1) A Reformed direction?
Might Irenaeus have followed the direction taken by a large part of the
Reformed tradition, with its focus on Romans 1, 2, and 5? This view proposes
that, by virtue of the solidarity of the human race in Adam (because of a
federal headship or because of corporate solidarity, not because of
“substantial” or “realistic” unity), all human beings sinned in Adam (Romans
5). That original sin included original guilt, and not only a tendency to
personal sin and guilt. God has revealed himself to all, in creation (Romans
1:19-20), and has written his law on their hearts, and given them an inner
witness to it, in conscience (Romans 2:15). However, because of the natural
depravity of fallen humanity, which affects every aspect of their being, they
suppress God’s revelation, and worship the creature rather than the Creator,
and they disobey God’s law written on their hearts. The revelation in nature
results only in condemnation because 1) sinful people always distort it
idolatrously, and 2) it does not reveal Christ, faith in whom is necessary for
salvation. Consequently, the non-Christian who does not hear of Christ is
justly judged. The justice of that judgment, however, is not based on an
assumption that non-Christians had adequate revelation to believe unto
salvation, but on the ground of their unbelief and disobedience at the level of
natural revelation, for which they are culpable because of a self-incurred
inability in Adam.’
This direction appears unlikely. Although it has been
demonstrated that Irenaeus had an understanding of original sin, that was
certainly not a major consideration for him, and would not likely be a starting
point in defending the justice of divine judgment of the non-Christian.
Irenaeus did not emphasize the insufficiency of natural revelation, as Reformed
theology has done. Assuming that all people had more than natural revelation,
he nonetheless gave it a positive importance, and spoke of the necessity of
faith with regard to it. Furthermore, Irenaeus's emphasis on free will, and his
reaction to Gnostic determinism, made him an unlikely "antecedent" of
Reformed (predestinarian) theology.
An interesting attempt has been made to develop a more
hopeful view of the salvation of "non-Christians" within the
framework of traditional Reformed theology." Neal Punt has suggested that
the traditional Reformed manner of approaching the doctrine of election has
been incorrect. The usual assumption has been that everyone is lost except
those whom Scripture declares to be elect, namely, those who believe in Christ.
Punt suggests that we ought rather to assume the election of everyone, unless
Scripture specifically states otherwise. Rejection of Christ would thus be a
clear sign of lostness (non-election or reprobation), but the position of those
who do not know of Christ would be more hopeful than in the traditional formula
as summarized above.
Faith in Christ is seen as the response of the elect who
hear of Christ. It has, therefore, a conditional necessity (not unlike Rahner's
conditional necessity of Church membership). The elect who do not hear the Gospel
respond positively in regard to the revelation that they have received. The
outcome is therefore similar to that discussed below, under B,2,b,2), but it
begins from a Reformed concept of sovereign, divine election. Most of those who
adopt the position described below would not work within the framework of
unconditional election. They would be more likely to speak of an election based
on God’s foreknowledge. Irenaeus himself speaks of God’s relationship to the
unbelief of the non-Christian in terms of foreknowledge, and not of
reprobation. A similarity to the work of Karl Barth is evident in regard to the
concept of corporate, universal election in Christ.
Punt’s work reminds one of the position of Ulrich
Zwingli, in the sixteenth century. Zwingli also started with a strong doctrine
of election and predestination as the cause of salvation. It is manifested in
outward signs, and those signs differ according to one’s situation. The _
pagans of antiquity, and those who have not had opportunity to hear the Gospel,
may also be among the elect, because they will be judged on a different basis
from those who have had Gospel revelation. Zwingli spoke hopefully, for instance,
of the situation of Seneca or Socrates.” It is interesting to find this kind of
optimism regarding the salvation of the non-Christian in a key Reformation
figure. (Terrance L. Tiessen, Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevangelized
[ATLA Monograph Series 31; Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,
1993], 268-70)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
