Exploring Truth Ministries

Issue

Recently, while standing in the middle of a cornfield conversing with a farmer whom has been a committed Christian, Southern Baptist and a deeply spiritual man for nearly 20 years, the subject of general revelation came up.  “I just think if that tribe in Africa doesn’t have a chance to hear the Gospel then God will honor anyone of them who looks at creation, puts his faith in the fact that something out there is bigger than Him.  Yeah, God will let those people in heaven.” 

It is my proposal to prove that the general revelation given by God in nature and conscience is not enough to warrant salvation to individuals.  Furthermore, I intend to demonstrate that the proclamation of the Gospel is necessary for salvation. 

It has been my experience, on multiple occasions, to discover that many Southern Baptist church members have a very shallow and unorthodox view of the nature of general revelation, its purpose and abilities.  It is my hope that this paper can be used to defend the position that the proclamation of the Gospel is necessary in order for people to be converted, no matter their geographical, socio-economical or socio-religious situations.

Positions

There are many avenues a person could take when entertaining the discussion of our topic.  However, there are two main avenues of thought, one having many sub-avenues, which we need to consider, Christian exclusivism and inclusivism and how they relate to general revelation.  In basic definition, Christian exclusivism is the idea that there is only one particular way to come to a saving knowledge of Christ where as inclusivism permits alternate means of coming to a saving knowledge of Christ.  Below we shall look at both exclusivism and inclusivism.

The term exclusivism, by itself, obviously denotes that in any situation not all would be included.   For example, if a county club is exclusive to only members then not everyone can play golf there.  The county club then could be said to practice exclusivism.   However, when you add the word Christian to exclusivism it might seem a bit odd.  It might even seem as if Christian exclusivism could be an oxymoron?  Isn’t it the desire of God the Father for all to repent and believe in the truth that they might to be saved?  Yes, it is His desire for all men to repent and believe and I declare that it is in fact God’s desire for all men to repent and believe that causes the doctrine of Christian exclusivism to exist!

Christian exclusivism is a doctrine that includes only those people, who hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, repent of their sins and put their faith and trust in Jesus as their propitiation.   Therefore, it has to exclude those who don’t hear the Gospel, repent and believe.  Christian exclusivism does not allow for people to form a saving relationship with God on the basis of ethnicity, social status, moral aptitude, religious fortitude, desire for good works or being true to the only revelation they have.    It is in fact, God’s desire that every man come to Him in repentance and faith through His Son, Jesus Christ, the very thing that creates the doctrine of Christian exclusivism.

Inclusivism is, as defined by J. I. Packer, “positing a possibility of salvation for sincere devotees of faiths in which Jesus Christ is either unknown or is rejected as the divine Savior.”[1]  This definition is very general in nature but provides the shared core belief that all varieties of inclusivism posses.  Namely, repentance and belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not necessary for the salvation of all men. 

Some forms of inclusivism would argue that in a culture void of the Gospel, that particular culture’s religions are actually vehicles that are used to bring people to a saving relationship with God.  One primary proponent of this view is Clark Pinnock.  In Paul R.House’s book, “Who Will be Saved?” when speaking of Melchezidick and Jethro (whom Pinnock saw both as participants in non-Christian religions) he concludes that their religions, “seem to have been vehicles of salvation for them.”[2]  This view is widely accepted that if a culture, people group or individual has no access to the Gospel then God will honor those who use the cultural religions that are available to them and bring them into covenant relationship with Him. 

            This concept of inclusivism, however, would not apply to any religion or cultural worship that had adequate access to the Gospel.   For instance, Native North American religions would not be an adequate vehicle of salvation because in every Native American tribe there has been or currently is access to the Gospel.  It is safe to say, based on this information, that the inclusivist believes that it is your immediate culture and ability to access the gospel that determines whether your indigenous religions are suitable vehicles for salvation. 

            The inclusivist would deny that the only way to be saved is to repent of our sins and specifically believe in Jesus as the propitiation for our sin.  They would rather argue that if there is no gospel witness present in a culture then God would save men not only in a different way (faith in general revelation) but also through a different means (their own works).

            In both exclusivism and inclusivism the question of the nature of general revelation is brought to the forefront.  The exclusivist will say that general revelation, which is defined as the revelation of God that is found in both nature and conscience, does not include enough knowledge for a person to be saved.  They would cite that neither nature, nor conscience reveal the good news of the Gospel to men, with the preaching of gospel being the exclusive way for men to be converted.  The inclusivist would argue that it would be unfair for God to punish men who were ignorant of the Gospel, especially if they were following the light that He has given them through general revelation, which again is the witness of nature and conscience.   In both scenarios general revelation takes a prominent place in the discussion.

Support

            Of the aforementioned positions the one to which I hold is that of Christian exclusivism.  I do not believe that general revelation by itself gives salvific truth.  Although general revelation does enlighten men to a wondrous testimony about who God is and what He is like I cannot affirm that it contains salvific truth.  This is mainly due to the overwhelming evidence in scripture that there is a necessity to specifically repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Due to the limited space in this paper I will entertain only a few of the ideas that support my personal view of Christian exclusivism.  Although not exhaustive, I feel that I can adequately support my position with a limited Biblical argument and a limited historical argument. 

In treating the Biblical argument we find that scripture is clear, and specifically denotes that

there is such a thing as general revelation.  We cannot deny that in any way.  Psalm 19 tells us,

“The heavens declare the Glory of God.”  Here we find the Psalmist giving us insight that the

creation does tell us something about God and His character.   Also, in Romans 1:19-20, “For

what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his

invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived,

ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without

excuse.”  In this particular passage of scripture we again see that God has displayed attributes of

Himself to the entire world, through Creation.  We are clearly able to see from this passage of

Scripture that God has shown His Omnipotence to the world.  Also, we find that He has displayed a nature that is in fact divine.  In other words he has displayed to the world through His creative abilities that He is not like them.  In other words, He is a totally unique being who has the ability to create and control the creation.   This is what a man can know about God through looking at nature. 

However, in the same way that God has given general revelation to men through nature, He

has also given general revelation through conscience.  If we look further in same passage in Romans we find that Paul says in chapter 2:14-15a “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.   They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…”  Here we discover that God has written his Law on the hearts of Gentiles who are non-covenant people.  This encompasses everyone outside of the parameter of the Jewish nation.  In light of this we can assume that every man has a moral conscience that is given to them by God that reflects his character and nature. 

            While these are only 2 of many Scriptural evidences we find enough proof that General revelation is indeed a valid Scriptural concept and people can know about God, His character, His nature and even His moral law through the revelation found in nature and conscience.  However, at this point I must propose that even though men can know something of God through the avenue of general revelation, man in fact cannot be saved through the knowledge general revelation imparts. 

            The Bible is very clear in Romans 10:13-17, “For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they 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!”…So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”   In this passage we have a great reference to the fact that there are certain, specific things that have to happen before a man can be saved.  The first is that a man must call on the name of the Lord.  But Paul goes on to write that it is impossible to call on Gods name if they can’t believe in Him.  And the prerequisite Paul gives for belief is that they must hear.  Paul goes on to write that hearing is impossible unless someone preach to them.  And even that is impossible unless someone is sent of God to preach a certain message, the Good News.   Ultimately, Paul indicates here that men are unable to call on God for salvation unless a sent person shares the gospel message so that the person can hear the gospel, believe it and the call on God’s name for salvation.    In Paul’s mind this is how men came to a saving knowledge of the truth.  Paul clearly states that the Gospel is (which in summation is Jesus being offered as the propitiation for our sins) what men need to have conveyed to them in order for them to believe.   In other words, the Gospel is itself the only salvific truth.

            I do not believe that the passages we observed or any other passage in the scripture dealing with general revelation suggest that either nature or conscience give full disclosure of the Gospel to any individual.   Moreover, Paul explicitly states in the Romans 10 passage that God’s chosen means to proclaim the Gospel is not through nature or conscience but through men who are sent to preach.  On the basis of these scriptures I must conclude that general revelation by itself has no salvific value.

            I am not alone in this view.  Many past confessions of faith hold to the view that general revelation in and of its self is not salvific.   Let us consider the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 Article 1.  It states as follows, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 ) emphasis mine”    Undoubtedly, the early Baptists thought that general revelation was not in itself salvific.  They even go on to explain that God left the work of propagating the truth of His revelation to the church, not nature or conscience.

            It is quite clear that Christian exclusivism is not only solidly Scriptural but grounded in history as well.  It is because of these facts that I cannot affirm the doctrine of inclusivism.

Objections

There are at least 2 strong arguments that are closely related that are in objection to the doctrine of Christian exclusivism.  The first being it is not fair that God would send people to Hell without a chance to believe.  The second argument being what Clark Pinnock calls the “Wider Hope”[3] theory, which is actually restating the inclusivist theory. 

The first of the two arguments is, in my experience, actually the most common.  It is the problem that my farmer friend at the beginning of this paper has.  He can’t understand how this God who is so loving can actually throw people into Hell when they have never heard the Gospel.  He sees this as unfair and unloving.  He sees it at cruel and something that His God could never do.  To throw those poor, helpless, heathen savages into the pits of Hell would be mean on God’s part. 

I can very well understand this problem.  It does at first seem to be a harsh thing for God to do.  However, when we look at the situation we find that there is a definite mistake on the part of my farmer friend.  I sincerely believe it is the mistake of most evangelicals who hold this view.  We really don’t believe that those poor, helpless, heathen savages are sinners.  We may give lip service to the fact that they are but in our hearts we don’t believe that they deserve God’s wrath.  That helpless savage has the same sin nature that you and I do; he wakes up every morning and detests the things that God has set before him.  He sins every day even though God has given him a moral conscience and He worships trees or animals or totem poles every day when the scripture clearly confirms that he knows there is a God who is above this world and different that any thing you could worship on the earth.(Rom 1:19-20).  The Bible even goes on to say that the same general revelation that the inclusivist thinks can bring salvific truth to a man is actually the very thing that condemns him.  Again, Romans 1:19-20 says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse.” (emphasis mine)  People who are left in this world without a Gospel witness are indeed without excuse before God.   This is the reason why missions and evangelism should be such a driving force in our churches.  If these people don’t hear the Gospel there is absolutely no hope for them.  God has left it to us, His church, to propagate the truth of the Gospel to every man, woman and child.   The doctrine of Christian exclusivism actually promotes a healthy view of love!  The most loving thing we can do is share the Gospel with people who are in darkness with no hope. To understand there is no hope aside from the Gospel should compel us and be a catalyst in our Christian mission to take the Gospel to the ends of the world.

            The second major objection to Christian exclusivism is actually inclusivism it’s self. To defend this objection here would be to simply re-write this paper.  So, I will summarize and say that inclusivism its self cannot be proved Biblically, philosophically or historically if one is given to logical reasoning and proper hermeneutics.  There is only one way to for salvation and that is through repenting and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

            The doctrine of Christian exclusivism is extremely important to the orthodoxy of the Christian faith. If we arrive to any other conclusions about the methodology of God in the salvation of souls, whether by inclusivism, pluralism, universalism or any other means we have arrived on unbiblical ground.   The doctrine of inclusivism is dangerous.  However, without knowing the terminology or theological jargon I’m afraid many of our Southern Baptist Church members may be headed down this road.  May God always help us be correct in our doctrine, loving in our relationships and passionate in our duty to fulfill the Great Commission.  If we understand correctly the doctrine of Christian exclusivism I believe that we will be well on our way to accomplishing those goals.

Bibliography

[1] Christianity Today  J. I Packer “ Salvation sans Jesus” October 12, 2005 

Retrieved 2 April 2009 http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2005/october/29.88.html 

[2] Paul R House, Greg Thornberry  “Who Will be Saved?” Pg 114

Retrieved 2 March 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=WezXYYUELJMC&printsec=frontcover#PPA17,M1

[3] House, Thornberry. Pg 111

Retrieved 2 March 2009 http://books.google.com/books?id=WezXYYUELJMC&printsec=frontcover#PPA17,M1

Trackback URI | Comments RSS