Critical Evaluation of Morgan & Peterson

On Monday, I gave a brief summary of Morgan & Peterson's Faith Comes by Hearing. Here is a little more critical evaluation of the work. Keep in mind that I like the book, but I'm writing this from what I hope is an unbiased perspective.

            The book is definitely one-sided, and the nine biblical scholars who contribute their essays believe this is rightly so. Probably best understood as an introduction to exclusivism, it presents the case of exclusivism as the superior and more biblical position. More of a theological survey than an apology, it never attempts to defend its position apart from scriptural claims. Although weighted in favor of exclusivism, the authors give fair treatment to the inclusivist position and do a thorough job in surveying the overall dialogue between the two camps. Beyond the superficial layer of cultural dialogue in the debate, though, Morgan and Peterson expose the deeper issues of revelational sufficiency, God’s sovereignty and categorical inadequacy.

Sufficient Revelation

The editors highly acclaim Daniel Strange as one who has best answered the question of revelational sufficiency. Strange exegetes Psalm 19 and three chapters of Romans to clearly show how general revelation gives enough knowledge about God to condemn mankind, but he shows that only the special revelation of Jesus Christ is sufficient to provide salvation. As such, Strange’s essay becomes the heart of the argument for all of the other essays.

            Strange cites both the inclusivist and exclusivist arguments as presented in the four key Scripture texts in the debate over revelational sufficiency. When he attempts to identify six distinguishing points in the debate, however, he hones the dialogue into a manageable conversation. Strange distinguishes God from his nature and his work. He places a primacy on external objective revelation, and he marks a distinction between prelapsarian and postlapsarian special revelation. He also defines pneumatological operations as different for regeneration and general work. These distinctions are very helpful in drawing the debate into a more focused look at what the Bible actually says.   

  

Holy Pagans

Walter Kaiser argues that Old Testament saints may not have had the fuller picture of Jesus’ advent, but they did respond to special revelation from God. As such, he insists that these as well as any believing Gentiles were saved through the same response of faith to special revelation. He bases his exegesis on texts as early as Genesis 3:15; therefore, he rejects the concept of holy pagans who were saved by another kind of non-Christological revelation.

            At the very heart of the issue is the question of salvation under Jewish law. Neither Kaiser nor any of the other writers identify Scofield or traditional dispensationalism as evidence for their argument against inclusivism. Instead, they tend to uphold that there is no difference between saints before or after Christ. Interestingly, they also do not contend with any eschatological perspective on salvations during the tribulation. Perhaps this is an oversight, or perhaps the writers do not see its place in the current debate. For a more robust response to inclusivism, however, it would behoove the authors to include these perspectives as well.

God’s Fairness and Sovereignty

William Edgar’s argument is one of the basic sovereignty and independent justice of God. He blatantly states that if God decided to save no one, he would still be completely just. Since God is not obligated to save anyone, any salvation only goes to show his absolute grace. However, Edgar’s argument raises the ethical issue of studying God’s behavior.

            The larger question becomes whether humans have the right to judge God’s behavior. It also poses the question as to the means by which to judge God. Edgar argues for a biblical standard, thus placing any judgment outside of human hands. Inclusivist arguments, however, give merit to extrabiblical sources. Apart from Scriptural reference, to say that God would not be fair if he acted a certain way is to place the sovereignty of God under the judgment of men. This is something that Edgar cannot uphold. Therefore, exclusivism’s claims are grounded in Scripture alone.

 

Inadequate Categories

In the first chapter of the book, Morgan describes the three traditional approaches to understanding the relationship between the gospel and the lost. But he readily confesses that these three approaches are not enough to adequately describe the wide range of nuances among popular camps. As such, he offers nine positions in a spectrum of potential responses.

            Although Morgan’s contribution is a praiseworthy addition, it may still be inadequate. Sanders, Erickson and Tiessen also offer varying classifications. Morgan’s spectrum ranges from pluralism at the one end to church exclusivism at the other. However, there may yet be another more defined response, more narrow even than church exclusivism which defines salvation only within the universal church. There are some independent churches who see their particular church as potentially the only faithful body and therefore the only saved ones. Although Morgan briefly hints at ecclesiocentric exclusivism existing among some Roman Catholics, there are arguably even more narrow responses than the nine he presents.

Western Culture

The book exposes the Western cultural milieu in which the current debate exists. In a society where intellectualism has traditionally been the hallmark for scholarly dialogue, this particular debate has ironically been subjected more to emotional responses. Interestingly, Morgan devotes his opening comments to the feelings that “sometimes run deep in the debate” (17). Moreover, his spectrum of potential responses could be argued to provide a more tolerant or at least benevolent attitude to the current diversity.

Why cultural response plays a role at all in the book’s apologia is unknown, especially considering the final verdict is that men must not judge God’s decisions. Yet the authors insist throughout the book that our cultural feelings are important. They are somehow challenged by interpretations that require “us to broaden our hermeneutic of Western individualism and to understand that God deals not just with humanity as individuals, but as families, peoples, nations and cultures” (72). On the one hand, the authors make clear statements in support of exclusivism, but on the other they seem hesitant to apply the exclusivist perspective to infants who die or to the mentally challenged. It is this hesitancy that unfortunately weakens the overall biblical argument.