Jesus, the Only Way to Yahweh: The Deceit of Inclusivist Theology

“What if a person never hears the gospel, but, by a special movement of the Holy Spirit (unbeknown to him, of course) in his mind, heart, and will, is given cause over the course of his life to grow more and more uneasy with the pagan suppositions and assumptions of the false religion that dominates the culture into which he was born?...is it possible that he may find, upon death, that the God he has sought and worshipped, however clumsily and inadequately, was none other than Yahweh, who, by the power of an atonement provided in a Trinitarian plan of reconciliation about which he was completely oblivious during his lifetime, has established a relationship that will continue into eternity as that of child to Father? Is this possible? ‘Perhaps. We don’t know,’ is the correct answer” (Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way,” page 130).

Todd Mangum, as has been shown in the last two posts, seems intent on arguing for “what-ifs.” As I said last time, anything is possible, so the issue is not about what Christ “could” do...rather, it is about what the Lord actually says in His Word. If God has spoken to us (which He has), and He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures (which are God’s self-disclosure to humanity), then the case is closed regarding what God “could” do. He has already told us what He will do...and instead of focusing on what “could” have been the case, we must accept and submit to what is.

However, Todd Mangum is consumed by the idea that something other than reality could be possible. In the quote above, he asks regarding the individual who lacks the gospel,

“is it possible that he may find, upon death, that the God he has sought and worshipped, however clumsily and inadequately, was none other than Yahweh...?”

From these words, we understand Mangum’s emphasis--- on Yahweh, God the Father, not God the Son (Jesus Christ). Magnum seems to argue for the possibility that one can give glory to “Yahweh” without giving glory to “Jesus” and can still be saved regardless. But does this align with Scripture? Does this confirm what we read from Scripture about “Yahweh”? To see what the Father has done and is doing, let’s read the following verses:

“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2, NKJV).

God’s final Word is His Son, Jesus Christ. Notice that Christ is labeled “the heir of all things,” and that this has been given to Christ by God the Father. In other words, it is the Son, Jesus Christ, that we must hear and obey. If we want to please the Father, if we desire to be accepted by God the Father, we must hear and obey the Son, Jesus Christ. There is no other way.

Chapter 1 also reveals that the Father commands even the angels to worship the Son:

“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

‘Let all the angels of God worship Him’” (Heb. 1:6).

Even the angels in heaven are told by God the Father to worship Jesus the Son of God. Not only does Jesus inherit all things; He also inherits all praise, whether it be from the angels, humanity, or creation.

So God’s spoken Word in these “last days” as Hebrews states it, is Jesus Christ. What the writer of Hebrews tells us here is that, despite what was done in the Old Testament (I’m not trying to dismiss the OT, simply to state the author’s point), “now,” meaning “from now to the end of time,” God’s revelation to the world is His Son, Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews exhorts the Jewish congregation to also look to Christ, “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). For many inclusivists, the Old Testament is used as evidence to make the case that one can worship the Father without necessarily professing faith in Christ and still be saved; however, the Hebrews writer says that Christ is how God speaks today. In other words, to simply worship Yahweh does not cut it now; in these days, one must worship Jesus, as even the angels must (Heb. 1:6).

The following verse is one that is often used when discussing inclusivism and exclusivism:

“Jesus said to him [Thomas], ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

How does one come to “Yahweh”? By the Son. Jesus is the way to heaven. This is proven to be true simply by the context in which the verse is placed. In verse 2, Jesus says that he is going to “My Father’s house,” which we know to be heaven (from which Jesus came, see John 8:23). He also says that He is going to take those who believe (His disciples then, now, and in the future) to be with Him forever (v.3). In verse 6 itself, we see that Jesus is going “to the Father,” the same Father who spoke from heaven at Jesus’ baptism (see Matthew 3:17). So if Jesus is saying that He is the only way to the Father, He is saying that He is the only way to heaven, the only way to eternal life. The exception to the rule is Jesus; all other paths lead to eternal damnation...but the Son leads to everlasting life.

But there’s more to John 14...Jesus tells the disciples that He has revealed the Father: “If you had known Me, you would have known my Father” (v.7). Phillip then asks Jesus to show them the Father, to which Jesus responds, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father...Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (Jn. 14:9-10). By these verses, Jesus says that He is the revelation of the Father (confirming Hebrews 1). Inclusivists often ask the question, “Can one worship and serve Yahweh?” The answer to that question is “Yes, but only by worshipping and serving Jesus.” Jesus is the revelation of God the Father. Jesus tells us of the Father’s plans, the Father’s desires, the Father’s heart. Why does the Father send Jesus? He does so because of His love for the world (John 3:16). If Jesus is sent because of the Father’s love, then Jesus reveals the Father’s love for the world. Only by faith in Christ can one be made right with the Father.

Many an inclusivist today has the same request that Phillip did: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us” (Jn. 14:8). However, Jesus said that He Himself revealed the Father...and for the inclusivist, this is Jesus’ answer. Jesus reveals “Yahweh,” God the Father, to the world. It is only in Jesus that we find salvation.

So...is it possible to worship Yahweh and be saved? Not if one worships Him apart from Jesus the Son; in the words of John,

“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5: 11-12). 

"Is It Possible?" Todd Mangum and the Human Pursuit of God

“Of course, people in remote sections of the world will not respond to the revelation to which they are exposed unless the Holy Spirit works in their mind and heart in an extraordinary way. But is this not true in any case? All Reformed thinkers recognize that, unless the Holy Spirit overrides, supercedes, and transforms the depraved human will, no one will respond. The real question is whether God needs special revelation to do this work. Given the sufficiency of ‘information’ in general revelation, it is not implausible to think that, given a miraculous work in the mind and heart of a person in a remote section of the world, that person could respond to the information they have” (Todd R. Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way To Get The Benefits of The Atonement To ‘Those Who Have Never Heard’?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (March 2004): page 129.

In my last post on Todd Mangum’s article, I attacked his unique interpretation of the Psalm 19 reference of general revelation within Romans chapter 10. In that post, I used the context of Romans 10 and its material to make the case that the emphasis of Romans 10 is “faith” and “the word of God,” not general revelation. What I may not have mentioned there (I don’t think I did) is that, if you consider the chapter prior (Romans 9) you will find that the reason why the majority of the nation of Israel was still unsaved in Paul’s time was not because they did not respond to general revelation; rather, Paul dealt with general revelation back in Romans 1 and, from chapters 2 forward, had tried to demonstrate that the only way to salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Paul even went so far as to show that the father of the nation of Israel, Abraham, was saved by faith before he was circumcised...and that this was to show that works (i.e., circumcision) do not save; rather, faith does (Rom. 4). At the end of Romans 9, Paul states that the Jews’ current position (the majority being unsaved) is due to their attempts to merit salvation through the Mosaic Law: “Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone” (Rom. 9:32-33, NKJV). Thereafter, Paul references Isaiah 8, and other passages from Isaiah to demonstrate that even the Old Testament preached the same message: that is, salvation by grace through faith.

In this post, I intend to continue my evaluation of Todd Mangum’s inclusivist discussion. In the quote above, we find that Mangum holds to the possibility of inclusivism because of his Calvinist roots:

“All Reformed thinkers recognize that, unless the Holy Spirit overrides, supercedes, and transforms the depraved human will, no one will respond.”

All Calvinists across the board agree with Mangum’s statement I just quoted. You will not find a Calvinist (at least a consistent one, anyway) that will disagree with Mangum’s words above. As an Arminian, I do not think God overrides the human will, which is why some people choose to spend an eternity apart from God and refuse to believe, no matter how many times they hear the gospel. Another piece of proof in favor of why I disagree with the Spirit “overriding” the will concerns apostates. If God “overrides” the human will, why then, do such individuals come to Christ and then, after some years, depart? Why are there persons like Charles Templeton (a fellow revivalist with Billy Graham for years) who begin to doubt everything they have ever preached, after having won so many souls to the Lord? If the Spirit would override anyone, Charles Templeton would have been such an individual. And yet, the Spirit did not. By what we know of Charles Templeton, he died without coming back to the Lord. We cannot say for sure that he did not return to the Lord (only God knows)...but we have good evidence to state that it’s very likely he did not.

However...if one agrees with Todd Mangum about the Spirit “overriding” the human will, then surely, inclusivism is a logical position to affirm. This is why Mangum says in the next sentence,

“The real question is whether God needs special revelation to do this work [overriding the human will and transformation]” (Mangum, 129; parentheses mine).

This is where Mangum falters in his argument. In my opinion, he invests too much time arguing “whether God needs” to save via the gospel (or special revelation of some sort). This is like the Calvinist argument regarding God’s love for the world. Many a Calvinist (and quite a few Arminians) spend time arguing whether or not “God needed” to die for every person. I don’t invest time in such philosophical contemplation; instead, I simply affirm what Scripture does. God did not have to love the world and give Jesus, but that’s what He decided it was good to do (John 3:16). Along the same lines, I would say to Todd Mangum that the issue is not whether or not special revelation is necessary; rather, the issue is “how God chooses to save according to Scripture.” God could have chosen not to create humanity; but sitting around contemplating the idea of my non-existence does nothing in helping me come to understand God’s will for my life and how I can submit to that will. Instead, contemplating the idea of my non-existence might give me something to think about to add a little excitement to an otherwise possibly boring hour or so...but it does not help me to live out that which the Scriptures teach about God’s demands towards me. It is futile to advance one’s argument by saying, “let’s imagine or contemplate such and such.” Rather, if we are going to come to have a “Christian” theology that is God-glorifying, we need to spend more time learning what’s in the source of all Christian living, the Bible. The Bible should consume our time and efforts, not a series of “What-ifs” or a game of “Is it possible.”

And along those lines, Mangum goes into his own “What if” question:

“What if a person never hears the gospel, but, by a special movement of the Holy Spirit (unbeknown to him, of course) in his mind, heart, and will, is given cause over the course of his life to grow more and more uneasy with the pagan suppositions and assumptions of the false religion that dominates the culture into which he was born?...is it possible that he may find, upon death, that the God he has sought and worshipped, however clumsily and inadequately, was none other than Yahweh, who, by the power of an atonement provided in a Trinitarian plan of reconciliation about which he was completely oblivious during his lifetime, has established a relationship that will continue into eternity as that of child to Father? Is this possible? ‘Perhaps. We don’t know,’ is the correct answer” (Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way,” page 130).

Notice two things: first, as I said above, Mangum begins to ask, “What if” and “Is it possible.” Next, notice that Mangum assumes that God would override the human will “unbeknown” to the individual involved. Is this not troubling to you that the idea of overriding the human will is merely assumed? This is rather troubling and grossly disturbing to me. Where is the Spirit’s conviction, which Jesus states (John 16:7-11)? Where is the idea that the Spirit convicts of sin and of righteousness? This doesn’t exist in Mangum’s theology. Rather, the Spirit overrides the individual and he “happens” to find all this out post-mortem. Does the Spirit not convict men and women such that we become “cut to the heart,” as did the Jews during Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:37)? There is an existential component to conviction, such that, not only do we come to Christ, but we come understanding we have sinned against the Lord of Lords and deserve nothing short of Hell itself. But if one is “regenerated,” unbeknownst to himself or herself, where is the conviction? If one is saved prior to faith (as Calvinists assume), then what need is there for conviction? Why is conviction even necessary? It seems that Mangum and the Calvinist camp need to spend more time talking about Spirit conviction rather than “Spirit overriding.”

The worst part of all of this is that, if the Spirit “overrides” our human will (and therefore, human intellect), and He does it such that we are not consciously aware of it (“unbeknownst” to us, as Mangum writes), how then, can we have any understanding about our salvation? How can we come to know anything of the gospel and God’s salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ? If Mangum’s argument of unconscious regeneration and Spirit overriding of the human will is right, then inclusivism is the next logical step: for the only way inclusivism can be correct is if persons can be saved without the gospel, without faith, without conviction. However, the Scriptures themselves just don’t allow for such an interpretation.

I will tackle Mangum’s last quote about Yahweh in my next post. Stay tuned.

When Philosophy Drives Theology: Todd Mangum and the Inclusivist Possibility

“Inclusivist arguments commonly go too far, in my judgment, in their sentimental appeals on behalf of depraved human beings. We know that the God of the Bible is capable of raining down His wrath on whole segments of depraved humanity...that having been said, I do believe that there is a Reformed way of raising the question with which inclusivists have been so concerned. Instead of asking, ‘Would it be truly fair of God to damn human beings for rejecting a gospel they never heard?’...we might ask the question this way: ‘If God has his elect in remote portions of the world, could he use general revelation to reach them?’ Put this way, it seems to me that a Reformed thinker’s answer would have to be more ambivalent” [Todd Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way To Get The Benefits of The Atonement To ‘Those Who Have Never Heard?’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (March 2004): 127].

Here at the Center for Theological Studies, I have always made it known that theology and philosophy should work together. I believe in having a philosophical theology where philosophy supports theology, not drives it. Philosophy from the very beginning was made to be “the handmaiden of theology,” and I am committed to theological research that places philosophy back where it belongs (“on the passenger’s side”)...and out of the driver’s seat.

Today’s quote comes from Todd Mangum, one who clearly has no problems boldly announcing his Calvinist presuppositions:

“Let me go on record as affirming a classically Reformed soteriology, including a particular (rather than universal) design of the atonement...it should come as no surprise that I remain unfazed by any number of stock inclusivist-Arminian arguments” (Todd Mangum, “Is There a Reformed Way...?”, page 123).

Mangum is a five-point Calvinist and argues for all five points, including “particular” (limited) atonement. No Arminian argument can or will win him over because his starting presuppositions are very different from those of the Arminian.

Having said this, Mangum clearly allows his Calvinist philosophy to drive his thoughts on theology, particularly when it comes to the issue of inclusivism and the unevangelized from the starting quote above. Here, once more, is Mangum’s question:

“If God has his elect in remote portions of the world, could he use general revelation to reach them?’”

I would never in any way desire to limit the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign and in control, and “He does whatever He pleases.” In that respect, I agree with Mangum and Calvinists everywhere. God does not “have” to do anything; He is not bound or obligated to do things the way I want Him to. Because He is God, it is His prerogative to call the shots. I am the creature, not the Creator, and I humbly acknowledge that I am the lesser and that God is the greater.

However...my problem with Mangum’s quote is not that there’s something wrong with the quote (at least on the surface, anyway). I mean, is it possible that God could save via general revelation? Yes! There are a lot of things that God could do that He chooses not to do. But this does not mean that because God “can” do it (it is possible), that He actually WILL do it! “Can” suggests possibility, while “will” suggests probability. Possibility does not necessarily entail probability. For instance, it may be “possible” for me to get the job promotion, but the mere possibility of it does not make it so. In the same way, Mangum’s presupposition that God’s sovereignty means He “can” do something does not necessitate that God actually will do something. “Can” and “will” are two different suggestions altogether.

Secondly, let me also add that Mangum’s Calvinist philosophy drives him away from reading Scripture. We clearly see this when he discusses the use of Psalm 19 in Romans 10:

“Paul’s quotation of Psalm 19 in the closing portion of his argument in Romans 10 has intriguing implications. Reformed interpreters have too often closed their consideration of the argument of Romans 10 at verses 13-15. Granted, the rhetorical nature of these questions seems, at first, to close off consideration of God’s reaching his elect through any means other than a human agent-borne presentation of the gospel message. But it is Paul himself who reopens the question in verse 18, when he says, ‘But have they never heard?’---deliberately undermining, in part, his earlier rhetorical question, ‘How shall they hear without a preacher?’ they may hear, apparently (and extraordinarily), through the constant testimony of general revelation (v.18)” (129).

When writing on verses 13-15, Mangum says (paraphrase), “It seems as if Paul’s special revelation...but then, he turns around and confirms general revelation in the very next verses.” But is this actually what Paul does? To find out, we’ll have to examine Romans 10 ourselves.

In verses 13-15, Paul has argued that salvation comes for “whoever calls on the name of the Lord” (Rom. 10:13, NKJV). One must confess the Lord’s name to be saved. In verse 14, Paul uses a series of questions to make the case that one cannot confess the Lord’s name if he or she has not believed; and they cannot believe in something they have never heard; and they cannot hear it without a preacher coming to them who is sent on his evangelistic mission by God Himself (vv. 14-15). In verse 16, Paul says “but they have not all obeyed the gospel,” quoting from Isaiah 53:1 as proof. All of the material used in these few verses is to make his case: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In other words, the only way one can believe on the name of the Lord is to hear the word preached. The gospel (the subject of verse 16) must be preached in order for belief and confession to take place.

In verse 18, Paul asks, “have they not heard?” Now, at this point, what is it that the Jews (the subject of Romans chapters 9-11) are supposed to have heard? If the context of Romans 10 can be trusted, it’s the gospel that the Jews are supposed to have heard (Rom. 10:16). And this is where Mangum’s exegesis falters. The reference from Psalm 19 does refer (within the Psalm itself) to general revelation (“the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork,” etc.); however, one cannot take Paul seriously if he or she does not read Paul’s context of Romans 10 and interpret Psalm 19 in light of that. In Psalm 19, the words used in Rom. 10 refer to general revelation (although special revelation is mentioned there, too); however, in Romans 10, the subject is the gospel, not general revelation.

In Rom. 10:3-4, Paul says that the righteousness of God is found in Christ: “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The reason why the Jews have not yet come to faith (Paul says) is because they have not believed the gospel, they have not professed faith in Christ. In verses 5-6, Paul contrasts the “righteousness of the law” (Mosaic) with “the righteousness of faith.” Notice that in verse 8, the message which Paul and others preach is called “the word of faith.” In verses 9 and 10, salvation is said to come through confession by mouth and belief of the heart in two things: first, that Jesus is Lord; and secondly, that God raised Jesus from the dead. In other words, to be saved, one must confess that Jesus is Lord and that he or she believes Christ died for their sins and rose for their justification (see Romans 5). In verse 11, Paul provides biblical support for the word of faith he preaches, stating that the plan of salvation he advocates is actually contained within the Old Testament (specifically, Isaiah 28:16). If one goes back to Romans 10:17, the subject is “the word of God” or “the word of Christ,” which is the “word of faith” of Romans 10:8).

The context of Romans 10 makes it obvious that it is the gospel that Paul states the Jews have received. If the Jews were responsible for general revelation, that would be a retreat from their position as God’s people, not a progression: after all, did God not provide special revelation for them in the Mosaic Law (was the Law not written on tablets by God Himself? See Exodus 20)? If the Mosaic Law is inadequate for salvation, how then, could general revelation be more adequate (since special revelation is greater than general revelation)? Even in Psalm 19, David distinguishes between general and special revelation. While the “words” of general revelation have gone to the ends of the earth (Ps. 19:4), it is only “the law of the Lord” that “converts the soul” (v.7), “enlightens the eyes” (v.8), and brings great reward (v.11). General revelation itself only “reveals knowledge” (v.2)...and this knowledge, as Paul writes in Romans 1:18, is “suppressed in unrighteousness” and makes mankind “without excuse.”

Stay tuned...more on Todd Mangum to come.

Actions Have Consequences: How the Unevangelized Testify to the Fall of Genesis 3

“The question of those who never hear the gospel is often emotively framed as those who do not hear ‘through no fault of their own.’ This claim rests on the assumption that those without special revelation are not responsible for their lack of special revelation, hence the pressure falls on general revelation to provide sufficient knowledge. However...both theologically and historically the precise opposite is true...If general revelation and special revelation were, in the preceptive will of God, always meant to be understood together before the Fall, and if special revelation is even more necessary after the Fall to correct and interpret general revelation, then if there are those in history who only have general revelation, are they not those who have fallen outside of God’s preceptive (but not decretive) will? Despite protests as to the narrowness of those who fall within special revelation, historically speaking we have seen that there was a time when special revelation was indeed as universally known and accessible as general revelation. The entrance of sin has consequences for the accessibility of revelation” (Daniel Strange, “General Revelation: Sufficient or Insufficient?” from “‘Faith Comes By Hearing’: A Response to Inclusivism” by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008, page 71).

I bought the title “Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism” several months ago. I had heard of inclusivism through my introductory theology course with Dr. Ken Keathley, author of “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” about a year and a half ago. Seeing the book on the shelf at the local bookstore, I was moved to buy the book. I wanted to know the inclusivist arguments and the exclusivist response to them. In addition, I had never had the chance (at that time) to research inclusivism. At the time I took Dr. Keathley’s introductory theology course, I researched the divine sovereignty-human responsibility debate. I always thought, “If I could retake my introductory theology course all over again, I would research on inclusivism.” Little did I know that I would pursue independent research with Dr. Keathley by the end of my Master of Divinity degree...and that I would get to research the debate I had been longing to research two years later. The Lord always has perfect timing on these things.

Today’s post involves the first article in the inclusivist response that I’ve read. The article is written by Daniel Strange, and it is a 38-page defense of general revelation as insufficient for salvation but sufficient for condemnation. Strange explores the open theist response to general revelation, looking at the theological views of both Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. He also references Terrance Tiessen’s “accessibilism,” which, to many, is inclusivism by a different name. After tracing the various views of theologians, Strange dives into the exegesis, looking at Romans 1:18-32 and then Romans 2. Finally, Strange turns to Romans 10 and performs his most impressive exegesis of all: he tackles John Sanders’ exegesis and argument that the “gospel” of Romans 10 that has gone to the ends of the earth is general revelation. Strange mentions various opinions (similar though slightly varied) on what has “gone to the ends of the earth” in Romans 10. He quotes Douglas Moo’s conviction:

“Paul is not, then, simply using the text according to its original meaning. His application probably rests on a general analogy: as God’s word of general revelation has been proclaimed all over the earth, so God’s word of special revelation in the gospel, has been spread all over the earth. His intention is not to interpret the verse of the Psalm, but to use its language, with the ‘echoes’ of God’s revelation that it awakes, to assert the universal preaching of the gospel” (Douglas Moo, “Epistle to the Romans,” pp. 666-667; quoted by Daniel Strange, “General Revelation: Sufficient or Insufficient?” from “Faith Comes By Hearing,” page 64).

I think Strange handles Sanders’s dissent on Romans 10 very well. Exclusivists need to learn good arguments and how to defend the truth of the Scriptures. Sanders (and inclusivists) makes, on the surface, a very appealing case for general revelation with the reference to Psalm 19. However, in the context, it is “the word of Christ,” “the gospel” whose voice has been heard to the ends of the earth, not general revelation. The words regarding universality come right after the verse for which the book itself is named: “So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17, NKJV).

But I’m not so sure about Strange’s words regarding the lack of universal access to special revelation as a consequence of the fall and sin. Strange quotes Gerald McDermott’s words about a “Religious Law of Entropy” where access to special revelation has been dying throughout world history. According to McDermott, there was a time when knowledge of God was universal; today, however, we discover that some areas of the world have access to the knowledge of God concerning Christ while other parts of the world do not. Why is this? According to Daniel Strange (and Gerald McDermott), this exists because “the entrance of sin has consequences for the accessibility of special revelation.” In other words, when the Fall happened (Genesis 3), it affected even the spread of the gospel (which is the revelation of God in Christ). As a result, some will experience this special revelation while others will not.

Take the example of the man born blind from birth (John 9:1-3). Was this man born blind because of his sin, or the sin of his parents? No. But the man’s blindness would be cured so that God’s glory could be displayed (9:3). In the same way, I would say that the lack of special revelation around the world is not because of the sin of the nations, or because of the sin of every human in Adam. Rather, God desires that the gospel reach the ends of the earth (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10), and the gospel itself will do so, since God has decreed it (see Revelation 14:6). If God desires that the gospel reach the ends of the earth, then the current situation just leaves room open for God to display His glory by how He brings men and women to faith---not just the preached gospel but by dreams and visions, as He is currently doing in the Muslim world.

I think that Strange has to prove that the fall affected special revelation. I think that the fall of Genesis 3 has affected human nature, such that we are depraved in every human way (hence, radical depravity). However, I’m not sure that the Fall affected special revelation. This is an assumption that has to be proven if Strange intends to convince his audience.

He also has another assumption to prove: that the nations devoid of the light of the gospel lack such revelation because they are personally responsible:

“Instrumentally the withdrawal of special revelation from a people, with its important corrective to salvifically insufficient general revelation, is already a demonstration of God’s righteous judgment, a cyclical degenerative process of sin and judgment continuing over generations. In other words it is precisely ‘through their own fault’ that some may find themselves devoid of special revelation and the gospel” (Strange, “General Revelation,” from “‘Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism,” page 72).

The above statement regarding those who have yet to see a human messenger preach the gospel of Christ must be proven. The unevangelized are called “unevangelized” not because they have refused to hear the gospel, but because no one has gone to preach it to them. In many places, governments have refused to allow the preaching of the gospel within their borders or withheld missionaries from entering. Somewhere in this world at this very moment is a devout Hindu who has never heard the gospel---and in some cases, has never been allowed the opportunity to do so. Before Strange can just assume that many are to blame, he should look at the current climate around the world.

Last but not least, if Strange’s assertion is correct, NONE of us, no human being on planet earth, would ever receive special revelation. After all, have we all not sinned (Rom. 3:23)? Are we not all guilty under the law (Rom. 3:20)? Is it not true that none of us are righteous? If all are made guilty under the law, why then, must some individuals be declared eternally damned while the rest of humanity is allowed the chance to be saved? Did God not love the world and give His Son for it (John 3:16)? The fact that the West has received the light of the gospel serves as a reminder to the Eastern portion of the world that God loves them too and desires that they (the East also makes up the “all men” of 1 Timothy 2:4) be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. If the world as a whole bears “corporate responsibility” for the entrance of sin (See Strange’s article, “General Revelation,” page 72), why shouldn’t the world be given a “corporate opportunity” to hear the gospel and receive it or reject it?

I applaud Daniel Strange for arguing that Christ is the only way to salvation and that general revelation does not save; however, at the same time, Strange is very pessimistic about the nations coming to faith because of his Calvinist presuppositions. I will dive into what those are and how they affect his view of the universality of special revelation in my next post.

What An Inclusivist Would Say: Some Remarks From Stanley Samartha, Pt. II

In my last post, I began to tackle Stanley Samartha’s remarks regarding inclusivism. Samartha, head of the Interreligious Dialogue division of the World Council of Churches, had this to say:

“we should probably look for existential rather than conceptual criteria...life may be recognized to be larger than logic; love may take precedence over truth; the neighbor as a person may become more important than his belief. Reflection on the work of the Spirit may be subordinated to a readiness to be led by the Spirit together with the partners into the depths of God’s mystery” (quoted by Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse,” page 94; Stanley Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies,” in “The Holy Spirit” by Dow Kirkpatrick, ed. Nashville: Tidings, 1974).

I’ve already demonstrated that, biblically, life is not above logic (but rather manifested through logic); and I’ve also shown the love does not take precedence over truth but “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6). Today, my task is to tackle Samartha’s last statement,

“the neighbor as a person may become more important than his belief.”

Does Scripture have anything to say about this? Yes it does! Read these words from the apostle John:

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11, New King James Version).

My last post tackled the idea of life above logic and love over truth. As I showed, though, love is manifested in the truth. One who loves another rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6), that is, when someone does what is right, what is godly. One does not love another if he is willing to rejoice with him in wrong and ungodliness. If this is so, then beliefs do matter; for some beliefs are right and others are wrong. Some beliefs are true and some beliefs are false. In 2 John, John himself writes that those who receive one who preaches any other doctrine but what they have received and learned, that one is to be shunned: “do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 10-11). John said (in contemporary language), “Yes, beliefs do matter; they matter to such an extent that if one accepts a neighbor into his home despite their beliefs, and does so knowing that he or she believes differently, that one holds to the same beliefs as that individual does.” In the eyes of the apostle, it was important to keep the right company. Paul thought so too, when he penned the words, “Do not be deceived; ‘evil company corrupts good habits.’ Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame” (1 Corinthians 15:33-34).

Neighbors matter. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8); however, at the same time, love is to rejoice in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6), and to rebuke is better than to love a person secretly (Proverbs 27:5). If this be the case, then beliefs matter...and by prioritizing beliefs, one is not setting aside one’s neighbor, but loving one’s neighbor as one ought. By prioritizing belief, one is also prioritizing neighbor...and God is glorified.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

What An Inclusivist Would Say: Some Remarks From Stanley Samartha

In my last post, I began to tackle the idea that the gospel has a universal intention, as revealed by Christ. I will go into more of the universal intention in posts to come. Today’s task, however, will involve tackling Yong’s words on Stanley Samartha.

Amos Yong introduces us to Stanley Samartha and Samartha’s work:

“...in an exploratory essay presented at the Fifth Oxford Institute on Methodist Theological Studies in the summer of 1973 by Stanley Samartha, the first director of the Dialogue Program of the WCC” (Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse: Toward A Pneumatological Theology of Religions.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, page 93).

As director of the Dialogue Program, Samartha’s job is to get the religions into good interreligious dialogue. The “WCC” which owns the dialogue program stands for the World Council of Churches. Yong’s quote of Stanley Samartha concerns all world religions as symbols of divine presence:

“We should probably look for existential rather than conceptual criteria...life may be recognized to be larger than logic; love may take precedence over truth; the neighbor as a person may become more important than his belief. Reflection on the work of the Spirit may be subordinated to a readiness to be led by the Spirit together with the partners into the depths of God’s mystery” (quoted by Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse,” page 94; Stanley Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies,” in “The Holy Spirit” by Dow Kirkpatrick, ed. Nashville: Tidings, 1974).

First, note that Samartha seems to just assume that “existential” criteria for the world religions are best. And this belief is more developed with each new sentence: “life may be recognized to be larger than logic.” In other words, life and its events are above logic. Scripture does not support such an inclusivist view. A good case in point concerns Jesus’ healing a demon-possessed man.

“Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, ‘This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.’ But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: ‘Every kingdom divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges’” (Matthew 12:24-27, New King James Version).

Here Jesus uses logic regarding the Pharisaic response to His miracle. If Satan casted out demons, was he not working against his own plan? After all, was not Satan supposed to use the demons to advance his cause...not tear down the very thing that would accomplish his evil plans? Jesus’ question demonstrates that for Satan to cast out his own demons would be counterproductive. Samartha’s claim that life is superior to logic goes against Scripture. Rather, life is lived with logic. Logic gives structure and meaning to life. Without logic, we’d live in nothing short of utter chaos.

A good example of this is a car commercial I saw last night. The car commercial ended with the statement, “It is what it isn’t.” What does this mean, exactly? How can something be that which it is not? To assert such a statement is to say, “The car is ‘A’ but is ‘not A’.” This is merely a contradiction.

Samartha’s next statement is, “love may take precedence over truth.” This, too, is counter-biblical. What about the idea that love and truth are linked, as demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 13?

“Love does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth...” (1 Corinthians 13:6, NKJV)

Love is all about truth. And this can also be seen through a thorough study of the Old Testament:

“Therefore you shall love the Lord your God, and keep His charge, His statutes, His judgments, and His commandments always” (Deuteronomy 11:1).

To love the Lord is to keep His commandments and obey Him. To do anything else but that is to fail to love the Lord.

In Zechariah 8, the Lord Himself speaks, connecting love and truth:

“‘Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; and do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ says the Lord” (Zechariah 8:17).

For the person who lives godly, there is no love for the false. There is only love for that which is true.

In Zechariah 8:19, the Lord says, “therefore love truth and peace.” Once again, “truth” is the object towards which the godly individual’s love should be directed.

Samartha’s last statement is, “the neighbor as a person may become more important than his belief.” To tackle this last point, however, will require another post...so stay tuned.

The Optional Gospel? How Inclusivists Misuse and Abuse Romans 2:12-16

In my last post, I dealt with implicit assumptions of inclusivism. I demonstrated that in inclusivism, one does not need to be consciously aware of his/her need for God, does not need to experience conviction of sin of any kind in order to be saved. God can simply accept a practicing Buddhist or a devout Hindu or Muslim just the way they are...

In this post, I desire to show why Romans 2:12-16 is such an important prooftext to inclusivists. Then, I intend to show why their hidden assumption behind their prooftext justification is wrong according to sound biblical theology.

Let’s examine Romans 2:12-16:

“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel” (Romans 2:12-16, New King James Version).

Inclusivists favor this passage (see Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse,” page 25) because they view the unevangelized (“those who have never heard”) as the “Gentiles, who do not have the law.” The evangelized, then, are labeled as the Jews who do have the law, who “sin in the law.” To be brief, the “Jews” of Romans 2 are deemed “the evangelized,” and the “Gentiles” are deemed “the unevangelized”...according to inclusivist theology.

In the same way that Romans 2 says the Gentiles will perish apart from the law, inclusivists feel that the unevangelized should be judged apart from the Gospel. I guess the question we should ask ourselves is, “Is it possible for the unevangelized to be judged apart from the Gospel? And, if so, does this necessarily imply that they would be saved?”

To answer the first question, I think that the unevangelized could be judged apart from the Gospel; but, if so, then they will perish, since the only thing that remains (should the Gospel be eliminated) is law---both natural law and Mosaic Law. If the Gentiles are judged on the basis of natural law, they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18), which condemns them, and cannot be saved since the law only brings awareness of sin (Rom. 3:20). Apart from the Gospel, then, the unevangelized face the judgment, wrath, and condemnation of a Holy God. Contra inclusivism, eliminating the necessity of the Gospel does not “free up” the unevangelized to have a chance of salvation...instead, it only eliminates any hope of salvation at all.

Having established this, then, my task will be to prove the importance and necessity of the Gospel (and Christ) in salvation. To do this, I will let the Scriptures speak for themselves.

First, let me reference some passages that stress the universality of the Gospel--- that the Gospel is for all nations. Jesus notes this in His end-times discussion in Matthew 24:

“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:14, NKJV).

The gospel will be preached “in all the world,” which signifies that every nation will experience the proclamation of the Gospel...before the end arrives. Jesus says the same thing in Mark 13:10.

In Mark 16:15, Jesus tells the disciples, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Clearly, if Christ desired that “every creature” get the gospel, then He desired all men would know the Gospel and be presented with His plan of salvation.

In Revelation 14:6, we read that there will be an angel who proclaims “the everlasting gospel...to those who dwell on the earth---to every nation, tribe, and tongue---saying with a loud voice, ‘Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.’” Notice in Revelation 14:6 that the angel proclaims the gospel “to every nation, tribe, and tongue.” In other words, there is a universality to the proclamation of the gospel: the gospel is intended for all persons, all people, all nations.

There is more I could say about the universal intention of the Gospel, but I will save that discussion for future posts. At this point, I just wanted to make a small case in favor of the Gospel not just being for Christians, or for those in Western civilization, but for all people everywhere.

Having establish the universal intention of the Gospel (salvation for all persons everywhere), let’s look at the necessity of the Gospel for salvation. One text that is often attacked by inclusivists is Acts 4. In this chapter, we find that the apostles are being questioned because a man was healed in their presence in the name of Jesus (Acts 3:6-8). The priests, temple captain, and Sadducees approach the apostles about the healing, and they tell the leaders that the individual “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified...this man stands here before you whole” (Acts 4:10). Verse 12, then, as regards salvation, is rather appropriate in the context. Peter is using the Lord’s healing to win souls to himself. After all, the same thing happened in chapter 3: the man was healed (the Scriptures say he was over forty years in age, see Acts 4:22), Peter preaches about Christ and His power that healed the man, and five thousand people came to the Lord (Acts 4:4). As chapter 4 progresses, Peter finds himself doing the same thing he had done in chapter 3: using the man’s healing as a bridge by which to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all those having witnessed the miracle.

Notice, too, that the miracle is not what upset the leaders; what upset them was that it was done “in the name of Jesus.” In verse 17, the leaders agree to “severely threaten them that from now on they speak to no man IN THIS NAME” (Acts 4:17). The miracle was not the disappointment...rather, the disappointment was “the name of Jesus.” Jesus was the one the Jewish leaders had crucified on the tree, the one who had been guilty of treason and “making Himself one with God.” To many, Jesus was just a common criminal; and the thought of anyone being healed in His name was detestable at best. On the basis of the reaction towards the name of Jesus (and the prohibition that the men stop mentioning the name), we can tell that Christ’s exaltation was an offense to them.

I think this is the case today as well: people are still offended by the name of Jesus. When someone mentions Jesus and Christianity (based upon Jesus), many label Christians as “intolerant” and “bigoted” and “haughty,” etc. One who names the name of Christ is often thought of as “close-minded” and “narrow-minded,” someone whose beliefs are antiquated and outdated. But notice the words of Scripture: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given among men by which we MUST BE saved” (Acts 4:12). There is salvation in no one else but Christ! Buddha, Mohammed, the gods of Hinduism, etc., will not save. Christ is the only way to the Father, the only way to be saved (John 14:6).

The name of Jesus Christ offended many in both Christ’s day and the apostles’. And sadly enough, it still offends today. It may sound harsh, but it’s true: Christ is the only solution for the nations. Take away Christ and the gospel, and there is nothing left but condemnation, wrath, and death. In future posts, I will deal with the gospel being intended for all and Christ as God’s gift to the world. God Bless...

Inclusivism and Its Implicit Assumptions

In my last post, I examined Amos Yong’s question about reading Romans 10:10-13 in light of Romans 2:12-16. I made it clear that I think Romans 10:10-13 should be read in light of Romans 2:12-16: that is, Romans 2:12-16 discusses the laws of nature and Moses, neither of which can man follow to the smallest detail. Instead, the law brings forth knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). As a result, only the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ can declare man righteous. Romans 2:12-16, in other words, show us our need for the law of faith, found in Romans 10.

My goal in this post is to continue to affirm the message that the gospel is necessary for every individual, should they desire to be saved and experience eternal life. However, I will maintain my message while diving here into more of Dr. Yong’s underlying implicit assumptions.

Let’s read Amos Yong’s question:

“Why should not Romans 10:10-13 be read in light of Romans 2:12-16?” (Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, page 25)

Before I proceed further, let me state that Amos Yong is an inclusivist--- that is, he believes that the Spirit of God is present in the non-Christian world religions. At one point in his work, he claims that he attempts to remove himself from the inclusivist label:

“I am unsure that the theological position to be developed in this work is best categorized under the label ‘inclusivism’” (“Beyond the Impasse,” page 27).

However, in the next sentence, he seems to applaud inclusivism:

“I certainly am not an exclusivist if one means by this not only that salvation is dependent in an ontological sense on the person and work of Christ but also that one has to cognitively recognize that dependence” (“Beyond the Impasse,” 27).

Yong argues that one does not have to be consciously aware of his or her dependence on Christ in order to be saved; but this is refuted by the biblical text itself. After all, does not one have to “confess with [their] mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in [their] heart that God raised Jesus from the dead” in order to be saved (Romans 10:9)? Does not this confession require cognizance, awareness of one’s need for Christ?

Was Jesus not concerned with convicting the world and bringing those in the world to acknowledge their sin? After all, what about these words from John?

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin...if I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:22, 24, New King James Version).

Jesus comes and speaks truth, and does the miracles He does among them so that they would bear responsibility for thei rejection of the truth. It is because Christ did these things that the world is now judged.

What about Jesus’ words regarding the Spirit?

“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (John 16:8-11, NKJV).

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, the verb convict can mean “to find or prove to be guilty.” The Spirit, in other words, would prove to men and women their blameworthiness when He came to earth. For someone to admit their guilt, they must be aware of it. Someone who is not aware of their guilt is ignorant (or consciously unaware). So when Yong says that he is alright with the idea of someone not being aware of their dependence on Christ, he is saying that someone could be ignorant of Christ’s identity and be saved. In other words, someone of this sort would not have to perform Romans 10:9 or even believe at all. Neither conscious confession, nor evident belief would be required for someone to be saved...in Yong’s inclusivist theology.

However, Yong’s theory of “unconscious” Christianity is based upon his view of the Gospel. He believes that there are many who never get to hear the Gospel of Christ; thus, how can one be made responsible for a Gospel he or she never received? And yet, the Scriptures themselves seem to argue that man is aware of the truth but rebels against it: In Romans 1, Paul writes that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (1:18) because God has revealed His “invisible attributes” to mankind, namely “His eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:18-20). By “suppressing the truth,” mankind demonstrates his knowledge of it. He is not ignorant of the truth...he just simply wills to not obey it. Such is the depravity of the human heart, mind, will, and being.

The inclusivist claim is as follows:

“It must be possible for those who have either never heard or never understood the gospel to be saved since God desires that none should perish and has made salvation available to all persons in his own mysterious ways...while the religions may or may not be mediators of salvation, the key is not the religious tradition as such but whether or not the individual responds to God (or whatever the person considers to be religiously ultimate) according to the light that the individual has received (cf. Rom. 2:12-16)” (“Beyond the Impasse,” page 24).

 The problem with the inclusivist claim is that if the individual only has to respond to “whatever the person considers to be religiously ultimate,” then one can worship Buddha and still be deemed a Christian. In other words, “unconscious” Christians in Amos Yong’s theology are the “anonymous” Christians of Karl Rahner’s theology.

Yong ends the above quote from page 24 by referencing one of inclusivism’s favorite prooftexts, Romans 2:12-16. I dealt with this in my last post, but I’m not done with it yet. In my next post, I intend to show why Romans 2:12-16 is a favorite prooftext of inclusivists, and what they mean by it when they use it. Stay tuned...

The Law of Nature, The Law of Moses, and The Law of Faith: Romans 2:12-16 and Romans 10:10-13 in Context

“While it is certainly true that all religious traditions espouse exclusivism at some level---for example, minimally, to make a truth claim, A, is to make an exclusive claim with regard to not-A---the claim that Christian salvation is dependent on access to a particular experience or set of beliefs is a central feature of theological exclusivism. The latter position, what I will call epistemological restrictivism, raises the following sets of questions. First, the exegetical: what grounds are there to read Acts 4:12 as ontological rather than epistemological? Why should not Romans 10:10-13 be read in light of Romans 2:12-16? Does John 3:17-18 say anything about the fate of the unevangelized?” (Amos Yong, “Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, page 25)

Dr. Ken Keathley made Amos Yong’s work my assignment for Spring Break...so, I had to buckle down and read Yong, at last. The above quote is only one of many I found interesting in Yong’s book. While rereading the above quote last night, I decided to blog on it today because Yong poses these questions to exclusivists (me being one)...and, in addition, I thought writing on these two passages would provide a good, formidable response to inclusivism.

Let’s repeat Yong’s question regarding Romans 2 and Romans 10 once more:

“Why should not Romans 10:10-13 be read in light of Romans 2:12-16?”

In order to answer this question, we must first understand these two passages and then place them in proper context. So, off to the passages we go!!

Romans 2:12-16 contrasts the Jews and Gentiles:

“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, ARE A LAW TO THEMSELVES, who show THE WORK OF THE LAW WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, THEIR CONSCIENCE ALSO BEARING WITNESS, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel” (Romans 2:12-16, New King James Version).

What “law” is being discussed here? Paul’s reference to “the law” indicates that a specific law is being discussed, one that the Jews have but the Gentiles do not. “The law” reference, then, would refer to the Mosaic Law. However, while the Gentiles do not have the Mosaic Law, notice that they still have a law! This is why Paul notes that the Gentiles “show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness...” While the Gentiles do not have the Mosaic Law, they do have a natural law written in their hearts and minds, placed there by God Himself...a divine moral code that the Gentiles themselves are aware of. So contrary to what many think, no one can say, “I don’t have the Mosaic Law, therefore I’m innocent of wrong.” Rather, all have some form of divine law that dictates right and wrong and rules the human conscience. So Gentiles have a natural law (the law of nature) while the Jews have the Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses given by God Himself).

However, upon arrival of Romans 3, we come to understand that neither law (whether the Law of Nature or the Law of Moses) can be kept perfectly:

“For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written:

There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practicd deceit...there is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:10-18).

As we just read, “both Jews and Greeks” are guilty of transgressing God’s moral law (whether in the law of nature or the Mosaic Law). As a result, the moral laws themselves cannot and will not save anyone. Neither of the laws themselves can be kept by humans, and therefore, a solution is needed apart from the laws themselves. What purpose did the laws serve?

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).

What “law” is being mentioned here in 3:20? It is the Mosaic Law. The reference to “there is none righteous” (provided in Rom. 3:10-18) comes from the Old Testament, and is a compilation of Ecclesiastes 7:20, Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7-8, and Psalm 36:1. In other words, a summation of mankind provided by the Old Testament is given by Paul in just a few verses of Romans 3. Paul’s point for providing a summation of man here is to demonstrate that the law itself states that “there is none righteous.” The Law itself tells us that neither Jew nor Greek is righteous, that none seeks after God. Not only are the Gentiles guilty of turning from God...so are the Jews. The very Law they prized so dearly was unequivocally clear about the sin of the Jews and their need for a Savior (and grace).

Verse 21, then, comes as such a huge relief to the one who senses the desperation of man to be saved: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference” (Rom. 3:21, 22).

The righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And in case one does not understand that faith in Christ is the solution for both Jew and Greek, Paul reiterates it again at the end of chapter 3:

“Where is boasting, then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the LAW OF FAITH. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? IS HE NOT ALSO THE GOD OF THE GENTILES? YES, OF THE GENTILES ALSO, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (Rom. 3:27-30).

Whether Jew or Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, the only way one will be declared righteous in the sight of God is by faith in Christ alone.

If this be the case, then what about Romans 10:10-13? According to Amos Yong, we should read Romans 10 in light of Romans 2. I agree with that, on the surface; but I disagree with what I think Yong means. He takes Romans 10 to refer to those who, like the Jews, “have the law” (in his case, the Gospel). In the same way the Gentiles are guilty apart from the Mosaic Law, Yong claims that many who are unevangelized should be judged “apart from the Gospel.” However, there is no biblical warrant for this claim whatsoever; after all, if Yong's claim is right, then one might as well cut all of Romans 3 out of the canon of Scripture.

What is Romans 10:10-13, then? Romans 10:10-13 is “the law of faith,” and it should be read in light of Romans 2 (and in my view, Romans 3 as well). The fact that the Gentiles cannot keep the Law of Nature (the natural law code) and the Jews cannot keep the Mosaic Law anxiously yearns for the Law of Faith in Romans 10. But the Law of Faith in Romans 10 is for all, both Jew and Gentile. This is the only way that one can be saved, apart from the Mosaic Law (and natural law). There is no other way to be saved.

Yong has reasons for why he lines up Romans 2 and Romans 10. I will go into what I think his full statement is and refute his view in my next post. Keep reading...