3. The Reformed And Calvinistic Views

Calvinists With Particularist Views

Among the heirs of the Reformation, defenders of the view that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation were many.¹ One of the central features of Reformed theology is the belief that salvation is extended to God’s elect through his efficacious grace, and that this comes through God’s call which is both external (through the word) and internal (by the Spirit). William Pemble, for example, spoke of the calling to the elect as of two kinds: “Inward, in the work of the Spirit of grace upon our hearts, regenerating and sanctifying them by the infusion of holinesse . . . . Outward, in the preaching of the Word calling us to Faith and Repentance; whereto the Spirit joynes his secret vertue to make it effectuall in whom he pleaseth.” ² Jonathan Edwards also wrote of the necessity of the gospel: “It is the only means that the true God has made successful in his providence, to give the nations of the world the knowledge of himself; and to bring them off from the worship of false gods.”³ With regard to the external call, the preached or written word is viewed as God’s “ordinary” means of salvation.

Francis Turretin writes:

I say the Spirit does not act without the word. For since . . . God wills here to act in a manner suitable to a rational nature and, according to the apostle, ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Rom. 10:17), it is evident that the word ought necessarily to concur with the Spirit for our conversion from the order of God and the constitution of the covenant of grace (Is. 59:21) and without it the Spirit does not work faith in adults.⁴

John Owen stated this view very emphatically:

(W)e absolutely deny that there is any saving mercy of God toward [the unevangelized heathen] revealed in the Scripture, which should give us the least intimation of their attaining everlasting happiness. For, not to consider the corruption and universal disability of nature to do anything that is good (‘without Christ we can do nothing,’ John 15:5), nor yet the sinfulness of their best works and actions, the ‘sacrifice of the wicked being an abomination unto the LORD,’ Proverbs 15:8 (‘Evil trees cannot bring forth good fruit; men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles,’ Matthew 7:16–17);—the word of God is plain, that ‘without faith it is impossible to please God,’ Hebrews 11:6; that ‘he that believeth not is condemned,’ Mark 16:16; that no nation or person can be blessed but in the seed of Abraham, Genesis 12:3. And the ‘blessing of Abraham’ comes upon the Gentiles only ‘through Jesus Christ,’ Galatians 3:14. He is ‘the way, the truth, and the life,’ John 14:6. ‘None cometh unto the Father but by him.’ He is the ‘door,’ by which those that do not enter are ‘without,’ with ‘dogs and idolaters,’ Revelation 22:15. So that ‘other foundation’ of blessedness ‘can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,’ I Corinthians 3:11. In brief, do but compare these two places of St. Paul, Romans 8:30, where he showeth that none are glorified but those that are called; and Romans 10:14–15, where he declares that all calling is instrumentally by the preaching of the word and gospel; and it will evidently appear that no salvation can be granted unto them on whom the Lord hath so far poured out his indignation as to deprive them of the sole means thereof, Christ Jesus. And to those that are otherwise minded, I give only this necessary caution,—Let them take heed, lest, whilst they endeavor to invent new ways to heaven for others, by so doing, they lose the true way themselves.⁵

I will quote Charles Hodge (1797–1878) at some length, because he represents very well the views common to conservative theologians who believed salvation comes only through explicit faith in Christ. He states:

It has ever been and still is, the doctrine of the Church universal in almost all its parts, that it is only in and through the Scriptures that the knowledge necessary to salvation is revealed to men. The Rationalists, as did the Pelagians, hold that what they call ‘the light of nature,’ reveals enough of divine truth to secure the return of the soul to God, if it be properly improved. And many Arminians, as well as Mystics, hold that the supernatural teaching of the Spirit is granted in sufficient measure to every man to secure his salvation, if he yields himself up to its guidance. It would be very agreeable to our natural feelings to believe this, as it would to believe that all men will be saved. But such is not the doctrine of the Bible: and it requires but little humility to believe that God is better as well as wiser than man; that his ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts; and that whatever he ordains is best . . . . That the Scriptures do teach that saving knowledge is contained only in the Bible, and consequently that those ignorant of its contents, are ignorant of the way of salvation, is plain.— 1. Because the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testament, constantly represent the heathen as in a state of total ignorance. They are declared by the ancient prophets to be afar off from God; to be worshippers of idols, to be sunk in sin. The people of Israel were separated from other nations for the express purpose of preserving the knowledge of the true religion. To them were committed the oracles of God. In the New Testament the same representation is given of their condition. It is said, They know not God. The Apostle proves at length in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, that they are universally and justly in a state of condemnation. He exhorts the Ephesians to call to mind their condition before they received the gospel. They were ‘without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.’ (Eph. ii. 12.) Such is the uniform teaching of the Word of God. It is utterly inconsistent with these representations, to assume that the heathen had such knowledge of God, either by tradition, or by inward revelation, as was sufficient to lead them to holiness and God. 2. This doctrine follows also from the nature of the gospel. It claims to be the only method of salvation. It takes for granted that men are in a state of sin and condemnation, from which they are unable to deliver themselves. It teaches that for the salvation of men the Eternal Son of God assumed our nature, obeyed and suffered in our stead, and having died for our sins, rose again for our justification; that, so far as adults are concerned, the intelligent and voluntary acceptance of Christ as our God and Saviour is the one indispensable condition of salvation; that there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved. It provides, therefore, for a Church and a Ministry whose great duty it is to make known to men this great salvation. All this takes for granted that without this knowledge, men must perish in their sins. 3. This is further evident from the nature of the message which the ministers of the gospel are commissioned to deliver. They are commanded to go into all the world, and to say to every creature, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and though shalt be saved.’ ‘He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’ Where is the propriety of such a message if men can be saved without the knowledge of Christ, and consequently without faith in Him. 4. This necessity of a knowledge of the gospel is expressly asserted in the Scriptures. Our Lord not only declares that no man can come unto the Father, but by Him; that no man knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him; but He says expressly, ‘He that believeth not shall be damned.’ (Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But faith without knowledge is impossible. The Apostle John says, ‘He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.’ (1 John v. 12.) The knowledge of Christ is not only the condition of life, but it is life; and without that knowledge, the life in question cannot exist. Him to know is life eternal. Paul, therefore, said, ‘I count all this but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ (Phil. iii. 8.) Christ is not only the giver, but the object of life. Those exercises which are the manifestations of spiritual life terminate on Him; without the knowledge of Him, therefore, there can be no such exercises; as without the knowledge of God there can be no religion. It is consequently, as the Apostle teaches, through the knowledge of Christ, that God ‘hath called us to glory and virtue.’ (2 Peter i. 3.) To be without Christ is to be without hope, and without God. (Eph. ii. 12.) The Apostle Paul, while asserting the general vocation of men, saying, ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved,’ immediately adds, ‘How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. x. 14.) Invocation implies faith; faith implies knowledge; knowledge implies objective teaching. ‘Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.’ (Verse 17.) There is no faith, therefore, where the gospel is not heard; and where there is no faith, there is no salvation

. . . . This is indeed an awful doctrine. But are not the words of our Lord also awful, ‘Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it’? (Matt. vii. 13, 14.) Is not the fact awful which stares every man in the face, that the great majority even of those who hear the gospel reject its offer of mercy? Facts are as mysterious as doctrines. If we must submit to the one, we may as well submit to the other. Our Lord has taught us, in view of facts or doctrines which try our faith, to remember the infinite wisdom and rectitude of God, and say, ‘Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight.’ The proper effect of the doctrine that the knowledge of the gospel is essential to the salvation of adults, instead of exciting opposition to God’s word or providence, is to prompt us to greatly increased exertion to send the gospel to those who are perishing for lack of knowledge.⁶

However, many (perhaps most) Calvinists also acknowledge that God may extend his call to salvation in an “extraordinary” manner, apart from the working of human instrumentality. Thomas Ridgeley, for example, wrote: “For we know not when, to whom, or by what means, God will reveal Christ to those who now sit in darkness, and are unacquainted with the way of salvation by him. And as for the possibility of God’s revealing Christ in a secret way to those who do not sit under the sound of the gospel, we will not deny it.”⁷

John Owen also acknowledged this possibility: “But the question is not whether a Gentile believing in Christ may be saved, or whether God revealed himself and his Son extraordinarily to some of them. For shall we straiten the breast and shorten the arm of the Almighty, as though he might not do what he will with his own?”⁸

Francis Turretin was of the same opinion:

Calling is again distinguished into ordinary and mediate, and extraordinary and immediate. The former God employs in the ordinary dispensation of his grace by the intervention of external means (or the ministry of men). The latter, however, is usually exercised beyond the order, with respect to certain individuals whom God immediately and of himself (without the intervention of men) calls and turns to himself (such as was seen in the thief, in Paul and others immediately called by God).⁹

Though emphasizing that the proclamation of the gospel by human means is God’s ordinary method, Charles Hodge did allow for the possibility of an extraordinary revelation in some cases. In his Systematic Theology he states: “The call in question is made only through the Word of God, as heard or read . . . . It is not denied that God may, and in past ages certainly did, convey this saving knowledge by direct revelation without the intervention of any external means of instruction. Such was the fact in the case of the Apostle Paul. And such cases, for all we know, may even now occur. But these are miracles. This is not the ordinary method.”¹⁰

Later in the same work, he says:

There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Scriptures teach that the Word of God is the specially appointed means for the sanctification and the salvation of men. This doctrine of the Bible is fully confirmed by the experience of the Church and of the world. That experience teaches,—First, that no evidences of sanctification, no indications of the saving influences of the Spirit are found where the Word of God is unknown. This is not saying that none such occur. We know from the Bible itself, ‘That God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him’ (Acts x. 34, 35.) No one doubts that it is in the power of God to call whom He pleases from among the heathen and to reveal to them enough truth to secure their salvation. Nevertheless it remains a fact patent to all eyes that the nations where the Bible is unknown sit in darkness. The absence of the Bible is just as distinctly discernible as the absence of the sun. The declaration of the Scriptures is that ‘the whole world lieth in wickedness’ (1 John v. 19); and that declaration is confirmed by all history.¹¹

Heinrich Heppe was another Reformed theologian who recognized God’s extraordinary means of communicating the gospel: “’Without the Word God calls man only in unusual ways, unfamiliar to us.’—Leiden Synopsis (XXX, 33): God does not always apply the two methods of calling possible to Himself (i.e., outward and inward calling), but calls some to Him only by the inner light and leading of the H. Spirit without the ministry of His outward Word. This method of calling is of course per se sufficient for salvation, but very rare, extraordinary and unknown to us.”¹²

It should be emphasized, however, that this “extraordinary” means should not be identified with the so-called “inner light” which groups such as the Quakers believed was universally disseminated among men.¹³ These Reformed theologians were speaking of an extraordinary communication of the gospel to those without the normal means of hearing God’s word.

In responding to the question of why one individual or nation is granted the ordinary means of salvation and others are not, the response of John Davenant (1572–1641) was not uncommon: “We must . . . refer it to . . . the free good pleasure of God in granting or denying these means. He by his special providence directs them to be administered by his servants, as may be seen Acts xvi. 6, 7, They were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia; after they were come to Mysia, they essayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not.”¹⁴

Calvinists With Inclusivist Views

There have been some among the Reformed who have held that God does implant the seed of faith and regeneration apart from any means at all (that is, apart even from any ordinary or extraordinary revelation of Christ) . . . not only in infants but in some adults. This was the view of Zanchius and of Zwingli, as noted above, and apparently also of the Calvinist Augustus Toplady (1740–1778), who wrote: “No objection can hence arise against the salvation of such as die in infancy (all of whom are undoubtedly saved): nor yet against the salvation of God’s elect among the Heathens, Mahometans (sic), and others. The Holy Spirit is able to inspire the grace of virtual faith into those hearts (especially at the moment of dissolution), which are incapable of exerting the exlicit (sic) act of faith.”¹⁵ It will be remembered that Toplady was the translator of Zanchius’ work on predestination, in which he set forth a similar view. Toplady’s optimism about the number of the saved is revealed in his response to the charge that Calvinism was a “gloomy” doctrine:

Is it gloomy to believe that the far greater part of the human race are made for endless happiness? There can, I think, be no reasonable doubt entertained, concerning the salvation of very young persons. If (as some, who have versed themselves in this kind of speculation, affirm) about one-half of mankind die in infancy;—And if, as indubitable observation proves, a very considerable number of the remaining half die in early childhood;— And if, as there is the strongest reason to think, many millions of those who live to mature years, in every successive generation, have their names in the Book of life: then what a very small portion, comparatively, of the human species, falls under the decree of preterition and non-redemption!¹⁶

It should also be noted that Toplady was not alone in suggesting that some among the unevangelized may be regenerated at the moment of death (in his words, “at the moment of dissolution”). Historian John Hunt (1826–1907) states that in answer to the problem of the unevangelized: “Some divines had tried to obviate it by supposing that Christ was revealed to the heathen at the moment of death.”¹⁷ Presbyterian William Annan (1804–1882) noted that, “Calvinists indulge the pleasing hope, that especially in the last struggle, some of the heathen may be thus extraordinarily enlightened and saved.”¹⁸ W. G. T. Shedd (1820–1894) also advocated this view. Referring to those who are regenerated either by God’s special revelation, or by his “unwritten revelation,” Shedd says: “These are all regenerated before or at death.”¹⁹

Likewise, Professor Samuel B. Wylie, D.D. (1773–1852) wrote in The Presbyterian Magazine:

Whether it be his purpose to save any of the heathen, living and dying without any opportunity of external objective revelation, by some extraordinary subjective manifestation of himself, as a God in Christ, to them, in their last moments, is a point we can neither affirm nor deny. We know it not. ‘Secret things belong unto God: revealed things to us and our children.’ We dare not limit the Holy One of Israel, from extending the exuberance of his grace, to whomsoever he will, even without the external means of knowledge, by the extraordinary communications of his Spirit. Yet we have no positive evidence of such extension. All we can say is, that we think it involves no contradiction to the attributes of the Divinity, or to any declaration in the sacred oracles. Philanthropy, in all such cases, will incline to the side of mercy.²⁰

Among others who advocated the possibility that some among the unevangelized may be enlightened apart from ordinary means was the commentator Matthew Poole (1624–1679). Commenting on Romans 10:17 (“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”), Poole writes: “He speaketh here of the ordinary means whereby faith is wrought; not confining or limiting the Spirit of God, who worketh, or may work, by extraordinary means, yea, without any means at all.”²¹

This was also the view of the British theological writer John Edwards (1637–1716) who spoke of the possibility and even probability of an “extraordinary” work of God in the elect among the “heathen,” producing in them “a lively Faith, a sincere Hatred of Sin, a Love of Righteousness, and . . . good Works and a holy life. This is done by an extraordinary and unusual Power of the Spirit on Mens (sic) Hearts. In the want of outward Means, they are supplied by the inward, secret and unsearchable Operation of the Holy Ghost.”²²

The Anglican Calvinist pastor, John Newton (1725–1807) voiced similar sentiments:

But if we suppose a Heathen, destitute of the means of grace by which conversion is usually wrought, to be brought to a sense of his misery, of the emptiness and vanity of worldly things, to a conviction that he cannot be happy without the favour of the great Lord of the world, to a feeling of guilt, and a desire of mercy; and that, though he has no explicit knowledge of a Saviour, he directs the cry of his heart to the unknown Supreme, to this purport, Ens entium, miserere mei,—Father and source of beings, have mercy upon me! Who will prove that such views and desires can arise in the heart of a sinner, without the energy of that Spirit which Jesus is exalted to bestow? Who will take upon him to say, that his blood has not sufficient efficacy to redeem to God a sinner who is thus disposed, though he has never heard of his name? Or who has a warrant to affirm, that the supposition I have made, is, in the nature of things, impossible to be realized? But I stop—I do not often amuse you with conjecture. And though, for want of express warrant from Scripture, I dare not give the sentiments I have now offered a stronger name than probable or conjectural, I hope I do not propose them for your amusement. They will prove to your advantage and my own, if they are helpful to guard us against a narrow, harsh, and dogmatical spirit; and if, without abating our reverent submission to the revealed will of God, they have a tendency to confirm our views of his goodness, and the power and compassions of the great Redeemer.²³

The foremost proponent of this view among the Reformed was no doubt William G. T. Shedd (1820–1894). Shedd believed that though salvation comes only through Christ, the unevangelized could nevertheless be saved by the direct regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, apart from knowledge of Christ. He states:

(T)he Scriptures and the Confession teach that the Divine Spirit exerts his regenerating grace, to some extent, within adult heathendom, making use of conscience, or ‘the law written on the heart’, as the means of convicting of sin preparatory to imparting the new divine life; and that in the last day a part of God’s elect ‘shall come from the east and from the west, and from the north and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God’ (Luke 13:29). These are all regenerated in this life. And since regeneration in the instance of the adult immediately produces faith and repentance, a regenerate heathen is both a believer and a penitent. He feels sorrow for sin, and the need of mercy. This felt need of mercy and desire for it is potentially and virtually faith in the Redeemer. For although the Redeemer has not been presented to him historically and personally as the object of faith, yet the Divine Spirit by the new birth has wrought in him the sincere and longing disposition to believe in him. With the penitent and believing man in the Gospel, he says, ‘Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?’ (John 9:36). Such a man is ‘regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit’, and belongs to that class of ‘elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the Spirit’, and belongs to that class of elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word (Conf. x. 3).²⁴

Herman Bavinck also made comments that indicate he shared sentiments similar to Shedd’s: “For God, no door is locked, no creature unapproachable, no heart inaccessible. With his Spirit he can enter the innermost being of every human, with or without the Word, by way of or apart from all consciousness, from old age or from the moment of conception. Christ’s own conception in Mary’s womb is proof that the Holy Spirit can, from that moment on and continually, be active in a human being with his sanctifying presence.”²⁵ Henry B. Smith (1815–1877) voiced a similar view, stating that “there may be, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, renewal of the soul without this explicit knowledge” (that is, of Christ).²⁶

It should be noted, however, that B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) considered the idea that men may be saved apart from the gospel “an erroneous opinion.”²⁷

Calvinist Views On General Revelation

One of the significant issues that was debated among the Reformed was what role, if any, general, or natural revelation played in the possible conversion of the unevangelized.²⁸ Before discussing the views among the Reformed on this subject, however, it is important to remember that this was the dawn of the “Age of Reason.” David Pailin characterizes the mood of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries:

(T)he debates about the truth of belief in this period were linked to a growing recognition of reason as the final authority for deciding what is true in matters of religious belief as in all else. Appeals to other authorities—ecclesiastical bodies, sacred texts, private illumination or personal conviction—were increasingly found to provide no bases for agreement. In the disputes during and after the Reformation, it seemed that no faction found any difficulty in finding some plausible authority to justify its own position and to condemn those of its opponents. The resulting impasses led to bigotry, persecution and even war. Frustrated over attempts to secure agreement, some considered that violence was justified in order to establish conformity to what they were convinced to be the truth. Gradually, though, it was accepted that the use of force was no satisfying way to settle disputes about religious truth. It might compel outward conformity but it could not produce conviction. Revulsion at the consequences of persecution thus combined with the absence in practice of any other agreed authorities to lead people to view reason as the only proper basis for established religious beliefs and for resolving religious disputes.²⁹

Of course, deism was the most extreme expression of this turn toward reason, arguing that reason alone was sufficient to find salvation. Though many orthodox Christians sought to demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity, some also sought to show that reason alone (apart from revelation) was not sufficient. Thomas Halyburton’s work Natural Religion Insufficient (cited above in n.106) was an influential Calvinistic response to the deism of Herbert of Cherbury. In this work he sought to prove the insufficiency of natural revelation with regard to what can be discovered about God, concerning the worship of God, concerning man’s true happiness, concerning man’s moral duty and its motives, concerning the origin of sin, and its inability to show how sin may be pardoned and overcome.

Anthony Tuckney’s work None But Christ (cited in n. 106 above) also argued against the notion that men might be saved through natural revelation, particularly responding to the work of the Puritan, Nathanael Culverwell (1619–1651): An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature (London, 1652). In this work, Culverwell sought to show the compatibility of reason with religion and faith. He also made the following statement regarding the unevangelized:

Yet notwithstanding their censure is too harsh and rigid, who as if they were judges of eternal life and death, damne (sic) Plato and Aristotle without any question, without any delay at all; and do as confidently pronounce that they are in hell, as if they saw them flaming there. Whereas the infinite goodnesse and wisdom of God might for ought we know finde out several ways of saving such by the pleonasmes of his love in Jesus Christ; he might make a Socrates a branch of the true Vine, and might graffe Plato and Aristotle into the fruitful olive; for it was in his power, if he pleased, to reveal Christ unto them, and to infuse faith into them after an extraordinary manner; though indeed the Scripture does not afford our charity any sufficient ground to believe that he did; nor does it warrant us peremptorily to conclude the contrary. Secreta Deo, it does not much concern us to know what became of them; let us then forbear our censure, and leave them to their competent Judge . . . . (I)f then God do choose and call an Heathen, ‘tis not by universal, but by distinguishing grace.³⁰

Tuckney is saying that if any among the unevangelized are saved, it is not through their use of natural revelation, but by an extraordinary revelation to them of Christ.

Though some promoted the idea that truth found in other religions was due to the discoveries of reason, many others tried to show that these truths were borrowed from biblical revelation. Pailin comments on this fact:

Theophilus Gale goes to great lengths to argue that ‘The wisest of the Heathens stole their choicest Notions and Contemplations, both Philologic, and Philosophic, as wel (sic) Natural and Moral, as Divine, from the sacred Oracles’ of the Jewish tradition. In defending this thesis he claims the concurrence of such ‘learned Papists’ as Stenchus Eugubinus and Ludovicus Vives and of such Protestant divines as the Scaligers, Serranus, Vossius, Sandford, Heinsius, Bochart, Jackson, Hammond, Usher, Preston, Owen and Stillingfleet.³¹

Though the Reformed acknowledged a certain knowledge of God attainable through natural revelation, they generally denied that it was sufficient for salvation. This is due both to its inherent limitations, in that God might be known as Creator but not as Redeemer (Ps. 19), and to the response of sinful man in suppressing what can be known about God through creation (Rom. 1:18ff), rendering man inexcusable for his unbelief.

Commenting on the inadequacies of natural revelation and the need for special revelation, Reformed theologian Benedict Pictet wrote:

First, the imperfection of natural knowledge, which was insufficient either for true knowledge or for true worship of God, and which could not, in any way, comfort the human soul against the fear of death, and under the consciousness of sin, because it could not point out the mode of satisfying the divine justice . . . . The second argument is drawn from the great corruption of mankind after the sin of the first parents, their speedy forgetfulness of God and blindness in divine things, their propensity for all kinds of error, and especially to the invention of new and false religions . . . . A revelation beyond the natural was therefore necessary in which God might not only cause to be known, in a clearer manner, his own perfections, which he had revealed in the first, but also discover new perfections, and reveal ‘the mystery of godliness.’³²

Anglican clergyman Peter Du Moulin stated:

For surely the contemplation of the creatures doth not touch men with the sense of sin nor doth show to a man the way of salvation and reconciliation with God: yea and there can be no profitable and saving contemplation of nature unless those things which in a doubtful light and in worn-out letters are hardly read to by the word of God, as it were through spectacles, appear plain and distinct to us . . . . Furthermore, although the knowledge of the creatures doth not suffice to salvation, yet the Gentiles who were instructed by no other teacher than nature, are therefore inexcusable because they did not use these (although small) helps to a good purpose as they might: and because they endeavor to choke or deprave those natural good notions and sparks of goodness which are put into them by nature. Therefore they alone do profit in piety by the teaching of the creatures and are by the pricks of conscience stirred up to the fear of God, to whom God hath vouchsafed the prerogative of his Word.³³

Francis Turretin wrote concerning natural revelation:

It is one thing to allow some knowledge of God as Creator and preserver however imperfect, corrupt and obscure; another to have a full, entire and clear knowledge of God as Redeemer and of the lawful worship due to him. Natural theology has the former in that which may be known of God . . . . Revelation alone has the latter in the faith . . . which is gained only from the word . . . . 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 the 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 . . . . Now who will say that this could be derived from the book of nature where God manifests himself only as the Creator and preserver? On the contrary, who does not confess that it can be sought for only in the word of the gospel, which reveals to us the mercy of God in Christ?³⁴

Likewise, the Scottish theologian Robert Shaw (1795–1863) believed that salvation comes only through the special revelation of the gospel:

Those cannot be saved who are totally destitute of revelation. Though the invitation which nature gives to seek God, be sufficient to render those without excuse who do not comply with it, yet it is not sufficient, even objectively, for salvation; for it does not afford that lively hope which maketh not ashamed, for this is only revealed by the Gospel; whence the Gentiles are said to have been without hope in the world. It does not show the true way to the enjoyment of God, which is no other than faith in Christ. It does not sufficiently instruct us about the manner in which we ought to worship and please God, and do what is acceptable to him. In short, this call by nature never did, nor is it even possible that it ever can, bring any to the saving knowledge of God; the Gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. We are persuaded there is no salvation without Christ; no communion of adult persons with Christ, but by faith in him; no faith in Christ without the knowledge of him; no knowledge but by the preaching of the Gospel; no preaching of the Gospel in the works of nature.³⁵

Herman Witsius (1636–1708), believed that the “call by nature never did, nor is it even possible that it ever can, bring any to the saving knowledge of God; the gospel alone ‘is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth.’”³⁶ He did, however, believe that God uses the revelation of nature to prepare people for the ultimate reception of the gospel. To those who reject the light of nature, it serves to “render them without excuse.”³⁷ But for others:

(T)hat calling serves to prepare the way for a further, a more perfect, and a more explicit call by the Gospel, and as a prelude of a fuller instruction. For as grace supposes nature, and makes it perfect, so the truths revealed in the Gospel are built on those made known by the light of nature . . . . And thus the knowledge he learns from nature being sanctified by the Spirit, better prepares the mind for embracing those truths which, though they surpass, are yet so far from destroying, that they perfect nature.³⁸

Calvinist Views On Preparation For The Gospel

A word should be said at this point regarding the views among Calvinists on the matter of preparation for salvation. Though the Synod of Dort rejected the notion that there is a work of the Holy Spirit preparatory to regeneration, the delegates to the Synod from England did endorse the idea. In the following generation, John Owen is representative of those who held the view that prior to conversion there “are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it.”³⁹ He is careful to distinguish between a material disposition (which he accepts) and a formal disposition (which he rejects). The former he defines as “that which disposeth and some way maketh a subject fit for the reception of that which shall be communicated, added, or infused into it as its form. So wood by dryness and a due composure is made fit and ready to admit of firing, or continual fire.”⁴⁰ The latter he defines as “where one degree of the same kind disposeth the subject unto farther degrees of it; as the morning light, which is of the same kind, disposeth the air to the reception of the full light of the sun.”⁴¹ Owen notes three internal spiritual effects preceding regeneration. The first is illumination. This entails not only understanding of the truth, but a certain assent to it, and even a temporary joy in the truth. The second is conviction of sin. This entails a sense of guilt over sin, sorrow or grief over sin, humiliation for sin (such as through confession or fasting), and even a desire for deliverance from sin. The third is reformation of life. All these things, in Owen’s view, are wrought by the word of God and the Spirit of God. But all are short of regeneration.⁴² As to the “light of nature” Owen denies that they are “a sufficient outward means of the conversion of any one soul . . . .”⁴³ And he does not seem to believe that they may be used by God in preparing persons for conversion through the gospel, as Witsius did.

Views Of The Moderate Calvinists

An even more optimistic view of the role of natural revelation than that of Witsius was embraced by some of the more moderate Calvinists. Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664), for example, believed that more could be gleaned from natural revelation, and that it was therefore at least hypothetically possible that people might be saved through this means alone.⁴⁴ Witsius quotes Amyraut concerning what may be discerned through nature alone: “(M)en, if not willfully blind, could, by what is known of God, have attained to some knowledge of the divine mercy, by which they might obtain salvation, in a manner perhaps unknown to us; though destitute of the distinct knowledge of some mysteries, which they could no way discover of themselves.”⁴⁵ However, Amyraut also denied that anyone had ever actually come to salvation through natural revelation alone for lack of the enabling work of the Spirit, which he believed was always accompanied by the gospel.⁴⁶

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) was even more open to the possibility of salvation through natural revelation. In his work on Universal Redemption Baxter sets out a number of propositions about God that he believes can be inferred from the Light of Nature alone, including the belief that in his mercy “God hath found out some sufficient means, grounds or terms on which he both may and doth actually dispense with the rigour of exact Justice” (that is, to provide for our deliverance from sin).⁴⁷ He also proposes that the “heathen” are given “sufficient Grace or merciful aid to receive and obey those (or some of those) Truths . . . and so to come nearer to Christ than before they were.”⁴⁸ Whether any are actually saved by the natural revelation alone he is not certain. But he certainly argues for the reasonableness of believing they might be:

I cannot find in Scripture where it is clearly revealed to us, on what terms God will Judge those that heard not of Christ. In general we find the he will judge them according to their usage of the Talents of Mercy received . . . ; but particularly how God will proceed with them, or whether any Heathen be ever saved? I cannot find that he hath revealed. For indeed it doth not concern us to know it. I dare not say that any of them . . . are saved: Nor dare I say that I am certain they are not . . . . Those Scriptures that speak of the necessity of Christ to mans (sic) Salvation . . . do plainly extend it to all men in the World, but those that speak of the necessity of believing seem to limit it to them that hear the Gospel, or might have heard it but for their own fault . . . . Personal Believing was never commanded to Infants or Ideots (sic), nor required as necessary to their Salvation . . . . The same Faith which is now among us of absolute necessity to our Justification and Salvation, was not so to those before Christ; therefore it is not per se of absolute necessity to Justification by Christ: Therefore if God so please, those that hear not the Gospel may be Justified without that Faith which to us is necessary.⁴⁹

The moderate Calvinist and nonconformist John Humfrey (1621–1719) exhibited greater confidence in stating his belief that many “heathen” would be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ:

There is One Religion therefore, Law or Rule, for all Mankind to obtain Life by, which being the Law of our Lapsed Nature, or Remedying Law, containing God’s Grace administered to all the Earth, in a threefold State, of such as were, or are, without the Law, (or before it) and under the Law, and under the Gospel. As this Administration is threefold, so hath the Faith, which is the Condition thereof, been diversified. But now is the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith. The Righteousness of God, is the Righteousness of this Law, which hath ever been a foot in the world: And though a Heathen hath not that Faith as is required of the Christian, in the Third Edition of it, or that which was required of the Jew under the Second; yet hath he such a Faith as belongs to the First, such as the Ancients before Abraham had: And so long as that Faith he has does work by Love, or by sincere Obedience to God, according to the Light he has, it will justifie him, as well as that which is now farther required of us under the Gospel. It follows, that this Law (being that which is given for Life, and so the one only true Measure of Religion to all the World) must belong to the Government of God, which is Universal, and that is the Natural Government of God . . . . The Law of Nature, as I take it, is the Dictates of right Reason, declaring to us our Duty to God, to our Selves, to our Neighbours; and the Light of the same Reason will dictate to us, when we have fail’d in that Duty, to repent, and turn to God with trusting in his Mercy, for pardon if we do so, and not else . . . . Now, I say, that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) this Law of Grace, in the third and last setting out, or in the State under the Gospel, yet they are under it (or have it) in the State of the Ancients, or as they had it in the first Promulgation; and upon Supposition, that any of them do, according to the Light they have, live up in Sincerity to this Law, I dare not be the Man that shall deny but through the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (procuring this Law of Covenant for them, as for us, and all the World) they shall be saved, even as we; and we shall be saved, even as they . . . . But I am hugely persuaded . . . that there are Millions that have been, and Thousands are living in the World, that have never known, and shall never know, how much they are beholding to Jesus Christ, till they come before him in Judgment, and then they shall know it to their Comfort . . . .⁵⁰

German Reformed theologian J. H. A. Ebrard (1818–1888) is another who is representative of those who held an open view toward the possibility of salvation for those who never received the gospel during this life. In his major work, Christliche Dogmatik, he states that the salvation of those who sought after immortality in this life (cf. Rom. 2:7) but never received the gospel, would be realized after death.⁵¹ Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong (1836–1921) also embraced similar views. In his Systematic Theology he states:

Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in the flesh. A proud and self-righteous morality is inconsistent with saving faith; but a humple (sic) and penitent reliance upon God, as a Savior from sin and a guide of conduct, is an implicit faith in Christ; for such reliance casts itself upon God, so far as God has revealed himself,—and the only Revealer of God is Christ. We have, therefore, the hope that even among the heathen there may be some, like Socrates, who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way of life and salvation.⁵²

Presbyterian theologian Edward D. Morris (1815–1921) believed that “in the case of heathen to whom the Gospel has not been proclaimed, the truth used by the Spirit in regeneration, so far as regeneration may occur in such cases, must be what the law of nature and the divine law stamped on the heart and conscience have supplied.”⁵³

Other evangelicals have held similar views. One was the British pastor and commentator G. Campbell Morgan. He wrote concerning Cornelius:

(H)ere was a man . . . who had been true to the light that was within him . . . . (H)ad he never heard the message, then he would have been judged by the light he had, and his obedience to it . . . . (N)o man is to be saved because he understands the doctrine of the Atonement. He is saved, not by understanding it, but because he fears God, and works righteousness. Oh, the glad and glorious surprise of those ultimate days when we find that there will be those who walked in the light they had, and wrought righteousness, and were acceptable to Him; not because of the morality, but by the infinite merit of the Cross, and by the fact that they yielded themselves to the light they possessed.⁵⁴

Evangelical pastor and author F. B. Meyer expressed a more open opinion during the later years of his life. After ministering in many other countries over a period of years, he wrote: “And may there not have been myriads, in all lands and ages, who have been true to such light as they had, following the gleam—and will not these come from the east and west, from north and south, as Christ said, and sit down in the kingdom of God.”⁵⁵

Another was Rene Pache, who wrote: “If the sacrifice of Christ could save the relatively unenlightened men of the Old Covenant, could it not also bring something to such ignorant heathen as obey with all their hearts what light they have?”⁵⁶

Sir Norman Anderson likewise states:

My suggestion is that we can, perhaps, find a ray of light by going back to what we have already said about those Jews who, in Old Testament times, turned to God in repentance, brought the prescribed sacrifice . . . and threw themselves on his mercy. It was not that they earned that mercy by their repentance or obedience, or that an animal sacrifice could ever avail to atone for human sin. It was that their repentance and faith (themselves, of course, the result of God’s work in their hearts) opened the gate, as it were, to the grace, mercy and forgiveness which he always longed to extend to them, and which was to be made for ever available at the cross . . . . It is true that they had a special divine revelation in which to put their trust. But might it not be true of the follower of some other religion that the God of all Mercy had worked in his heart by his Spirit, bringing him in some measure to realize his sin and need for forgiveness, and enabling him, in the twilight as it were, to throw himself on God’s mercy?⁵⁷

It is somewhat understandable that moderate Calvinists who held to an unlimited atonement might hold the views on the unevangelized proposed by Amyraut or even Baxter. If God provided the objective grounds of salvation for all, then he might also have provided the means of obtaining its benefits to all (not only to those who hear the gospel). But not all moderate Calvinists shared such views, as can be attested by these comments of the British Presbyterian minister, and moderate Calvinist, John England (d. 1724):

We no where (sic) find, that any of the Apostles told the Heathen, to whom they preached, that they might have been saved before they preached to them, by the light they were under: but now having received better light, they could not, without imbracing (sic) the Gospel: But they told them, in order to perswade (sic) them to receive the Gospel, that they were in a damnable state, that they worshipped the Devil, that they were aliens to the Covenant, and without Hope.⁵⁸

Views Of The New England Theologians

It is appropriate at this point to mention the views of those who embraced what became known as the New England Theology, as the seeds of this movement were originally planted in the soil of Calvinism.⁵⁹ The views of the early leaders of this influential theological movement with regard to the unevangelized echoed the traditional Calvinism of their predecessors. Joseph Bellamy (1719–1790) summarized his view on the salvation of the “heathen” in these words: “He effectually sends the gospel to one nation, and not to another; and where the gospel is preached, he, by his Spirit, awakens, convinces, humbles, converts whom he pleases, and leaves the rest.”⁶⁰

Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803) likewise believed that the gospel was the exclusive means of salvation. Speaking of the person of Christ, Hopkins said: “(T)here is no salvation for men, without a degree of true knowledge of his person and character; and such knowledge is connected with eternal life.”⁶¹ Concerning the necessity of believing the gospel, Hopkins said:

Therefore, as they must really do this, and it must be their own voluntary act in order to be saved, it is proper and necessary that they should be made to know it, by requiring it of them. And the gospel cannot be preached in any other way . . . . Because in this way sinners are brought to repentance and have a heart given them to embrace the gospel. As they could not be under advantages to do this, unless the gospel were preached to them, and they were called upon to repent and believe, so men are brought to this in no other way, and by no other means, but the preaching of the gospel. And under this, and when men enjoy the gospel, God opens the hearts of whom he pleases, to receive the truths which are published, and to obey them, as he opened the heart of Lydia to receive the gospel preached by Paul . . . . God is under obligation to none, and he gives a heart to repent to those who live under the gospel, to whom he pleases, and when and where he sees fit.⁶²

Concerning the means of salvation, he wrote:

He cannot be saved who does not believe, and he cannot believe who has not heard and attended to the report of the gospel, so has no right speculative notions about the objects of faith; and he cannot hear and understand who has not the advantage of divine revelation . . . . God can, doubtless, as easily change the heart of the most ignorant, deluded Mahometan (sic), or heathen . . . as that of the most awakened, enlightened sinner under the gospel. But if he should do so by the regenerating influences of his Spirit, there could be no right and proper exercises of Christian virtue and holiness; because such a one is without any right speculative knowledge of those truths, in the view of which alone Christian holiness is exercised. And giving a new heart, or a right taste and temper of mind, would not remove this darkness. This only prepares the mind to discern and relish the beauty and sweetness of divine things, when set before it in the use of means, but does not give any new speculative ideas or knowledge. Therefore, we have no reason to think God ever does so.⁶³

Though acknowledging the hypothetical possibility that God might regenerate someone apart from knowledge of the gospel, he does not believe it is a reality.

The grandson of Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight IV (1752–1817), was of a similar mind as Hopkins, but not entirely so. In his sermon on “The Means of Grace” he made the following comments regarding the means of regeneration:

It is not here intended, that God could not, if he pleased, produce this change in the human character, without these, or any other means. Nor is it intended, that in some cases he does not actually thus produce it. It is unquestionably in the power of God to effectuate this change, with infinite ease, in any manner which he shall think proper. Nor have we any proof, that he has not, in many instances, renewed men, without connecting the renovation with any means whatever. But it is here intended, that this is not the usual course of his Spiritual providence; and that, in that course, means are really employed to bring men into the heavenly kingdom. It is further intended, that these means are so far necessary, as that without them, this important end would not, in the ordinary course of providence, be accomplished.⁶⁴

In commenting on Paul’s statement in Romans 10:14, he wrote: “In other words, he declares the Preaching of the Gospel to be, in the ordinary course of Providence, indispensably necessary to the faith of mankind in Christ . . . .”⁶⁵ He continued:

I speak here, it will be remembered, of the ordinary course of God’s Spiritual providence. That exceptions to this assertion may have existed, I am not disposed to deny. That they must have been comparatively few is, I think, clearly evidence from the fact, that no satisfactory reasons have appeared, even to the mind of charity itself, to believe them numerous. If God has pursued, in countries unenlightened by the Gospel, a different system of dispensations from that which we have been contemplating; it must be admitted, that we have no evidence of this fact; or at least none which can be pronounced satisfactory. The Scriptures certainly give us very little information of this nature; and the history of mankind furnishes still less. Without limiting the mercy of God, or attempting to investigate his Spiritual providence, with respect to nations who have not the Gospel, it may safely be concluded, that the instances, which they furnish, of apparent renovation, are very few.⁶⁶

In the following sermon, he wrote:

Thus it is evident, that the Gospel is indispensable to the very existence of Christianity in the mind of man: and, as the Gospel cannot be of any possible use to man, unless known by him; so the knowledge of the Gospel is indispensable to the existence of faith, repentance, and holiness

. . . . It is indeed perfectly obvious, that God can, with infinite ease, reveal the fundamental truths, and all other truths, of the Gospel, to any man immediately, as he did to St. Paul. This, however, is not to be expected; as it is certainly no part of his ordinary providence. In the usual course of that providence, men are taught the Gospel by Preaching, Reading, and other modes of instruction. These, or some of these, are therefore indispensable, in the usual course of things, to the existence of Christianity in the minds of men. Hence, in one respect, the Gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: and hence, in the same respect, it is said, that, when the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.⁶⁷

Nathanael Emmons (1745–1840) believed that God regenerated at least some children though they were ignorant of Christ, who died “soon after they become moral agents.” He states:

As soon as the youngest sinner is born of God, he is a new creature, has a new nature, and is a child of God. Though he cannot exercise repentance towards God, nor faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet he may exercise true benevolence, which is true holiness; and God may pardon and save him through the atonement of Christ, on the condition of benevolence as well as on the condition of repentance or faith, or any other exercise of holiness . . . . It is sufficient for God to know that he pardons and saves them on the ground of Christ’s atonement; and when they arrive in heaven, they will love and trust in Christ as their only Saviour.⁶⁸

Nonetheless, with regard to adults who are without the gospel, he was of another opinion:

There is no ground to hope that any of the heathen will be saved, while they remain totally ignorant of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. It does not appear from the past dispensations of grace, that God ever sends his Spirit where he does not send his gospel . . . . If the character of Christ were exhibited to them, they would have an opportunity of exercising that faith, without which it is impossible to please God and obtain eternal life. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Though God intends to give unto his Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, yet there is no ground to expect this desirable event, until the way is prepared by the universal spread of the gospel.⁶⁹

Presbyterian Lyman Beecher (1775–1863) likewise expressed a traditional Calvinist viewpoint:

Nor have I been able to find any declaration in the Bible, that God regenerates by his own almighty power, without any instrumental agency . . . . (A)ll the passages which speak of the instrumentality of the word, prove that he does not regenerate by omnipotence alone, but by power associated with the reading and especially the preaching of the word . . . . That God is able by his direct immediate power to approach the mind in every faculty, and to touch all the springs of action and affection, I have never denied or doubted . . . . That he is able, also, if it seemed good in his sight, to reveal the truth and manifest himself savingly to the heathen, is as plain as that he could reveal the same truths to holy men of old, and make them effectual through a written word and established ordinances. Nor is it denied or doubted, in respect to possibility, that God, if it seemed wisest and best under the gospel, might make such manifestations of himself to the souls of men, attended by such energy of his almighty power, as would call them unfailingly into his kingdom . . . . The question, as we have said, is not a question of possible or impossible, but a question of fact, as to the manner in which God does actually call effectually sinners into his kingdom—a question of wisdom and goodness in doing what is best in the best manner . . . . The question, also, has respect not to extreme cases, but to the ordinary methods of his sovereign power in saving men; and here the Bible and Confession are express, that regeneration is accomplished by the word and Spirit of God.⁷⁰

Enoch Pond (1791–1881), professor at Bangor Theological Seminary, held to the hypothetical possibility of some of the unevangelized being saved . . . but only some: “I can conceive of a heathen who may be saved by Christ, though he has never heard of him, and of course has never exercised that particular form of holiness which we call faith in Christ. But if he is truly pious, he has the element of faith, though not the form. He has that which will be faith, the moment he gets a view of Christ, or comes where he is.”⁷¹

Concerning the possibility of someone being saved apart from the gospel, he wrote:

By making the best possible use of the teachings of nature, such an one might come to the knowledge of God and his law; might see his sins, and repent of them; and might cast himself upon divine mercy; though he could know nothing, for the time, of the particular method in which the divine mercy was to be exercised towards him. He might have the element of faith in Christ, without the form of it. In other words, he might have that which would be faith in Christ, so soon as he came where Christ was, or came to the knowledge of him; in which case, I suppose, he would be saved by him. I can conceive of such a character as a pious heathen,—a heathen reconciled to God, and prepared essentially for heaven. Whether there have been any such characters, and, if so, how many, I pretend not to say. I hope there have been some; and the opposite of this is not implied in anything I am about to say as to our need of divine revelation . . . . I have spoken here of what might be done, in heathen lands, on supposition the best possible use was made of the light and teachings of nature. But is the best possible use made of these teachings? Has it ever been? Is it likely to be? Is not the light of nature everywhere perverted and abused? And, to prevent us all from perishing together, do we not need more and stronger light,—a light shining down upon us directly from heaven?⁷²

Concerning the “heathen” he concluded: “With few exceptions, here and there, they give no evidence of repentance, but the most painful evidence to the contrary . . . . The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible, that the great body of the heathen, throughout the world, live and die in sin, and perish forever.”⁷³

James H. Fairchild (1817–1902), who succeeded Charles Finney as president of Oberlin College, was of a different persuasion than those in this group we have considered so far. He represents a more radical departure from the Old School Presbyterianism. He wrote concerning the salvation of the unevangelized:

There seems no proper foundation for the idea that there can be no Faith without a knowledge of Christ and the Gospel. The Faith under the Gospel is not morally different from the Faith before the Gospel. When Christ is presented he must be accepted, or there is no Faith; and in a Christian land the failure to receive Christ as the Son of God affords strong presumption of moral unbelief. We cannot always know what darkness and perplexity may gather about an honest soul, one ready to know the truth; and it is not ours to judge . . . . A prominent religious writer defines Faith to be ‘An acceptance of the fact that God now pardons my sins for Jesus’ sake.’ This is Faith in one who has the full Gospel light; it is not clear that it was the Faith of Abraham or of David. The mistake in every such definition is that it is an objective instead of subjective definition; that is, a definition from the content of faith in the mind, rather than from the responsible moral attitude, the disposition to accept truth. As a moral disposition, Faith is one and the same thing in all conditions and degrees of knowledge and ignorance.⁷⁴

Congregational theologian Edwards A. Park (1808–1900) was one of the foremost proponents of the New England Theology. His views on the salvation of the unevangelized are summarized by Congregational theologian Frank Hugh Foster (1841–1935):

The means of regeneration is the truth. By this Park does not mean the Bible, but any truth; it may be simply the truth of conscience. ‘God may regenerate little children by the truth which their own consciences give to them. God may regenerate heathen by the truth which their consciences and the volume of nature give them.’ We are thus incidentally brought to the fact that he followed the tendency of our theologians to emphasize the freedom of the working of the Spirit of God among all men, and the consequent possibility of the salvation of the heathen. He reduced the condition of salvation to its ultimate ethical element, the act of the will in view of truth . . . . Let any man anywhere submit to the truth, more or less ample, which he understands; let him exercise a disinterested love toward such being, and such a God as he knows about, or thinks he knows about; and that man is right, because his will is right, and will receive the forgiving grace of God. This position, which was later designated as the holding of salvation by the essential Christ, rather than by the historical Christ, was not the result of the rationalizing tendency of our theology, but was believed to be an interpretation of Scripture; for example, of such passages as Rom. 2:14, 15; 4:4.⁷⁵

Post-Mortem Evangelization?

Another view emerged within Congregationalism in the late nineteenth century. That is the view that the opportunity to believe in Christ continues after death. This was known as the “future probation” theory, and was espoused particularly by the faculty of Andover Seminary, who promoted what they called “Progressive Orthodoxy” during the 1880s. It was their contention that salvation comes only through knowledge of Christ, and therefore every person must have an opportunity to respond to Christ, either during this life or after death.⁷⁶ The Andover view of future probation was particularly based on its conception of the atonement as one of moral influence. It is through Christ that the sacrificial love and goodness of God is seen, and man is moved to repentance which reconciles him to God. Thus, every person must be personally exposed to Christ in order to have an opportunity to be saved.

David Everett Swift notes:

(P)rogressive orthodoxy emphasized the atonement as redemption through the creative forces released into humanity by the incarnation . . . . This man-ward emphasis in the atonement was characteristic of progressive orthodoxy . . . . A natural result of this stress on the atonement as an influence enabling man to rise to the achievement of righteousness was the assumption that the atonement could be effective for men only when they are consciously acquainted with the gospel message.⁷⁷

Swift states the progressives’ view that “this atonement will eventually be brought to bear as a consciously experienced influence on all men. Those who have not experienced Christ in this life will meet him in the next.”⁷⁸

In contrast to the view of future probation, however, the idea that the unevangelized could obtain salvation in this life by responding to the light they have, continued to gain many adherents among the heirs of the New England Theology in the latter half of the 19th century. An effective spokesman for this view was Lewis French Stearns (1847–1892), professor of theology at Bangor Theological Seminary. In his book Present Day Theology, he makes the following statements. I quote him at length, because his words reveal in a clear way the state of the debate regarding the unevangelized at that time in history.

The view that God gives to the heathen a sufficient opportunity in this life to make the great decision seems to me the most satisfactory . . . . It is not needful, in order to the making of the great decision of life, that men should have a knowledge of Christ and his redemptive work. It is sufficient if they receive the benefits of the Saviour’s salvation and have his Spirit working in their hearts . . . . The question how many heathen are saved is one that we cannot answer. There is not much to encourage us in the outward life of heathendom. But we must remember that the heathen are not to be judged by the same standard as those who have been brought up under the light of the Gospel. God may see what we do not see, a spark of faith in the soul, which His grace can kindle under better conditions into a bright flame . . . . When our Saviour uttered his wonderful parables of the kingdom, the first and most striking had reference to the sowing of the Gospel seed. The different effect produced in different hearts was made to depend upon a different state of those hearts as regarded their susceptibility . . . . The Master did not explain how the hearts came to be in the condition in which the Gospel found them, but the fair inference is that the difference lay in the free choices of the different souls. In other words, there is a pre-Christian faith—pre-Christian in the sense of preceding the knowledge of Christ—as well as a pre-Christian unbelief, which practically decide destiny and anticipate the outward decision which the preaching of the Gospel brings about. The Saviour seems to have had the same fact in mind when he said, ‘Everyone that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be manifest, that they have been wrought in God’ (John iii. 20, 21). He said to Pilate, ‘Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice’ (John xix. 37). Such a pre-Christian faith, which may render even the most ignorant man a ‘doer of the truth,’ it seems to me may be exercised by many heathen, who will in the other world come to the perfect light, and whose works will then be made manifest that they have been wrought in God. God only knows how many such heathen there are. While the Christian church is so backward in the work of missions to the heathen, we may well hope that they are very many . . . . The old Calvinism, which our fathers loyally accepted, left a part of mankind wholly out of reach of Christ’s redemptive grace. When the New England theology broke the iron ring of this consistent and logical system by the adoption of the doctrine of a universal atonement, it was inevitable that new questions should arise . . . . During the last decade we have been discussing, as the world pretty well knows, the relation of the heathen to God’s grace in Christ. The old view, which prevailed during the last century, and had many advocates until quite recent times, doomed the heathen as a mass to perdition. This severe doctrine has been generally abandoned. Our discussions have not been upon this point, but upon the question as to the manner and grounds of the salvation of those heathen who are saved. The common view has been that their imperfect faith, based upon the natural knowledge of God and such elements of truth as are to be found in their corrupt religions, is reckoned to them for righteousness for the sake of Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all, and that so their eternal destiny is settled on the basis of the decisions of this life. The able and devoted teachers in our beloved mother theological seminary at Andover have urged the other view, common in Germany, that an opportunity is granted the heathen in the other life, between death and the judgment, to hear the Gospel and accept or reject Christ. I do not propose to enter into the merits of our controversy. So far as it has involved unchristian bitterness, we are ashamed of it. We are hard fighters on our side of the water, and both parties have dealt heavy blows. The result of the discussion has been to emphasize the silence of the Scriptures on the subject. The majority still hold the older view, because it seems to us more in accord with the general drift of the Scripture and the principles of our New England theology. But there is an increasing willingness to admit that our speculations cannot exhaust the possibilities of God’s redemptive grace, and that a point of this sort can never permanently be made a test of orthodoxy . . . . The much more difficult question of future punishment has not been the subject of important controversy among us. But it has profoundly affected us. Our deeper conception of Christianity, our enlarged view of the infinite love and mercy of God, our stronger realization of the power of Christ’s redemption, have united to give this subject a peculiar painfulness and solemnity. It has pressed not only upon our theologians, but upon all our thoughtful men and women. It is a subject of peculiar difficulty to many of our most promising students of divinity. Some among us find relief in the theories of the ‘larger hope’ and ‘conditional immortality.’ If the greater number continue to hold in substance the immemorial doctrine of the Christian church, it is because we cannot convince ourselves that the words of Christ and his Apostles, fairly interpreted, sanction any other view.⁷⁹

These comments by Professor Stearns reveal how far those who considered themselves the theological descendants of the Calvinistic theology had moved from the traditional views on these important subjects, and the reasons and sentiments behind their convictions. Stearns’ view, as we shall see, was exactly that of most Arminians.

Calvinists In The Modern Era

The various views on the matter of the unevangelized entertained by those in the Calvinistic tradition have continued to claim their proponents.⁸⁰ The traditional view that salvation comes only through explicit faith in Christ is defended by many (probably most, though certainly not all) of those who identify themselves as Calvinists today. The following statement by John Witherspoon (though of an earlier era: 1723–94), President of the College of New Jersey (1768–94), summarizes graciously the traditional Reformed view that continued to be embraced by many Calvinists in modern times:

The question is, Whether an objective revelation and explicit discovery of Christ, and what he hath wrought, is necessary to salvation? Or if his undertaking may not be the ground of acceptance for many who never heard of his name? In support of the last of these it is said, That many of the ancient patriarchs and prophets were far from having distinct views of the person, character, and work of Christ; and if (as all suppose) his undertaking was available for their acceptance, why not of others also? On such a question, no doubt, modesty and caution is highly commendable, and perhaps it were wise in some respects to suspend the determination altogether. But there are cases in which it comes necessarily to be considered: for instance, I do not see how it can be avoided, in speaking of the importance or necessity of propagating the gospel among the nations that know not God . . . . We may there observe, that the only just foundation of our hope in God, either for ourselves or others, especially as sinners, is his promise. The first of these ought to be precisely commensurate to the last. In so far as it is defective, or falls short of this measure, we are chargeable with unbelief; and in so far as it exceeds, with presumption. Now, to whomsoever the true God is revealed in any measure, as merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin; however obscurely he points out the meritorious cause of pardon, if they believe his word and accept his mercy, they shall be saved; as we are told, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.’ As to any others, if they are in absolute ignorance of the true God, we must say, that there doth not appear, from Scripture, any ground on which to affirm, that the efficacy of Christ’s death extends to them: on the contrary, we are expressly told, that they have ‘no hope.’ We find indeed in Scripture, that the display of divine perfection in the works of creation, and the conduct of Providence, is represented as rendering the heathens inexcusable in their contempt and neglect of God: ‘Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.’ ‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse.’ Should any desire from these passages to infer, that if any of them made a just and dutiful use of these natural notices of God, he would not frustrate their search, but would lead them to the saving knowledge of himself, I have nothing to object against the general position; but I am afraid it will be difficult to make any other legitimate use of this concession than the apostle has made already, that they are ‘without excuse’ in their estrangement from God. One thing more we are authorized from Scripture to say, that their guilt is in proportion to their means of knowledge; that they continue in their natural state, and are not chargeable with the sin of rejecting the gospel which they never heard: ‘For as many as have sinned without the law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.’⁸¹

Nonetheless, the diversity of views still reflected in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition is illustrated by the fact that when the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland passed a revision of its standards for ordination to ministry in 1879, one section entitled “Destiny of the heathen and of children dying in infancy” reads:

While the Church adheres to the Westminster positions that none are saved except through the mediation of Christ and by the grace of His Holy Spirit, ‘who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth,’ that the duty of sending the gospel to the heathen, who are sunk in ignorance, sin, and misery is clear and imperative, and that the outward and ordinary means of salvation for those capable of being called by the Word are the ordinances of the gospel, she does not require those who accept her Standards to hold ‘that any who die in infancy are lost, or that God may not extend His grace to any who are without the pale of ordinary means, as it may seem good in His sight’ (italics added).⁸²

Of interest in this regard are the views of the Scottish Presbyterian, James Macknight (1721–1800), who in his commentary on Romans embraced a view favorable to the salvation of many unevangelized:

(T)he Gentiles, who have not the benefit of revelation, may attain that faith and holiness which is necessary to justification: in which case he (St. Paul) assures us, that they shall be rewarded with glory and peace. Besides, it is well known, that in every Gentile nation, there were always many who believed in the one true God, and who, in the persuasion that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him, were anxious to know and do his will; and who being instructed and strengthened by God, behaved in such a manner as to be acceptable to him . . . . The heathens in general believed their deities placable, and, in that persuasion, offered to them propitiatory sacrifices, and expected to be pardoned and blessed by them, even in a future state . . . : nay, many of them believed they were to reanimate their bodies. But these hopes they did not derive from the law or light of nature, but from the promise which God made to the first parents of mankind. For that promise being handed down by tradition to Noah, and his sons, they communicated the knowledge thereof, together with the use of sacrifice, to all their descendants. So that the hope of pardon and immortality, which the pious heathens entertained, was the very hope which the gospel hath more clearly brought to light, and was derived from the same source, namely, from divine revelation . . . . Reader, behold and admire the benignity and impartiality of the divine government, as set forth in the gospel. At the judgment, God will render to every man according to his works, without shewing more favour to those who have enjoyed revelation, than to those who, in the exercise of his sovereignty, have been denied that favour. In other words, the enjoyment of revelation will not be imputed to any man for merit, nor the want of it be considered as a fault; but in judging men, God most righteous will consider the advantages and disadvantages which result from the nature of the dispensation under which they lived, and will pass sentence upon them accordingly. And therefore, if, at the judgment, some who have not enjoyed revelation, are found to have feared God, and wrought righteousness, notwithstanding the disadvantages they labored under, he will not deny them those rewards, which persons in more happy circumstances have reason to expect, from his mercy in Christ . . . . Faith does not consist in the belief of particular doctrines . . . far less in the belief of doctrines which men never had an opportunity of knowing, but in such an earnest desire to know and do the will of God, as leads them conscientiously to use such means as they have, for gaining the knowledge of his will, and for doing it when found . . . . Withal, since at the judgment the ground of the salvation of mankind shall be declared in the hearing of the assembled universe, the discovery of Christ as Saviour will be made to the saved heathens, in time sufficient to lay a foundation for their gratitude and love to him, through all eternity . . . . This liberal doctrine puts an end to those specious cavils, whereby the enemies of revelation have endeavoured to discredit the gospel, in the eyes of the intelligent. For it can no longer be pretended, that by making faith the means of salvation, the gospel hath consigned all the heathens to damnation. Neither can God be accused of partiality, in conferring the benefit of revelation upon so small a portion of the human race, in the false notion, that the actual knowledge of revelation is necessary to salvation . . . . Moreover, all the heathen who are condemned, shall be condemned, not because they lived without revelation, but because they have lived in opposition to the law of God written on their heart.⁸³

Also of significance are the views of Scottish Presbyterian James Denney (1856–1917). While rejecting the notion of a future probation (which he said was held by “many theologians” in his day), he embraced the notion that those who have not heard the gospel would be judged by a different standard:

In the 25th chapter of Matthew our Lord expressly gives, in pictorial form a representation of the judgment of the heathen. All nations—all the Gentiles—are gathered before the King; and their destiny is determined, not by their conscious acceptance or rejection of the historical Saviour, but by their unconscious acceptance or rejection of Him in the persons of those who needed services of love. Those who acknowledge the claim of a brother’s need prove themselves the kindred of Christ and are admitted to the Kingdom; those who refuse to acknowledge it prove themselves children of another family and are shut out. This is unquestionably Christ’s account of the judgment of the heathen . . . . It . . . tells us plainly that men may do things of final and decisive import in this life, even though Christ is unknown to them . . . . What came into the world in Jesus Christ was the true light which lighteneth every man, and no man is quite without it. What that light wins from the heathen may not be what it wins from the disciplined Christian, but it may be enough to prove him Christ’s kinsman, and secure his entrance into the Kingdom . . . . The motive of missions to the heathen is not to be found in the belief that all the heathen who die without having heard the name of Christ are lost for ever (sic). It is to be found in obedience to Christ’s command, in devotion to His honour in the world, and in that love, learned of Him, which, looking not on its own things but on the things of others also, longs to impart to those who are yet in darkness the blessings of that light in which itself rejoices. It is the love of Christ which constrains the true evangelist, and not the apprehension of an awful future.⁸⁴

Among Reformed writers in recent times who embrace a wider view is Paul Helm. He writes:

Anyone who, in prayer, addresses ‘the Creator’ is in fact addressing the only true God. And anyone who, in addressing the Creator, pleads for his mercy, is in fact casting himself on the mercy of Christ . . . . The so-called atheist’s prayer ‘O God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul’ is often the subject of some merriment. No doubt such a prayer can be offered in a cynical and God-defying way. But what if it were to be the cry of someone who despairs of himself? Is there any convincing reason to think that that prayer will not be answered?⁸⁵

Other Reformed writers have also promoted a wider view. R. Todd Mangum, professor at Biblical Theological Seminary, in an article written for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, argues that, “God may, through extraordinary means, albeit fully on the basis of the atoning cross-work of Christ, gain the salvation of some who are denied full assurance (epistemologically) of their salvation.” Specifically, he argues “that God may reach some of these: (1) through general revelation (accompanied with an extraordinary ability to discern its truths, which only the Holy Spirit could provide); and/or (2) through extraordinary expansion of the covenantal community’s parameters.”⁸⁶ With regard to his second point, he asks: “Is it possible that believers will have the opportunity to ‘vouch for’ some of those who did not explicitly join the covenant community while on earth, but who are received into the covenant community in eternity by covenant members with whom they showed affiliation by their kindnesses toward them?”⁸⁷ In his conclusion, however, he says: “I believe the Bible encourages agnosticism on the part of believers as to what the fate of the unevangelized will be . . . . We do not know what he (God) will do, though we are given some grounds to draw both some pessimistic and some optimistic expectations. He calls for us simply to trust him

. . . .”⁸⁸

The Reformed theologian J. I. Packer (1926–2020) expressed a cautious view in 1981:

In any case, those who did not hear the gospel presented ‘intelligently’ still had light from God in their consciences, which they either heeded or disregarded, either setting themselves to seek the God of whom they had inklings or not. We may safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on his Maker’s mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far (cf. Acts 10:34f.; Rom. 10:12f.); (iii) anyone thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ. But what we cannot safely say is that God ever does save anyone this way. We simply do not know. All we are sure of is that ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth’, and that Paul does not hesitate to echo the psalmist’s generalization, ‘none is righteous, no, not one’ (Rom. 1:18; 3:10, cf. 9–18). Nor does God owe any presentation of the gospel, let alone an ‘intelligent’ one, to any man.⁸⁹

In a later work, Packer expresses himself more confidently:

A British lay theologian, Sir Norman Anderson, poses an often-asked question as follows: ‘Might it not be true of the follower of some other religion that the God of all mercy had worked in his heart by his Spirit, bringing him in some measure to realize his sin and need for forgiveness, and enabling him, in his twilight as it were, to throw himself on God’s mercy?’ The answer surely is: yes, it might be true, as it seems to have been true for some non-Israelites in Old Testament times: think of Melchizedek, Job, Naaman, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, the sailors in Jonah’s boat, and the Ninevites to whom he preached, for starters. In heaven, any such penitents will learn that they were saved by Christ’s death and their hearts were renewed by the Holy Spirit, and they will worship God accordingly. Christians since the second century have voiced the hope that there are such people, and we may properly voice the hope today.⁹⁰

Reformed theologian Terrance L. Tiessen has also written extensively on this topic, particularly in his book, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World, in which he contends that “God holds people accountable only for the revelation that has been made available to them,” and that “everyone receives potentially saving revelation.”⁹¹ Furthermore, he believes that “it may be that God gives everyone sufficient grace to enable them to believe in him but that he only draws and persuades effectively the elect. Not only does everyone receive revelation sufficient to lead to salvation if responded to with faith, but at least once in everyone’s life that divine revelation is accompanied by a divine enabling that makes a faith response possible, in the sense that people are justly condemned for failing to believe when God is made known to them on that occasion.” ⁹²

Christian Reformed minister, Neal Punt (b. 1928) has published his views in several books.⁹³ He presents what he calls “Evangelical Inclusivism,” which he defines as “the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them, whether in nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) or in gospel presentation.”⁹⁴ He does believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation “for everyone to whom the gospel is presented in a meaningful way.”⁹⁵ And he does believe that “it is impossible for anyone who has said ‘yes’ to the lesser light of nature and conscience to say ‘no’ to the greater light that breaks forth from the gospel.”⁹⁶ But he also states: “We may and must assume that everyone we approach with the gospel has a new standing with God and Christ unless or until we have decisive evidence to the contrary. Such evidence to the contrary will not be given us until ‘the last day’ . . . .”⁹⁷ If the assumption is that everyone we encounter already has a relationship with God based on the fact that they have not rejected whatever revelation they have, does not appear to provide much incentive for proclaiming the gospel to those who have as yet not made a conscious profession of faith in Christ. This is particularly the case, since he doesn’t believe we will have evidence to the contrary until the judgment. This seems quite out of step with the evidence we have in the New Testament concerning the state of those who have not yet trusted in Christ. We will address these issues thoroughly in the later chapters of this work.

Mention should also be made at this point of the views of Karl Barth (1886–1968), as he does stand in the broader Reformed tradition. It is well known that he hoped for the possibility of the salvation of all men, as expressed in this statement:

There is no good reason why we should forbid ourselves, or be forbidden, openness to the possibility that in the reality of God and man in Jesus Christ there is contained much more than we might expect and therefore the supremely unexpected withdrawal of that final threat, i.e., that in the truth of this reality there might be contained the super-abundant promise of the final deliverance of all men. To be more explicit, there is no good reason why we should not be open to this possibility . . . of an apokatastasis or universal reconciliation.⁹⁸

We may not be able to call Barth a convinced universalist based on these words; but we can certainly conclude that he was a “hopeful” universalist.

---