Their Voice to All the Earth
Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:18PM 
I’m finally continuing my response to Aron Wall, who, you’ll remember, posted a comment on the theological term post on inclusivism. Aron is arguing against exclusivism, the stance I take, and he objected, in particular, to the use of Romans 10:9-14 as a text to disprove inclusivism, since, he argues, Paul is actually arguesing for inclusivism. You’ll find the first part of my response to his objections here.
Continuing on, Aron writes:
The trouble [with with interpreting Romans 10:14 to mean that people can’t be saved without hearing the gospel preached] is that Paul goes on to give a different answer in just a few verses.
“Consequently faith comes through hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask, did they not hear? Of course they did: `Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (10:17-18)
So in order to have faith it is necessary to believe the message. But who is the messenger in this passage? Whose ‘voice’ goes out into all the earth proclaiming the “word of Christ”. Paul tells us with his quotation from Psalm 19. Go back to Psalm 19 and you will find the answer: “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands…there is no speach or language where there voice is not heard” (19:1,3).
Yes, in Psalm 19, this statement is refering to the general revelation of creation. But here Paul takes it and applies it to special revelation. We know this because the subject, in context, is the proclaimed gospel: “…faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Yes, they have: Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”
The point Paul is making is that the Jews had heard the preached message of Christ and rejected it. (The point of the passage, you see, is Israel’s rejection of Christ.) At the time Paul wrote, the gospel had already been proclaimed widely enough (“the voice has gone out to all the earth”) that Israel, as a whole, had heard it, and they could not claim ignorance. Their unbelief, then, was a knowing rejection of the gospel, a rejection for which they were fully responsible.
In other words, in the very passage which exlcusivists use to justify their position, Paul talks about faith as coming about from *general revelation* of Christ.
First, can you explain how knowledge of Christ come from general revelation? Creation tells us some things about God—specifically, some of God’s attributes—but how does it tell us about the incarnation, death and resurrection of the son of God? When Paul talks about explicitly about general revelation in Romans 1, and he explains what people can know from it, he mentions God’s eternal power and divine attributes, but says nothing about knowledge of Christ. General revelation condemns—people know enough about God to know that the gods they are worshiping are not the God who created and deserves their worship—but it doesn’t save.
What’s more, if Paul is writing here of general revelation, how does that work with the argument Paul is making in this passage, that the Jews specifically are responsible for rejecting the gospel, so the gospel is now going out to the Gentiles? If what is being refered to is general revelation, shouldn’t the Gentiles understand and know as well as the Jews do? What’s left to go out to them?
Reader Comments (2)
Thank you for taking the time to post a thoughtful reply. I will combine some responses to both of your comments here. First of all, "stingy in giving his grace" was simply infelicitous language. I meant by it "stingy in not giving grace", the thought being something along the lines of "Has the Lord forgotten to be merciful?" Of course not, therefore he will show mercy, because that is what he is like.
Regarding exclusivism, it seems like you've already conceded at least half of my point. Your definition of inclusivism was that "explicit knowledge of Christ and faith in him is not necessary to be saved". My view is that IMPLICIT knowledge of Christ and faith in him is sufficient to be saved. (We both agree that only faith in Christ can save). Let us consider the following classes of people:
1) Gentiles before Christ without access to Jewish preaching,
2) Gentiles after Christ without access to Jewish or Christian preaching,
3) Jews before Christ who had heard God's promises.
4) Godfearing Gentiles who had heard Jewish preaching (lots of these in Acts!)
Now you seem to concede that there were people in categories #3 and #4 who "looked forward to the provision God would make for them, trusted in what he would provide, and were saved on account of their faith". But this is not explicit faith in Christ, it is explicit faith in God's promises which are implicitly about Christ. It's not like Abraham said to himself, in about 2000 years God will send his only Son to be crucified. So it seems like your actual position is, that in order to be saved it is necessary to have explicit faith in some form of special revelation. So that people in categories #1 and #2 who only have access to general revelation have no chance. But scripture portrays saved people in category #1: e.g. Enoch & Melchizedek, and it's hard to see why God would treat #2 differently from #1.
In any case, Paul explicitly says what God's response is to those pagans who have never heard the Gospel: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked [lit. winked at] such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:26-30)"
In this short passage, Paul explicitly states that it is 1) possible for those with only general revelation (enabled by grace, of course) to "seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him" 2) that some of their own writers had already acknowledged God (I would encourage you to look up Paul's quotations: "in him we live and move and have our being", the "Cretica" of Epimenides, poets saying "we are his offspring": the "Phaenomena" of Aratus, and probably Cleanthes' "Hymn to Zeus". 3) God's did not punish the pagans (as a whole) for their idolotry but winked at their transgressions. That is, "in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished" (Rom 3:25), and 4) God commands those who are taught about Christ's ministry to a higher standard of repentance.
"Can you explain how knowledge of Christ come from general revelation?" First of all, it is not necessary for the general revelation to bring knowledge--except through shadowy symbols--of "the incarnation, death and resurrection of the son of God", since as you acknowledge, "How explicit someone’s knowledge had to be on order for them to be saved depended on how much had been revealed by God at their time in history." In other words, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded" (Luke 12:48). In order to be saved by grace, one need only know as much about God as Abraham did, since we are saved the same way he is (Rom 4). Can I explain how it was that God enabled Socrates to believe that there was only one God, that he was perfectly good, that he required him to love his enemies, that he was worth trusting even through death? I don't know how it happened, but I do know that "God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35).
This is getting quite long already and I have not said anything yet about the beautiful feet passage. Right now I will just say that missionaries who preach the gospel are still extremely valuable even if there are one or two Enochs or Melchizedeks in the culture they preach to--it's a false dichotomy to say that the unreached pagans have to be either all completely doomed or else all as well off as Christians. Thanks for listening.
Dear Rebecca,
I've read again what you've replied to Aron and what he or she has replied to you and as usual, I thought that I would try to add my Canadian two cents worth but first I want to again say that I'll try not to let "IT" eat me alive and as usual if Truth be known God's Children who keep praying for me deserve all the credit including all Spiritual Klutz especially if I do say something worth while. :)
Anyway, I believe that if any of U>S (usual sinners) really knew God, we would not even think of Him being "stingy in giving His Grace" or "Has the Lord forgotten to be merciful?" because as true Christians know and agree on, that's what He likes. Rightly so cause He's All Love! Right?
As far as exclusivism of God and I'll try to explain this without telling you where I've found "IT" in Scriptures by starting off and saying that I honestly believe that God really is in every human as a form of Himself. Nowadays I would try and explain "IT" as a kind of Spiritual Loving Cell who keeps learning every day. One or more of these spiritual cells can whenever their soul, spirit, flesh agree with their god to cash in their accumulated chip, let us say that they then become what we might call as a Prodigal Spiritual Son and/or Daughter and by doing so, I believe at this time that they could and would become a god and could start their own religion if they so chose and with the power that they had, could, would and probably might have many followers because humans can be convinced especially if their soul and/or spirit has been convinced that this new religion really is "IT", their host and this is one reason that "IT" is so hard for The Catholic Church to proclaim a saint a saint even after his or her death. I also believe that this has caused many wars in the pass where God's Children Spiriual Cells were simply harvested to fight a war that their ancestor's gods had started but who in humanity is going to tell them that what they are doing is wrong as far as God, Our Heavenly Father is concern without being tortured in some way, killed and/or made slaves if they ever told these past gods that "There was only ONE true God. As we know from reading The Bible or from listening attentively at Mass that many died even though they followed without really knowing Jesus, I mean God Our Heavenly Father, and He Loved Himself so much that after He created Himself and after listening to the prayers of all His Slaves, He was determined to save Himself and as we also know He send His Word, Ok! Nowadays because God is working so close with Science, we could say that He sent ONE of His ESC because they could not be seen back then but what I say does not make "IT" necessarily a "Spiriual Fact" let alone a reality and even if God told me so, I would not advertise "IT" unless He commanded me to do so and after what I've lived and seen, you wouldn't believe me.
I hear ya! Victor "IT" sounds like you're preaching to me and my readers and with all respect if we want someone to preach to U>S, we'll go to church.
I'll stop now but there's so much more that I want to preach about including feet! :)
"I'm Sorry"
God Bless,
Peace