10. An Evaluation Of Inclusivism

The major thesis of inclusivists, that God desires the salvation of all people, is in my opinion a thesis that should be accepted as a clear teaching of Scripture. The passages cited in the previous chapter give strong support to this thesis. Those of us who are Calvinists may object that it may not be God’s ultimate purpose to save every person. And this may be true. But even so, there is no denying that it is God’s desire that all might come to repentance and faith. Paul states that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim. 2:4). Peter states that God is “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (II Pet. 3:9b).¹ This sentiment is reflected in the statement in Ezekiel: “‘Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,’ declares the Lord God, ‘rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?’” (Ezek. 18:23; cf. v. 32). It is also reflected in Jesus’ words over Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Mt. 23:37). Calvinist and Arminian alike can agree that though God is just in judging those who are impenitent, he is nonetheless grieved by the loss of any individual.²

The second part of the inclusivist thesis, however, is less convincing. God’s desire for the salvation of all does not necessarily require that a revelation sufficient to save must be made known to all. All that is required is that God reveal enough about himself to awaken a desire to seek for God. God has done this through his general or natural revelation. Through general revelation, a person can come to know that there is a God to whom he is accountable (Rom. 1:19), that he fails even to live up to the dictates of his own conscience (Rom. 2:15), and that there is a judgment awaiting all who fail to do so (Rom. 1:32). But there is nothing to be found in this revelation that would lead a person to know that God has provided a way of salvation or deliverance from his judgment.

This leaves room for the principle stated in Luke 8:18 to be applied to all people: “So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.” This general principle would appear to have application to those who possess only God’s general revelation about himself. If they respond appropriately to what they know through this means (and we will discuss this later), God will reveal more to them—including the saving message of the gospel. If they do not respond appropriately, then God may not only withhold additional revelation, but may even withdraw what they have. This is God’s judgment on a sinful humanity.

But there is also an element of mercy in this. This is seen in that those in darkness are not held accountable to the same degree as are those who are privileged to receive the light of the truth. Paul states that “where there is no law, there is no violation” (Rom. 4:15). That people are held accountable for their response to the revelation they have is stated in a number of passages (cf. Lk. 12:47–48; Jn. 9:41; 15:22; Rom. 2:12). In fact, Peter even says: “For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them” (II Pet. 2:21). In other words, their judgment would be more severe for having rejected what they knew, than for those who did not know as much as they did.

Salvation Of Old Testament Saints

I will now seek to evaluate the evidence which inclusivists marshal in support of their thesis. The first line of evidence was that the Old Testament believers within Israel were saved without explicit knowledge of Christ. This is true, in the fullest sense of the word. God did not reveal in advance to Israel all that would later be made known about Christ once he had come. But this is not to say that God revealed nothing about his saving purposes and the means by which he would ultimately provide for their salvation. It is clear that from the very beginning, God made it known that salvation came through faith in his gracious promise of blessing and deliverance from judgment, and that an atoning sacrifice for sin was a necessary element of this salvation. In the words of John Feinberg: “Thus we see that in each period of the Old Testament economy, the specific content revealed for men to believe involved truths about sacrifices and promises.”³

These elements are evident in Genesis 3, where God promised a deliverer who would crush Satan, though through his own suffering (v. 15). This promise has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. But the tradition that the promised “seed of the woman” ultimately refers to Christ has been widely held among Christian interpreters. Kenneth Matthews comments:

Our passage provides for this mature reflection that points to Christ as the vindicator of the woman (cp. Rom 16:20) . . . . Specifically, Paul identified Christ as the ‘seed’ ultimately intended in the promissory blessing to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and Abraham’s believing offspring includes the church (Rom 4:13, 16–18; Gal 3:8) . . . . Finally, the Apocalypse describes the ‘red dragon,’ who is identified as ‘that ancient serpent’ (Rev. 12:9), opposing the believing community (i.e., the woman) and plotting the destruction of her child (i.e., the Messiah). Ultimately, ‘that ancient serpent’ is destroyed by God for its deception of the nations (Rev. 20:2, 7–10).⁴

The element of sacrifice for sin is evident in the Lord’s sacrifice of an animal to provide clothing for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3: 21). Kenneth A. Matthews states:

Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the garden too. Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill.⁵

The element of sacrifice is evident also in the following accounts regarding the worship of Abel (Gen. 4:4), and Noah (Gen. 8:20f), as well as that of Abraham (Gen. 12:8).

The element of faith in God’s promise of blessing and deliverance is also implied in the early chapters of Genesis—in the cases of Eve, when she expressed her belief that the Lord had enabled her to give birth to a man (4:1), of Abel, when he brought a sacrifice to the Lord (4:4), of those who “called upon the name of the Lord” (4:26), of Enoch, who “walked with God” (5:22), and of Noah, who also “walked with God” and obeyed his commandments (6:8, 9, 22; 7:5). And it is made even more explicit in the case of Abraham, of whom it is said that “he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6).

It is even said of Abraham in the New Testament that the gospel was “preached beforehand” to him (Gal. 3:8). Not the gospel in the fullest sense in which we know it today, but the gospel (“good news”) nonetheless. As Mark Shaw states: “Abraham’s response was to say ‘Amen’ (Hamen); in effect meaning ‘I believe this promise will be established.’ Abraham sensed the reality of God’s promise to such a vivid degree that he regarded it as good as done. Abraham was abandoning himself not to a vague hope of mercy but to the clear promise of God given through special revelation.”⁶

The crucial importance of faith in God’s revealed promise is plainly taught by Paul in the fourth chapter of his letter to the Romans, where he shows that Abraham was justified by grace through faith: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). The same is taught in Galatians 3:6–9.⁷

But what is faith? The writer to the Hebrews states that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). This tells us that saving faith involves being assured that God’s promises in which we hope are true, and that what is yet unseen will be seen. Faith is confidence in God’s revealed promise, and thus includes an indispensable cognitive element. William Lane states about this verse: “faith celebrates now the reality of the future blessings that constitute the objective content of hope.”⁸ The entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews emphasizes the crucial role of faith in God’s promise as the essential element in salvation. The word “promise” is used in Heb. 11:9, 11, 13, 17, 33, 39, and is implied in several other verses.

As to the identity and role of the deliverer whom God promised to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15), more and more was revealed as the generations went by. We do not know how much was understood about him by the common believer in Israel. But it is evident that Abraham’s descendants knew more about him than is explicitly stated in the text, judging by Jacob’s statement to his son Judah about “the one who is to come” (Gen. 49:10.)⁹

Certainly, there was no understanding of the trinitarian nature of the Godhead. But believers placed their faith in the God who had made gracious promises in which they hoped. This went far beyond what might have been gleaned about God simply by reflecting on his general or natural revelation. Something more was required.

This raises the fact that the content of the “faith” which inclusivists propose in response to general revelation is quite vague in comparison to faith as it is spoken of in the Scriptures. Speaking of the relationship between saving faith in the Old Testament and the New, Geoffrey W. Grogan states: “In each case . . . we see faith as the correlative of revelation, and that revelation both personal and propositional. It was personal in that God disclosed Himself and not simply truths about Himself . . . . It was also propositional, for it was response to God as he made Himself known in His promises.”¹⁰ This is what is generally lacking in the inclusivist conception of saving faith. D. A. Carson observes: “Most of the pre-Christ believers are those who enter into a covenantal, faith-based relationship with the God who had disclosed himself to them in the terms and the extent recorded up to that time . . . . (T)hese believers on the Old Testament side were responding in faith to special revelation, and were not simply exercising some sort of general ‘faith’ in an undefined ‘God.’”¹¹

It should be noted here that when those who had been saved through their faith in the God of Israel later came to know and trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior, they did not replace one faith with another. Rather, their faith moved from one that was anticipatory to one that was based on the fulfillment of God’s promise of redemption.¹² Their faith moved from anticipating the Deliverer to come, to believing in the Deliverer who has come. This was certainly true of the disciples, whom Jesus said were already spiritually “cleansed” on the night of his betrayal (John 13:10; 15:3), but whose faith entered into a new phase when they came to understand more fully the redemption accomplished in his death and resurrection.

It was true of Zacharias and Elizabeth who were “righteous in the sight of God” (Luke 1:6), and of Simeon, who was “looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him” (Luke 2:25). This appears also to be true of the “Jews and God-fearing proselytes” in Pisidian Antioch who “followed Paul and Barnabas,” embracing their message about the salvation available through faith in Christ (Acts 13:43). These, they urged to “continue in the grace of God” (v. 43). Something similar occurred in Iconium (Acts 14:1), Philippi (Acts 16:14–15), Thessalonica (Acts 17:4), Berea (Acts 17:10–12), Corinth (Acts 18:7–8), and Rome (Acts 28:24), where some of the Jews came to believe in Jesus as their Messiah and Savior. As we shall see, however, the conversion of Gentiles (who were without God’s special revelation) would be described in a much different way.

The “Holy Pagans”

The second line of evidence appealed to by the inclusivist is that during Old Testament times there were redeemed people outside God’s covenant community. The first example is Melchizedek, who is identified as “a priest of God Most High” or El Elyon (Gen. 14:18). El Elyon was apparently one of the names given to El, the high god among the Canaanites.¹³ However, that the writer intends for us to understand that Melchizedek was a worshiper of the true God is supported by the fact that Abram identified El Elyon as “the Lord (Yahweh) God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth” (v. 22). It is also evident that the patriarchs distinguished their worship of the Lord from the worship of the Canaanites. They did not worship at the same worship sites, but built their own altars to the Lord (12:8; 13:18; 26:25; 35:3). Furthermore, we see that the patriarchs distinguished the Lord from the gods worshiped by the Canaanites, as exemplified in the words of Jacob, who told his household, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you . . . .” (Gen. 35:2).

It is also significant that the name El Elyon is used of the Lord in Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 (“God Most High”). He is also spoken of as “Lord Most High” in Psalms 7:17 and 47:2. The name Elyon (“the Highest”) is also used of the Lord in numerous other passages (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; II Sam. 22:14; Ps. 9:2; 18:13; 21:7:46:4; 50:14; 73:11; 83:18;87:5; 91:1,9; 92:1; 107:11; Isa. 14:14; Lam. 3:35, 38). The writer to the Hebrews also identifies Melchizedek as “priest of the Most High God” (Heb. 7:1), endorsing him as a true worshiper of the Lord.

Jesus Christ is identified as a “high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:10), in keeping with the statement in Psalm 110:4. It seems most unlikely that the psalmist would identify the priestly order of which the Messiah would be a member as being one whose first member was only ignorantly a worshiper of the true and living God. This was the view even of Hermann Gunkel. Speaking of the reference in Psalm 110 of the “priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek” he says: “(I)t is very unlikely that the later community, opposed to everything pagan . . . will have sought the pattern for the high-priesthood in a Canaanite.” ¹⁴

The fact that Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek as his expression of honor to the Lord, indicates that he shared a like faith with him. Walter Kaiser states: “Now if Melchizedek was not a genuine believer, why would Abram take the tithe that was usually set apart for the One true God who had just given him an unprecedented victory and hand it over to one who could otherwise be viewed as a pagan priest of a Canaanite deity? That hardly makes any sense.”¹⁵

We are not told how Melchizedek came to know the Lord. It’s possible that he may have received a direct revelation from the Lord, as Abram had.¹⁶ Or, he may have been the recipient of the original revelation of the Lord that had been handed down through the generations, from Adam, and then through Noah and his sons.¹⁷ We do know that the text of Genesis places Abram not many generations removed from the Tower of Babel event. It is not unlikely that the original faith in the Lord was preserved in various places throughout the world, and Melchizedek is representative of those who preserved this original faith in him. But Melchizedek is not an example of someone who was redeemed through his reflection on God’s general or natural revelation, or through his devotion to another god than the God worshiped by Abraham.¹⁸ Speaking of Old Testament figures such as Melchizedek, Old Testament scholar Paul House states: “God does not reveal himself to them through Baalism or some other ancient polytheistic religion. Thus, while it is true that the Lord makes himself known through visions or other means, it is not true the he is revealed as one who may be defined differently than the one true God described in the rest of scripture. Rather, these individuals receive knowledge of the one, creating, revealing, saving God known by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”¹⁹

D. A. Carson states:

When the Melchizedek passage is placed within the developing narrative of the book of Genesis, one can no longer think of monotheism emerging after endless struggles with pagan polytheism. It is far more natural in reading the account to suppose that there were still people who believed in the one true God, people who preserved some memory of God’s gracious self-disclosure to Noah, people who revered the memory of the severe lesson of babel. That Melchizedek should designate ‘God Most High’ as ‘Creator of Heaven and Earth’ points in the same direction . . . . Of course, Abram was the one who still received the special call to follow God and head up the race that would prove a blessing to all the nations of the earth. But that doesn’t mean he was the only one who believed in the one true God.²⁰

Abimelech is another figure sometimes pointed to by inclusivists. He is similar to Melchizedek. He appears in the text of Genesis 20 as one to whom the Lord appeared in a dream, and who is sensitive to sin in his life. Abraham had thought there was no fear of God in his household (Gen. 20:11). But it appears from the text that there was such a reverence for the Lord.

Daniel Strange comments on Abimelech: “If I am right that God’s variegated letting go of the nations after Babel was a gradual degeneration into idolatry, . . . then we are at an early stage where knowledge of the true God and his actions was still widespread. This factor, coupled with God’s choice to communicate more directly with individuals at this time, may well account for Abimelech’s faith in his interaction with Abraham.”²¹

Jethro is also similar to Melchizedek, in that he is identified as a local priest (“priest of Midian”) in Ex. 3:1. The text tells us that he came to faith in the Lord in an exclusive sense only after learning of what the Lord had done for the nation Israel at the Exodus. He said, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods” (Ex. 18:11). He is never spoken of as a “priest of God Most High,” but apparently had previously facilitated the worship of other gods besides the Lord as well. Nothing is stated in the text about Jethro’s spiritual condition prior to this time. We do know that the Midianites were descended from Abraham and his wife Keturah (Gen. 25:1–2). So it is possible that he and his family knew of the Lord through this lineage. Or, it could be that Moses had told them about the Lord during his many years of dwelling with them in Midian. But from this point on, he became devoted to the Lord alone, as exemplified in his bringing a burnt offering to the him (Ex. 18:12), and offering wise counsel to Moses, at which time he affirmed his faith in the true God (Ex. 18:17–23).

Old Testament scholar Duane Garrett refers to this incident as Jethro’s “conversion experience.”²² Jethro is an example, then, of a priest who came to faith in the Lord out of a polytheistic background. He no doubt knew of the Lord prior to this time, but he had not yet come to truly know him, or to have faith exclusively in him. There is really no indication that prior to this time he was a redeemed individual. Rather, he is an example of someone who came to faith upon learning of the mighty deeds of the Lord on behalf of Israel.

Job is an interesting case, in that though he was not a Hebrew, he evidenced a mature faith in God. He is identified in Job 1:1 as a man who “was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.” He really is not a valid example of someone who was redeemed in spite of his lack of knowledge of the true God. Throughout the book, Job refers to God as “the Almighty” (6:4, 14; 13:3; 21:15; 24:1; 27:2, 10, 11, 13; 29:5; 31:2, 35), “the Holy One” (6:10), and “my Judge” (23:7). He is spoken of by the narrator as “the Lord” (Yahweh) several times in the book (1:6–8, 12, 21; 2:1, 3; 38:1; 40:1; 42:1, 7, 10, 12), and once by Job himself (12:9). Job concurs with God’s claim to be the creator (38:4), and conceives of him as the sovereign ruler over his creation (12:13–25). In fact, Job recognizes that, though he did not believe his sufferings had come upon him for his personal sin, nonetheless he did realize that he was a sinner, in need of a Redeemer. And he expresses his confidence in God as his Redeemer (Job 20:25f). Though it is not possible to determine exactly when Job lived, it is apparent that he was a recipient of the true knowledge of the Lord, either through direct revelation, or through the tradition that was passed down from Adam through Noah and his descendants. He is not an example of an individual who was redeemed apart from knowledge of the true God.

Balaam stands in great contrast to Job. Though he is described as someone who in some sense knew the Lord, and to whom God revealed his prophetic word (Num. 22–24), he is also described as participating in offering sacrifices at a “high place” devoted to the worship of the Canaanite god Baal (Num. 22:41–23:2), and of advising the Midianites to seek to tempt Israel against the Lord (Num. 31:16). He is called a “diviner” (Heb. qusem) in Josh. 13:22.²³ He was for these reasons killed in battle (Num. 31:8; Josh. 13:22). He is not at all presented in a positive light in the biblical text (cf. Rev. 2:14).

Christopher Little’s estimation sums up the biblical picture of Balaam well:

Balaam represents syncretism in its clearest form. He attempted to possess and experience the best of both worlds but was destroyed in the end. He knew of the true God of Israel but failed to humble himself and turn from his practices of sorcery. Even though he was at one time an instrument for the divine voice, he neither intimately nor redemptively knew the owner of that voice. His life teaches that we must be very careful and cautious in determining who in reality has turned from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of life.²⁴

Naaman is a different case. He is spoken of as someone by whom “the Lord had given victory to Aram” prior to his coming to truly know the God of Israel (II Kings 5:1). This in itself, however, says nothing about his being a redeemed person, as God uses all kinds of people to accomplish his purposes. Cyrus is spoken of in the book of Isaiah as the Lord’s “shepherd” and “anointed” one (Isa. 44:28; 45:1) through whom he subdued nations, even though it is stated that Cyrus did not know the Lord (Isa. 45:4). So, Naaman was evidently someone through whom God had accomplished his will, even before he knew him.

As the text recounts, Naaman was directed through a Jewish servant girl to go to Israel to see the prophet Elisha for healing of leprosy. Though initially offended that he would be required to dip himself seven times in the Jordan River, after humbling himself to do so, he was healed of his leprosy. In response, Naaman said, “Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel . . . .” (II Kings 5:15). Furthermore, he said, “(Y)our servant will no longer offer burnt offering nor will he sacrifice to other gods, but to the Lord” (v. 17b). He even asked that the Lord would forgive him for participating in ceremonies involving worship of the god Rimmon, which was apparently required of someone in his position in the government of Aram: “(I)n this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter” (v. 18). It has been pointed out that Naaman does not ask for permission to engage in such a ritual, but for forgiveness. He sees it as inconsistent with his new faith in the Lord. Daniel Strange points out that the “bowing” referred to in this ritual may “be nothing more than the physical movement of his aiding his elderly master to bow.”²⁵ It’s obvious that he was a genuine worshiper of the Lord God of Israel, and not an example of someone who was redeemed apart from that knowledge.

Huram-abi of Tyre, whom King Huram sent to build Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, is described as “a skilled man, endowed with understanding” (II Chron. 2:13). Though he was from Tyre, north of Israel, it is stated in the text that his mother was an Israelite from the tribe of Dan (II Chron. 2:14). Furthermore, it should be noted that King Huram demonstrated in his letter to Solomon that he knew “the Lord, the God of Israel, who has made heaven and earth” (II Chron. 2:12). The mere fact that Huram-abi was “endowed with understanding” does not demand that he be thought of as a redeemed person. But if he was, then it is clear from the text that he grew up in an environment where the God of Israel was well-known.

The Queen of Sheba came to Jerusalem from a distance to see if the reports she had heard of Solomon’s wisdom were true. But it’s clear from the text that she had heard also of the Lord: “Now when the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the Lord, she came to test him with difficult questions” (I Kings 10:1). Before her departure for home, she said, “Blessed be the Lord your God who delighted in you to set you on the throne of Israel, because the Lord loved Israel forever, therefore he made you king, to do justice and righteousness” (I Kings 10:9). If her words are a reflection of a genuine faith in the Lord, then it is only because she had heard of him prior to this time.

The identity of the person named as Daniel by the prophet Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3) is disputed. Some believe that this is a reference to the character mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, especially since the other members of the trio mentioned by Ezekiel (Noah and Job) lived during an era long before Ezekiel’s generation. The prophet Daniel would have been a contemporary of Ezekiel’s (though he may have been well-known to Ezekiel). The spelling of the name Daniel is also somewhat different than the way the biblical Daniel is referred to. This may, however, simply be a variant spelling of the name.

The most serious difficulty with identifying Ezekiel’s Daniel as the one mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, is that he is there spoken of as a devotee of a pagan god (likely Baal). It seems highly unlikely that Ezekiel would refer to a worshiper of Baal as “righteous” (14:14), particularly in a context where the Lord is reproving Israel for her idolatry (14:1–11). Indeed, he contrasts the righteousness of Noah, Daniel and Job with the “faithlessness” of Israel in her idolatry (14:12–13).²⁶ The Daniel spoken of in the Ugaritic texts would not seem to be a good example of faithfulness to the Lord. Furthermore, the Daniel described by Ezekiel was someone to whom God revealed his “secrets” (28:3). This is a fitting description of the biblical Daniel, to whom God revealed mysteries (Dan. 2:28–30).

Coming now to the New Testament, we find the “magi from the east” coming to search for the newborn “King of the Jews” having seen “his star in the east” (Mt. 2:1–2). We know very little about the faith of these magi. But the fact that they responded to the astronomical sign (whatever it may have been) by coming to Israel to find the newborn King, tells us that they must have had some knowledge of the God of Israel prior to this time. Scholars have surmised that they may well have had access to the oracle of Balaam, in which he said, “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel . . . .” (Num. 24:17).²⁷ It’s very possible as well that they had knowledge of the prophecies given to Daniel while he resided in Babylon, about the coming of “Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9:24–27).

Judging by their response to the baby Jesus, and by the fact that God took extraordinary measures to protect them, it’s apparent that they had a genuine faith in the Lord. But whether they came to saving faith at the time when they paid homage to Jesus, or prior to that time even in their homeland, it is clear in either case that it was as a result of coming to know about the God of Israel, and of his promises. There is no indication that they were redeemed individuals apart from that knowledge.

Craig Keener’s comments are appropriate at this point: “(E)ven supernatural guidance like that of the star can take the astrologers only so far; for more specific direction they must ask the leaders in Jerusalem where the king is to be born (2:2). That is, their celestial revelation was only partial; they must finally submit to God’s revelation in the Scriptures, preserved by the Jewish people . . . .”²⁸

The cases of the Centurion who encountered Jesus and of the Syrophoenician woman are likewise not convincing examples of individuals who were redeemed prior to coming to know the Lord, for in both cases their faith was clearly based on explicit knowledge of the God of Israel. This is true of the Centurion of whom the Jewish elders said “he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue” (Lk. 7:5). And it is equally true of the Syrophoenician woman, who knew enough of Israel’s faith to refer to Jesus as the “Son of David” (15:22). Neither of them is an example of an individual who was redeemed prior to coming to know the Lord. The fact that Jesus said to his followers after his encounter with the Centurion, “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 8:11), simply affirms the fact that many Gentiles will enter the kingdom. He did not say that they would enter in spite of the fact that they did not know Israel’s God.

The most significant case in the New Testament is that of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10–11. Interpreters are divided as to whether Cornelius was a redeemed individual prior to his hearing the gospel through the Apostle Peter. Some believe that he was. This is based primarily on two facts. First, is the fact that Cornelius is described, even before Peter arrived, as “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:2). This would seem to suggest that Cornelius was a true worshiper of the Lord prior to hearing about Jesus. He was a “God-fearer” who worshiped the Lord, but had not submitted to circumcision so as to become a Gentile proselyte.

The second fact is that when Peter arrived at Cornelius’ home, he said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34–35). This might be taken to mean that even prior to hearing about Christ, a person who “fears God” and “does what is right” is a redeemed individual. If Cornelius was redeemed prior to his hearing the gospel, however, it would not have been on the basis of a response to general revelation, or another religions, but on the basis of his sharing a faith similar to that of other Old Testament believers—faith in the God of Abraham, who had promised a coming redeemer. He would then, in that case, have transitioned from the era of anticipation to the era of fulfillment. This was, in fact, the view of John Calvin. He stated that: “Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed.”²⁹ It also was the view of Jonathan Edwards, who concluded that Cornelius was saved due to the fact that he “did already in some respect believe in (Christ) even in the manner that the Old Testament saints were wont to do.”³⁰

James Buchanan believed that Cornelius was a redeemed person prior to his embracing the gospel, based on his faith as a believer in the promises of the Old Testament. He states:

And on the whole, he may be regarded as a believer, in the same sense in which Abraham was a believer, or the cloud of witnesses which is mentioned in the 11th of the Hebrews, who ‘all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth;’ and being a believer, he was justified and accepted, as they were, by faith in God’s covenant promise . . . . The centurion, we believe, was in a state of transition from the Jewish to the Christian faith, and the change which occurred in his views ought to be regarded as his advancement from an imperfect to a more perfect state, rather than as his first conversion to God.³¹

If this was the case, then his experience would also have been to some degree similar to that of the “disciples” described in Acts 19:1–7. They are called “disciples” by Luke, and it is most likely that by this he intends us to understand that they were disciples of Jesus. They had been baptized into John’s baptism, but were unaware of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (as Cornelius was ignorant of Jesus). They would have been among those who were redeemed by their faith in God and his promised redeemer—something Paul mentions in the passage when he said that John taught people to “believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus” (Acts 19:4). These disciples were then baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and received the Holy Spirit through Paul’s laying his hands upon them.

I believe, however, that the text best supports the conclusion that Cornelius was not redeemed until he heard the gospel. In favor of this view are several facts. The first is the statement of Cornelius that the angel who had spoken to him prior to Peter’s arrival had told him that it would be through Peter’s words that he would “be saved” (Acts 11:14). This implies that Cornelius was not yet a saved person prior to his hearing the gospel through Peter.

The second fact is that it was only after Peter said that “through His (Jesus’) name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” that then “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:43–44). This would suggest that prior to Cornelius believing in Jesus, he had not received the gift of the forgiveness of sins and of the Holy Spirit. In spite of the fact that he was described as “devout” (vv. 2, 31), as well as “righteous and God-fearing” (v. 22), he still was in need of salvation.

As I. Howard Marshall states: “Piety, such as that shown by Cornelius . . . , is an indication of readiness to accept the message, and is pleasing to God (Acts 10.31), but is no substitute for actually responding to the gospel, which brings salvation (Acts 11.14, 18).”³² It’s obvious by his response to the gospel that Cornelius did not believe his religious devotion and good works were sufficient for his personal salvation. As Marshall furthermore states: “(H)ad a person like Cornelius said, ‘My good deeds are sufficient to win me favour with God, and I have no need of the gospel’ . . . then it would have become clear that he was not accepted by God; a good life is acceptable in God’s sight only when it leads to recognition of its own inadequacy and to acceptance of the Gospel.”³³

The text tells us that Cornelius had been a praying person prior to his encounter with Peter (Acts 10:2). The angel told him that his prayers (as well as his alms) had “ascended as a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). This phrase is an allusion to the “memorial” portion of an offering which “ascended” to God, as an appeal for him to remember with favor the offerer.³⁴ And in Cornelius’ case, God did respond to his prayer. It was evidently the forgiveness of his sins (Acts 10:43), for which Cornelius had been praying (at least in part), as suggested by the angel’s words to him: “your prayer has been heard” (Acts 10:31). This is the evidence that the Holy Spirit had been at work in Cornelius’ life, convicting him of sin, and preparing him for the reception of the gospel.

Later, Peter made the statement that Cornelius’ experience shows that “God has granted to Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). Later also, at the Jerusalem Council, Peter referred to God having cleansed the hearts of Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:9), suggesting that such cleansing occurred in conjunction with coming to trust in Christ as Savior. This implies that though the Holy Spirit was at work in Cornelius’ heart prior to the coming of Peter to preach the gospel, nonetheless, prior to his placing his faith in Jesus, he did not yet possess eternal life, and that he was not yet cleansed of his sins. He came to possess eternal life and to be cleansed of his sins through repentance and believing in Christ as his Savior.

In this case, Peter’s statement that those from any nation who “fear God and do what is right” are acceptable to him simply tells us that nationality is not a factor in determining whether one can be saved or not. Being a Gentile is no barrier to being accepted by God. But in any nation, those who worship him and do what is right are acceptable (dektos) to God.³⁵ The word dektos does not mean that the person is “justified,” but that God will receive such a person when they place their faith in him. D. A. Carson states that the word translated “acceptable” (dektos) “is never used in reference to whether or not a person is accepted by God in some saving sense.”³⁶ John Stott writes: “It is clear then that, although in some sense ‘acceptable’ to God, Cornelius before his conversion had neither ‘salvation’ nor ‘life.’”³⁷

The New Testament commentator Henry Alford states:

The question which recent events had solved in Peter’s mind, was that of the admissibility of men of all nations into the church of Christ. In this sense only, had he received any information as to the acceptableness of men of all nations before God. He saw, that in every nation, men who seek after God, who receive His witness of Himself without which He has left no man, and humbly follow His will as far as they know it,—these have no extraneous hindrance, such as uncircumcision, placed in their way to Christ, but are capable of being admitted into God’s church though Gentiles, and as Gentiles . . . . It is clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to have meant, that each heathen’s natural light and moral purity would render him acceptable in the sight of God:—for, if so, why should he have proceeded to preach Christ to Cornelius, or indeed any more at all? And it is equally unreasonable to find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in erg. dikaiosunen, or to suppose that dik. must be taken in its forensic sense, and therefore that he alludes to the state of men after becoming believers . . . . The deeper truth, that the preparation of the heart itself in such men comes from God’s preventing grace, is not in question here, nor touched upon.³⁸

Philip Schaff states similarly:

National distinctions, he would say, have nothing to do with admission into the kingdom of God. The great requisite is, not descent from Abraham, not circumcision, but simply a sincere desire for salvation. God looks upon the heart; and to every one who reveres him according to the measure of his knowledge and advantages, and lives accordingly, he will graciously show the way to the Saviour, who alone can satisfy the cravings of his soul. This is the sense of the words in their connection.³⁹

The Baptist commentator Horatio B. Hackett, states:

That Peter did not intend, however, to represent his righteousness, or that of any man, as sufficient to justify him in the sight of God, is self-evident; for in v. 43 he declares that it is necessary to believe on Christ in order to obtain ‘the remission of sins.’ (Compare also 14:11.) . . . . In other words, since the apostle has reference to the state of mind which God requires as preparatory to an interest in the benefits of the gospel, the righteousness and the acceptance of which he speaks must also be preparatory, i.e. relative, and not absolute.⁴⁰

Cornelius, then, would be among those whose hearts the Holy Spirit had prepared to receive the gospel.

John Piper states concerning Cornelius: “My suggestion is that Cornelius represents a kind of unsaved person among an unreached people group who is seeking God in an extraordinary way. And Peter is saying that God accepts this search as genuine (hence “acceptable’ in verse 35) and works wonders to bring that person the gospel of Jesus Christ the way he did through the visions of both Peter on the housetop and Cornelius in the hour of prayer.”⁴¹ As J. Oliver Buswell states: “It is not to be supposed that Cornelius (Acts 10) was born again prior to Peter’s visit, but it should certainly be clear that he had been convicted and brought to a point where he was ready to believe, prior to his first hearing of the Gospel.”⁴² But he was not yet saved until he heard and believed the gospel about Christ.⁴³

In no case, however, would Cornelius be an example of someone who was saved apart from knowledge of the true God, merely on the basis of their response to general revelation, or through another religion. As James Buchanan states: “Some, considering Cornelius as a Gentile, and founding on his declared acceptance with God, have inferred the sufficiency of mere natural religion . . . . (But this view) derives no support from the case of Cornelius. For the religion of Cornelius was not derived solely, or even chiefly, from the volume of Nature: it was drawn from the revelation of God’s truth in the Old Testament Scriptures . . . .”⁴⁴

It should be noted that Peter’s message to Cornelius was virtually the same as the one Paul preached to both Jews and “God-fearers” recorded in Acts 13:16–31, in which he said that forgiveness of sins comes through believing in Jesus (Acts 13:38–39).⁴⁵

It is important also to note here that this passage clarifies for us what it means for a person to be “saved.”⁴⁶ The texts in these chapters tell us that salvation is conceived of in Acts as consisting of the forgiveness of sins (10:43; 15:9), receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (10:44, 47; 11:17; 15:8), and the gift of eternal life (11:18). This salvation comes now through repentance (11:18) and believing in Jesus (10:43; 11:17; 15:7, 9).

This is not to deny that there is a work of God’s grace in preparation for saving faith (more about this in the following chapter). But it is to say that prior to such explicit faith, one cannot be said to have received salvation. This seems to be one of the primary weaknesses of the inclusivist viewpoint—that it fails to clearly distinguish between God’s preparing grace and his saving grace.⁴⁷ This failure results in some inclusivists speaking of a person experiencing salvation to a degree prior to the point of conversion, and receiving a “fuller justification” when they come to faith in Christ, as Plumptre suggests.⁴⁸ It is difficult to conceive of a person being only partially justified. It would seem much better to conceive of a person as being not yet justified, rather than justified in some lesser sense, prior to coming to faith in Jesus. This is, in my opinion, the major weakness of the inclusivist position.

John Piper’s comments regarding the sense in which Cornelius is an example of the “one who fears God and does what is right, and is welcome or acceptable to God” are worth repeating:

So the fear of God that is acceptable to God in verse 35 is a true sense that there is a holy God, that we have to meet him some day as desperate sinners, that we cannot save ourselves and need to know God’s way of salvation, and that we pray for it day and night and seek to act on the light we have. This is what Cornelius was doing. And God accepted his prayer and his groping for truth in his life (Acts 17:27) and worked wonders to bring the saving message of the gospel to him.⁴⁹

In the case, then, of all of the so-called “holy pagans” in Scripture, I conclude that they all were either not holy (Balaam), or were not pagan (they were all recipients of special revelation). None of them could really be conceived of as having been saved apart from believing in God’s gracious promises. Even Terrance Tiessen, who adheres to what he calls the “accessibilist” view, acknowledges that he can “find no biblical examples of people who were saved through general revelation alone.”⁵⁰ And though he argues at length for the possibility that it is nonetheless possible, he expresses “doubt that many people come to God in acceptable faith through general revelation alone . . . .”⁵¹

Salvation Of Infants

Another argument sometimes advanced by inclusivists is that if God grants eternal life to infants and children who are unable to believe, it seems that he would do the same for the unevangelized who likewise are unable to believe. This is based, however, on a false comparison. For whereas children are innately incapable of believing, this is not true of unevangelized adults who are capable of perceiving what God has disclosed through general revelation. As Gary Phillips states: “(T)hey do not have the capacity to respond to general revelation or conscience.”⁵² Infants are in a very different category from unevangelized adults, and thus do not provide a fair analogy.

Specific Texts

I will now examine the specific biblical passages that are sometimes appealed to by those who hold the inclusivist viewpoint. The first of these is the statement in Exodus 6:3, that the patriarchs did not know God by the name of the Lord (Yahweh). This statement has been used by those who hold to the documentary hypothesis regarding the composition of the Pentateuch, to show that belief in Yahweh was not part of the patriarchal religion, but was introduced into the text by a later author/editor (the Yahwistic author, or J).

If we take the book of Genesis, however, as it now reads, we find that the name Yahweh appears throughout the text. This is true not only of the writer who is narrating the events (for example in Gen. 12:1), but the name also appears in the statements of particular individuals quoted by the writer (e.g., Gen. 14:22; 15:2; 16:2, 5; 24:3, 7; 26:28–29; 27:20; 29:33, 35; 30:24, 30). It is used by Eve, for example, in Gen. 4:1, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.” It is most notably used by Abraham in naming the place where God intervened to spare Isaac: “The Lord (Yahweh) will provide” (Gen. 22:14). And it appears also when the Lord refers to himself in Gen. 22:15. Some would suggest that the writer has inserted the name Yahweh into the text at these points, to show that the God of the patriarchs was the same as Yahweh.⁵³ It should be noted, however, that when Moses asked the Lord who he should tell the Israelites had sent him as their deliverer, he should tell them that “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex. 3:14). He then says, “’The Lord (Yahweh), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations” (Ex. 3:15). These statements suggest that the name of the Lord was familiar to the people of Israel at that time.

Allen P. Ross points out that the statement in Genesis 4:26 is very difficult to account for if it was not part of the original account: “Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” He states: “The expression states clearly that something specific was taking place, i.e., that the name Yahweh was being proclaimed or invoked.”⁵⁴ Ross points out that the word “called” (qara) indicates that the Lord’s name (Yahweh) was “proclaimed” or “used in public worship.”⁵⁵

If, then, the texts in Genesis which use the name Yahweh represent the actual words of the persons in question, then in what sense could it be said that God had not revealed his name as Yahweh to the patriarchs (as some understand Ex. 6:3 to imply).⁵⁶ James A. Motyer has suggested that Exodus 6:2–3 should be translated as follows: “And God spoke to Moses, and said to him: ‘I am Yahweh. And I showed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in the character of El Shaddai, but in the character expressed by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.’”⁵⁷ Motyer explains that this translation “does not deny to the patriarchs the knowledge of the name Yahweh, but only denies to them knowledge of the significance of that name; it allows them to know the name but not to know the nature which the name implied.”⁵⁸ He points out that “there are forty-five cases which undoubtedly display patriarchal knowledge of the name, either because they themselves use it, or because it is used by God or man in addressing them.”⁵⁹

This view is also supported by John J. Davis.⁶⁰ He points out that the name of Yahweh appears in the name of Moses’ mother Jochebed, meaning “Yahweh is glorious” (Ex. 6:20; Num. 26:59). This would indicate that Yahweh was the name of God familiar to the Jewish people at the time. Davis shows that the idiom “to know a name” does not necessarily mean that the name had not been literally known previously. In Jeremiah 16:21, the Lord says (referring to Israel’s future restoration), “Therefore behold, I am going to make them know—This time I will make them know My power and My might; And they shall know that My name is the Lord.”⁶¹ Here, to know the Lord’s name is to know by experience his power and might. This sense of knowing the significance of the Lord as Yahweh due to the experience of his power is reflected several times in Exodus. For example, in Ex. 16:12, the Lord says, “I have heard the grumblings of the sons of Israel; speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’”⁶² Davis concludes then, that the statement in Ex. 6:3 means that “he is going to provide a demonstration of the fact that He is not only Yahweh who made a covenant with Abraham but is Yahweh who is faithful in keeping it. New aspects of His glory, majesty and redemption are to be known by Israel.”⁶³

Alternatively, Duane Garrett suggests that Exodus 6:3 has been mistranslated, and that it should actually read as follows: “And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai. But my name is Yahweh. Did I not make myself known to them?”⁶⁴

He states:

The repetition of ‘I am YHWH’ in Exod. 6 is certainly not meant to be a revelation of a name that no one had ever heard of before. It is not even, as some suggest, filling out the name YHWH with new meaning and content. The main point is not novelty but continuity. He made promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regarding their offspring and the land of Canaan, and now he is fulfilling those promises. Furthermore, just as he was the fathers’ God, and in covenant with them, now he is the God of all of Israel, entering into covenant with them (6:7, anticipating Exod. 19–24). In fact, one could hardly more badly misread the text than to claim that Exod. 6 is the revelation of something new. It is the completion of something very old. It was no new God that was going to save Israel from Egypt; it was the God the fathers had known.⁶⁵

This translation is certainly possible, but it is not at all necessary in order to establish that the patriarchs knew the name of the Lord.

Even if it were the case, however, that the patriarchs did not know the Lord as Yahweh, this does not constitute a strong argument in favor of the inclusivist viewpoint. For, as discussed above in the section regarding Melchizedek, the religion of the patriarchs was clearly distinct from that of the surrounding culture. When Abram first entered the land, he built an altar that was distinct from the existing cultic centers in the land (Gen. 12:8; 13:18).⁶⁶ Later, Jacob tells his household: “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone” (Gen. 35:2–3).⁶⁷ He made a clear distinction between the Lord and the gods of the surrounding culture. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not the god of the Canaanites.

Another Old Testament passage appears in Deuteronomy 4:19, where God says that he had allotted to the nations the worship of various gods represented by the moon, stars and hosts of heaven.⁶⁸ This statement comes, however, in the midst of a paragraph warning Israel against following after these gods, and does not state that such worship was sanctioned by God as being legitimate for the nations. Merrill believes that the statement simply means that God had granted the heavenly bodies to all peoples “for signs and for seasons and for days and years” (Gen. 1:14), but not to be worshiped.⁶⁹

It’s not at all unlikely, however that this statement denotes God giving the nations over to such worship as an act of judgment. This is reflected in Paul’s statement: “In generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways . . . .” (Acts 14:16), as well as in his statements that in response to the nations suppressing the truth about God evident in the creation, He “gave them over” to various forms of depravity (Romans 1:18–32). This is also similar to what is said of Israel, that God “gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart” (Psalm 81:12), and that he “delivered them up to serve the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42–43). So the statement in Deuteronomy that God “allotted to the nations” the hosts of heaven is not a positive endorsement of such worship, as though it was an implicit worship of the true God.⁷⁰

A third Old Testament text sometimes used by inclusivists is found in Malachi 1:11, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (RSV). One rabbi commented on this verse: “There is the magnificent recognition by Malachi that all sincere heathen worship is in reality offered to the one God of all the earth . . . .”⁷¹

Joyce Baldwin, however, shows very clearly that this could not possibly be its intended meaning.⁷² For one thing, such a meaning would be entirely out of step with the teaching of the rest of the Old Testament, which tolerated the worship of no god but the Lord (Ex. 22:20; Josh. 24:15). This sentiment was strongly supported by the prophets who roundly condemned the worship of other gods (Isaiah 2:8, 18). They are even referred to as “demons” (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). Secondly, such an interpretation of this verse is inconsistent with the teaching of the rest of the book of Malachi. In 2:11, he condemns intermarriage between Israel and “the daughter of a strange god.” She writes: “In short, there is nothing in the rest of the book to support the interpretation that heathen worship was in reality offered to the God of all the earth.”⁷³

She goes on to show that the statement in v. 11 is eschatological in nature, pointing to a future reality. This is seen by the use of the phrase “from the rising of the sun to its setting,” a phrase which appears in eschatological passages elsewhere in the Old Testament (Ps. 50:1; 113:3; Isa. 45:6; 59:9). Furthermore, she points out that the verbal phrase “is offered” is actually a hophal participle, which not unusually bears a future sense (contrary to the present tense translation of the RSV).⁷⁴ So, it should be rendered, “in every place incense is going to be offered to My name” (NASB).

She then points out two additional facts. The first is that the “name” of the Lord is emphasized repeatedly in vv. 11, 14. The “name” of the Lord stood for his character in Hebrew thought. And he would not share his name or glory with another (Isa. 48:11). She states, “It was a scandal that Israel’s priests had despised His name (Mal. 1:6) but it would surely be unthinkable that He should be identified with the gods of the nations.”⁷⁵ The second fact is that the offerings that will be offered among the nations will be “pure” (tahor) in nature. She states, “At their best the Levitical sacrifices were said to be tamim ‘whole.’ The nations could hardly have attained to a perfection in worship which was never attained by Israelites at their best, and indeed became possible only through Christ.”⁷⁶

She concludes her discussion with these words: “I find myself asking whether Malachi, a post-exilic prophet, was really weighing up the other religious systems which he had come across and saying magnanimously that they were all so many equally good ways to the one God, or whether nineteenth- and twentieth-century theologians, thinking this way themselves, have read their own universalist thoughts into the words of the prophet.”⁷⁷

Thus, it is better to translate this verse in the future tense, as does the NASB: “’For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,’ says the Lord of hosts.”⁷⁸

Coming to the New Testament, we find first Jesus’ parable about the judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. Clark Pinnock believes one implication of this parable is that the unevangelized may give evidence of their faith in God by their acts of love toward the poor or suffering, by which they are implicitly serving Christ, even if they lack an explicit knowledge of or faith in him. This is, however, not quite an obvious deduction from this text. The text states that the “sheep” who are commended by the Lord were unconscious of their having rendered service to Christ through their actions (Mt. 25:37–40). But it does not say that they did not know at the time who Christ even was. So the parable really does not lend support to the idea that implicit faith is sufficient for salvation.

The next passage is Jesus’ parable of the soils (Lk. 8:4–15) in which he describes those who have an “honest and good heart” (v. 15) prior to receiving the seed of the word of God. The fact that their heart is described in this way does not suggest that they were redeemed prior to hearing and believing the word. For earlier in Jesus’ explanation of the parable He says, “Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved” (v. 12). According to this verse, then, salvation is a consequence of hearing and believing the word. In what sense, then can a person’s heart be said to be “honest and good” prior to believing the word, and so prior to being saved? This is a topic we will return to in the next chapter. But it is clearly not the same as having a heart that has been “cleansed by faith” (as Peter says in Acts 15:9) or “circumcised by the Spirit” (as Paul says in Romans 2:29), as those represented by this soil have not yet been saved prior to the seed of the word being sown in them.

Another verse which is frequently appealed to by inclusivists is John 1:9, “There was the true Light which coming into the world, enlightens every man.” As noted in previous chapters, this verse is understood by some as stating that Christ (the true Light) illumines every person (even apart from the gospel), in such a way that he may come into a saving relationship with God.

Ed. L. Miller, however, provides a very helpful discussion of this verse.⁷⁹ He notes that while some see this enlightenment as coming from the internal sense of reason and conscience (e.g., Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Dodd), others see it as coming from outside the person. Among the latter, some see the enlightenment as coming to all persons from the preincarnate Logos, either naturally or supernaturally. Others see it coming from the incarnate Logos, and benefitting only those who are touched by him personally. Miller favors this latter view. He states: “The idea of a universal revelation by which people in general are illuminated with respect to some basic knowledge of God or spiritual truths is otherwise utterly inimical to the Johannine literature.”⁸⁰ He cites passages which teach that “apart from the revelatory activity of the Logos all is darkness and that ‘the whole world lies in sin’ (I John 5:19).”⁸¹ Among passages which he cites is John 12:46, “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.” His conclusion is that “The ‘light’ of 1:9 is to be conceived as providing a special revelation, radiating specifically from the incarnate Logos and holding consequences and benefits only for those whose lives are touched by it.”⁸² He believes that the other view is not only incompatible with the rest of the teaching of John’s Gospel, but also “with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament,” which depict people as being in darkness prior to salvation (he cites Luke 1:79; Acts 26:18; Rom. 2:19; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:13, I Thess. 5:4 and I Pet. 2:9). Acts 26:18 well illustrates these passages, where the Lord informs Paul of the goal of the mission to which he was being called: “(T)o open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.” This text tells us that people remain in darkness until they are enlightened by Christ (now through his messengers), and their eyes are opened to the truth of the gospel.

William Hendricksen holds essentially the same view. He states that,

He illumines every man who hears the Gospel; i.e., he imparts a degree of understanding concerning spiritual matters (not necessarily resulting in salvation) to all those whose ears and minds are reached by the message of salvation. The majority, however, do not respond favorably. Many who have the light prefer the darkness. Some, however, due entirely to the sovereign, saving grace of God, receive the word with the proper attitude of heart and mind, and obtain everlasting life.⁸³

I believe that Miller’s argument is persuasive. Christopher Little holds the same view, and he summarizes what I believe to be the correct interpretation of John 1:9.

(T)he Logos in John’s prologue . . . refers not to a universal enlightening that takes place through a metaphysical principle operating either in the intellect or conscience of humankind by Christ whereby people come to intuitively know and experience a salvific relationship with God. Rather, it is inseparably connected to the incarnation event whereby Jesus invades the world and brings the light of the gospel to whomsoever will accept it when they encounter it.⁸⁴

This illumination was not limited only to the time of Jesus’ personal ministry, but continues today, for He is present as well with all who make the gospel known by their witness (Matthew 28:18–20).

While I agree with this argument, it should be pointed out that even if John 1:9 did refer to a universal enlightenment (which I don’t believe it does), it would not be required in that case that this is a saving illumination—only that it provides some knowledge of God. We know this is true of God’s general or natural revelation, which is universal in its extent (Rom. 1:19f). This may also include the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), which may in fact be universal in its reach, as well. We will return to this discussion in the following chapter.

John 3:21 is another verse believed by some to support the inclusivist viewpoint. As noted in a previous chapter, August Tholuck is one who held that people can be in fellowship with God prior to their conversion to Christ, and he appealed to this passage in support of this view.⁸⁵ It reads, “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” A similar statement is found in John 8:47, “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” Another similar statement appears in Jesus’ conversation with Pilate: “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:37). Put together, these passages state that those who “practice the truth,” who are “of God” and “of the truth” come to the Light or listen to God’s words, or Jesus’ voice.

These verses do support the idea that there is a work of God which precedes a person coming to the Light of the gospel, and which prepares him to listen to its message, and also that this work is evident in his works. Lange comments on the text in John chapter 3: “A most suitable parting word for Nicodemus. If thou art and continue to be honest, thou wilt yet come to the light . . . . In these words Jesus seemed to say to Nicodemus: Thou art now come to Me in the night; thou wilt yet come to Me in the light; farewell, to meet again in the light.”⁸⁶ The text is saying that in God’s grace, he does move people to respond to what they know of the truth, and this is revealed in their works, and prepares them to respond to the light of the gospel.

Lange continues:

The works which proceed from this are works done in God, i. e., relatively good works, striving towards their perfection in God; comp. Rom. ii. 7. Thus the uprightness is not to be conceived without the fruit of such deeds, nor indeed the doing without the root of uprightness. They are wrought in God. The upright man works unconsciously under the influence of the gratia praeveniens, or the Logos, and thus his works, having their starting point in God, will continually reach out towards their full manifestation in the light.⁸⁷

But what is not stated is whether this person may be spoken of as already being in fellowship with God, as Tholuck suggests. The fact that Jesus spoke of them as coming to the light, suggests that prior to that time they were still in darkness (even if God may have been working in their hearts to prepare them to receive the light, or to welcome his voice when it is heard). If these words describe such a person as Nicodemus, Jesus told him that he still needed to be born again so as to be able to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5).

Meyer states concerning those described here: “(E)ven their piety needed purifying and transfiguring into true dikaiosune, which could be attained only by fellowship with Christ . . . .”⁸⁸ We will take up these matters more thoroughly in the next chapter.

Another text is one which includes Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. In this encounter, Jesus said that those who worshiped at the Samaritan worship site worshiped what they do not know (John 4:22). Some might take Jesus’ statement to mean that the Samaritans worshiped the true God, though in ignorance.

There are two reasons why it cannot be that Jesus was endorsing the worship of the Samaritans as a legitimate alternative to the worship of the true God in Jerusalem. First, he says that the God they seek to worship, they do not know. Secondly, he states that “salvation is from the Jews.” This tells us that salvation is gained through worshiping the God the Jews worshiped in Jerusalem.

D. A. Carson comments:

Jesus is . . . saying that the object of their worship is in fact unknown to them. They stand outside the stream of God’s revelation, so that what they worship cannot possibly be characterized by truth and knowledge. By contrast, Jesus says, we [Jews] worship what we do know: i.e., whatever else was wrong with Jewish worship, at least it could be said that the object of their worship was known to them. The Jews stand within the stream of God’s saving revelation; they know the one they worship, for salvation . . . is from the Jews.⁸⁹

Another passage is John 10:16, where Jesus said, “I have other sheep which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.” This verse is similar to those previously cited, in that it describes people as “sheep” who belong to Christ prior to their hearing his voice, or prior to their placing their faith in Him. What is distinctive about this statement is that these “sheep” are “not of this fold.” This is no doubt a reference to those among the Gentiles who were not of the “sheepfold” of Israel, but would become part of the church through hearing his voice.⁹⁰ A similar statement is made in John 11:51–52, where Caiaphas is said to have “prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” It is also reflected in Jesus’ words that “many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 8:11; Lk. 13:29).

The question is in what sense these “sheep” could be said to already “belong to Christ.” Or, in what sense could they be already called “children of God”? These questions cannot really be answered by examining only the immediate context of these passages. But these passages must be interpreted in light of the clear teaching of other passages of Scripture, which tell us that though God prepares people in advance to respond to the light, they are not recipients of salvation until they do respond to that light. We will give more attention to this in the next chapter. What is clear from these passages, is that these “sheep” will hear Jesus’ voice in the gospel, and they will become children of God and made part of the “one fold” of his church. In fact, they “must” be.

The next passage that is often appealed to by inclusivists appears in Acts 17, which records the sermon of the Apostle Paul in Athens. He opens his sermon with these words, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (vv. 22–23). Some contend that through their giving worship to a deity whose name they did not know, they were implicitly worshiping the true God. Clark Pinnock, for example, states that Paul “accepts that the Athenians are worshiping God, howbeit unknowingly.”⁹¹ John Sanders states: “In certain respects they did acknowledge the true God, and Paul makes use of this point of contact to further instruct them about this God. God had overlooked their ignorance and was now bringing them the fuller revelation of the gospel with an invitation to become followers of Christ (17:30).”⁹² Their view, however, is not really supported by the text.

In interpreting this passage, it is important first of all to read it in the context of other passages in Acts which address the matter of idolatry, particularly Paul’s other sermons. Paul’s message in Athens is in line with what Luke has recorded throughout his work, that the Christian message is aimed at replacing idolatry with worship of the true God. This is evident in Stephen’s sermon, for example, where he references Israel’s idolatry in the wilderness (Acts 7:39–43). It is suggested in the story of the death of Herod, who received worship as a god, and was struck dead (Acts 12:21–23). It is evident also in the events in Lystra where people tried to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods, and Paul told them to “turn from these vain things (idols) to a living God” (Acts 14:11–18). It will be evident again in Paul’s appeal to the people of Ephesus to turn from “gods made with hands” which “are no gods at all” (Acts 19:25–27).⁹³ Paul’s sermon at Athens does not differ from what is said about idolatry in these other passages. Nor does it differ from what Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, describing their spiritual condition prior to knowing the Lord: “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods” (Gal. 3:8). Others have also noted that Paul’s argument here is patterned after the argument of Isaiah against the idols of his own day (Isa. 44:9–20).⁹⁴

The passage opens by stating that while Paul was in Athens, his spirit was “provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols” (Acts 17:16). The verb “provoked” is a very strong word, and it is in the imperfect tense, implying that this was no passing emotion. It is the same verb used in the LXX in Deuteronomy 32:16, where Moses says that Israel “made Him (the Lord) jealous with strange gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger.” For some time (“every day”) Paul had been “dialoguing” about the gospel, both in the synagogue and in the marketplace (v. 17). Eventually, some of the philosophers took him to the Areopagus where he would be examined about the nature of his teaching. This may have been a court-like proceeding, during which Paul was being questioned about the “strange things” he was teaching (v. 20).⁹⁵ Or, it may have been a meeting of the Council of the Areopagus to see whether the “gods” they perceived Paul to be proclaiming should be admitted to their pantheon.⁹⁶

When Paul opens his defense, he begins by telling them that they are “very religious in all respects” (v. 22). While some think Paul is complimenting them, others believe he is being derogatory. The word translated “religious” can also mean “superstitious.”⁹⁷ It’s likely that he is simply being descriptive of their religious practice.⁹⁸

Noting that he had seen an altar “To an Unknown God,” Paul tells them that what they are worshiping “in ignorance” he will proclaim to them. The theme of ignorance begins and ends Paul’s message. He closes it by stating that God had overlooked the “times of ignorance” (v. 30). Other passages in the New Testament also speak of the ignorance which characterized people prior to their coming to know Christ. In his Ephesian letter, Paul describes the “Gentiles” as “being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the spiritual ignorance” which is rooted in their “hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:17–18). Peter likewise urges his readers not to “be conformed to the former lusts which were (theirs) in (their) former ignorance” (I Pet. 1:14).

Flavien Pardigon makes note of the fact that in his speech, Paul draws a distinction between the ignorant worship of the Athenians and the worship of the true God, by “the consistent use of the neuter each time Paul speaks in relation to the Athenian religion (except in the quotations of pagan material in 23a and 28b) and of the masculine for Paul’s own argument.”⁹⁹ He states: “Paul is therefore not equating the one true God, Yahweh, with an idolatrous and polytheistic ‘unknown god.’” Then, quoting I. H. Marshall, he states: “Rather, he is drawing their attention to the true God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to an unknown god.”¹⁰⁰ Pardigon states: “This is not a religion in need of adjustment, complement or supplement (whether small or large), but one that needs to be replaced altogether by the gospel.”¹⁰¹ Note also the additional statement by Marshall: “There was, to be sure, no real connection between ‘an unknown god’ and the true God; Paul hardly meant that his audience were unconscious worshippers of the true God. Rather, he is drawing their attention to the true God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to an unknown god.”¹⁰²

It is true that there are cultures where a remnant of belief in the one true God of the Bible has been preserved. And it is entirely appropriate to speak of the Lord as being the true identity of this partially forgotten Creator God. But, in my opinion, the “unknown god” of the Athenians is not a good example of such a case. This god is simply one god among many. He did not even have a name or any attributes. When Paul spoke of this “unknown god,” he did not speak of the one “whom” they worshipped in ignorance, but “what” they worshipped (Acts 17:23).

Paul’s argument is very concise. He tells them that since God is the creator and provider of all things, we should not think of him as someone whose nature is like the manmade images of the many finite gods they worship, and whose presence can be confined to a manmade temple. Nor should he be thought of as someone who depends on our sacrifices and offerings, since he is Lord of all.¹⁰³ Indeed, the God who governs all the nations of the human race, made us with the purpose that we might seek him and find him.¹⁰⁴

Paul’s language casts a shadow over the idea that anyone actually does seek for God. The use of “if perhaps” and the optative mood is the most doubtful construction possible in the Greek language, short of an explicit denial of the fact.¹⁰⁵ Paul states elsewhere: “There is none who seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11). The verb “grope” used in this sentence is also used in the LXX of a blind person or someone in the dark.¹⁰⁶ Christoph Stenschke states: “Though the Gentiles were God’s offspring and moved, lived and were in his sphere, they were not ready or able to move further to seek and find God. What was known, if it was known, was not pursued. Rather, the opposite was the case.”¹⁰⁷ Furthermore, a day is coming when we will be judged as to whether we have indeed sought him as he purposed we should. And he has appointed one to judge us whom God has designated by raising him from the dead—Jesus Christ.¹⁰⁸ Consequently, “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (v. 30). That is, they must repent of their idolatry and turn to the true and living God. Pardigon states: “The command from God is to repent, not to complement or supplement one’s preexisting knowledge. It requires from mankind to recognize and confess the sinfulness and guilt of their former ways, and therefore to make a radical break with them. It is abandoning wholeheartedly the entirety of their pagan beliefs and practices, and replacing them by the Christian gospel . . . .”¹⁰⁹

When Paul says that God had “overlooked” (uperidon) the “times of ignorance,” it does not mean that God excused their ignorance. Rather, it means that God “graciously and patiently bore with it.”¹¹⁰ As he said to the people in Lystra, “In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways . . . .” (Acts 14:16). That is, he did not intervene to correct their errant ways. This does not mean that God never judged the nations. He clearly did (as for example when he brought the plagues on Egypt, or when he overthrew the kingdom of Babylon by the hand of the Persians). And as Paul says, God’s wrath is even now being revealed on those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). But, as Everett Harrison states: “God had permitted the nations to go their own way, neither revealing himself as he did to Israel nor bringing severe judgment on them for their idolatrous practices.”¹¹¹ A. C. McGiffert states: “The ‘overlooking’ of ignorance which is here referred to does not imply that in pre-Christian days God regarded the idolatry of the heathen with indifference or saved them from the consequences of their sins, denounced so vigorously in Rom. i., but simply that the time for the final judgment had not come until now, and that they were, therefore, summoned now to prepare for it as they had not been before.”¹¹²

Why God allowed the nations to remain in darkness so long, he does not state.¹¹³ But now, he was giving them an opportunity to repent (change their mind) and turn to him. And in view of the coming judgment, it is urgent that they do so. Stenschke identifies three things from which they should have repented: “(a) failure to recognize God and his character and therefore to venerate him adequately, (b) failure to search for and find God and (c) withholding the honour and gratitude due to God and lavishing it on idols.”¹¹⁴

Johannes Blauw draws the following conclusions from this passage:

1) Paul describes the heathen as being ignorant, and are themselves aware of their ignorance. 2) There is no positive connection to a previous knowledge on their part, but merely to an acknowledgement of ignorance of the only true God, whom the Athenians could have known by virtue of the acts of God in creation and history. 3) The ignorance of the Athenians is no complete ignorance: they possess the knowledge of their relationship to God and with this the knowledge that God is something-other-than what he is represented as being in images. 4) Therefore the ignorance of man is regarded as guilt. 5) Man’s guilt will be fully reckoned with as is evident from the call to conversion, as well as the judgment; men maintain their ignorance as is evidenced by the expression: the times of ignorance. 6) The call to conversion is motivated by the reference to Christ as world-judge. His resurrection from the dead is proof and confirmation of his credentials.¹¹⁵

Christopher J. H. Wright summarizes what I believe to be the correct interpretation of this passage:

Paul is not congratulating the Athenians and saying, ‘You are really worshipping the true God, though you don’t know it’; but he is saying rather, ‘Despite your religiosity, you don’t know the true God at all, though you could and should, for knowledge of him is available before your eyes, but you have obscured it with your ‘very religious’ temples and idols.’ Taken thus, it fits perfectly with what Paul writes concerning the availability but suppression of the knowledge of God in Romans 1. God is not, in fact, an ‘unknown God’; it is the Athenians who are ignorant of him . . . . There are, however, those who take Paul’s meaning in the former sense, and argue that Paul in fact adopts a very positive and accepting attitude here towards Greek culture, by quoting their own poets. They would see the preaching of Jesus and his resurrection then as the fulfillment of that which the Greeks already worshipped in their excessive religiosity. Certainly Paul quotes from both Stoic pantheism and from Epicurean deism, but careful study shows that he does so in a sense quite different from their author’s original intent. In fact he refers to these philosophies in such a way as to deny their over-all truth when set alongside a scriptural (i.e. OT) world-view. So this is not a generously approving reinterpretation, but a radical, though still polite, correction which leads up to the explicit command to repent in view of the imminent judgment of God. Repentance means turning. Paul is not expecting the Athenians’ gratitude that now they know who they are really worshipping as they continue in their idolatry. Rather he wants them to turn away from those idols to the living God.¹¹⁶

A word should be interjected at this point regarding the biblical attitude toward other religions, as reflected in Paul’s speech in Acts 17. Two facts are clear from his message. One is that he was not afraid to point out serious contrasts between other religions and the biblical faith. In fact, he begins by challenging the basic polytheistic world view of the Athenians. (It is well to point out, however, that the town clerk in Ephesus acknowledged in Acts 19:37 that Paul did not “blaspheme” their goddess Artemis. Though he did say that “gods made with hands are no gods at all,” he did not blaspheme their gods.) But the other fact is that Paul also recognized areas where he could agree with them. He selected quotations from two of their “poets” which to some degree were in harmony with the biblical world view.¹¹⁷

Terrance Tiessen is correct in his observation that: “Paul’s sermon in Athen is a very interesting example of both affirmation and negation of the religious ideas of his hearers that ended in a call for repentance not just for enlightenment. Paul began with the unknown god but did not commend all of the Athenians’ religious conclusions. He criticized their shrines and those who served in them. He granted that the Athenians were religious, but he pronounced them ignorant and confused.”¹¹⁸ He quotes Calvin Shenk: “By calling God the Creator of heaven and earth, Paul was refuting the Stoic doctrine of eternal matter. By affirming God’s intimate concern for people, he corrected the Epicurean idea of distant and uncaring gods.”¹¹⁹ Tiessen continues: “Yet Paul acknowledged common beliefs with the Stoics in their teaching that God preserves and guides all of life and is immanent in the world in his providential work. Human beings were created to seek and find God who is not far away, as even their own poets affirmed (Acts 17:27-28).”¹²⁰

In our conversations with adherents of other religions today, we may take the same approach. While pointing out essential differences, we can also recognize similarities in our beliefs. There are truths embedded in other religions, even if the religion as a whole is contrary to the biblical faith.

When then should we say about the question of whether Christianity fulfills other non-biblical religions? Some believe that other religions are fulfilled in the Christian faith in the same way or in a similar way as the Old Testament religion is fulfilled in the New.¹²¹ Others believe that though there are analogies between non-Christian religions and the biblical faith, only the Old Testament bears an “organic” relationship with the New Testament faith. I believe the following statement by Hendrik Kraemer strikes the right note:

Even when we recognize that Christ may in a certain sense be called the fulfilment (sic)¹²² of some deep and persistent longings and apprehensions that everywhere in history manifest themselves in the race, this fulfilment, when we subject the facts to a close scrutiny, never represents the perfecting of what has been before. In this fulfilment is contained a radical recasting of values, because these longings and apprehensions, when exposed to the searching and revolutionary light of Christ, appear blind and misdirected. That does not detract in the least from the fact that these longings and apprehensions, humanly speaking, are heart-stirring and noble, but if we want to be loyal to the divine reality that has come to us in Jesus Christ, this appreciation, which is simply a matter of justice and honesty in the human plane, must not obscure our eyes to the truth that in Christ all things become new, because He is the crisis of all religions. In this we recognize that God as He is revealed in Jesus Christ is contrary to the sublimest picture we made of Him before we knew of Him in Jesus Christ.¹²³

Missionary Martin Goldsmith writes: “There is always some continuity between other faiths and Christianity. But still people need to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.”¹²⁴

The next passage that we must examine appears in Acts 18, where the Lord appeared to Paul at night in a vision, and said to him, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9b). Inclusivists appeal to this passage in support of the notion that there were people in the city of Corinth who belonged to God prior to their coming to believe in Christ. Paul remained in Corinth for a year and a half, “teaching the word of God” (v. 11). And the passage says that “many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized” (v. 8). So in what sense they “belonged to the Lord” prior to believing the gospel is not stated. It could mean that they belonged to the Lord in the sense that they were among his “elect,” or that they were those in whose hearts he had been working to prepare them for the gospel (as we have seen above). But it does not necessarily mean that they were in some sense in fellowship with God or already redeemed, even before hearing and believing the gospel.

General Revelation

We now come to passages which focus on the general or natural revelation of God. The first of these passages is Psalm 19, which opens with the words, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (v. 1).¹²⁵ James Hoffmeier points out two important facts about this verse. The first is that the word used for God in this verse is “El.” The name “Yahweh” is not used until the second half of the psalm (vv. 7–15). It is God as creator that he is made known through his work in nature. The second fact about this verse is that through creation we are able to behold God’s “glory.” The Apostle Paul says very much the same thing when he says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made . . . .” (Rom. 1:20a). Something of the invisible greatness of God can be apprehended through his work visible in creation.

However, it is in the second part of the psalm, that we find God revealed as Yahweh through the revelation of his Word in the Torah. Hoffmeier points out that “The use of YHWH is frequently associated with God as covenant maker.”¹²⁶ In the closing prayer at the end of the psalm, the Lord is spoken of as “Rock” and “Redeemer” (v. 14). The implication, then, is that though God can be known as Creator through his general revelation in nature, he can only be known as Yahweh, who is our Redeemer and Savior through his special revelation in his Word.

Some believe that the Apostle Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 in his letter to the Romans in a sense that implies the salvific potential of God’s general revelation: “But I say, surely they have never heard, have they: Indeed they have; ‘Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world’” (Rom. 10:18). Paul is stating in this verse that Israel cannot use the excuse for not responding to God that he had kept them in the dark, for his voice has gone out to the whole world.

It’s true that in its original context of Psalm 19, this verse refers to the universal extent of God’s general revelation. But Paul is using this statement in a different way than it was used in its original context. He is stating that just as God’s general revelation has gone out to the entire world, so his special saving message has now been declared throughout the world among the Jewish people of that day as well. As Douglas Moo states: “Paul is not, then, simply using the text according to its original meaning. His application probably rests on a general analogy: as God’s word of general revelation has been proclaimed all over the earth, so God’s word of special revelation in the gospel, has been spread all over the earth. His intention is not to interpret the verse of the Psalm, but to use its language, with the ‘echoes’ of God’s revelation that it awakes, to assert the universal preaching of the gospel.”¹²⁷ To hold that this verse supports the idea that general revelation is sufficient for salvation goes against what Paul had just stated in Romans 10:14–15, that salvation comes through hearing and believing in Christ, and the necessity of there being a messenger.¹²⁸

It is fitting to quote Francis Turretin at this point, regarding the insufficiency of generation revelation. He makes the following observation:

It is falsely asserted that in that which may be known of God . . . there is given objectively a revelation of grace, and a Redeemer sufficient for salvation, if not clear and explicit, at least obscure and implied, inasmuch as in it God is known as merciful and therefore, in a certain although confused manner, as a redeemer who will accept a satisfaction, may call to repentance and promise remission of sin. For in the first place, to be able to know God as merciful by a general mercy tending to some temporal good and delay of punishment is far different from being able to know him as merciful by a mercy special and saving in Christ after a satisfaction has been made. To be able to know him as placable and benign is different from being able to know him as actually to be appeased or certainly to be appeased.¹²⁹

In other words, there is no revelation of the fact of God’s saving grace in general revelation. There is only evidence of his general mercy in his provision for his creatures (Acts 14:17). But it should be pointed out as well, that there is also evidence in his general revelation of God’s judgment, in that the creation has been “subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:20–22). We will return to the ways in which God may speak through his general revelation in the next chapter.

The second passage (already referred to) which provides information about God’s general revelation is found in Romans chapter 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Rom. 1:18–23).

The passage is very clear that there are certain things about God which are “evident” and which can be “known” and “understood” by all through the creation.¹³⁰ It is on account of this knowledge that people are accountable to God for their response to this knowledge. What is evident about God, according to this passage, are his “invisible attributes.” Specifically, Paul speaks of God’s “eternal power” and “divine nature.” It also says that the appropriate response to this revelation would be to honor (or worship) God and to give him thanks for his blessings. But the passage clearly also teaches that no one does this, at least by their own initiative. Rather, in “ungodliness and unrighteousness” people “suppress” this knowledge. This is the basis on which God judges those who are without a gospel witness. As mentioned above, it should be pointed out, that Paul does also acknowledge that the creation has been “subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:20–22), and so it is also evident that the creation has been tragically affected by sin. This should prompt people to reflect on the fact that though creation gives evidence of God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it also gives evidence that something has come between God and his creation.

H. P. Owen summarizes his interpretation of this passage:

(W)e must suppose Paul to mean that every idolater at some time, or times, has a measure of insight into God’s theotes, and that every idolator, instead of letting the insight grow, suppresses it. He suppresses it partly through asebeia, and partly through adikia—through asebeia in so far as the sin of pride leads him (as a Jew or Christian would put it) ‘to worship the creature instead of the Creator’ and through adikia in so far as he fears to expose his immoral life to the light of God’s holy presence (cf. John iii. 19–20).¹³¹

A similar statements is found in Acts 14:17, “(A)nd yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” Paul makes this statement in the context of his appeal to the citizens of Lystra to turn away from their “vain” idols to the “living God” (v. 15).

Johannes Blauw draws the following conclusions from this passage: “1) Paganism is the deification of man. 2) Paganism is essentially ‘useless.’ 3) The heathen need a change of direction, conversion. 4) The heathen have throughout the ages lived under God’s rule but without acknowledging God. 5) There has always been a genuine witness to God through the gifts he showers on the heathen. 6) This witness is, however, not recognized (given attention).”¹³²

The third important passage that discusses God’s general revelation is found in Romans 2:12–16,

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

In this passage, Paul teaches that those who lack God’s special revelation in his word will be judged, not by the Law contained in that revelation, but by the Law written on their hearts—a Law which all people fail to conform to. This is an important passage, and reveals that all people have an inner awareness of basic moral principles, as well as a conscience which accuses them and tells them they have fallen short of fulfilling the requirements of this Law written on the heart, to one degree or another.¹³³ Though some find support in this passage for the idea that some of those beyond the reach of the gospel may obtain salvation by living up to the light of their conscience, this goes beyond what is clearly Paul’s purpose in this passage—to show that all, both Gentile and Jew, are guilty of falling short of the law they know, and so are under judgment and in need of God’s gift of righteousness. And to hold that this passage suggests that salvation may be obtained by conformity to the law written on the heart is contrary to his explicit statement that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3:20). This is true not only of the Law of Moses, but also of the law written on the heart.

A related passage appears earlier in Romans chapter 2:5–8, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.”

Some believe that this passage is describing a hypothetical situation, in which some would obtain eternal life based on their good works.¹³⁴ However, as we know from the wider context of this passage, no one actually does accomplish this in themselves. As previously noted, Paul says very plainly that “by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3:20). Others believe that this is describing an actual state of affairs—that there are those whose lives are characterized by “perseverance in doing good.” It seems to me that the latter view has the most in its favor. If this is the case, however, the kind of life described here can only be the result of the gracious work of the Spirit in the “circumcision of the heart,” as the broader context makes very clear (Rom. 2:29; cf. Rom. 8:1–4). Their persevering in doing good is not the source of their salvation, but the fruit of God’s saving work in their hearts.

The question is whether God’s grace might be at work in the hearts of some of those who have not heard of Christ in such a way as to produce these kinds of changes. An inclusivist would say “yes.”¹³⁵ Other passages, however, make it clear that the Spirit performs this regenerating work only in those who place their faith in Christ. As Peter says, we are “born again . . . through the living and enduring word of God” (I Pet. 1:23). Thomas Schreiner convincingly argues that those whose good works are described in this passage are believers who have been born of the Spirit: “Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . .”¹³⁶ To interpret this passage as teaching that some among the unevangelized may evidence this transforming work of the Spirit, apart from faith in Christ, runs counter to Paul’s argument in this section of his epistle—that all are under sin (Rom. 3:9ff), and that God’s grace comes through the gospel (Rom. 1:16; 3:22).

The purpose of this chapter has been to show that the case for inclusivism is not as strong as some believe. Though people during Old Testament times were saved apart from a full understanding of the person and work of Christ, they still needed to have faith in God’s gracious promises (Heb. 11). This was true even of those who are sometimes pointed to as examples of people outside the covenant community who were saved (e.g., Melchizedek). Though there is evidence that there is a work of God in the hearts of people prior to their placing their faith in Christ, this work is clearly distinguished from God’s saving work in those who believe (as is evident in the case of Cornelius, who though he feared God, was not yet a recipient of God’s salvation).

Though what can be known of God through general revelation was originally intended by him to instill in people a desire to seek for him (Acts 14:17; 17:27), no one responds in this way on their own initiative (Rom. 1:18; 3:11). We will show in the following chapter, however, that the Holy Spirit does use this general revelation to draw many to seek for God. Nonetheless, what can be known of God through general revelation falls short of giving people evidence to know of God’s gracious provision of salvation (cf. Ps. 19).

We will now turn to a positive case for the view that salvation comes only through explicit faith in God’s promise, which now is centered on his Son, Jesus Christ.

---