IS THERE A REFORMED WAY TO GET THE BENEFITS OF THE ATONEMENT TO "THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD?"

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2004 by Mangum, R Todd

Evangelicals are familiar with the common taxonomy of positions regarding the eternal destiny of those people who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and the saving benefits he gained for humankind through his death and resurrection: (1) exclusivism (restrictivism); (2) inclusivism; and (3) pluralism.1 I know of no evangelical pluraliste,2 so my attention in this article will focus on the dialogue presently taking place between evangelical exclusivists and evangelical inclusivists.

We may discern certain patterns of factors that seem to influence where on the spectrum of "wider-hope inclusivism" to "restrictivist exclusivism" an evangelical thinker is likely to fall. One such contributing factor is the overall Calvinist vs. Arminian orientation of one's soteriology. Simply put, the more classically Reformed (particular redemptionist) is one's soteriology, the more exclusivist is one likely to be regarding the destiny of the unevangelized.3

There are some ready explanations for this overall pattern. An Arminian soteriology sees the design of the atonement as universal, meaning that there is a sense in which God would be stingy to deny the cross's payment being actually applied to an unbeliever's individual "account," given that he has payment in hand for the unbeliever's sins anyway.4 An Arminian soteriology also sees the preliminary work of the Spirit that draws a person to God ("prevenient grace") as being (virtually) universal in scope as well. The result is that human beings (at least since Christ's completion of a universal atonement) are already in a very favorable position with God, with the likelihood being that they will be eternally accepted by God unless they reject the abundant mercy he has displayed and continues to display towards them.5

A classically Reformed soteriology has a very different emphasis. It regards human beings, in general, as depraved-meaning that humans are, in their natural state, odious to God and incapable of removing that odiousness or even of responding to the divinely constructed means of removing it, unless God does something extraordinary to enable such an extraordinary response. Further, the design of the atonement, in a classically Reformed soteriology, is not universal, but particular; that is, it is designed to rescue, and rescue fully, a particular segment of humankind: the (from eternity past) pre-selected "sheep," God's elect, who are no more inherently deserving of God's grace than the damned, but who receive his graciousness out of his desire to show mercy to those who have not merited it, condignly or contractually, actually or potentially, in any sense.6

This is merely a heuristic breakdown, so it is not hard to find, on either side, persons who do not fit one or more aspects of the ideas described.7 And, of course, there are a host of mediating positions that do not fit any "pure Reformed" or "pure Arminian" description.8 Nevertheless, heuristically speaking, there is an overall pattern that emerges fairly consistently: an Arminian soteriology tends to suggest that God will not reject those who have not explicitly rejected him, while Calvinist soteriology tends to suggest that God will not accept those who have not explicitly accepted him.

Let me go on record as affirming a classically Reformed soteriology, including a particular (rather than universal) design of the atonement. Given the assumptions, convictions, and presuppositions of such a model, it should come as no surprise that I remain unfazed by any number of stock inclusivistArminian arguments. To name but a few: (1) I regard the suggestion that God cannot condemn a larger number of human beings than he saves, lest he be a "monster," as naive, improper, and unhelpful, especially given its seemingly flat disregard for the point that Romans 9 insists upon: the Creator holds unique prerogatives over his creation, including the prerogative to show mercy to whom he will and to harden whom he will. God has made it very clear that he is not obliged to show mercy to any-much less most-of humanity. (2) Because I do not believe that the atonement supplied an indiscriminate benefit for all of humanity such as would entail God's getting a "double-payment" for the sin of anyone whom he would condemn, I do not feel the pressure to explain God's "justice" in condemning people who fail to gain explicit access to the means of the atonement he has provided exclusively for his own. (3) Because I believe that faith is a divine work in his elect, I do not feel the pressure to make this "instrumental cause" of salvation (i.e. saving faith) as minimal as possible. Put another way: because I believe saving faith is ultimately a work of God in (elect) human beings that he uses mystically and supernaturally to join his elect to Christ, not a work of depraved human beings that God simply rewards excessively, I generally expect for the saving faith manifest in the elect to be full-orbed and farreaching in what it perceives in its search for God and potent in what it grasps in its embrace of God.