[...] Did Paul Make a Fundamental Mistake in Athens? – Paul the Philosopher: Part I [...]

Paul,

Thanks for the comments. I look forward to the conference in November as well.

Ken,

Thanks for your engaging comments.

The Scriptures themselves indicate clearly that God judges people according to how they’ve lived their lives (“according to their deeds”). Not knowing about Jesus is not the standard for judgment, nor is it the basis of the unbeliever’s condemnation. Again, that theme seems quite clearly articulated in Scripture–a theme certainly in keeping with our moral intuitions.

I’ll let CMP speak for himself, but I myself don’t identify with Calvinist predestinarianism. (Some will say I have a “Deformed” theology, but it appears that I simply haven’t been predestined to be a Calvinist!) I do think that Molinism (middle knowledge) offers a remarkably fruitful, biblically-supportable alternative on these questions.

Keep in mind that we are not pitting intutions and reason against Scripture. The Scriptures indicate that certain moral intuitions should be recognized by Gentile nations (e.g., Amos 1-2), whether they have Scripture or not.

Think, for example, of the Wesleyan quadrilaterial in which Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition a sources of guidance for the believer; yes, when push comes to shove, the Scriptures should guide and shape our experience and tradition rather than be subordinated to them.

As Kevin Vanhoozer argues in his *Drama of Doctrine*, *sola scriptura* (“the Scripture alone”) doesn’t mean that we trash tradition or experience or reason–no more so that affirming *solus Christus* (“Christ alone”) calls us to ignore Father and Spirit! When it comes to “reason,” even here we should be cautious. The term may come to be twisted by naturalism or scientism due to certain smuggled-in assumptions; so insisting on following reason pure and simple isn’t always pure and simple! I would advocate a more holistic approach on the matter you’ve raised.

I look forward to seeing you in November, Ken! I appreciate the good discussion!

Ken,
I believe Paul Copan is an Arminian. As to whether or not inclusivism is at odds with the Bible depends on one’s interpretation which then again largely depends on ones presuppositions.

Paul,

In my opinion, your desire to allow those who have never heard of Jesus to be included among the saved is driven by your moral intuition that it would be wrong to punish people who have never heard. That moral intuition is not something that I think can be found in the Bible. That is why Calvinists and fundamentalists typically will not allow that conclusion because they don’t find it in the Bible.

I would be curious on CMP’s view on the matter because I would tend to think that your view would be at odds with his Calvinistic theology.

One of the basic issues as I see it within evangelicalism is what constitutes the ultimate authority? Is it man’s reason and moral intuitions or is it Scripture? It seems to me that Philosophical Theology (as practiced by many of the EPS members) adopts the former while evangelical theologians for the most part adapt the latter. I would be interested in your thoughts.

As I mention in my book “True for You,” Old Testament saints like Abraham and Job were saved through what Jesus of Nazareth would do on the cross, even if they didn’t hear of him. Certainly Paul believed that these saints were saved without explicit knowledge of Christ. In Romans 4, Paul cites Genesis 15:6–that Abraham believed God (not “believed in Christ”) and it was credited to him as righteousness. Surely, Paul was aware of this when he talked about a preacher later in Romans 10!

Now if things are different in the (post-)New Testament era–that a preacher is required–why couldn’t God configure matters such that those who would desire to hear end up hearing? And in light of what I said in an earlier post today, one could add: why think that the preaching must be restricted to a human preaching?

Yet, as I mention in my book, Paul in Romans 2 leaves open the possibility that those outside the hearing of the gospel could find salvation. Even if the normative means of salvation comes through preaching and thus the Christian is commanded to proclaim the good news, this doesn’t mean God can’t use other avenues. Keep in mind that Paul doesn’t have infants and the mentally handicapped in mind either, but their disability (or inability to understand a preacher) doesn’t entail their condemnation.

Thanks for the comments and interaction. Yes, the inclusivist’s argument is that salvation–whether in the OT or for the receptive unevangelized–would be grounded in Christ’s cross-work.

Now, the middle-knowledge perspective argues that salvation is accessible to all whether they hear the gospel or not (the reality of God’s presence being made available through general revelation); but it also states that anyone who would want to receive the gospel is placed in circumstances where he would have an opportunity to do so. The context of Acts 10:34-35 is that people like Cornelius (from another nation) aren’t excluded by God because they’re Gentile–that they shouldn’t be pronounced “unclean” (cp. the vision to Peter earlier in ch. 10). In this case, the person in “from [another] nation” actually ends up hearing the gospel of Christ!

One could also add that many people in, say, Muslim areas are having visions of Christ and are turning to him in large numbers (I’ve met some of them!). Are they hearing without a preacher? Well, in this case, the preacher is Jesus! Whatever the means, whether through humans, angelic messengers, or Christ himself, God will make salvation available to those who (prompted by His Spirit) earnestly seek it. (Of course, people can resist the Spirit’s gracious promptings as well [e.g., Acts 7:51].)

Of course there are passages like Matthew 7′s “narrow way” with “few who find it.” (Thus, the redeemed multitude would be “few” in comparison to those rejectiing God/Christ.) On the other hand, Romans 1-3 suggests a bleak picture of humanity in general–of none seeking God, doing what is right, etc.

While I leave open the possibility of exceptions, I wouldn’t want to make sweeping pronouncements like “Muslims who trust in God are redeemed.” And Rahab *did* become incoroporated into the nation of Israel, as Matthew 1:5 suggests.

At any rate, I try to address these nuances in “True for You.” You can have…

Cornwell,

But you still have not answered Paul’s assertion in Rom. 10 that one cannot call on one in whom they have not heard and calling on the name of the Lord is the way to salvation.

Ken,

Reread the above posts. This was already answered. Nobody enters the Body of Christ without faith in him, but there are other redeemed people on earth, who turn to God and do what is right (Act 10.34,35) that are acceptable to him without having explicit knowledge of Christ. In fact, the Jews are blinded to this truth, and since God wants all to be saved, he certainly would not have blinded the Jews, or anyone for that matter, to redemption. Jews today turn to YHWH the same way they did in the OT. Some do turn to Christ, but that’s because the hardness is “in part.”

cq

Paul,

thanks for the essay. Someone mentioned Greg Bahnsen. He of course would be diametrically opposed to your view here.

You say in the comment section: Yes, God can use general revelation not only to hold people accountable, but to bring people to salvation/redemption–although Romans 1-3 doesn’t seem that enthusiastic that lots of people actually receive it. Salvation is accessible to all; no one is born “at the wrong place or at the wrong time,” and God certainly doesn’t reject someone just because he never had the opportunity to hear about Christ.

How do you reconcile your view with Paul’s later statements in Romans 10:13-16? He seems to be saying that one cannot believe unless they hear about Jesus and thus that is why his mission and missions in general are necessary.