also do not see how salvation could occur apart from special revelation. In other words, special revelation is necessary for salvation, but special revelation can occur where salvation is not in the immediate context. I feel like your defense of the possibility of responding positively to general revelation is a little bit misleading because the millions of us who sing “How Great Thou Art” and worhip God as Creator do so precisely because we know Him as Savior. I may be mistaken on this, but I struggle to find an unregenerate singing “How Great Thou Art” or anything remotely close to it when they look at the heavens.

    When it is argued that someone could be illumined with the Spirit having only general revelation, the content of the faith must be that which can be ascertained through creation and conscience, and the object of saving faith must be theocentric (to say that it is implicitly Christocentric is a stretch). Could you provide a biblical case where someone is saved through the illuminating work of general revelation? Cornelius?

    Regarding the implications, do you agree with this statement by Pinnock?
    My proposal would be that God takes account of faith in him even if it occurs in the context of general revelation, and always sees to it that those responding to the light they have encounter Jesus Christ, whether before or after death.

    Does this not mean that Christ eventually becomes epistemologically necessary since they eventually will encounter Christ, whether before or after death?

    When I hear inclusivists making the case from general revelation, I find that they make the case from holy pagans or chronologically displaced persons (which some have called transdispensationalism). I do not buy into either argument. First, the “holy pagans” did receive special revelation, and second, those who argue for chronologically displaced persons do so without biblical theology and leave out the fulfillment of revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. To say that people can be saved today with the same information (or lack thereof) as those before Christ is to dismiss the climax of redemptive history, after which God no longer overlooks the “times of ignorance” but calls everyone everywhere to repent. Even still, I have read the arguments about the Noachic covenant (cosmic covenant) which is God’s covenant with all of mankind thorugh which people can know God and be saved, granted that they respond positively to the information they receive, yet the conclusions derived at this point are simply untenable due to the hermeneutical gymnastics and speculative reasoning. Here’s an example from Pinnock:
    “According to the Bible, persons can relate to God in three ways and covenants: through the cosmic covenant established with Noah, through the old covenant made with Abraham, and through the new covenant ratified by Jesus. One may even speak of salvation in the broad sense in all three circumstances. That is, insofar as salvation connotes a relationship with God, there is salvation for people in all three of the covenants. Of course, there is a more complete saving knowledge of God in the new covenant than in the old, and more in the old than in the cosmic covenant, but a relationship with God is possible in the context of all three covenants. In all three, God justifies Jews and Gentiles on the ground of faith, the condition for salvation in all dispensations (Rom. 3:30).” (Wideness, 105).

    Which brings me to my final point. If you argue that people can respond positively to general revelation, and assuming that you do not espouse libertarian free will, how is that person enabled to put their faith in God? If, according to Scripture, man is dead in his trespasses and sin, that he cannot comprehend the things of God, yea, even more being hostile towards God, hown then does he repent and believe? If you say that the Holy Spirit illumines that person, is this not a tacit rejection of filioque? If Christ’s sending of the Spirit is to glorify Himself (“he will glorify me” Jn 16:14), then would not the Spirit illumining a person apart from knowledge of Jesus be opposite of what this text is saying?

    In general (not general revelation but generally speaking), I have looked at Calvin’s sensus divinitatus, Justin’s logos spermatikos, Barth’s imago dei, and more contemporary thought such as Richardson’s redemptive analogies, Osburn’s primeval revelation, and McDermott’s treatment of Edwards. I think that some proposals are more plausible than others, but in the end, I come down to the fact that God passion is to glorify His Son, and it has been the Church’s mission to glorify the Son. It has been the thrust of Christian mission for 2000 years to glorify the Son, to do all for the sake of the Name. Our God who has revealed himself as Creator generally to all people has also revealed himself especially to people for whom he died.

    Well, those are my immediate thoughts about the issue of general revelation and your previous comment. I look forward to your answer when you have time. Thanks again for participating in this dialogue!

    Unto the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

    Timmy Brister

11. Hi Timmy,

    Here are a few thoughts in response to your questions and proposals.

    1. Examples of people responding to general revelation

    I have no biblical example to offer. That may seem conclusive on the issue but I doubt that it is, if Scripture teaches us principles which allow for the possibility, as I believe it does.

    My favourite to date is probably the Irian Jayan idol maker. To make a long story short, he got the thought suddenly one day that it was silly of him to worship the wooden idols he was carving with his own hands, so he started to worship his hands. Not long after that, however, it suddenly dawns on him that Someone else must have made his hands and he starts to worship
    the one who made his hands. That is surely a process that a sinner whose natural inclination is to suppress God’s revelation would never go through apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So, was he saved at that point or only when a missionary arrived and told the elders of the village that he wanted to talk to them about the One who made their hands and feet? That statement brought the idol-maker out of his seat and he shared what he’d gone through, about which no one else knew until that point. There was massive positive response to the gospel. Whether the idol-maker was saved before the missionary arrived or only being prepared to be saved by the gospel is something that only God knows. I find nothing in Scripture to make me doubt, however, that if the idol-maker had died before the missionary arrived he would have been saved by grace (Christ’s saving work and the Spirit’s illumination and regeneration) through faith, as per Romans 1.

    I also like the story of the young fellow fleeing communist China. He had no knowledge of Christ at all and had been taught atheism all his life. On his route, however, fearful for his life, he knelt down before a tree and asked the One who made the tree to get him out of China. He made it out, met some Christians, recognized that the God they spoke about was the one to whom he had prayed and he believed in Jesus. Again, I have no idea when the saving moment occurred in his life but he had some sort of Spirit enabled faith (even if pre-salvific) when he prayed at that tree.

    2. Pinnock’s statement.

    You asked: “do you agree with this statement by Pinnock? My proposal would be that God takes account of faith in him even if it occurs in the context of general revelation, and always sees to it that those responding to the light they have encounter Jesus Christ, whether before or after death.”

    I do not believe in post-mortem salvation as Pinnock, Fackre, Bloesch and others do. Fackre and Bloesch state very clearly, however, that post-mortem hearing of the gospel is not a second chance, it is only an opportunity for those who were unevangelized. In contrast, I posit that everyone (not only Christians) meets Christ at the moment of death. This is decidedly not a chance to accept Christ for people who have been rejecting him up to that moment. People will respond to Jesus consistently with their response to God in the lesser forms of revelation that they have received. It would probably make ecclesiocentrists happier if I proposed that this would be the moment of salvation for people whom God was leading forward to that point. Instead, however, I suggest that Scripture leads us to assume that salvation would have taken place before that moment but those who have been saved will immediately recognize in Jesus the one for whom they have been longing. Obviously this is a bit speculative, but no more so than A. H. Strong’s proposal in regard to the possible salvation of infants through their at death meeting with Jesus, and I think that it is biblically justified speculation. Granted, Scripture only explicitly states that Christians meet Jesus at death but it seems very likely to me that everyone does and Scripture does not explicitly deny this.

    3. The “times of ignorance”

    You said: “To say that people can be saved today with the same information (or lack thereof) as those before Christ is to dismiss the climax of redemptive history, after which God no longer overlooks the “times of ignorance” but calls everyone everywhere to repent.”

    An interpretive judgment has been made about when the times of ignorance ends. Ecclesiocentrists take this to be a redemptive-historical moment, so that the time when God overlooked people’s unbelief in Jesus stopped at Pentecost, at the latest. That certainly raises questions about the saving condition of old covenant believers who had the faith of Abraham but who had still not heard about Jesus when Pentecost occurred. I think that the condition of such people is exemplified for us in Acts 19, when Paul meets the followers of John, in Ephesus. For them, Pentecost had not yet happened existentially, but they were surely saved before that time. Like I. Howard Marshall and others, I believe that the “times of ignorance” stop when the gospel is clearly encountered. Paul’s point to the Athenians was not that they needed to believe in Jesus because the time of God’s forbearance had stopped a few years previously. Paul’s point is that he was then telling the Athenians the gospel and so their time of ignorance had come to an end. The “times of ignorance” stop at different dates for different people. We’re back to Romans 2. God only holds people accountable for the revelation he gives them.

    4. Regeneration of non-Christians and the filioque

    You asked: “If, according to Scripture, man is dead in his trespasses and sin, that he cannot comprehend the things of God, yea, even more being hostile towards God, hown then does he repent and believe? If you say that the Holy Spirit illumines that person, is this not a tacit rejection of filioque?”

    I don’t see that this follows. Perhaps it comes from confusing the eternal procession of the Son from the sending of the Spirit by the Son at Pentecost. Old Testament believers were illumined and regenerated by the Spirit and so would anyone be who is saved now, though they live epistemically in the situation of the old covenant. Abraham did not have to know the Trinity to be regenerated by the Spirit who eternally proceeded from God. The disciples of John, in Ephesus, had been regenerated by the Spirit before they realized that the promised messianic Spirit had been sent and became Christians and members of the new covenant community.

    We are entrusted with the wonderful message of the gospel and we seek to end people’s ignorance whenever we can. We do this, even when we know that some of the people we meet may already be saved, because we know that God wants them to enter into the blessing that comes with knowledge of Jesus and membership in the new covenant community, the church. To know that God is at work in other people’s lives before we get there produces a wonderful expectancy in us, as evangelists. This is why we need to listen, not just talk, to find out where they are now, whether they are moving toward God but ignorant, or whether they are resisting God, ignorant or not.

    Shalom,
    Terry

12. Dr. Tiessen,

    Thanks for your quick and generous reply. Because I would like to delve into other apsects of your accesibilism, I want to make one follow up on your last comment and maybe move to a different point (if that is okay).

    Romans 2

    You state that the unevangelized cannot be judged for what he has not received. The context of Rom. 2:12-14 is judgment, not salvation. To take this passage and argue for the possibility of salvation among the unevangelized doesn’t seem to be fair to the text, implying it to say something that is simply not there. Moreover, the doctrine of inculpable ignorance seems problematic because in God’s eyes, none of us are innocent because our state of sin. Does culpability come only when a person receives the Law or some other form of special revelation, or is culpability inherent in the sinful state in which we are conceived? I know there is a distinction made here between original and actual sin, but if you go the route that a person cannot be judged because they haven’t received special revelation (or the gospel), then it seems that we have to redefine when and how a person is understood as “lost.” The conclusion is that only when the innocence and inability to be judged is removed that a person becomes lost and worthy of judgment. I find this argumentation consistent with libertarians because they assert that the dignity of man lies in his self-determinating choice but not in a monergistic and compatibilistic framework.

    Universal Access Requirement

    The previous point leads me to what is often called the “universal access requirement” posited by Pinnock and Sanders. They argue:

    “According to God’s justice all people will be judged impartially and condemned if they reject the saviour. People will not be condemned for not hearing of Christ. Those condemned to hell are condemned only for their rejection of Christ (John 3:17-18, Mark 16:16). If people will be condemned only for their rejection of the saviour then they will have to be given an opportunity, sometime, to accept or reject him. If God is loving and just, then he will give all people ample opportunity to hear of the forgiveness and redemption which his Son accomplished and make a decision regarding it.” (Sanders, “Is Belief Necessary for Salvation?, EvQ, 250)

    “Of one thing we can be certain: God will not abandon in hell those who have not known and therefore have not declined his offer of grace. Though He has not told us the nature of His arrangements, we cannot doubt the existence and goodness of them.” (Pinnock, “Is Jesus the Only Way,” Eternity, 34)

    From what I understand from your comments (again I have not read your book thoroughly), you posit that everyone receives some form of revelation through which they can respond positively, granted that the Holy Spirit illumines them. If God is committed to giving everyone access to this form of revelation which is potentially salvific, then does this not squelch the necessity and thrust for world evangelization? It is my conviction that God is working through His Church, sending His people with the message of Jesus Christ, to build His Church and advance His kingdom. I guess that would make me an ecclesiocentrist. 🙂 But I am one because I believe God is an ecclesiocentrist, a case which does not need conjecturing but clear exposition of Scripture.

    I am persuaded by Paul in Romans that he understands that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. For instance, I see two texts which serve as a kind of bookends, namely Rom. 1:4-5 and 15:20.

    ” . . . Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations . . .”

    ” . . . and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ has not been named . . .”

    The author of Romans was under the conviction that all people were accountable to God because “all have sinned,” that “the wages of sin is death,” and that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”–a hearing and believing that comes when God-sent messengers go to those who have not heard. If Paul believed that access to salvation came through other means, why would he do “all for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:24)? Why would he subject himself to imprisonment, suffering, rejection, ridicule and all sorts of persecution if God revealed Himself to the Gentiles apart from the message of Jesus Christ? Methinks one only need to look at the marks on Paul’s body (Gal. 6:17) to see that he was no accesibilist or inclusivist.

    So when I look at the context of the book of Romans together, when I look at the life of Paul and his lifelong mission, when I look at the progress of revelation and redemptive history culminating in the person and work of Christ, when I look at God’s passion for the supremacy of His Son in salvation, I find myself in two places: first, I am in worship that God, in his soveriegn grace saved me, and second, that I must invest my life in taking the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, either across the street or across the world.

    Let me make a ceveat here. Because you do not know me personally, I feel it incumbant upon me to inform you that I am a passionate person. Therefore if appears that I am coming on strongly, it is not that I am trying to sound hard or unreasonable; it is just that I write like I live–passionate to the hilt. In spite of that, I make it my goal to be as objective and reasonable as I can. I hold to the idea that if you believe something, you should really believe in it, but in the same sense I recognize my fallibility, ignorance, and need to hold all my beliefs before God and His Word and subject it to other Christians who can challenge and critique them. With that said, I sincerely value your feedback and dialogue. I just don’t want my thoughts to be considered non-conversant or unreasonable. I hope you understand. 🙂

    I look forward to your respond and future discussion on other points you address in your position.

    Timmy Brister

13. Thanks for your further interaction, Timmy. I appreciate passion about truth so you needn’t apologize on that account.

    Romans 2

    Is it fair to Paul’s context here to make so sharp a distinction between judgment and salvation? The day of Judgment is a day when both God’s just condemnation and his gracious salvation are revealed, for his glory. Back up just a few verses to 2:6-7: “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immorality, he will give eternal life.” Surely, there Paul is talking about salvation, though his context is “the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.” So, vs 8 gives us the flip side of condemnation for those who are self-seeking, reject the truth and do evil.

    Note how badly Paul’s description of the behaviour necessary for salvation fits with the ecclesiocentrist insistence that full knowledge of the work of Christ is necessary. Here I think that Paul is picking up on the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics. A colleague of mine has just finished an article on salvation in the Synoptics and I look forward to its publication because I think that it is excellent but it will trouble some, I suspect. His bottom line is that Jesus has virtually nothing to say about faith in the Synoptic accounts. There, Jesus consistently calls upon people to do good works. It is the message of James, rather than the one that we have heard so strongly from Paul. The two are not in conflict, however, because the critical issue is not faith vs. works as instruments of justification but grace vs merit as the ground. Here in Romans 2, I think that we hear an echo of Jesus from the Synoptic portrayal.

    Inculpable ignorance

    I certainly agree with you that everyone is guilty before God, both on account of their sin in Adam and of their deeds “done in the body.” So no one is inculpable for sin. My point is that the sin for which God holds us accountable varies relative to the revelation that we receive. Noah and Abraham were not kept from salvation by their ignorance of the Trinity and of the Son’s incarnation, death and resurrection. Hebrews 11 catalogues a fascinating variety of acts of faith which please God but they all stop short of the knowledge of the gospel that ecclesiocentrists insist is necessary for salvation.

    The importance of evangelism

    I was keenly aware when writing my book that missionaries are gravely concerned that anything other than ecclesiocentrism will undercut the church’s willingness to do costly missionary work. I devoted a chapter to alleviate these concerns. Either you haven’t gotten that far or I was not persuasive. My parents were missionaries in India, my wife and I were missionaries in the Philippines and we have a son who is a missionary in Central Asia. I believe in the critical task of evangelism and church planting. The interesting thing is that ecclesiocentrism as a motivation for mission is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the church, as a dissertation at TEDS has demonstrated. (John Sanders told me about it but I haven’t seen it myself.)

    You focus on Paul. Take a look at my section on Paul’s missionary motivation. It struck me that Paul never makes any appeal to ecclesiocentrism either with regard to his own motivation or to motivate others. He informs the Romans that he looks to them to support his mission to Spain but he says nothing about the lostness of the Spanish unless he gets there nor does he urge the Romans to send someone because he is delayed. Nowhere in the New Testament do I find ecclesiocentrism used to motivate evangelism and the church did very well without it until the 19th C. Billy Graham faithfully preached the gospel to great numbers for many years after he told an interviewer that he did not believe that the unevangelized can not be saved.

    When you think about it, it is strange that we should be concerned that God might save someone without our assistance. The point is that he commands us to go and he promises that the gospel is the power of God to salvation. This is God’s normal means of drawing sinners to himself. I think it most probable that God will save most of the elect who live to an age when they could understand the gospel through that means. What I do not find is even one text in Scripture that clearly asserts that God will not save anyone apart from the church’s missionary witness. As Alister McGrath puts it, God doesn’t let the unfaithfulness of the church be the limits of his saving program. (Exact quote is in my book.)

    It is critical that we not underestimate the value of the church. Mission is not just about saving people in the next life. God wants them to enjoy all the blessings that come from knowing Christ through the Scriptures and living in a community of Bible believing followers. This is where the church’s mission shines. Societies have been totally transformed by the gospel as generations grow up within the knowledge of the gospel. The salvation that one can experience now, apart from the gospel, pales in significance when compared with the wonders of fellowship in a new covenant community where the new life is lived out in all of its communal dimensions. That is what we want for those we love and simply knowing that some (relatively few) may have been saved for eternity by God’s extraordinary means of grace will not discourage us from the task of getting the fulness of the gospel to them now.

    Does that make some sense?

    Terry

14. Dr. Tiessen,

    I would like to pick up on Romans 2 and salvation/judgment. I will hold on the Synoptics and saving faith because I would like to treat that on an individual post (for another discussion).

    Romans 2 and Salvation

    I will concede the fact that Romans 2:7 (“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life”) is a difficult passage that needs to be addressed further. Does this teach that salvation can be attributed to good works? If so, then it appears that either Paul is confused and the Bible contradicts itself? You argued, “Surely, there Paul is talking about salvation . . .”, so are we to conclude that indeed salvation is granted on the basis of doing good and not faith alone in Christ alone? This same line of reasoning is given by Pinnock and the “act of faith.” Let me provide some quotes:

    “Scripture speaks in different ways about how people are saved subjectively. For example, it says that God loves the seekers and rewards them even if they are not Jews or Christians (Heb. 11:6). It says that Christ will save some people who have no idea who Jesus is but who showed by their deeds that they love God’s Kingdom (Matt. 25:37). A response is required in each case, but there can be more than one kind of response.” (Pinnock, Misgivings and Openness, 123).

    “I find support in Paul’s statement that people may search for God and find him from anywhere in the world (Acts 17:27). I appreciate his saying that the Gentiles have God’s Law written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15) and may be given eternal life when, by patiently doing good, they seek for glory and honor and immortality (Rom. 2:7). As a Catholic might put it, they are people with a desire for baptism who have not been able to be baptized. Inclusivism responds to such generous statements.” (Ibid., 124).

    “Did Jesus tell us that giving the thirsty a drink of cold water is an act of participation in the selfless love of God revealed in the gospel and makes one his sheep (Matt. 25:31-40)?” (Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” 119).

    “One can make a faith response to God in the form of actions of love and justice.” (Pinnock, Wideness, 97).

    “Those also can attain 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. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace.” (Vatican II, quoted by Pinnock in Widness, 98).

    Now, in light of these arguments made by Pinnock, let’s go back to Romans 2. I am sure that you are well aware of an article by Doug Moo entitled “Romans 2: Saved Apart from the Gospel?” in Through No Fault of Their Own (137-45). Moo begins by saying, “Romans 2 . . . seems to furnish considerable exegetical ammunition to those who think that people can be saved without responding in faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ” (138). He explains that “others . . . say that Paul opens the door here to the possibility that people after Christ’s coming, who have never heard the gospel in any form, can be saved by a sincere and obedient response to the ‘light’ they have received” (ibid.). I assume that you would be included in the “others” here.

    However, Moo rightly asserts that the biggest problem for allowing salvation by works (or as Pinnock would argue as “acts” of faith) is that “such a reading conflicts with other texts in this same letter” (Ibid.). If you argue that Paul contradicts himself, you therefore destroy the value of appealing to Paul as an authority and the epistle carries even lesser weight. Moo asks, “What kind of authority should Paul have for us if he so blatantly contradicts himself at so fundamental a point for his theology and preaching?” (138-39) I think that is a fair question, don’t you?

    The paragraph we are referring to (Rom. 2:6-11) begins and ends with the statements that God will judge each person, whether Jew or Gentile, “according to their works.” This is important to show that this paragraph serves the purpose to show the standard by which God judges each person and is not teaching how a person can be saved. Regarding “those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immorality, he will give eternal life,” do you actually think that anyone sufficiently persists in a matter satisfactory to God’s holy standards? It appears to me that Paul clearly denies that possibility when he concludes that “all are under sin” (3:9) and that no one can be justified by the works of the law” (3:20).

    Inculpable Ignorance

    I am glad to hear that you believe that everyone is guilty before God. 🙂 Could I probe a little further by asking you, “What makes a person blame-worthy and justified by spending an eternity in hell separated from God?” I find this very telling for inclusivists, because they will do all kinds of things to make it possible for those who do not believe in Jesus to go to heaven but have very little to say of those deserving judgment and eternal punishment in hell. I think this is due to an unabalanced view of God’s character, namely the inclusivists hyper-emphasis on God’s love and mercy and conspicuous silence on God’s wrath, justice, holiness, and judgment. I am all about God’s love and mercy and kindess (please don’t hear what I am not saying!); I just want to have a balanced and bibical theology proper.

    One of the ironies of the inclusivst view of saving faith is that they almost entirely derive their definition of saving faith from the Old Testament. They build their definition on one text (Hebrews 11:6), and work from their onto the Melchizedek factor and implicit faith. Yet it is in this very Old Testament we find the most vivid and striking passages which speak of God’s jealousy, holiness, wrath, and judgment. Furthermore, the place which speaks so muich of God’s love, mercy, and grace (the Johannine and Pauline tradition) is almost entirely ignored when it comes to saving faith. If this weren’t so serious, I would find such selective deducements laughable.

    Church and Mission

    Given that I have gone to far, I will just say that I am heartened to hear about your missionary background, commitment to evangelization, and belief in the importance of the Church. I would like to comment more, but I suppose that will have to come at a later time. 🙂

    I look forward to hearing your reply, and in the meantime I will be preparing my post on the Synoptics and saving faith.

    tnb

15. Hi Timmy,

    A few comments on your questions and thoughts,

    Romans 2 and Salvation

    For the sake of space, I won’t comment on all the statements from Pinnock, but I’ll sum up my general take on this particular issue.

    I agree completely with Moo that Paul would not contradict himself. Nor would the Gospels. I believe that Scripture consistently asserts that faith is the instrument of justification, it is what God requires from those to whom he reveals himself and it is therefore the gift that God gives to those whom he has chosen to save. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). So, I do not see good works as an alternative to faith but as an evidence of the regenerative work of God in a person’s life. This is what I hear from James. He is concerned about people who seemed to think that an orthodox doctrinal confession was adequate for salvation, without any transforming effect in their behaviour.

    Coincidentally, I just read a text this morning in the morning prayers from the Divine Hours that puts this all together. In Acts 26, speaking to Agrippa, Paul recounts how the Lord had commissioned him as a witness so that people might be turned from darkness to light and might “receive through faith in me [Jesus], forgiveness of their sins and a share in the inheritance of the sanctified.’” Paul then tells Agrippa that he started preaching, urging people “to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds.” I take “turning to God” to be synonymous with believing. It is an orientation of the heart toward, rather than away from God, which is our natural sinful tendency. But how do we know whether the faith people profess in Jesus is the product of God’s regenerative work in the heart? This we discern in their deeds. Compare here John’s “tests” or evidences of sonship, in his first epistle. This is what the Lutheran Apology tried to express, in response to Roman Catholic fears of antinomianism in their strong affirmation of justification by faith alone: “no one is justified by works but no one is justified without works.”

    When I read Paul’s negative comments about works, I do not see him contrasting these with faith. Rather, he is contrasting merit and grace. That is the point in Eph 2:8-9. So, going back to the Synoptics, which sound so different from the Gospel of John, for instance, I do not hear them presenting works as the means to inherit eternal life as though one earned eternal life by this means. That would clearly conflict with John’s strong emphasis on faith. Rather, I hear the point that James was making. It is impossible to keep God’s commandments in a way that pleases God unless one’s heart is right. If we keep them as a means to justify ourselves, we remain condemned, partly because we are unable to keep them perfectly, but particularly because we deny the essential graciousness of God’s work of salvation. Merit vs. grace is the critical issue.

    So, coming back to Romans 2, what I hear is not that good deeds are an alternative to faith for those who do not have the knowledge of God necessary for saving faith. Rather, I think that seeking the good things Paul itemizes is a form of faith. It is not a work, instead of faith, it is a particular expression of faith, no less significant than an orthodox confession by those who are fully instructed.

    In short, the work of Christ is and has always been the ground of justification, faith is the instrument of justification, and good works are the evidence of the regeneration by which God works faith in people’s hearts, that is, by which God turns people’s hearts toward himself. It is always accompanied by repentance, that is by a sense of one’s falling short of God’s demands and of the impossibility of remedying that shortcoming by oneself. As J. N. D. Anderson and J. I. Packer observe, it is when people who are ignorant of Jesus cast themselves upon the mercy of God that we have reason to hope that God is savingly at work.

    Deservingness of judgment

    I don’t think that we have any disagreement in regard to your comments here. Everyone is a sinner in active rebellion against God and deserves to remain alienated from God with all of the horrors that this entails. I am not led to my own accessibilism by any illusions about the sinfulness of human beings nor by any minimizing of the holiness, justice and righteous wrath of God. My point is that I do not see Scripture to be asserting that God’s saving grace operates only within the covenant community. Prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, after that covenant, and on beyond the establishment of the new covenant in Jesus, we are never told that God saves only those who are in contact with the covenant people. Were that the case, it would be extremely difficult to understand Israel’s lack of active missionary commission or God’s not revealing himself in similar ways in North America and elsewhere. It could be, of course, that God simply elected no one outside of that small part of the world, for centuries, but that seems unlikely to me given Scripture’s testimony to the expansiveness of God’s grace. I find nothing in Scripture to indicate that this was so and I am struck by the stories that come from the traditions of these peoples concerning God’s revelation of himself to them. That these should only have been for the purpose of increasing their condemnation seems to me an unnecessary assumption.When God called out Abraham, I find no biblical reason to believe that he intentionally made salvation available to no one in the vast parts of the world which were completely ignorant of what God was doing in Ur.

    Israel’s task as covenant people was to be a living witness of the blessing of faith and obedience to the one and only true God. As paradigmatic of the faithful remnant of God’s grace, God eventually brought Jesus, the Messiah from that covenant line and then extended the covenant community, breaking down the ethnic division. To the new covenant community, God gives a much more active commission to preach and convert the peoples of the world, but again not one verse of the New Testament states that only those who hear this gospel proclamation and understand it thoroughly can be saved by Christ’s death and resurrection.

    For many years I understood Scripture as you do, Timmy, and I realize how peculiar (and perhaps even dangerous) this sounds to you. I may be wrong, in which case I hope the Lord will make me aware of this. On the other hand, if I am right, I will naturally be happy if others (even you!) come to agreement through their/your own fresh reading of Scripture.

    You cited Pinnock’s quotation from Vatican II. I have found it quite interesting to see the Roman Catholic Church’s developing understanding in this regard, to the point where their members are now forbidden to be ecclesiocentrists. This does not make accessibilism true, of course, but it should give ecclesiocentrists pause. In a forthcoming book of evangelical essays in response to John Paul II’s encyclicals, I have produced the response to Redemptoris Missio (“The Mission of the Redeemer”). I found it an inspiring document that is clearly accessibilist, in spite of the fact that I have been forthright about the aspects of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that keep me very much a Protestant.

    Blessings,
    Terry

16. Dr. Tiessen,

    I trust you had a great weekend. I’m glad that we can continue the dialogue. 🙂

    As I began to read your last response, I was going line by line, amening and agreeing, thinking to myself, “Where do we disagree?” Then I had a “oooh, wait a minute” moment. Let me explain:

    My WAMM (wait-a-minute moment)

    You summarized your position on Romans 2, concluding,

    “I think that seeking the good things Paul itemizes is a form of faith. It is not a work, instead of faith, it is a particular expression of faith, no less significant than an orthodox confession by those who are fully instructed.

    I must say, I found this comment quite alarming for a couple of reasons. Are you saying that the act of a person seeking the good things (e.g. “glory, honor, and immortality”) is a form of faith? What, then, is the object of this faith? It must be glory, honor, and immortality, since that is what they are seeking, is it not? Do you see how problematic this type of “faith” is? Anyone who has a pursuit of some abtract virtues (“good things”) are to be meaured as some form of saving faith leads one to think more like Rahner’s anonymous Christianity (wherein an atheist can be saved) than the faith described by the Apostle Paul (like saying I have “faith” in “faith”). Secondly, it is hard to see how a person’s seeking is not seen as a work in and of itself. That said, to view that the seeking is a form of faith is no different from the form of faith aforementioned in Pinnock’s positing of “acts” of faith (i.e., doing acts of love and justice, giving a cup of cold water, etc.). Finally, I do not see how you can justify that this “form of faith” is no less significant than those who provide an orthodox confession. I take it that saving faith in an orthodox confession carries no less than notitia, assensus, and . Furthermore, I find it highly implausible to conclude that the content of their faith is in any sense remotely comparable to those who have heard and understood propositional trusts and come to believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the only one who saves. I read Moo to adopt the hypothetical interpretation of this paragraph, given that the larger context of Paul’s reasoning is to show that all men, whether Jew or Gentile is “under sin” (3:9) so that no man can be justified by works of the law. As I asked in my last comment, do you believe that Paul is saying that a person who does not know God or has not heard the gospel can actually persist and persevere in obtaining the good things here? If so, would this not be contradictory to Paul’s thesis in Romans altogether? The burden of proof lies not in the ecclesiocentrist camp, but in the accesibilist camp to show how indeed the faith of those who have never heard (however you formulate saving faith) is biblically warranted – which brings me to my next point.

    Expansiveness of Grace or Exposition of Silence?

    I was heartened to hear your recognition and affirmation of all aspects of God’s character, which by the way, sets you apart from Pinnock/Sanders distinctively. In the subsequent paragraph, you argued that there is no reason to think God’s grace extends to those outside the covenant community. You add,

    It could be, of course, that God simply elected no one outside of that small part of the world, for centuries, but that seems unlikely to me given Scripture’s testimony to the expansiveness of God’s grace. I find nothing in Scripture to indicate that this was so and I am struck by the stories that come from the traditions of these peoples concerning God’s revelation of himself to them. That these should only have been for the purpose of increasing their condemnation seems to me an unnecessary assumption.

    Could you elaborate on “Scripture’s testimony to the expansiveness of grace?” When I asked you earlier to give me evidence from Scripture that people have responded to general revelation via illumination of the Holy Spirit, you confessed, “I have no biblical example to offer.” However, you say here that you see nowhere the Sripture asserting that God’s grace operates only within His covenant community. It appears that you are saying, “Well, if the Scriptures is not explicit about _________, then I have the right to be implicit about ________.” I do not feel comfortable with this hermeneutic. It is my preference to remain silent when Scripture is silent and to make it my life long endeavor to say all that the Sriptures has to say. This is based on my belief in the veracity and sufficiency of Scripture, which, in this case especially, needs to be brought to the discussion. To be frank, a lot of famous heresies came about with a trace of Scripture and alot of speculation, and I just don’t want to embark upon such treacherous territory. You ask that I take a fresh look at the Scripture, and that is my heart’s desire. I never want to sit presumptuous over the living Word of God as the Holy Spirit is actively teaching and instructing me in the Scriptures He inspired.

    However, instead of biblical exposition, I am finding myself frustrated (not necessarily by you but by other readings of inclusivists) because of exposition of silence more than exposition of Scripture. When we talk about having faith in God for salvation, should we not have faith in the God of Scripture? It is my conviction that it is an expression of unbelief if not rebellion to go beyond what God has spoken and shrink back from saying what he has clearly revealed in the Scriptures and His Son.

    Inclusivsts have been fond of singing the praises of Vatican II because of the ‘forerunner’ spirit of being more accepting of other religions. I am sure Rahner, Kuhn, D’Costa, Dupuis, and others are well-meaning in their advancing the cause of the RCC. But that is their agenda. Because the RCC no longer allows for their parishoners to be ecclesiocentrists does no more than the popery of that same church which promised deliverance from purgatory with indulgences. Mind me asking, “Since when did the Protestant and evangelical church take their cues from the RCC?” I don’t mean to sound hard-line, but I don’t get the euphoria and giddiness from inclusivists with Vatican II which is so quick to deny the supremacy of Christ for theological reductionism and biblical infidelity.

    Packer an Accesiblist?

    I was intrigued to see your reference to Packer. Anderson is clearly understandable, but Packer? My guess is that you are referring to Packer’s article in the Jan. 17, 1986 edition of CT called “‘Good Pagans’ and God’s Kingdom.” While I need to take a fresh look at that article, I also would like to challenge the idea that Pinnock would be considered an inclusivist or an accesibilist. For instance, consider what he said in Amsterdam 2000 about the content of the gospel (which can be found in Evangelcial Review of Theology25/1 (2001): 16-17.

    Jesus Christ, our sin-bearer on the cross, now from his throne reaches out to rescue us who are lost in the guilt and shame of sin. He calls for faith (trust in him as Saviour) and repentance (turn to him as Master). He send his Holy Spirit to change us inwardly so that we hear his call as addressed to us personally and respond wholeheartedly to it. Whereupon we are forgiven and accepted (justified); received as God’s children (adopted); made to rejoice at our peace with him (assurance); and made to realize that now we are living a new life in Christ (regeneration). Any other view of salvation is deficient. (emphasis mine, 17).

    Also, Packer provides what I take to be his definition of saving faith in his book Fundamentalism and the Word of God in chapter five entitled “Faith.”

    “[T]he nature of saving faith [is] the act and attitude of self-committal whereby the convicted sinner, humbled to see his need and his natural inability even to trust, casts himself in the God-given confidence of self-depair on the mercy of Jesus Christ.” (115)

    I suppose I could provide further quotes (such as Packer’s view on general revelation and other religions in God Has Spoken (53-62), but these will suffice for now.

    Dr. Tiessen, you said that for many years you understood Scripture as I do. Do you mind me asking what led you to change your view on salvation and non-Christians and when? This dialogue has been a great challenge for me to think through the elements of your proposal (as I suppose any novice theologian like myself would be), and I would be interested to hear more about how it came about. And lastly, if I may dare to ask, what would it take to change your mind once again to understand the Scriptures like you used to?

    May the Lord bless you and make His face shine upon you today.

    Timmy

17. Hi again, Timmy,

    God’s reasons for giving eternal life to the unevangelized in Romans 2

    With regard to my comment on Romans 2 that “seeking the good things Paul itemizes is a form of faith,” you expressed alarm and asked: “Are you saying that the act of a person seeking the good things (e.g. “glory, honor, and immortality”) is a form of faith?”

    Yes, that seems necessarily to be the case. Why else would Paul say that God “gives eternal life” to these people? Since Paul is clearly saying that these people are saved, if this is not through an acceptable form of faith, what are you suggesting was the instrument of their justification? I’m genuinely curious.

    You ask an important question next: “What, then, is the object of this faith?” I’m interested in your answer to this question. What do you think it is that God takes into account when he gives them eternal life? I don’t think Paul gives us much more to go on here but I read it in terms of his broader framework of how God effects salvation in people’s lives. Since he is so clear about salvation coming through a faith response to God’s revelation (Rom 10), I hear that framework behind this particular statement in Rom 2. That tells me that these people are not, in fact, seeking “glory, honor, and immortality” as an end in themselves but that their quest for these is a sign of an orientation of their hearts towards God which God must deem to be “faith,” since he grants them eternal life. So Timmy, what is that you see as “so problematic about this type of faith”? God is apparently satisfied with it, isn’t he?

    Expansiveness of God’s Grace

    When I spoke of the expansiveness of God’s grace, I did not have in mind particular instances of salvation but God’s own self-definition in a text like Exodus 34:7 where he passes before Moses and proclaims himself “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” Given the sinfulness of humanity (including myself), I am regularly astounded at God’s patience and goodness, the immensity of his common grace and the wonders of his special grace.

    My hermeneutic

    I think that you have badly misread my approach to this issue but I am likely gulty for having not been clear. About my statement that “I see nowhere the Sripture asserting that God’s grace operates only within His covenant community,” you said: “It appears that you are saying, “Well, if the Scriptures is not explicit about _________, then I have the right to be implicit about ________.” I do not feel comfortable with this hermeneutic.”

    That is good, Timmy, because I am not comfortable with the hermeneutic you describe either. What I’m saying is this. We have instances of people outside the covenant community who were saved – Melchizedek, Jethro, Naaman, Lot. We could include others like Noah and Job who predated the covenant but their situation is somewhat different.

    My point in the above quoted statement is that Scripture does not teach ecclesiocentrism. It tells us that those who believe in Jesus are saved and that those who reject him are condemned. No texts specifically tell us what happens to those who neither believe in nor reject Jesus because they are ignorant of him. This is why so many evangelical leaders are agnostic on this issue. They say: “we don’t know whether God saves any of the unevangelized or not.” That is very different, however, from ecclesiocentrism which says “We know that God does not save any of the unevangelized. Agnostics and accessibilists both say that ecclesiocentrists have gone beyond Scripture’s clear declaration.

    You said: “It is my preference to remain silent when Scripture is silent and to make it my life long endeavor to say all that the Scriptures has to say.” That being the case, Timmy, I think that you should be agnostic, at least, since Scripture does not teach ecclesiocentrism. That was the point I was trying to make. I appreciate your desire not to go beyond Scripture and perhaps my accessibilism does that, but I see lines of biblical teaching which take us there. I cannot say the same about ecclesiocentrism which asserts dogmatically what Scripture nowhere says.

    The Roman Catholic church

    I sense that you and I have quite different perceptions of the Roman Catholic Church, Timmy. My mind has changed a lot in this regard over the past 40 years. When I went to the Philippines (92% Roman Catholic) in 1970, I pretty much assumed that Roman Catholics are all nominal Christians and need to be saved. I say that to my shame. As the years went by, however, I met and read the books of many Catholics whom I am happy to call brothers and sisters in Christ. We differ theologically in quite important ways but not in ways that divide us as saved from unsaved. Obviously there are many nominal Christians in the Roman Catholic Church as there are in Protestant churches, but I do not know ahead of time when I meet a Catholic or a Protestant whether I am going to meet a fellow believer in Jesus or not, simply because of their church affiliation.

    Packer an Accesiblist?

    You provide a lovely quote from Packer and I agree completely with him (and you) that “any other view of salvation is deficient.” But, this is not to say that everyone whose theology is incorrect is unsaved. Were that the case, who of us could be saved? As Donald Bloesch aptly observes, we are justified by faith but we are not justified by knowing that justification is by faith.

    I would identify Packer as agnostic rather than accessibilist but he is clearly not ecclesiocentrist. I had in mind a much more recent statement by Packer than the one you cite from 1986, namely, his little column in Decision magazine, January 2002. But what he said there was essentially what he had written in 1981, in God’s Words: Studies of Key Bible Themes, p. 210: “We may safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on his Maker’s mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far (cf. Acts 10:34f; Rom 10:12f); (iii) anyong thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ. But what we cannot safely say is that God ever does save anyone in this way. We simply do not know.”

    I have laid out my case for believing that we have, in Scripture, more reason for hopefulness than Packer and other agnostics had identified.

    My change of mind

    You asked when and how my mind was changed from ecclesiocentrism to accessibilism. It happened in about 1994 in one of those totally unexpected paradigm shifts that occurs in our lives occasionally. I had read three books for a review article (published in Didaskalia) – Pinnock, Crockett and Sigountos, and Sanders. I started to write my article as an ecclesiocentrist and, much to my surprise, as I was laying out my critique of other alternatives, I suddenly began to see Scripture differently. In the years that followed, I kept reading Scripture and grew steadily in my conviction that the ecclesiocentrist message is not the message of Scripture. My book in 2004 is a product of my later reading and thinking.

    So, what would it take to change my mind again? A paradigm shift. Something would have to happen which caused me suddenly to see Scriptures in a new light.

    I became a Calvinist at Wheaton grad school, in 1967, with just that kind of “conversion.” I read Arminian, Molinist, Thomist etc. literature with as open a mind as I can but thus far without it changing my mind. As a monergist, I am well aware that I am in a minority within the global Christian church and that gives me pause. But, thus far, the more I read the clearer Calvinism looks.

    I expect that there will be Calvinists and Arminians until the end of this age and then of course we’ll all be Calvinists. 🙂 I don’t expect that we will all agree on the salvation of the unevangelized either but it is good for us to keep talking and keep reading the Scripture in quest of God’s truth.

    Blessings,
    Terry

18. Dr. Tiessen,

    Sorry for the delay. We got a little of that white stuff on the ground today for the first time, and I was enjoying being a kid again. 🙂

    Final Word on Romans 2

    I think we are getting close to running the course on Romans 2, so I would like to answer your questions and hope we can discuss further your position of accessibilism.

    You asked, “Why else would Paul say that God “gives eternal life” to these people? Since Paul is clearly saying that these people are saved, if this is not through an acceptable form of faith, what are you suggesting was the instrument of their justification?”

    I have to look at this text with three lenses. First, I am looking at the context of Paul’s argument. Second, I look at everything Paul has said to see if the text and question could be answered by Paul himself. Finally, I look at the entire canon of Scripture and see what God’s Word en toto has to say regarding this text. With that said, I do not believe that Paul “is clearly saying that these people are saved.” All the way through 3:20, Paul is speaking of God’s judgment upon all sinners, shooting down every possible argument that someone can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). As Paul said, there is no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, those who have the law and those who don’t. I am not suggesting they had an instrument of justification because I do not believe this text speaks of justification (if it does, it does hypothetically not potentially). I also do not agree that this is a form of faith because I build my understanding of saving faith from Scripture—which speaks explicity of its nature. You argue that Rom. 2 is indicative of God’s broader framework of Rom. 10, yet Rom. 10 says that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” I do not see how this broader framework could be consonant with Rom. 10 when the intrumentality through which faith comes is absent. It appears that you have concluded that indeed these people must be saved, and that conclusion has led you to interpret their actions of some form of saving faith. If your premise is faulty, every explanation or construction heretofore is baseless. I simply cannot accept the idea that someone seeking “glory, honor, and immortality” be interpreted as faith in God. Such a loose and vague construction allows for practically any person to be saved, so long as they are persistent in seeking these good things (with no reference to God).

    Your hermeneutic

    I apologize if I have misunderstood you, Dr. Tiessen. I never want to present anyone inaccurately or argue from a caricature. Below are the excerpts from our dialogue which were coming to my mind. Maybe this could inform you more on why I said what I did:

    1.17.07 4:22 p.m.

    “On the one hand, I believe that nothing in Scripture gives us reason to believe that general revelation could not save, if there was a faith response to it.”

    “The critical question is what Scripture teaches. Despite the widespread ecclesiocentrism among monergists (e.g. Calvinists), I can find not one verse of Scripture that asserts that the unevangelized can not be saved.”

    1.18.07. 2:58 p.m.

    “I have no biblical example to offer. That may seem conclusive on the issue but I doubt that it is, if Scripture teaches us principles which allow for the possibility, as I believe it does.”

    “I find nothing in Scripture to make me doubt, however, that if the idol-maker had died before the missionary arrived he would have been saved by grace (Christ’s saving work and the Spirit’s illumination and regeneration) through faith, as per Romans 1.”

    “I suggest that Scripture leads us to assume that salvation would have taken place before that moment but those who have been saved will immediately recognize in Jesus the one for whom they have been longing. Obviously this is a bit speculative, but no more so than A. H. Strong’s proposal in regard to the possible salvation of infants through their at death meeting with Jesus, and I think that it is biblically justified speculation. Granted, Scripture only explicitly states that Christians meet Jesus at death but it seems very likely to me that everyone does and Scripture does not explicitly deny this.”

    1.19.07 3:46 p.m.

    “Nowhere in the New Testament do I find ecclesiocentrism used to motivate evangelism and the church did very well without it until the 19th C.”

    “What I do not find is even one text in Scripture that clearly asserts that God will not save anyone apart from the church’s missionary witness.”

    01.22.07 5:22 p.m.

    “My point is that I do not see Scripture to be asserting that God’s saving grace operates only within the covenant community. Prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, after that covenant, and on beyond the establishment of the new covenant in Jesus, we are never told that God saves only those who are in contact with the covenant people.”

    “It could be, of course, that God simply elected no one outside of that small part of the world, for centuries, but that seems unlikely to me given Scripture’s testimony to the expansiveness of God’s grace. I find nothing in Scripture to indicate that this was so and I am struck by the stories that come from the traditions of these peoples concerning God’s revelation of himself to them.”

    “When God called out Abraham, I find no biblical reason to believe that he intentionally made salvation available to no one in the vast parts of the world which were completely ignorant of what God was doing in Ur.”

    “To the new covenant community, God gives a much more active commission to preach and convert the peoples of the world, but again not one verse of the New Testament states that only those who hear this gospel proclamation and understand it thoroughly can be saved by Christ’s death and resurrection.”

    In your most recent comment, you said, “No texts specifically tell us what happens to those who neither believe in nor reject Jesus because they are ignorant of him. . . . I cannot say the same about ecclesiocentrism which asserts dogmatically what Scripture nowhere says.” While there may be no specific texts which say, “Everyone who dies without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ will be go to hell.” I think that the biblical data reveals that one can indeed conclude that this is the case. People are judged because they are sinners, and no sinner is innocent in God’s sight, regardless of whether they are innocent or ignorant of God’s revelation in Christ. God could easily have shown his justice in damning everyone of us in hell, and he would have been right to do so. The fact that a person does not hear the gospel does not change the reality that they are by nature children of wrath, enemies of God, dead in their trespasses and sins, etc. It does not change the fact that God will judge the sin and the sinner in eternity. While you argue that no ecclesiocentrist can dogmatically assert “what Scripture nowhere says,” I find it ironic that such a dogmatic statement can be made by accesibilists who struggle to present a coherent argument from a biblical theology. I hear speculations, conjecturing, and probing into possibilities, but I have yet to hear sound exegesis and exposition of Scipture and fidelity to redemptive history.

    More on Packer

    I happened to pull that Decision article from my research file. While it is indeed true that Packer affirmed the possibility that God may have worked in the heart of a person in another religion to cast himself on God’s mercy, Packer immediate follows up by saying, “But we have no warrant to affirm categorically that this is true in the sense of having actually happened to people to whom God’s promises never came; nor are we entitled to expect that God will act thus in any single case where the Gospel is not known or understood.”

    If I may, I will leave an additional comment with a much more lengthy excerpt from Packer on his thoughts on general revelation in which he addresses in more detail Romans 1-2.

    Your pilgrimage (and mine)

    You are right to say that 1992-94 was a paradigm shift in the discussion of Christianity and world religions. Books, articles, and essays were coming out relentlessly at that time. At that time in my life, my chief concern was how to make it through my puberbescent years with totally embarrassing myself. My first interest in religious pluralism and inclusivism did not come until the end of 2004. Over the past year or so, my primary study has been on John Hick’s religious epistemology and pluralist hypothesis. However, inclusivism has recently been heavy in my research.

    Some Apriori Questions

    Lastly, I want to ask some questions which have been assumed, which I should have asked. I thought I would ask you now just for clarification.

    1. Do you affirm all five points of Calvinism?

    2. Do you affirm all five historical solas?

    3. How do you define the nature of saving faith (as well as its content and object)?

    4. What would you say is the main purpose of salvation?

    I look forward to your thoughts. From here I would like to talk more about the pneumatological aspects of your position with regards to saving faith if that is okay.

    Coram deo,

    Timmy

19. Dr. Tiessen,

    Below is an excerpt from Packer’s book God Has Spoken. I thought it was particularly relevant to our recent discussion with Rom. 1-2, general revelation, and Packer.

    Our third question is: What is the sate of those to whom God speak? In what condition does His revelation find them?

    The biblical answer is that it finds them ignorant of God. The inscription that Paul saw on the Athenian altar reveals humankind’s natural state: our Maker is to us all ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23). None of the philosophers that Athens had mothered could help here: ‘the world through its wisdom did not know him’ (1 Cor. 1:21; cf. Gal. 4:8; 1 Thess. 4:5). No one knows God apart from revelation.

    In the first place, being creatures, we cannot know God unless He acts to make Himself known to us. Fifty years before the First World War it was fashionable among theologians to maintain a virtual identity between man’s mind and God’s, and to try to distil conceptions of the divine nature from our highest thoughts and ideals. It is good that these notions are now generally given up. For the God of the Bible is One whom we can neither see (Jn. 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16), nor approach (1 Tim. 6:16), nor search out (cf. Job 11:7, 23:3-9), and we would fool ourselves if we imagined that we could read His mind, learn His character, guess His motives, or predict His movements, by our own unaided brainwork. “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Is. 55:8f). ‘How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord?’ (Rom. 11: 33f). Emil Brunner points the application in a vivid phrase. “‘Canst thou by searching find out God?’ To man’s proud ‘not yet’ the Bible replies ‘not ever.’” In Scripture it is axiomatic that human thoughts about God which do not depend on revelation are worthless. We can know God only through receiving revelation; not otherwise.

    But does not God in fact reveal Himself to everyone? How then is it that the world remains ignorant of Him? This brings us to our next point.

    In the second place, being sinful creatures, we suppress and pervert such revelation from God as [it] reaches us in the ordinary course of life. That God constantly discloses Himself to every one of us as Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge, through nature, providence, and the workings of our own mind and conscience, is perfectly true. Awareness of oneself and of the world does bring an inseparable intuition of the reality of God and His claims. This is usually called ‘general’ revelation in contrast with ‘special’ revelation, the historical process recorded in Scripture. The fullest account of general revelation which the Bible gives is in the first two chapters of Romans. There Paul analyses it as God disclosing His eternity, power, and divinity (Rom. 1:20; cf. Ps. 19:1), His kindness (Rom. 2:4; cf. Acts 14:16f.), His moral law (Rom. 2:12ff), His claim on our worship and homage (1:21), and His condemnation of sin (1:32). As against those who hold that general revelation, and ‘natural religion’ based on it, can suffice for mankind without with Bible, we must observe that Paul’s analysis shows up the insufficiency of general revelation. It shows us, first, that general revelation is inadequate as a basis for religion, for it yields nothing about God’s purpose of friendship with man, nor does it fully disclose His will for human life. Even Adam in Eden needed direct divine speech, over and above general revelation is doubly inadequate to the needs of sinners, for its lack of redemptive content. It indicates that God punishes sin, but not that He pardons it. It shows forgiveness to be needed without showing it to be possible. It preaches the law without the Gospel. It can condemn, but not save. Any unbeliever who rightly understood it would be driven to despair. However clearly the content of general revelation was grasped, it would by itself provide no adequate basis for fellowship with God.

    But in fact we do not find among non-Christians a clear grasp of the content of general revelation. To a greater or less degree, they ‘hold down’ (suppress, stifle) the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18). This is because they are ‘all under sin’ (Rom. 3:9). Sin, the ruling force, according to Paul, in every Christless individual, is a principle of non-conformity to revelation, and its effects are mental as well as moral. Sin prompts, not only disobedience to God’s law, but also denial of His truth. Paul’s analysis of general revelation in Romans is part of a great indictment against a sinful world for willfully darkening the light that general revelation gives. General revelation, he says, is inescapable: ‘what may be known about God is plain to them [all mankind], because God has made it plain to them. For . . . God’s invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .’ (Rom. 1:19f.). Therefore idolatry and immorality are in every case ‘without excuse’ (verse 20), for they are always sins against knowledge. The formula for explaining their origin is always ‘although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened . . . they became fools and . . . exchanged the truth of God for a lie’ (verse 21-25). Again, in Rom. 2:12-15, Paul appeals to the everyday operations of conscience as showing that all men received through general revelation some knowledge of God’s law. Paul knows that non-Christian consciences act defectively, and are often silent when they ought to speak (cf. Eph. 4:19), but (he says) when they do speak—and everyone’s conscience, however depraved, speaks sometimes—their method of acting (judging by a standard), the standards to which they appeal, and the actual verdicts they pass, show ‘the requirements of the law are written on their hearts’ (verse 15). Thus their immoral ‘new moralities’, and their actual wrongdoings, are without excuse also.

    In all of this, Paul’s point is not that of Aquinas, that the existence of God is abstractly provable by argument from created things, but the much more fundamental point that God’s existence and law are actually known to all people, even where both are denied in theory and in practice. Light constantly shines, however we shut our eyes and protest that we can see nothing. Thus the fact that general revelation proves all people guilty for their irreligion and lawless living, since all without exception—would they but admit it—know better.

    In fact, some of the light that shines always gets through. Flashes of true moral and theological insight come to every non-Christian mind (hence, Paul preaching at Athens, could appeal to the poet Aratus, Acts 17:28). But these are only flashes; no more. Calvin compared the isolated insights of the pagan philosophers to lightning flickering over the benighted. ‘Seeing, they saw not. Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the truth . . . but resembled that of the bewildered traveler who sees a lightning-flash glance far and wide for a moment, and then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the right path.’ Thus, despite the occasional truths about God and goodness which general revelation has planted in his mind, Christless man remains ignorant of God.

    (53-56)

    Now for a smaller excerpt about other religions:

    Do people of other faiths know God? A popular view has been that all human beings share a basic sense of affinity with God (‘the religious a priori’, as Continentals call it), that the only ultimate difference between the world’s religions lie in the degree of success with which they cherish and express this innate God-consciousness, and that what the Bible records is a process of religious evolution through which man’s God-consciousness reached its supreme expression in the teaching of Jesus (understood, or rather misunderstood, as essentially a declaration that God is the Father of all humanity). On this view, Christianity is certainly the Rolls-Royce among religions, the best of its kind, but the same basic sense of oneness with God underlines them all, just as the same basic design is found in all cars.

    This amounts to saying that all religions, Christianity included, rests entirely on general revelation, which tells us of a basic harmony between God and ourselves—an insight most luminously crystallized in the thought of God as Father. It follows that no one really needs any more knowledge of God than general revelation can give him. But Scripture disagrees. It contrasts Christianity with other faiths at just the point where this theory links them together. Non-biblical religions (it says) are certainly based on general revelation in one sense, but it is general revelation (and in the case of Judaism and Islam at least, special revelation too), perverted and at certain points denied. . . . Non-Christian faiths, therefore, though resulting in one sense from knowledge of God, are actually forms of ignorance of God: modern non-Christians, like the ancient Gentiles, ‘do not know God’ (1 Thess. 4:5).

    Also, Scripture assures us that apart from the Christian Gospel all thoughts of natural affinity and peace with God are delusive. Where found (and they are not in fact common in non-Christian types of religion) they spring, not from a true reading of general revelation, but from self-deceived wishful thinking. General revelation actually discloses the wrath of God against human sin (Rom. 1:18, 32). There is no true knowledge of peace with God outside Christ.

    (56-58)

    Finally, an even smaller excerpt about people in darkness.

    Even though general revelation shines upon us constantly, we are people in the dark. Apart from special, saving revelation—the revelation that centres upon the Lord Jesus Christ—we do not and cannot know God.

    (60)

    These excerpts directly from Packer make it very hard for me to see him as either an accessibilist or an inclusivist. He clearly believes that a person is in darkness without hope unless they receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. General revelation cannot and does not save, and men are ignorant of God, not because they have not heard, but because they suppress the knowledge of God they receive through general revelation. Both mentally and morally, all humankind is shut up under sin and guilty before God—a predicament that can only be procured by faith in Jesus Christ.

20. The gift of eternal life

    As you note, Timmy, we have given Romans 2 quite a run, so I’ll be very brief. I want to simply note why I take these seekers of immortality etc. to be saved. Paul says that God grants these people eternal life. That is salvation.

    You and I have taken different approaches to this text and this provides an interesting case study in interpretation.

    I hear Paul say that God gives these people eternal life, I understand from elsewhere in Scripture that this only happens when people have faith, so I understand that the seeking of which Paul speaks is an expression of faith.

    If I hear you correctly, on the other hand, you start with a negative assumption about the seeking of immortality etc. Because of your understanding of what constitutes adequate faith, gleaned from the key teachings of Scripture elsewhere, you are convinced that this could not be justifying faith. Hence, you read the granting of eternal life as something other than salvation or, at most, as a reference to the hypothetical granting of salvation. This, I presume, follows from your ecclesiocentrist premise: “the unevangelized cannot be saved; these people are unevangelized, so they cannot be saved; therefore, the granting of eternal life must refer to something other than actual salvation.”

    This is precisely what goes on all the time in the church, so that well intentioned Christians, using exactly the same hermeneutical principles, reach different answers about what Scripture teaches. It is frustrating, but I can’t see any way to transcend the problem we live with. This does not mean that we should stop talking with one another but it encourages us not to be unrealistic about that the odds that we will change someone else’s mind.

    My hermeneutic

    You did a huge amount of work to demonstrate why you understood me as you did and I am impressed by your sincere desire to read me carefully and correctly. This illustrates further, I think, why conversation is so vital. We are rarely heard to be saying exactly what we intended and it is helpful to have our words fed back to us by some one else. So, thank you.

    RE: Your Apriori Questions

    Here is my answer to your questions, Timmy.

    1. Do you affirm all five points of Calvinism?

    Yes, I am one of that rare breed – a five-point Calvinist Baptist.

    2. Do you affirm all five historical solas?

    Yes, very definitely.

    3. How do you define the nature of saving faith (as well as its content and object)?

    Saving faith is the orientation of the heart toward God which pleases God. Its key ingredient is trust in God as the creator and supreme authority. This is manifested in various ways: (1) love for God above all; (2) affirmation of the truth of what God declares; (3) obedience to what God commands/prohibits; (4) trust in the rightness and goodness of all God’s ways.

    Faith is, therefore, always a response to God and to the knowledge concerning himself which God makes available to an individual. The nature of the revelation determines the nature of the faith response that God seeks (and which he gives to those whom he chooses). Hebrews 11 provides a survey of how remarkably varied the faith that pleases God can be, depending on the sort of revelation a person has had. So, the object of faith is always God but the content of that faith varies with the degree of completeness of revelation received. It is, consequently, impossible for us to formulate one proposition which everyone would have to affirm in order to be saved. What God was satisfied with in the case of Noah, Job, Abraham, Moses, Rahab, David, Isaiah, the apostles, Cornelius, an adult church goer, a young child, an infant, the unborn etc. has varied significantly and it could not be stated in a single doctrinal proposition as ecclesiocentrists wish to do.

    4. What would you say is the main purpose of salvation?

    The main purpose of salvation, as with all that God does, is to glorify God. The means by which God glorifies himself in salvation, however, is the glorification of sinners through restoring them to the image in which God had originally created human beings, according to the paradigm of the incarnate Word. Human beings, as the height of God’s creation, are the focus of God’s saving work but, because human sin had such devastating effects on the rest of God’s creation, the complete restoration of God’s adopted children results in the restoration of the earth. The outcome is the new heaven and earth in which God’s redeemed people live in unending praise of the God they love.

    Shalom,
    Terry

21. Here’s an unrelated question. How do you get bold in your postings. I put it in my draft but when I copy it to the comments space it disappears. My stuff would be easier to read if the headings were bold but I don’t know how to bring that about.

    Thanks,
    Terry

22. Timmy, thanks for the material you cited from Packer. Let’s see if we can agree on the category into which he belongs. I hear him to be an agnostic. By “agnostic,” I mean people who find no warrant to say that God does save anyone who lacks explicit knowledge of the gospel concerning Christ but who also think that we are unable to say certainly that God saves no one apart from the gospel.

    I think that you hear Packer to be an ecclesiocentrist, one who insists that only those in contact with the church which proclaims the gospel can be saved.

    Points where we all agree (I think) but which do not identify one’s position on the issue at hand:

    First, let me list items you quoted from Packer with which I thoroughly agree and I suspect that you and I come together on these. I’ll square bracket brief comments.

    1) “No one knows God apart from revelation. . . . In Scripture it is axiomatic that human thoughts about God which do not depend on revelation are worthless. We can know God only through receiving revelation; not otherwise.”

    2) “Being sinful creatures, we suppress and pervert such revelation from God as [it] reaches us in the ordinary course of life.”

    [I would add that this suppression continues until God saves us from it and this is true of every form of revelation. God’s wrath is revealed against those who suppress God’s revelation. His grace is revealed in those whom God delivers from that sinful suppression so that they believe what God reveals. I presume that Packer and you would agree with me here. The primary issue between us has to do with the sort of revelation necessary for God’s liberative action to produce salvation.]

    3) “Paul’s analysis shows up the insufficiency of general revelation. It shows us, first, that general revelation is inadequate as a basis for religion . . . Paul’s analysis of general revelation in Romans is part of a great indictment against a sinful world for willfully darkening the light that general revelation gives. . . . Therefore idolatry and immorality are in every case ‘without excuse’ (verse 20), for they are always sins against knowledge. . . . God’s existence and law are actually known to all people, even where both are denied in theory and in practice. Light constantly shines, however we shut our eyes and protest that we can see nothing. Thus the fact that general revelation proves all people guilty for their irreligion and lawless living, since all without exception—would they but admit it—know better.”

    4) “In fact, some of the light that shines always gets through. Flashes of true moral and theological insight come to every non-Christian mind (hence, Paul preaching at Athens, could appeal to the poet Aratus, Acts 17:28). . . . despite the occasional truths about God and goodness which general revelation has planted in his mind, Christless man remains ignorant of God.”

    [When those flashes get through it is because of grace, not some remnant goodness in the person. I expect that you and Packer would agree with me there. The last sentence would need discussion, however. What constitutes a “Christless man”? Noah was not a Christless man, for instance, since he was no longer ignorant of God? Those who perished in the flood, though, were Christless.]

    5) Non-biblical religions (it says) are certainly based on general revelation in one sense, but it is general revelation (and in the case of Judaism and Islam at least, special revelation too), perverted and at certain points denied. . . . Non-Christian faiths, therefore, though resulting in one sense from knowledge of God, are actually forms of ignorance of God: modern non-Christians, like the ancient Gentiles, ‘do not know God’ (1 Thess. 4:5).

    [I carefully distinguish my accessibilism from religious instrumentalism. This is my reason for abandoning the term “inclusivism” to describe my position. Too many evangelical authors define inclusivism in terms of religious instrumentalism which is a position I reject, yet they call people like me “inclusivist,” and that is very misleading.]

    Citations you provided in which Packer sounds ecclesiocentrist:

    At a number of places, most of which you put in bold (which I don’t yet know how to do), Packer makes statements that sound ecclesiocentrist but I suggest that there is more ambiguity than you may note:

    1) Speaking of general revelation, he says: “It can condemn, but not save.”

    [Here, I think that Packer makes the mistake that ecclesiocentrists regularly make. He goes beyond Paul’s statement, the point of which (as noted above), is to demonstrate that no one has an excuse. God has revealed himself to everyone. The natural sinful response to general revelation, as to all revelation, is to suppress and distort it. But Paul does not say that this general revelation which condemns all who disbelieve would not save those who do believe. No one would believe this or any other revelation, of course, without the Spirit’s enablement.]

    2) “There is no true knowledge of peace with God outside Christ.”

    [To an ecclesiocentrist, this will sound clearly ecclesiocentric, because they will hear Packer to saying that there is no peace with God without knowledge of Christ’s saving work. I, on the other hand, would be prepared to affirm Packer’s statement, as an affirmation of the unique and necessary saving work of Christ. No one who has ever been saved, from Adam until now, has been saved by any means other than Christ’s substitutionary atonement. Many thousands, however, have been saved without knowing about Jesus.]

    3) “Apart from special, saving revelation—the revelation that centres upon the Lord Jesus Christ—we do not and cannot know God.”

    [That looks to me like an unambiguously ecclesiocentric statement. I would affirm it without the amplification but, given that amplification, it is a clear declaration of ecclesiocentrism.]

    So, if this was all I had from Packer, I would have classed him with the ecclesiocentrists, but we have more.

    Statements by Packer which an ecclesiocentrist would not make but an agnostic would:

    In your earlier comment, you cited this from the Decision article: “But we have no warrant to affirm categorically that this is true in the sense of having actually happened to people to whom God’s promises never came; nor are we entitled to expect that God will act thus in any single case where the Gospel is not known or understood.”

    I suspect that you hear this as clearly ecclesiocentrist. I do not. This is the sort of statement that keeps Packer out of the accessibilist category, unlike his evangelical Anglican friend, McGrath. I put this statement in the context of the numerous points at which Packer has spoken to this issue and I hear agnosticism. I’ll go back to just one, his article in Christianity Today, Jan 17, 1986 (“‘Good Pagans’ and God’s Kingdom”). There (p. 25), commenting on Sir Norman Anderson’s question, Packer wrote: “The answer seems to be yes, it might be true, as it may well have been true for at least some of the Old Testament characters. [No ecclesiocentrist would admit this!] If ever it is true, such worshipers will learn in heaven that they were saved by Christ’s death and that their hearts were renewed by the Holy Spirit, and they will join the glorified church in endless praise of the sovereign grace of God. Christians since the second century have hoped so, and perhaps Socrates and Plato are in this happy state even now—who knows?”

    [Would you agree that this is an agnostic’s statement, not an ecclesiocentrist’s?]

    Then Packer goes on, though, to say what I hear him meaning to say again, more recently, in Decision. “But we have no warrant to expect [emphasized] that God will act thus in any single case where the gospel is not known or understood. Therefore our missionary obligation is not one whit diminished by our entertaining this possibility. Nor will this idea make the anti-Christian thrust and consequent spiritual danger of non-Christian religions seem to us any less than it did before.”

    Packer is doing here, from his agnostic perspective, what I have also done, from my accessibilist perspective. He is well aware that ecclesiocentrists think that anything short of ecclesiocentrism will cut the nerve of the church’s missionary motivation. He wants to assure readers that this is not so. He goes on: “If we are wise, we shall not spend much time mulling over this notion. [Was my book and is our dialogue a mistake??] Our job, after all, is to spread the gospel, not to guess what might happen to those to whom it never comes. Dealing with them is God’s business: he is just, and also merciful, and when we learn, as one day we shall, how he has treated them we shall have no cause to complain.”

    Do you see here, Timmy, why I classify Packer as an agnostic not an ecclesiocentrist like yourself. Ecclesiocentrists have no need to wait until the eschaton to learn how God has treated people. They know that none of the unevangelized will be saved. But Packer is not of that ilk. He doesn’t know this, though he does trust God and he will not complain if he discovers that Socrates and Plato and perhaps many others are in heaven.

    Given these citations and my comments, Timmy, are you still convinced that Packer is an ecclesiocentrist?

    Shalom,
    Terry

23. Dr. Tiessen,

    Thanks for your replies. If I can take a moment to address Romans 2 and my interpretation, I would like to clarify it a little bit.

    My Interpretation on Romans 2

    I take it that you have been frustrated with not being able to “transcend the problem” of the ecclesiocentric hermenuetical principles to arrive at an interpretation which you assert is more faithful to the text. As far as changing my mind, I am open and willing to consider any and all new data that I may be unfamiliar with, but given the case you have presented to me, I simply remain unconvinced. You argue that the interpretation (and the process by which I understand Scripture) is something that goes on all the time in the church, but I also believe that we must do theology in a covenantal and confessional context. I am not free to my own interperations, but I am to evaluate my doctrinal positions with the orthodox understanding througout church history and the church. That is not to say, of course, that I cannot disagree; however, if I come up with an original interperation on a text, I have great reason to be alarmed. In this sense, I think there is great value not only in a solid biblical theology (which I mentioned in my hermenetical approach) but also historical theology.

    On an anecdotal and practical level, I am currently discipling some new believers at work, and one of the things we are doing is working through John Stott’s classic work, Basic Christianity. In the first chapter where he addresses “the right approach,” Stott adressess general revelation where he says the following:

    “[General revelation] is not enough. It certainly makes known his existence, and something of his divine power, glory, and faithfulness. But if a man is to come to know God personally, to have his sins forgiven and to enter into relationship with God, he needs a more extensive and practical revelation still” (13).

    Another anecdote I would like to add is the exegetical work of Dr. Tom Schreiner on the text we have been discussing in Romans 2. Let me share some of his commentary from his excellent work on Romans:

    The phrase as a whole [in persevering of a good work] signifies the manner in which eternal life is sought, that is, they seek eternal life by consistently persevering in that good work. Those who receive an eschatological reward for good works will manifest these good works consistently in their lives (112).

    Verse 7-10 clarify that the repayment for good works is either eternal life or eschatological wrath. Verse 7 states specifically that those who continue to do good works will be granted “eternal life”, which is described as “glory and honor and incorruptability,” and “glory and honor and peace.” The personal benefits of those who are granted eternal life are emphasized in these words (113).

    Did Paul believe that some could obtain eternal life by doing good works? How does this fit with his claim that no one can be righeous before God by the works of the law (Rom. 3:20)? The main reason Paul introduced the issue of repayment according to works is to show the Jews that God is impartial, that there will be no special favortism for them. The connection forged between verse 5 and 6 supports this view (113-14).

    The main purpose of this section is to demontrate that the Jews fall short of God’s righteousness. Nonetheless, one must still account for the assertion that those who do good works will be granted eternal life. Probably the dominant interpretation is that these verses are hypothetical. Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment. The advantage of this interpretation is that retains the focus of this section of Romans: judgment on all who sinned. It also neatly harmonizes with 3:19-20. No one can ever be justified by the works of the law since no one practices what the law commands (114).

    Schreiner footnotes those who hold to the hypotethical view, including Calvin, Kuss, Leenhardt, Kuhr, Mattern, van Dulmen, Synofzik, Basler, Moo, Thielman, Aletti, and Lincoln.

    As I stated earlier in my interpretation, you can add me to that list. Now, do you mind me asking, who in church history supports your interpretation of Rormans 2, that this text reveals a form of saving faith?

    The premise on which I build my interpretation is founded in Scripture. I find that foundation rather trustworthy. The negative assumption I carry to the text is not an imposition of an ecclesiocentrist but the exposition of the whole counsel of God’s Word.

    Your Answers to My Apriori Questions

    I am glad to see that you affirm all five points of Calvinism as well as the five historical solas. I would be interested in seeing just how you reconcile solus Christus with your position of accessibilism, however. I am also glad to see that you believe that the purpose of salvation is to glorify God with “unending praise of the God they love.” I believe the climax to Paul’s powerful case for justification in Romans 1-11 is summed up in the doxological conclusion, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (11:36). One of the difficulties I find with inclusivism in all of its forms is that it carries a theology that does not produce the kind of doxology I see in Scripture and spoken of in heaven as we are before the throne worshiping Jesus. I do not have a picture of heaven where the great majority of people have no idea who Jesus is or what he did on their behalf. Inclusivism’s theological framework woefully does not portray what I understand the Scripture to reveal about the beauty of heaven (Jesus Christ) and the reality of hell (everlasting punishment). Anyway, just thought I throw that out there.

    I will get back to our discussion on Packer soon. I tried to retrieve his contact information in order to inquire about it direclty with him, yet to no avail. I have some contacts, however, so I will see what I can do. 🙂

    Have a blessed weekend brother, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue.

    Soli deo gloria,

    Timmy Brister

24. Timmy, having cited some sources for your reading of Romans 2 you asked: “Now, do you mind me asking, who in church history supports your interpretation of Rormans 2, that this text reveals a form of saving faith?”

    That is an excellent question, but not one I’m prepared to deal with right now. It is something I’ll be keeping my eye on, as time allows, though. Going back to the Reformation, what I am suggesting is directly in line with Zwingli’s take on this issue, but I don’t recall his having referred specifically to Romans 2 for his proposal that the elect who hear the gospel believe and that the elect who do not receive the gospel do good works. This text may well have been in his mind, but I can’t say that it was and don’t have time to run it down one way or the other.

    The best I can do at this point is note that my interpretation is certainly not brand new. I took a quick look at a few commentaries on my shelf and found in some of them the sort of thing I have been saying. In principle, I certainly affirm your desire to respect the tradition of the church. The problem we have in an issue like the one we have been discussing is that there is no consensus within the tradition.

    Summing up on the meaning of 2:6-11, C. E. B. Cranfield (in his Shorter Commentary, 47) lists five of “the numerous interpretations which have been suggested.” Presumably, he considers these the strongest possibilities, perhaps on the basis of the number of interpreters accepting each one, but he doesn’t cite his criterion. His second possibility, “hypothetical,” seems to be the one you cited favourably as supported by Schreiner who listed an impressive number of people in agreement. Cranfield’s comment is: “In favour of (ii) it may be said that, if it is accepted (together with an interpretation of vv. 12–16 and 25–29 along similar lines), the progress of the argument up to the end of 3.20 would seem most straightforward; but the fact that there is no indication in the text that what is being said is hypothetical tells against it.”

    The reading I have been following is Cranfield’s 5th possibility. It would help me to answer your question if he would cite its proponents, but he did not do us that service. It is the view “(v) that Paul reckons with the existence among the heathen in some mysterious way of a faith known only to God and refers to it (or to conduct which is the expression of it) in vv. 7 and 10.”

    Cranfield doesn’t assess this possibility particularly which indicates, I think, that he does not easily dismiss it. His own preference is “(iv) that Paul is referring in vv. 7 and 10 to Christians, but means by ‘the good work’ and ‘what is good’ not their faith itself but their conduct as the expression of their faith, and similarly by ‘works’ in v. 6 each man’s conduct as the expression either of faith or unbelief.”

    Obviously, Cranfield differs from me (and other proponents of interpretation “v,” in reading this as a reference to Christians. But, nevertheless, he supports my reading of the good works on account of which God gives eternal life as a form or expression of faith.

    Leon Morris captures nicely what I have been saying about the orientation of the heart as key. He quotes Barrett’s translation of 2:7: “those who with patient endurance look beyond their own well-doing.” Rightly, I think Morris is cautious about the translation itself. He writes: “I am not sure that all this is to be found in the word” (p. 116) but, Morris proposes: “it seems that this is Paul’s basic thought (cf. Matt. 24:13; Heb. 3:14).” In other words it may be a valid paraphrase but it is not strictly a translation of Paul’s words. Then Morris says this of the people described in 2:7: “Their trust is in God, not in their own achievement. He refers to those whose lives are oriented in a certain way. Their minds are not set on material prosperity or the like, nor on happiness, nor even on being religious. They are set on glory and honor and immortality, qualities which come from a close walk with God. The bent of their lives is towards heavenly things” (116–17). Nicely said, I think.

    I guess my bottom line, Timmy, in response to your appeal to tradition, is that there is no orthodox position on this matter and that various answers have been found throughout the church’s tradition, even within the Reformed camp, where accessibilists include the likes of Richard Baxter or W. G. T. Shedd who cited Herman Witsius and Jerome Zanchius as illustrating “the hopeful view which the elder Calvinism took of the possible extent to which God’s decree of election reaches” (Dogmatic Theology, 2: 706). This is not an issue which we can decide by appeal to tradition. Ecclesiocentrists, agnostics and accessibilists can all find their forerunners, even within the Reformed tradition.

    Summing up his explanation of Romans 2:12-16, J. D. G. Dunn notes that Paul “does not actually say that this ‘work of the law’ will guarantee their acquittal on the day of judgment; . . . But neither does he deny the possibility that there are among the unevangelized Gentiles ‘doers of the law’ who shall be acquitted (v. 13); he does not ask the question and his treatment leaves the answer open.”

    So, Timmy, I appeal to you please not to shut down disagreements on this complex question by appeal to tradition as though there was only one voice in that tradition, even within the Reformed camp.

    Let me comment on one other statement before calling it a night. Explaining one reason for your discomfort with “inclusivism” (which is not a term I use of my own position but others do), you wrote: “I do not have a picture of heaven where the great majority of people have no idea who Jesus is or what he did on their behalf.” Nor do I, brother. Briefly, in a previous post, I mentioned my hypothesis that everyone meets Christ at death. Whether or not that it is the moment of meeting, there will certainly be no one in heaven who does not know Jesus.

    Incidentally, you may be interested in a point I make in my book on Irenaeus. One of Irenaeus’s reasons for the interim (millennial) earthly reign of Christ was that it gives the Old Testament believers an opportunity to meet Christ, since no one comes to the Father except through the Son.

    Blessings,
    Terry

25. Dr. Tiessen,

    I will admit that Packer has softened his position throughout the years. Unfortunately, this has been the case for many evangelicals, Stott included. The Packer who wrote the intro to Owen’s Death of Death as well as Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is quite different from the Decision article you mentioned. However, there is one point worth noting about Packer . . .

    The statement of faith called “The Gospel: An Evangelical Celebration” is clearly an ecclesiocentrist document, published in 2000 in order to bring consensus around the gospel. If you go here, you will see that Packer was a part of the drafting committee who wrote the piece.

    http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/about/ec.html

    In this document, I counted six various places where explicit faith in Jesus Christ is emphasized:

    1. “The faith in God and in Christ to which the Gospel calls us is a trustful outgoing of our hearts to lay hold of these promised and proffered benefits” (52).

    2. Sinners receive through faith in Christ alone “the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 1:17, 5:17; Phil. 3:9) and thus become “the righteousness of God” in him who was “made sin” for them (2 Cor. 5:21) (53).

    3. The moment we truly believe in Christ, the Father declares us righteous in him and begins conforming us to his likeness (53).

    4. We affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, the only mediator between God and humanity (John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). We deny that anyone is saved in any other way than by Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The Bible offers no hope that sincere worshipers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ (54).

    5. We affirm that faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Word (or Logos, John 1:1), the second Person of the Trinity, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Heb. 1:3), is foundational to faith in the Gospel (54).

    6. We affirm that saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the Gospel, acknowledgment of our own sin and need, and personal trust and reliance upon Christ and his work (55).

    Now, given that Packer is responsible for these words and the truths therein, would you still call him an agnostic? Clearly Packer had no problem signing his name to it, so it seems to me that such statements help clear the air about the vascillations where appear to be occurring.

    I will get back to the rest of your thoughts shortly. School is starting back, so I will be dividing more of my time between our dialogue and my studies. However, I hope it continues, as I think a new paradigm shift is on the horizon. 🙂

    In Christ alone,

    Timmy Brister

26. Hi Timmy,

    Your comment about Packer’s “softening” is interesting. Where or not this is so would make an interesting piece of research. The piece I originally quoted to you was from 1981. I wonder if Packer really did change much through the years. His doctoral dissertation was on Richard Baxter and I wonder how much influence Baxter’s accessibilist position might have had upon him.

    I wonder what you are thinking of in Stott’s case. When he came out of the closet on his annihilationism, for instance, he admitted that this had been his belief for many years.

    Packer’s signature on “The Gospel of Jesus Christ,” is interesting. I remember when it came out asking myself if I could have signed it. I looked at the list of signatories and realized that a number of them had made accessibilist or agnostic statements in print elsewhere, so I decided that if they could sign it, I could. Tony Campolo had some interesting comments recently, defending his signing of a document with which he was not in complete agreement. His explanation was interesting, I thought. He has concluded that one does not have to be 100% agreement with everything in these public statements, or be satisfied with everything is stated, to sign it. As long as the major point of the statement is one with which you are in agreement and you want that point supported, there is reason to sign. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that some of the signatories to “The Gospel” had in mind.

    Personally, I appreciated the letter to CT (Oct 4, 1999, p. 15), signed by Gerald McDermott, Nancey Murphy, Alan Padgett, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., John Stackhouse, Jonathan Wilson and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Let me quote their comments that I thought made a valuable point at that time when unity was being sought among evanglicals.

    They expressed their “joy that proponents and opponents of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), as well as other brothers and sisters in Christ, have come together to affirm their unity in the gospel.” But, they went on: “We wish to express our regret, however, that they have done so by issuing a statement of evangelical belief that is, in some of its phrases, not in fact generally evangelicaal. Thus the statement serves needlessly to marginalize or alienate fellow evangelicals.”

    Their concern, related to our discussion was as follows: “We are disappointed that the traditional evangelical affirmation that ‘Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation’ (which we stoutly affirm) is linked with the controversial opinion that ‘the Bible offers no hope that sincere worshipers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ.” God’s treatment of those in other religious traditions who have not heard and rejected an authentic presentation of the gospel by the Holy Spirit in fact has been a subject of evangelical investigation and dispute for centuries. [That was my point in my recent comments about tradition.]
    “In this regard, we are surprised by the affirmation that ‘saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the gospel.’ We wonder how God saves infants and mentally retarded people; or people who lived before the time of Christ; or anyone who doesn’t hear the actual propositions of the gospel message in his or her lifetime.
    “Such phrasing represents only the ‘exclusivist’ camp in these matters of evangelical dispute and leaves out ‘inclusivist’ evangelicals. It therefore does not belong in a ‘uniting’ document.
    “We join with CT, therefore, in celebrating the majority of this document with which we agree. We are sorry, however, that it does not in fact represent adequately the evangelical consensus it purports to reflect.”

    A good and true observation, I think. However much restrictivists wish otherwise, restrictivism does not belong in a statement of the essentials of faith upon which evangelicals agree.

    Shalom,
    Terry

27. Dr. Tiessen,

    Thanks for sharing the letter to CT. Actually, I used their excerpt as an intro to my recent paper entitled “Evangelical Inclusivism and Saving Faith” where I addressed the control beliefs of Sanders/Pinnock and attempted to show how their definition of saving faith brings sweeping soteriological consequences which in turn posits a view of Christian doctrine very different from traditional evangelical thought.

    When I first read that Baxter was an accessibilist, I was quite alarmed. I think I read that in McDermott’s book. Do you know the sources from Baxter that people use to support their claim about Baxter? Is it in his Christian Directory?

    Finally, regarding Stott and Packer, while it may be true that they held those beliefs for some time, I wonder why they did not make that known earlier? I guess we may never know. In any case, I find it incredibly odd that Packer would provide his signature on a document that is so plainly particularistic about saving faith. It is not as though it were just a footnote or a one-liner. The document is laced throughout with statements (as I provided earlier) affirming faith in Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation. In the end, I have to take Packer’s body of work and try to assess where he stands on this issue. It could be that the only conclusive answer is that Packer was not consistent, arguing against himself. On the other hand, Erickson has changed his views and corrected some of his earlier positions, especially those argued in his notable article, “Hope for Those Who Have Never Heard? Yes But . . .” in EvMQ. I applaud his efforts to re-evaluate his beliefs and think his approach is fair and carefully thought out.

    On a different note, what do you think about discussing the pneumatological relationship to saving faith as proposed in your accessibilism? Would you be up for that?

    Thanks for the continued rapport. Although we obviously disagree, I have been very encouraged with the tone of our discussion and openness you have shown. I hope you feel that your time and comments here are worthwhile.

    Coram deo,

    Timmy

28. Timmy,

    I wish I could be more helpful re: a source for Baxter. I got a citation from him via an article by Brian Gerrish, in Christian Century, October 6, 1999, p. 932. Unfortunately, articles of that nature don’t provide footnotes.

    I’m certainly game to talk about the Spirit’s work in salvation of the elect who do not hear the gospel. Let me start out with a paragraph from p. 59 of my book.

    “The Westminster Confession (1647) asserts that “elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth” (X.3). Here is one of our groups of the unevangelized for whom salvation is obviously possible. But the Confession adds, “So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” W. G. T. Shedd points out that “this is commonly understood to refer not merely, or mainly, to idiots and insane persons, but to such of the pagan world as God pleases to regenerate without the use of the written revelation” (Dogmatic Theology>, 2:707-08.

    That is the concept I work with. The Spirit’s work of regeneration has always been necessary for saving faith and so we can be sure that wherever saving faith occurs, it is because of the Spirit’s work, illuminating, convicting and opening blind eyes, as well as transforming the heart to bring about the sort of response that God requires in regard to the particular revelation that an individual has received.

    Salvation is a work of the triune God. The Father chose particular individuals to salvation, before the creation of the world. The Son bore the sin of these people on the cross and rose again for their justification. The Spirit applies the Son’s work in the lives of those whom the Father has chosen, so that they believe and obey God’s word. This is a principle and process that applies in every case of salvation, in all periods of human history. It is applicable to the elect in every group of the unevangelized, including the unborn, infants, the mentally incapable and the inculpably ignorant.

    Later today, I am off to the three day Mission Fest in Winnipeg, and I look forward to being inspired and challenged concerning God’s work in the world through his people who know the gospel and live in its transforming power. Few things stir me more than a good missions conference and none of my accessibilist convictions dull that enthusiasm at all.

    Blessings,
    Terry

29. Hi Timmy,

    I know that you are busy with your school work and I don’t want to distract you but here is a quick question that came to me as I was off at Mission Fest and thought about your last note on this thread. You spoke admiringly of Erickson’s later work on this issue and I assume that you have in mind his book, How Shall They Be Saved? I agree. That is a very fine piece of careful analysis that reaches personal conclusions cautiously. My question is how you categorize Erickson in that work. Do you hear him to be an ecclesiocentrist?

    I would not put him in that category myself because I hear a very carefully stated accessibilism in the section on “chronologically displaced persons” (pp. 194-95). I’ll cite a few statements that lead me to this place and then I welcome your own reading of the work.

    Speaking of the work of the law in bringing people to Christ, Erickson writes: “Similarly, if individuals, on the basis of the inner law, come to realize their own sinfulness, guilt, and inability to please God, then that law would also have the effect of bringing them to grace” (194). I like the way Erickson goes on to identify the conception of God which saving faith of this sort would have to entail. I agree with him that “this implicit faith will always involve the idea of salvation by grace. . . . It must always be an abandonmnet of reliance on anything other than the grace of God himself.” (195). This is what we heard from Norman Anderson, as echoed by Packer, too. At the bottom line, I think Erickson is right to posit that “perhaps there is room for acknowledging that God alone may know in every case exactly whose faith is sufficient for salvation.” To insist on full gospel knowledge of Christ, as ecclesiocentrists do, is something that I hear Erickson rejecting.

    Blessings on you in this new semester. Your three courses will keep you busy, I’m sure.

    Terry

30. Incidentally, I see that I have succeeded in turning on the italics but not in turning it off again. Sorry about that. I am not very familiar with html tags so I’ll have to work on this.

    Terry

31. Pingback: POTW :: poohinthiscorner « Provocations & Pantings

Comments are closed.