Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 3

The question may be asked: "Why spend so long replying to a minor point in a post? Our answer is that the minor point opened up a Dispensationalist straw man that we are honour-bound to demolish, firstly to defend the great non-Dispensational theologians of the past and secondly to ensure that dispensationalists do not continue to repeat this false claim in future.

Not only is Mr. Phillips' argument that it is possible to claim that making the glory of God the centre of human history is a dispensationalist distinctive because non-dispensational writers appear at times in their writings to deny what they explicitly claim to believe elsewhere backed up by a non-sequitur, it is also an argument that could be used with devasting force against his own position. We could use Mr. Phillips’ reasoning to prove that C.I. Scofield did not believe that the centre of history was the glory of God. Let us quote the august editor:

“From beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption. From beginning to end the Bible has one great theme - the person and work of Christ.” (SRB 1917, introduction [not paginated])

Now we could say: “Look, Mr. Scofield says that the central theme of the Bible is the person and work of Christ. That work was the redemption of man, therefore, despite what Scofield may say elsewhere, he really believes that the centre of history is the redemption of man.” But that would be to miss the point and to misrepresent Scofield.

Or we could use the same argument to prove that the insistence on a single ‘literal’ or ‘normal’ hermeneutic without spiritualizing is not a dispensational distinctive because Dr. John MacArthur and CI Scofield are guilty of spiritualizing in Revelation 2 and 3 (3.10 in MacArthur’s case). Dr. John MacArthur, like all historic non-dispensational protestant theologians, holds these to be letters to seven literal historic Churches then existing in Asia Minor. But dispensational writers such as C.I. Scofield find a fourfold application to these letters: “1. Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) Personal, in the exhortations to him “that hath an ear”, and in the promises “to him that overcometh; (4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from, say, AD 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the Church period there be no such fore view. These messages must contain that for view if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3.22.” (SRB p. 1331 Note 3)

This is certainly spiritualizing if there is such a thing, and even Dr. MacArthur does not escape its influence, for he says of Revelation 3.10, “this verse promises that the church will be delivered from the tribulation, thus supporting a pretribulation rapture.” (‘Because the Time is Near’, [Moody, 2007] P. 92). For Dr. MacArthur then to fault those with whom he disagrees for employing spiritualizing interpretation therefore reminds us of an old saying about pots and kettles. What Revelation 3.10 says is: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is directed to the Church at Philadelphia, which Dr. John MacArthur tells us, “The Christians in Philadelphia stood firm even after the region was overrun by the Muslims, until finally disappearing sometime during the fourteenth century.” (P. 89). Thus, even if we take the passage as applying to the Church at Philadelphia throughout its history, the stubborn fact remains that there is no church there, though there would have to be to support MacArthur’s interpretation unless he is in fact spiritualizing the passage, so that ‘Church at Philadelphia’ really means ‘faithful Christians alive at the time of the Great Tribulation’. Unless we come to this text with a pre-existing idea (like that to which Scofield confesses in the quotation above), we would suppose that the passage refers to a great empire-wide persecution in the first or second centuries. The phrase translated ‘the whole world’ is the same one found in Luke 2.1 and Acts 11.28, so unless you want to insist that Caesar Augustus wanted to tax the whole globe, and that the famine affected the whole globe, you have to admit that it means ‘the whole empire’ in those places, and therefore there is no reason to take it as meaning anything else here. The ’plain sense’ of Revelation 3.10 is that the church at Philadelphia would be kept from an imminent empire-wide persecution. This makes sense, so why must Scofield and MacArthur seek another sense? If you will pardon the pun, that does not make sense.

Mr. Andrew Fuller, in his commentary on Revelation, writes: “Some have considered these churches as prophetically representing the different states of the Church at large under the Gospel dispensation. There is no doubt that analogies may be found between them, but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded… Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic or as descriptive of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were.” (Works of Andrew Fuller [Sprinkle, 1988] Vol. 3 P. 210). The Puritan Matthew Poole agrees: “The epistles concerning matters of faith and manners are written plainly, not in mysterious expressions.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Banner of Truth, 1963] Vol. 3. P. 953). And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, is extremely strong in expressing his opinion of those who spiritualize the seven churches: “I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these churches. I consider the churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the church of Christ in all ages, as has been imagined, and that the notion… is unfounded, absurd and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028) All three of these commentators, following their insistence on a literal interpretation, take the view that we do, that the ‘hour of temptation’ was some empire-wide persecution in the immediate future when the Revelation was written. Let us repeat, ANY OTHER VIEW IS ILLEGITIMATE SPIRITUALIZATION. Now we would not be as pungent as Dr. Clarke, who effectively declares Scofield and MacArthur to be extravagant and irrational in their interpretations, but we agree with the good doctor’s point. In fact let us add that we find Dr. Clarke an excellent commentator except when he is blinded by his own Arminianism. He certainly has a horror of spiritualizing that would make Dr. MacArthur look like Origen’s second cousin!

How is the above quote from MacArthur on Revelation 3.10 the ‘plain sense’ or ‘literal meaning’ of the passage? Scofield admits that the reason he must find a prophecy of the ‘Church Age’ in these two chapters is that “these messages must contain that’. It is not exegetical, it is in fact the eisegetical imposition of an a priori upon the text. We are so bold in fact as to say that no-one can find a pre-tribulation Rapture in any of MacArthur’s proof texts given on page 92 of Because the Time is Near who does not come looking for evidence of one. But we have written at great length on that subject elsewhere and would refer readers interested in the deficiencies to that series of articles.

God willing, we will conclude next time.

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 2

The long response to a few words in a comment thread contines.

Mr. Phillips asks:

“Are you unable to grant that someone can say "Oh yes, it's all about the glory of God," but then while he handles the actual details of the text, he hammers everything down to what (it emerges is) his real theme — for instance, a putative single, textually-questionable covenant of redemption? If massive amounts of uncongenial details are made subservient to this theory, is one not allowed to observe that the theory has overwhelmed the evidence? Is someone's stated belief or priority always his actual belief or priority?”

Oh, certainly we do. We also however think it is a sin, namely lying, to say that you hold to a position when you know that you do not. Therefore we are very reluctant to charge anyone with disingenuous behaviour unless there is plain evidence of it, that is unless there is an obvious and real contradiction. We have read many books by many writers of different schools, Arminian, Calvinistic, Amillennial, post-millennial, pre-millennial, even dispensationalist, protestant and Roman Catholic, and in each case we have approached the work in a an attitude of charity, that is, while someone may define terms differently from us, we shall assume that he means what he says.

Secondly, there is an error here. Our subject was this: Does dispensationalism alone teach that God's end in all His dealings with men is His own glory. Yet Mr. Phillips' argument actually comes down to "Covenant Theologians teach that there is only one covenant, the covenant of redemption, therefore they do not make the glory of God the centre of all His dealings with man." This is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Using the same argument wecould say that Dispensationalists do not believe that God's end in His dealings with men is His own glory, but to test mankind. Only we think it to be a lousy argument, so we'd never use it.

And it is possible for a person's language to be misunderstood, so that they appear to be teaching what they do not. Let us give an example that is germane to this debate: Dispensationalists say that they believe there is only one way of salvation in all the dispensations. I believe them when they say that. So, when I read C.I. Scofield saying as he contrasts the dispensations of law and grace:

“The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ.” (SRB [Oxford University Press, 1917] P. 1115 note 2)

I assume that he is using the term ‘condition of salvation’ in a loose way, because he says that there is only one way of salvation through all dispensations - that is charity. If I read in Lewis Sperry Chafer:

“The essential elements of a grace administration - faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited acceptance through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit - are not found in the kingdom administration.” (Dispensationalism [Dallas Seminary Press, 1951], P. 416)

I assume again that he is speaking loosely, and does not think that people in the Kingdom dispensation will be saved through their own merit apart from or in addition to the perfect righteousness of Christ. That is charity.

Or I could take another example. When we recall that Dr. Barry Horner is a dispensationalist, and therefore would agree with Ryrie that the centre of history is the glory of God, we do not say “Well, in ‘Future Israel’ (his only major work that we are aware of) it sounds like he really makes a distinction between Israel and the Church the centre of history. No, we say ‘he believes that the reason behind this distinction is the glory of God’, even if he does not explicitly say that. It is the same when we read or hear Dr. MacArthur’s controversial sermon, we do no say “Well, whatever he might say, he obviously really thinks that the centre of history is a distinction between Israel and the Church’. No, I say “he says that the centre of history is the glory of God, and obviously he thinks that this Israel-Church distinction is for that glory.” That is charity. To act otherwise would be uncharitable for us. We prefer the clear statements of writers to anyone’s inferences from what they say. Sin has affected our minds as well as the rest of us, and that means that we can make mistaken inferences. I doubt that any Covenant Theologian has made such apparently contradictory statements as those we have quoted from Scofield and Chafer, but we are quite prepared to believe that both men believed that salvation in all dispensations is, was and shall be through Christ and never through human merit.

More, God willing, next time.

Dispensational men of straw demolished: 1.

We continue to respond to points made in this post, and in Mr. Phillips' comments in the thread.

Mr. Phillips may reply that he has read dozens of Covenant Theologians, and he thinks that his analysis is fair. Well, Dave Hunt says that he has read hundreds of Calvinist books and still horribly misrepresents Calvinism. Dave Hunt has read them through the lenses of his own prejudice. In the same way Mr. Phillips has read Covenant Theologians through the lenses of his Dispensationalist prejudices. It is always more important for us to give credence to men’s express statements than what we ‘feel’ them to be teaching. The objective rather than the subjective must rule in this, otherwise what Mr. Phillips is simply knocking down a straw man set up be his Dispensationalist teachers.

We are sorry to have had to spend so much time pressing this point, but we believe that it is essential that we, as Christians, do not misrepresent our opponents. You see, if we come to a debate and immediately misrepresent the other side, we in effect say ‘I have not bothered to find out what you actually believe, I don’t care about that.’ At once we have alienated the other side. Speaking for ourselves, when we read Mr. Phillips’ declaration that non-Dispensational Reformed theologians believe that God’s ultimate end in His dealings with man is the redemption of the elect, we were extremely annoyed. And then when he came back to say, in effect, ‘you’re wrong, you don’t understand your own writers’, he gives the impression that he is more concerned to keep hold of his Dispensationalist straw man than he is to take our denials at face value.

C.I. Scofield defines a dispensation as:

“a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some Specific revelation of the will of God.” (Scofield Reference Bible [1917 Oxford University Press] P. 5 note 4)

If dispensationalists still accept this definition, we would humbly suggest that a better ‘third distinctive’ would be

“The division of history into a series dispensations, which are defined as periods in which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”

This would have the advantage of actually being a distinctive. Obviously it could be better worded, but we leave that to the Dispensationalists themselves.

I beg to differ!

Fred Butler has written a blog article in which he seems to suggest that non-dispensational hermeneutics are the cause (or something) of theistic evolution and other such compromises with naturalistic science. We beg to differ. Mr. Butler says:

"My point along these lines is simple: It has been my experience that those who are prone to use hermeneutics which spiritualize, allegorize, and utilize excessive typology in understanding eschatology, tend toward using the same method when dealing with Genesis and what is wrongly perceived as conflicts with modern, secular, scientific paradigms."

No, Mr. Butler. It is simply a lack of faith that leads to men compromising with naturalistic and unbelieving science. Otherwise we would not have examples of leading Dispensationalists who committed the same acts of compromise. None other than C.I. Scofield (see picture) in his far-famed Reference Bible taught the Gap Theory, which is a method for reconciling Genesis with long ages. G.H. Pember, in Earth's Earliest Ages advocated the same theory, and he too was a Dispensationalist. Indeed, many of the early Dispensationalist writers held to some version of the Gap theory. One website cites J.N. Darby, Sir Robert Anderson and Lewis Sperry Chafer "all major pioneers in the dispensational movement" as proponents of this theory. Note that this website is itself dispensationalist, and in favour of the Gap theory. We warn our readers that the theology here is NOT sound. Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short, a surgeon and a preacher among the English Open Brethren in the mid-twentieth century (and therefore by definition a Dispensationalist), actually held to a form of theistic evolution (see J. Rendle-Short: Green Eye of the Storm [Edinburgh, Banner of Truth]). Darby, Scofield, Chafer... it's practically a hall of fame for leading Dispensationalists. These are the men who developed the system, and they all taught versions of the Gap Theory! There must be something about Dispensationalism that makes its teachers tend towards that particular compromise... No, except that it was developed during a period when many Christians thought that the conclusions of naturalistic science were unassailable, and therefore they had to develop some method to accommodate long ages with the Biblical creation account. That is why the non-dispensational Thomas Chalmers also taught the Gap Theory. The real cause is something other than the Dispensational or non-dispensational theologies of these men.

Mr. Butler, we fear, is gulity of the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc (after it, so because of it). The truth is more complicated, as is all too often the case with nice easy arguments.

Simon Padbury's 2007 James Begg Society lecture 'Creationism and the Reformed Faith' is an excellent treatment of the subject historically.

We reserve our remarks about Dispensationalist use of the term 'allegorizing' for a future date.

The Archbishop and Yoda.

Dr. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, further evidenced the state of the Church of England by, in an address dealing with knife crime and a perception of increasing violence among young people in Britain's inner cities, quoting not the Bible but the Star Wars films:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side."

This sentiment may be true as far as it goes, it may be noble, but quite simply, anybody could have said that. The Church's place is NOT to quote nuggets of pop-spirituality from the movies in answer to the problems of the world. Anyone can do that. And should anyone think that this is an isolated case, it isn't, he's done it before. Read this.

We are NOT saying that Dr. Sentamu does not have the right to watch Star Wars in the privacy of his own home, or at the Cinema, or in any other location where it's legal. Rather we are saying that if all the Church of England has to say in the face of a society slipping into anarchy is quotations from popular entertainment, it's doomed. If all the Church, any Church, can do is parrot the culture, even if it is the better part of the culture, it's doomed. Without a 'thus saith the Lord', the Church is doomed to irrelevance. Yet the crowning irony is that the very reason that we have Archbishops quoting Star Wars in public pronouncements and pastors preaching sermon series' on Spider-Man is that they are attempting to be 'relevant'!

And what are they preaching? What is the message of Yoda and Spider-Man? It is simply morality. Now we have no problem with morality in its right place, nor with Moral teaching. But the Church does not exist for the purpose of imparting moral teaching. No, our motto is 'But we preach Christ crucified.' The Gospel is not a way to live a better life, it is not 'do this and live', it is this: it is Christ crucified for sinners, it is the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, hung upon a cross, suffering and dying in the place of perishing sinners. It is a declaration that we are not in need of a mere renovation, but 'ye must be born again'. The problem is not that men are not living up to their full potential, it is that we are all sinners, hateful and hating one another, and that were it not for God's withholding hand, we should make this world a hell, and go from it into another hell of eternal torment. Yet 'This is a true saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' That 'God so loved the world', not a world of men who fell into occasional mistakes, but a world of evil, rebellious and hell-deserving sinners who did not love God, but hated Him. 'That He gave His only-begotten Son', gave Him up to suffering and to death, 'that whosoever believeth in Him', EVERY ONE who believes in Him, 'might not perish' everlastingly, 'but have everlasting life.' Unless we are preaching that, we are truly irrelevant.

But what does the modern Church preach? all too often morality. Brothers, if a Church only preaches morality, it may claim to be evangelical, but it looks just like a liberal church. We have some experience of liberal Churches - we were brought up in one. Not one of these mad liberal churches where all manner of sin is approved, but an old-fashioned liberal church where the pulpit sounded morality. Christian morality, the morality of the 1950s. And what does moral preaching produce? It produces on the one hand pharisees and on the other those who, disgusted, cast off the heavy yoke of the Law. The Law CANNOT change lives. It has no power, it can only condemn. But the Gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation'. What we need is not Archbishops spouting pop-spirituality, we need faithful men of God to PREACH THE GOSPEL!!!

Oh may we give God no rest as we cry out for His mercy.

Is Dispensationalism more Theocentric than Covenant Theology? [updated]

Daniel Phillips has a post on his blog dealing with what he considers to be a fairly faulty (though good in parts) definition of dispensationalism. We took issue with one of his points:

Probably Ryrie's third distinctive is a better one: seeing the glory of God as the center of history, rather than man's redemption.

We take it that he refers to the following paragraph:

"The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalists' consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."
(Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [ Moody, 1965], P.44 , cited in Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995] P.5)

Note that for something to be a 'distinctive' of a theological system, it must be unique to that system. Thus a belief in the Trinity cannot be said to be a distinctive of Calvinism, since non-Calvinistic systems also hold to it. On the other hand we can say that reading all of Scripture in the light of Justification by Faith alone and a hard-and-fast Law-Gospel distinction is a distinctive of Lutheranism.

This paragraph defines what is meant by Mr. Phillips' phrase 'centre of history'. It means "God's basic purpose", His goal or, to use the old-fashioned word, His end. Note that Mr. Phillips also defines what he thinks Covenant Theologians think God's chief purpose is, "Man's redemption." It seems, then, that the accusation is that everyone other than the Dispensationalist is more or less anthropocentric, they view man's redemption as God's chief purpose. Now we are of the opinion that this is a fantastic claim. It is in effect saying that everybody until the early nineteenth century held a theology that was man-centred, and that the centre of Calvin's theology was man. Really? What did the Westminster Divines say? We pick the Westminster Confession because, as the basis for the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration, it is the most representative of the Reformed confessions, and its date means that it was drawn up at the height of the Puritan age. If any document can speak for the Calvinistic world, it is this one, the basis of the Scottish and American Presbyterian Churches.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Chapter 3: of God's Eternal Decree, section 3)

"It pleased God the Father, son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, widsom and goodness, in the beginning to create, or make of nothing, the world and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good" (Chapter 4. Of Creation, section 1.)

" God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (Chapter 5: of Providence, section 1)

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. (Chapter 6: of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof)

And lest we forget:

"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever." (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1)

Now, we may be incredibly dense, but it sounds to us as though the Westminster Divines intended to say that the "basic purpose" of all God's actions is His own glory, not just in His dealings with men, but in all things.
Or let us examine some of the more influential Reformed theologians:

"The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of man is subordinate to this." (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Banner of Truth 1958) P. 115. Emphasis ours)

"It is explicitly taught that the glory of God, the manifestation of His perfections, is the last end of all His works... God, as infinitely wise and good, seeks the highest end; and as all creatures are as the dust of the balance compared to Him, it follows that His glory is an infinitely higher end than anything that concerns them exclusively." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology [Thomas Nelson, 1871] Vol. 1 P. 567, emphasis ours again)

Here are two great Reformed and non-Dispensational theologians from the last two centuries, two systematic theologies that are standards in the studies of Reformed theologians, and both say that God's chief end, his ultimate goal, is His own glory. Yet Mr. Phillips insists that only Dispensationalists teach that God's ultimate purpose is His own glory! We had thought that such a silly and counter-factual idea would be dismissed by Mr. Phillips, but no, he actually thinks that this is true! Keith Mathison has written:

"Until recently , dispensationalists maintained that they alone understood God's ultimate purpose to be His own glory. Other theological systems, especially Reformed theology, were accused of teaching that God's ultimate purpose is the redemption of man." (Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, P. 5)

On the strength of Mathison's declaration, we actually thought that this old canard had been given a decent funeral, and here we find it alive and kicking on the blog of such an intelligent man as Mr. Phillips!

We have given quotations from the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof, not because we could not find the same sentiments expressed elsewhere but because these three sources may be regarded as representative. Although we have followed the Biblical requirement for two or three witnesses, we could easily give quotations from dozens of Reformed writers expressing the same sentiments. Can Mr. Phillips give two quotations from representative Reformed writers to substantiate the claim that teaching that all of God's dealings with man are for His own glory is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. We want two representative Reformed writers who expressly state that God's end in all His dealings with man goes no higher than the redemption of the elect. Not the agreement of other internet dispensationalists, but real quotations from our side. If the accusation is true, let it be sustantiated by two or three witnesses.

It will not do to provide quotations saying that the intent of the covenant of redemption is the redemption of the elect. That is the way we often speak, but recall that this is really a rather loose way of talking. What we mean is that the covenant of redemption glorifies God by redeeming the elect. The redemption of the elect is a proximate goal, not a final one. That's why it's called the covenant of redemption. No, what we ask for is two or three quotations that expressly state that there is no higher purpose than the redemption of the elect in God's dealings with men.

Note what we are NOT saying. We are not saying that Dispensationalism does not see God's end in all His works as his own glory, but just saying that it is not, properly speaking, a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Whilst it may distinguish Disepnsationalism from certain forms of Arminian theology, it does not distinguish it from historic Calvinism. Any attempts to say that it does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of historic Calvinism. Indeed, one of the consistent accusations against the historic Calvinist position is that it makes God's glory, not the salvation of men, His final end in His dealings with men. That's why Calvinists are always accused of being mean horrible people who say that God condemned people to hell to glorify Himself.

So we have really TWO distinctives in the Ryrie quote: 1. A distinction between Israel and the Church; 2. The use of a single 'consistently literal' or 'normal' hermeneutic for the whole Bible. According to Mr. Phillips, all attempts to add a distinctive involving different economies or dispensations (though you would think that would have to be in a list of distinctives) are doomed to failure, and we hope that we have blown the old canard about teaching that all God's actions are to His glory being a distinctive out of the water.

Mr. Phillips, we know that you dislike your theology being misrepresented. SO DO WE. It is time for this old canard to be given the decent burial that it deserves.

Inclusivism!!!

Ingrid Schlueter at Slice of Laodicea has posted an article entitled "TIME: More Evangelicals Believe All Paths Lead to God". Of course, TIME here has got it wrong. Very few evangelicals (self-described, I mean) believe that. What they DO believe, however, is that people can be saved by Christ without knowing the first thing about Him, and all the time living in their paganism.

This idea has a long and dishonourable history. It is directly linked with Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. For if it is true that all men are born good and able by their own free-will to respond to God, does it not follow that there are, or might be, those in other cultures who do in fact do good? Despite its being explicitly declared to be heresy in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England No less a man that W.H. Griffith-Thomas, once of Dallas Seminary, in his 'Principles of Theology', at least allowed for the idea, and C.S. Lewis teaches it in 'The Last Battle', the last of the Narnia books chronologically. Dr. Hywel Jones of Westminster Seminary California has written an excellent work against it entitled 'Only One Way'.

"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." (Aticle XVIII of the Church of England)

This error is increasing among evangelicals, no doubt, because it sounds nice and loving, but has only one problem - it kills mission. Because if the hypothetical ;'good pagan' HEARS and REJECTS the Gospel, then he would otherwise have been saved will be damned for ever. Far kinder to leave him in his error. But the Bible holds out no 'wider hope', for:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10.14

Let others go with philosophical speculations. We shall remain standing on the all-sufficient Word of God.