WHO CAN BE SAVED? CRITICAL DIALOGUE OVER A RECENT REVIEW1/RESPONSE TO JAMES M. HAMILTON JR./REJOINDER TO TERRANCE L. TIESSEN

Trinity Journal, Fall 2007 by Tiessen, Terrance L, Hamilton, James M Jr

RESPONSE TO JAMES M. HAMILTON JR.

I am grateful for the attention given to my book (Who Can Be Saved?) in the review article by James M. Hamilton Jr. in the last edition of Trinity Journal. I taught and preached the ecclesiocentric position that Hamilton holds for many years, so I understand well his negative response to my accessibilist proposal. I am thankful that he has read my book so carefully and that he has generally represented my position accurately. His critique merits a detailed response, but my purpose here is not to defend my proposal but to identify a few places in the review article where positions have been attributed to me that I do not hold. On those matters, and those alone, I would like to set the record straight for readers of Trinity Journal.

(1) James Hamilton states that "it is impossible to predict how 'spiritual seekers' will respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is precarious to formulate our theology on the basis of what they 'would have done' had the gospel gotten to them" (p. 97). This implies that I do formulate my theology on that basis, which is not the case. Although, I have argued elsewhere for a Calvinistic appropriation of divine middle knowledge, in this book I actually deny that God's foreknowing how the unevangelized would have responded if they had received the gospel is significant (pp. 158-63). Some accessibilists have used this as a ground for the salvation of the unevangelized but I do not. My point, repeatedly, is that any of the unevangelized whom God has chosen to salvation are saved by grace, through a faith response to the particular forms of revelation with which God has blessed them, not by God's knowledge of how they would have responded to gospel proclamation.

(2) Hamilton states that "God's choice [of individuals to salvation] arose from his free mercy," and that "to ignore this understanding of election is to reject the idea that God can choose to demonstrate astonishing love to whomever he pleases" (p. 99). This implication that I do not affirm the sovereignty of God's electing grace is very misleading and it is puzzling since the whole point of my book is to demonstrate that the ecclesiocentrism that predominates within the Calvinist tradition is not essential to it. I put forward a "five point" Calvinist soteriological proposal, but I concur with Zwingli rather than with Calvin, that God's elective grace is not restricted to the boundaries of the covenant people, in either Testamental period. The Spirit's regenerative work sometimes accompanies less explicit forms of divine revelation than the good news concerning Jesus.

(3) At a number of points in the review article, the distinct impression is given that I believe that those who do not hear the gospel can not be judged for their sin (pp. 95, 103, 112). I specifically deny this (p. 264). I believe that general revelation is ground for God's just judgment of those who do not honor God as God and who do not give him thanks for his creative and providential benevolence. But I find nowhere in Scripture any assertion that the Spirit's illuminating and regenerating work does not accompany general revelation or less complete instances of special revelation than we are given in the gospel. My contention is simply that ecclesiocentrists read biblical statements out of context when they conclude, from passages that assert the culpability of those who know about Jesus and reject him, that one must have such knowledge in order to have saving faith.

(4) On p. 105, Hamilton asks: "Are we in a position to suggest that something other than the regenerating empowerment of the Spirit . . . is available to counter the human inability taught in John 3:3-5" and elsewhere? This strange question implies that I make such a suggestion, despite my frequent assertions that such work of the Spirit is always necessary for the salvation of sinners. The critical disagreement between ecclesiocentrists and accessibilists (or even agnostics) of the Calvinist variety, is whether or not the call of God that is made effective to salvation by the Spirit's work ever accompanies revelation other than the full gospel concerning Jesus.

(5) The statements that "Tiessen fails to distinguish between what the Bible enjoins on Christians and what mistaken Christians enjoin on other Christians" and that "Tiessen does not distinguish between what the Bible commands and what legalistic Christians command" (p. 110), are very puzzling and thoroughly misleading. I describe all religions, including Christianity, as ambiguous responses to God's revelation that incorporate "both the appropriation of divine truth and its suppression" (p. 26). I am grateful that God graciously saves many people in spite of the ways that the Christian church misrepresents him, particularly since many who bear the name of Christ are not in fact members of his mystical body.

1 See review by James M. Hamilton Jr. in TJ 28NS/1 (Spring 2007): 89-112.

Terrance L. Tiessen

Kleefeld, Manitoba, Canada