A
Theological Study of Point of Contact Theory
Van E. Sanders
People Group Research Associate,
Implementation Team of the Church Planting Group, North
American Mission Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention
Published in Global Missiology, Contemporary Practice,
July 2004, www.globalmissiology.net
The purpose of this paper concerns the use of
points of contact as bridges for communicating the gospel across the various cultures of the world yet
unreached with the gospel. The paper has five main sections. The first section
is a brief summary of the primary approaches to non-Christian religions.
After this summary, a definition of the point of contact concept is presented.
Third, the “biblical
continuity-discontinuity model” is outlined. Fourth, key biblical passages
relating to the point of contact
concept are discussed. Lastly, the paper provides a historical survey of the
point of contact concept.
Approaches to Christianity and
Religions
Missionaries attempting cross-cultural evangelism
among non-Christian people groups do not begin with a tabula rasa. All people groups hold a system of beliefs which
reflect their worldview and culture.
Any attempt to evangelize these peoples must recognize this fact and determine to what degree if any, continuity exists
between the gospel and their preexisting belief system. The relationship
between Christian revelation and the belief systems of the world carry significant weight at this point.
Contemporary
missiologists encounter questions concerning a theology of religions anytime
they consider communication of the gospel
among non-Christian peoples and cultures. Throughout the twentieth century a variety of perspectives or
approaches has been proposed to investigate the relationship between Christianity and world religions.
E. C.
Dewick grouped the approaches into “four main keynotes”: (1) Conflict—other
religions are enemies of the gospel; (2)
Fulfillment—Christianity fulfills the good and true in other religions;
(3) Co-operation—God speaks through non-Christian religions; and (4) Discontinuity—Christian
revelation has nothing in common with non-Christian religions.1
Ajith Fernando delineates three
approaches:(1) Christianity is unique but salvation can be mediated through other religions; (2) Christianity is an
equal with other faiths; and (3) salvation is through Christ only.2 Paul Knitter speaks of
four models of Christian attitudes towards other religions: (1) Conservative
Evangelical, (2) Mainline, Protestant, (3) Catholic, and (4) Theocentric.3
Hendrick Kraemer framed the theology of
religions issue as a matter of discontinuity, John Farquhar as fulfillment, and William Hocking as mutual
appreciation.4 Considerable overlap exists within all of these writers and others.5
Alan Race proposed a
threefold categorization in the 1980s: pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism.6 Race’s categories are
helpful for discussing theology of religion questions.
Pluralism and
inclusivism contend that the existing belief system and its cultural
expressions are compatible with the gospel.
Pluralists and inclusivists disagree concerning the degree of compatibility. But they agree that significant
continuity exists between Christianity and other religions. Culture
equals or even exceeds Scripture concerning ultimate truth. Cultural relativism
underlies this approach and leads to
syncretism7 due to its uncritical acceptance of traditional religious beliefs and customs.
Exclusivism in general holds that the gospel is not
compatible with the existing belief system. Exclusivists assert that a fundamental discontinuity exists between
other religions and the Christian
revelation. Extreme exclusivists8 believe that the non-Christian
belief system must be discarded. This approach often imposes a cultural
Christianity upon a people. Such a Christianity suppresses and forces underground the old forms of traditional beliefs.
“Two-tier Christianity” or “split-level
Christianity”9 often results from this type of cross-cultural
evangelism or church planting.
Other exclusivists do not discard the entire
non-Christian belief system. They emphasize that cultures and belief systems require transformation. These exclusivists
find some value in the existing belief
systems.
Race’s three categories limit and obscure
important particularities of a position. E. Luther Copeland contends that “the terminology of
exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism is itself too exclusive.”10
Jacques Dupuis proposes moving beyond simply viewing religious pluralism as an empirical fact.11 The current situation
requires one to “seek the root causes for pluralism and to ask what role the
religions play in the redemptive plan of God for the universe.”12
This paper
argues that cross-cultural evangelism and church planting must honor both
culture and Scripture. Such an approach
responds to Copeland’s question concerning the role of religions in God’s
redemptive plan. The Bible serves as the ultimate authority over any given
belief system in any culture, but this
does not preclude the possibility that certain aspects within the traditional belief system or culture can function as beginning
points for presenting the gospel.
Such
an approach avoids the extremes of the continuity and discontinuity positions,
while seeking to utilize and incorporate existing beliefs in the
non-Christian belief system that are theologically appropriate and
beneficial to communicating the gospel in a manner that helps establish an indigenous
Christianity. Such existing beliefs are points of contact for presenting the gospel. Point of contact theory argues that both
continuity and discontinuity characterize the relationship between the gospel
and the traditional belief system.
Definition of Point of Contact
This paper argues that points of contact are
manifestations of general revelation that enhance communication of the gospel. This definition
focuses on the communication of the gospel. It argues that all peoples, because of general revelation, know of God’s
existence, know of God’s powerful and benevolent nature, and are conscious of
God’s moral demands in regard to their relationships
with him. The sin-tainted imago Dei leads to a variety of subjective interpretations of
general revelation.13
Despite these subjective interpretations, points of
contact found in non-Christian cultures and worldviews reflect the three domains of general revelation.14
Points of contact exhibit relationships
to aspects of biblical truth. These fragments of truth may be found in the philosophical presuppositions that form the
framework of the belief system. Or they may be one isolated element of truth in one sub-system of the
culture. No matter where they exist, these elements of truth can serve as a communication bridge for the gospel of
Jesus Christ.
Historically, point of contact theory sought to
answer the theological question of whether or not a point of contact (German, Anknüpfungspunkt) exists for the gospel within the sinner. More
specifically the issue focused on what, if anything, “may be appealed to as a
means of preparing one for the gospel
from within one’s self.”15
Debate over this issue peaked in
the early twentieth-century with the discussions between Emil Brunner
and Karl Barth. In his book Revelation and Reason, Brunner
argued that the sense of guilt serves as the point of
contact. He says, “The bad conscience, the sense of guilt, is the point of
contact for faith. It is the spot at which the change of direction ought to
begin. The sense of guilt, as a negative relation with
God, is the point of contact for faith.”16
Donald
Bloesch argues that for Brunner, the lack of such a point of contact between
reason and revelation results in a revelation
that “would be a sheer mystery to human understanding.”17 This is
because, according to Brunner, the “knowledge of sin is a necessary
presupposition of the understanding of the divine message of grace.”18
Barth rejects this notion on the basis that sin
completely destroys the imago Dei in man. Fallen man cannot know God through human reason alone. For Barth, the only point
of contact occurs when God creates faith in the sinner through the sinner’s
encounter with the Word of God. Barth adds
that points of contact are newly posited by God, not present already in the
nature of man. They do not have a
place in natural theology.19
The debate over the point of contact concept
between Brunner and Barth primarily focused on the theological context. However, mission leaders began
applying the concept to mission contexts in order to signify “elements in the non-Christian religions that the
Christian missionary can seize upon
when communicating the gospel message.”20 As a result of the growing
influence of nineteenth century
European Protestant natural theology, continuity between Christianity and
non-Christian
religions gradually replaced the continuity-discontinuity position as the
dominant approach.21 Ecumenical mission agencies and leaders
focused more attention upon the common ground
that existed between Christians and non-Christians. Eventually, the concept of
points of contact in mission
methodology became synonymous with the concept of common ground.
Eugene Nida illustrates the intent of the common
ground approach with Pope Gregory of the sixth century.22 Pope Gregory instructed his missionaries
working among English pagans to maintain
the same cultural forms as the local pagan religious practices but infuse those
forms with Christian beliefs. The
result was “a continuation of the same cultural forms and beliefs, with only a different nomenclature.”23 No
change of beliefs occurred.
Ecumenical Protestants advocated
a similar usage of this concept. They focused on common ground as primarily
conceptual in nature rather than Roman Catholicism’s emphasis on visual symbols. Ecumenical missionaries who used the
common ground approach contended that the non-Christian religions contained beliefs harmonious with Christianity.
They found “common ground for the establishment of a Christian
orientation as the fulfillment of these distorted, but basically true,
aspirations.”24
The Jerusalem Conference of 1928 exemplified the
shift to the common ground perspective. Lesslie Newbigin states that this conference identified values in the
world’s religions that in essence
reflected the one Truth. These values included “the sense of the majesty of
God” in Islam, “the deep sympathy for the world’s sorrow” in Buddhism,
and “the desire for contact with ultimate
reality” in Hinduism.25 The pluralist approach that emerged during
this time, with its emphases on comparative religions, phenomenology of
religion, religious psychology, and theocentrism, created the foundation
for the common ground concept. It drew upon the idea of a “common thread of humanity’s interest in the
nouminous.”26
The ecumenical common ground usage focused on
identifying a common basis of belief.27 But the point of contact approach focuses on
identifying elements that make communication possible. Nida argues that no two
beliefs in any two systems, despite their superficial similarities, present a basis for common ground. “They are only points of
contact, on the basis of which we may communicate
the distinctiveness of the Christian faith.”28 In other words,
points of contact serve as beginning
points for the missionary’s encounter with the non-Christian. Eventually,
points of contact may lead to the
creation of functional substitutes which express new beliefs in new cultural forms rather than trying to change the
content of beliefs while retaining the old cultural forms.
In an earlier book, Nida wrote that human needs
shared by all, such as mental and physical health, fulfillment of hopes and aspirations, satisfactory training of
one’s children, and a faith as to the ultimate meaning of life, function as
valid points of contact.29 At that time, Nida’s list reflected
Hendrick Kraemer’s understanding of point of contact.
Kraemer, a Dutch
missiologist, wrote The Christian
Message in a Non-Christian World,30
for the
Tambaram Conference of
the International Missionary Conference in 1938. Barth greatly influenced the thinking of Kraemer concerning the
nature of points of contact. Kraemer followed Barth and rejected Brunner’s understanding of points of contact. For
Kraemer, points of contact did not
reside within the reason of the lost sinner or through general revelation.31
He argued that only one point of
contact exists. “This one point of contact is the disposition and the attitude
of the missionary. Such is the golden
rule. The way to live up to this rule is to have an untiring and genuine interest in the religion, the ideas, the
sentiments, the institutions-in short, in the whole range of life of the people among whom one works. .
. .”32
Kraemer’s rejection of points of contact within
fallen mankind through general revelation is untenable. In essence Kraemer disallows the efficacy of general
revelation within the sinner by restricting points of contact to the
missionary’s relationship with the non-Christian. According to Grudem, “Kraemer’s radical rejection of natural
revelation has not gained wide acceptance; it rests upon the unlikely view that Rom 1:21 refers to knowledge of God in
theory but not in fact.”33
The fact that evangelicals today do not commonly
use the term “point of contact” stems from its earlier association with ecumenical theologians and missiologists who
emphasized continuity within their theologies of fulfillment. But the concept
of a point of contact as something within the mind and experience of the sinner serving as preparation for the
gospel remains a familiar idea among
evangelical missionaries and missiologists today.34 This usage of
the point of contact concept rests
upon an assumption held by many evangelical proponents of general revelation that sinful men and women are capable of having
“some internal knowledge or perception that God exists and that he is a powerful Creator.”35 Proponents
of such ideas hold that all people display
a certain amount of knowledge about God, albeit distorted knowledge. They would
agree
with the statement on the relationship of animism
to Christian revelation at the World Missionary Conference of 1910:
As to the crucial question of the
attitude to be taken up towards Animism, any difference of
opinion that may exist is apparent rather than real. It
is held by the majority that there is a
modicum of truth in all religious systems, God not having left Himself without
a witness in the peoples. The animistic religions present certain points of
contact for the preaching of the Gospel(emphasis mine).36
This paper maintains that the biblical
continuity-discontinuity position best supports the use of points of
contact for cross-cultural communication of the gospel. This position does not
advocate finding common ground in order that
the gospel can be the fulfillment of non-Christian belief systems. Identifying points of contact does not
mean looking for Christianity in traditional religions. Neither does this approach follow Thomas Aquinas and try to
alter or improve the faults of the
non-Christian religions that sprang from “defective reasoning.”37
This paper argues that points of
contact are manifestations of general revelation that enhance communication of
the gospel. The biblical
continuity-discontinuity model, discussed next, provides the theological
foundation for such points of contact.
The
Biblical Continuity-Discontinuity Model
Richard Gehman’s study of African traditional
religion among the Akamba people of East Africa illustrates the biblical continuity-discontinuity position advocated in
this paper.38 Gehman proposes a biblical continuity-discontinuity
approach because of the untenable conclusions espoused by proponents of both the continuity position and the
discontinuity position. Both positions,
usually maintained as rigid, stand-alone positions, tend to overlook the truths
of one another. Gehman states:
On
the one hand, there is a radical discontinuity between African Traditional
Religion and biblical faith. Man by his sinful nature is in
rebellion against God and fleeing from God. Man
in his culture and religion has sought to deify man and remove God from His
rightful pre-eminence. Repentance and conversion are required. This
is biblical truth. On the other hand, the discontinuity is not so
radical that the Gospel is preached in a vacuum. Despite man’s
rebellion, God in His grace pursues men and women, seeking them out and disclosing
something of Himself and will for them. Thus there is a measure of continuity.39
The biblical continuity-discontinuity model
recognizes truth in both the continuity and discontinuity positions. It
seeks to avoid the extremes of both positions. The author examines the continuity and discontinuity positions before
delineating the biblical continuity-discontinuity position.
The
Continuity Approach
Historically the continuity approach emphasized the
“continuity of God’s revealing and redeeming
activity in Christ with his activity among all men everywhere.”40
Nathan Söderblom illustrates the most
extreme degree of continuity by stating:
It is
clearly absurd to restrict divine revelation to Christ. Once one has become
familiar with extra-Biblical belief in God in China and Japan,
India and Persia, Egypt and Babylonia, Greece and Rome, it is
quite impossible to remain so exclusive. Either genuine divine
revelation is to be found equally outside the Bible, or it does not occur in
the Bible. As matters now stand the history of religions offers us no third
alternative.41
Söderblom
exemplifies the pluralism position. Pluralists believe that the world religions
are equally effective in helping humanity gain salvation.
Several key assumptions undergird the pluralist
viewpoint. They believe that the different names for God found in various
religions and cultures refer to the God of the Bible. Some
contend that religion evolves. The genuine motivation and worship of
the particular religious adherent serves as the primary determinant for salvation. Pluralists reason that any religion able
to move a person from self-centeredness to reality-centeredness is valid. This position maintains a theocentric
view of reality, rather than a
Christocentric view.
Leading proponents of this view include John Hick, Paul Knitter, William Hocking, and historian Wilfred Cantwell Smith.42
Not all proponents of the continuity position
qualify as pluralists. Proponents of inclusivism, such as Clark Pinnock, Karl Rahner, John Sanders,
and Raimundo Panikkar also maintain the continuity position.43
Inclusivists argue that sincere adherents of other religions may be included in Christ even though they are unaware of the
gospel. Rahner refers to individuals in these situations as anonymous Christians. Such “Christians” do not have an
explicit faith or consciousness that
they are Christians, but in reality they participate in God’s grace. This
position holds that God makes
salvation available to all people, and Jesus Christ is the only mediator of salvation. Thus, for inclusivists, salvation can
occur through one’s response to general revelation in non-Christian religions. Rahner exemplifies this
position by declaring “a non-Christian religion
can be recognized as a LAWFUL religion (although only in different degrees)
without thereby denying the error and
depravity contained in it. . . .44
A primary
distinction between the inclusivist and the pluralist concerns the
inclusivist’s view of Christ’s atonement.
Contrary to the pluralist’s view, inclusivists contend that no salvation exists
apart from the atonement of Jesus
Christ. The inclusivist believes that salvation results only through Christ, but this salvation does not have to
spring from an explicit faith in the historical Jesus Christ. The pluralist argues all religions contain salvific
potential, and Christianity simply serves
as one of many ways to God.
Both the
pluralist and inclusivist approaches maintain the continuity position and posit
general revelation as potentially salvific.
Advocates of both positions demonstrate concern for the unevangelized,
specifically, those who have no opportunity to respond to the direct message of
Jesus Christ and Christianity.45 They insist upon a universally
accessible salvation.
Some exclusivists propose alternative remedies to
pluralists’ and inclusivists’ demands for a universally accessible salvation. Alister McGrath represents this
approach and contends that God brings
to salvation those without access to the gospel.46 He writes, “Where
the word is not or cannot be preached by human agents, God is not inhibited
from bringing people to faith in him even
if that act of hope and trust may lack the fully robed character of an informed
Christian faith.”47
McGrath
supports his position with stories from Islamic countries where Muslims convert
to Christianity after seeing the risen
Christ in dreams. McGrath does not argue that these occurrences represent the
normal pattern for winning adherents to Christianity. Thus he maintains
historic Christianity’s focus on the necessity for the church to take the
evangelistic initiative among non-Christian
peoples. His position stands in stark contrast with the pluralist application of the continuity position which
emasculates the mission of the New Testament Church.48
Both
the pluralist and inclusivist positions erase significant distinctions between
general and
special revelation.
Without these distinctions, points of contact are misconstrued as potentially salvific in themselves or as evidence to support
the idea that salvation occurs within other religions apart from the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Such
beliefs diminish traditional missionary
motivations for cross-cultural evangelism. As J. I. Packer asks, “What is the
point of asking anyone to change religions, if all religions are
Christianity in disguise?”49 Effective use of points of contact in cross-cultural evangelism
requires a sound biblical theology. The theological parameters of the continuity position extend too
wide for such a biblical theology.
The
Discontinuity Approach
The discontinuity approach developed as a response
to the continuity position. It rejected continuity, with its foundations in Enlightenment skepticism and the
denial of biblical revelation and Christ’s uniqueness.50 The
continuity position rose to prominence with assistance from the discipline of religionswissenschaft, the science of religion.51 The
traditional view of a unique Christianity
distinct from all other religions diminished as a result.52
Karl Barth as a primary proponent of
discontinuity, opposed continuity. His discontinuity involved an attack on natural theology as the
great enemy of the faith.53 Natural theology argued that non-Christians had the spiritual potential
within them for understanding theological truth by their reasoning capacities alone. G. C. Berkouwer
contends that Barth’s attack always included the traditional view of
general revelation.54 Barth’s attack on natural theology included
general revelation because he rejected the
possibility of man’s ability to know anything about God due to the results of
the fall. He argued that divine revelation lacked an intrinsically rational
element. Therefore, one’s knowledge
of God emerges at the earliest moment of faith.
For Barth, discontinuity meant that non-Christian
religion displays the darkness of the heart and demonstrates the opposite of faith, unbelief.55 He believed
that, “Religion ist niemals und nirgends als solche und in sich wahr. Das sie
wahr, d.h. das sie in Warheit Erkenntnis und Verehrung Gottes und Versöhnung des Menschen mit Gott sei. . . .”56
Barth rejected the idea of points of contact, as
defined by Emil Brunner, between the Gospel and world religions.57 It was Brunner’s contention that humanity
carries within itself “a capacity for revelation”
or “a possibility of . . . being addressed,” which enables a person to
apprehend and receive God’s revelation.58
As noted earlier, Kraemer agreed with Barth
concerning the impossibility of points of contact as defined by Brunner.
Kraemer also argued against Hocking’s notion of a common essence among world religions.59 Kraemer insisted that
Christianity was absolutely unique, sui generis. He believed that a fundamental discontinuity
existed between God’s self revelation in Jesus Christ and the whole range of human religion. The idea of
the gospel as fulfillment of other religions constituted an impossibility. For Kraemer, the method of sharing beliefs
with other belief systems results in
“the suicide of missions.”60 “There could be no continuity between
the religions and Christianity.”61
Kraemer’s
book, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World,
became the standard work for the discontinuity position long after the Tambaram
conference. Modern-day proponents of Kraemer’s
radical discontinuity position are classified as exclusivists.
Exclusivists
argue that an individual’s salvation depends upon special revelation. They
reject the possibility that general revelation can provide salvific knowledge
of God. Instead, they hold that salvation
exists only in Jesus Christ, who as God incarnate, the unique God-man, came
into the world to save humanity.
Christianity constitutes the only true religion; no salvation resides in other religions. The gospel exhibits a universal
scope, since God desires all persons to be saved, but God will only save through
one’s explicit faith in Christ, thus the exclusivism of the gospel.
Extreme exlusivists such as Ronald Nash and Harold
Lindsell contend that non-Christian religions
call for opposition, since they contain nothing of value and are evil.62
Pronouncing judgment and seeking
reconciliation serve as the only valid purposes for contacting non-Christian religions.63 Critics often characterize
this position as too narrow in its view of God’s dealings with all mankind and “betraying an intolerant
attitude of exclusiveness that is alien to the tolerant spirit of Christ.”64 Pluralists and
inclusivists maintain that the exclusivist’s view of reality demonstrates both arrogance and an imperialistic
attitude.
A concern for all people to have
access to salvation forms the basis for these criticisms. Pluralists and
inclusivists contend that a just God must make salvation universally available,
even in places without knowledge of the gospel
of Jesus Christ. John Hick proposes:
But
can it possibly be the will of the loving heavenly Father of Jesus’ teaching
that only that minority of men and women who have the luck
to be born into a Christian part of the world
can enter eternal life? This would not be the work of a God of limitless and universal
love, who values all human beings equally, but of an arbitrary cosmic tyrant, more
fit to be reviled as the devil than to be worshiped as God.65
Harold Netland advocates the exclusivist position
and the use of the term “exclusivism” but regrets the connotations of the term. He says that “the use of the term
‘exclusivism’ is somewhat unfortunate
since it has for many people undesirable connotations of narrow-mindedness, arrogance, insensitivity to others,
self-righteousness, bigotry, and so on.”66
Another problem for the exclusivist position
concerns the failure by continuity proponents to distinguish between faith and culture. This confusion leads to the
assertion that the rejection of someone’s
religious beliefs equates to rejecting their culture. Since pluralists and
inclusivists maintain that all
cultures (and by extension, religious beliefs) deserve acceptance as equals in
the arena of a multi-cultural world,
then the exclusivist position requires rejection.
General
and Special Revelation
At this point it is
important to clarify general revelation and special revelation in regard to
their relationships to the continuity and
discontinuity positions. Some have questioned whether or not a clear distinction exists between general and
special revelation. “Are there really two distinct categories with regard to the content of
revelation?”67 Such questions reflect a concern to address the difficult questions related to the knowledge of
God among non-Christians. Perhaps a better question and one which offers answers to these concerns is, “How much
information does general revelation
provide?”68 According to Carl F. H. Henry:
The
Bible depicts general revelation as an intellectual content that confronts
humanity both externally and internally, and as conveying
cognitively reliable data to all, even if persons differ somewhat in their
admission and retention of elements of that revelation. Nobody
is without some objective knowledge conveyed by general revelation, a knowledge that renders
every person guilty for revolt against light, in view of humankind’s attempted suffocation of that revelatory content.69
Traditional evangelical theology maintains that
general revelation consists of a general type of information or
knowledge about God’s character and existence. This information resides in
three domains: (1) in nature through
observing the created order (Ps 19:1-6, Rom 1:18-21); (2) in history through God’s benevolence to all people
(Matt 5:45, Acts 14:15-17); and (3) in a person’s conscience through his or her understanding of
moral right and wrong (Rom 2:14-15).70 The knowledge is general in the sense that all people
have this knowledge and in that it deals only with the universal concerns of God’s existence, God’s attributes, and
God’s demands for morality.
All people
can recognize general revelation because the imago Dei resides
in all people. Again Henry writes, “Historic
Christian theism speaks of God only in view of his rational self-disclosure and links man to his Maker because of a
rationally significant divine image through which God addresses him both in general revelation and in scripturally
revealed truths.”71
General revelation does not
address the special aspects of the gospel.72 Millard Erickson notes
that Scripture does not indicate the possibility that through general
revelation some may have implicit faith in Christ. He says of implicit faith,
“It is not something that we can rely on as an alternative to presentation to everyone of the message of salvation in
Christ.”73
General revelation depends upon special revelation
for the full revelation of the historical gospel. Bruce Demarest and Richard Harpel argue,
“Epistemologically general revelation precedes special revelation. General revelation gives all people everywhere an
elemental knowledge of God and the
sense of spiritual need that renders special revelation meaningful and relevant
to
life.”74
Some oppose the idea that
general revelation and special revelation refer to two distinct realities. Oftentimes,
such opposition stems from the result of attributing the excesses of natural
theology to general revelation. Historically, proponents of
natural theology exhibited an unbiblical trust of
human reason. As a
result, people place too great a confidence in humankind to know God through
reason apart from special revelation from God in the Bible. Ultimately this
leads to the conclusion that non-Christian
religions are potentially salvific.
Those who oppose the efficacy of general
revelation, contend that such knowledge gathered from the world is too
untrustworthy. They argue that man’s sinfulness and God’s transcendent nature preclude accurate knowledge of God through human
reason alone. Evangelical proponents of the general revelation/special revelation dichotomy agree that the
sinfulness of man distorts the knowledge
of God acquired through general revelation. But they argue that the proper
integration of special revelation with
general revelation remedies this problem. Enns writes, “General revelation, although not adequate to procure
salvation, is nonetheless an important antecedent to salvation. General revelation is God revealing
certain truths and aspects about His nature to all humanity, which is essential
and preliminary to God’s special revelation.”75
Theologians who distinguish between general and
special revelation identify two primary domains of special revelation: the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the
Scriptures. Scholars posit various
modes of special revelation. These include Scripture, divine speech not
recorded in Scripture, supernatural
acts and historical events, dreams, interpretation of dreams, casting of lots, Urim and Thummim, and angels.76
Muslim dreams of Christ, reported by McGrath, may be interpreted by some exclusivists as special
revelation.
Special revelation affirms God’s general
revelation. Henry refers to special revelation as redemptive revelation. He argues that special
revelation “publishes the good tidings that the holy and merciful God promises
salvation as a divine gift to man who cannot save himself and that he has now
fulfilled that promise in the gift of his Son in whom all men are called to
believe.”77
The
Biblical Continuity-Discontinuity Approach
The biblical continuity-discontinuity approach
integrates the realities of both special and general revelation in the process of communicating the
gospel cross-culturally. Thus, special revelation and general revelation complement one another and
present a unified understanding of God. Grudem argues that the knowledge of God is given to all through general
revelation. He says, “General
revelation provides a basis of information that enables the gospel to make
sense to a non-Christian’s heart and mind: unbelievers know that God
exists and that they have broken his standards,
so the news that Christ died to pay for their sins should truly come as good
news to them.78
A broad theological spectrum
exists between continuity and discontinuity. This spectrum stretches from an extreme
form of exculsivism to an extreme form of pluralism. Exclusivism represents the extreme application of the
discontinuity position and pluralism denotes the extreme application of the continuity position. Inclusivists advocate
continuity, but not to the same degree as the pluralists.
Both
continuity positions argue that salvific truth is knowable without special
revelation. Exclusivists reject this view. David Clark states
that “the question of special revelation and salvation is relevant only
within exclusivism.”79 He maintains that the positions of
inclusivism, pluralism, and relativism80 do not concern themselves
at all with the role of special revelation in salvation
because salvation, in these positions, occurs in a variety of ways.
But for evangelical missiologists, the questions
surrounding the nature and role of special revelation relate to the heart of the mission enterprise. Therefore,
these missiologists devote much
attention to the question of whether or not general revelation holds salvific
potential in and of itself or only
preparatory81 for salvation and dependent upon special revelation.
This attention highlights the importance of the
biblical continuity-discontinuity model. This model seeks to apply both special and general revelation to the process
of cross-cultural communication of
the gospel. It asserts that general revelation serves as a necessary antecedent
to special revelation. Also, this
model allows for a variety of manifestations of general revelation. These manifestations occur in all people groups of
the world through their worldviews and cultures
and provide points of contact to facilitate more effective cross-cultural
evangelism. These manifestations lack
the sufficiency in themselves to provide salvation. They depend upon special revelation to bring full meaning to the
fragments of truth that general revelation supplies. Demarest summarizes well the interdependence of
general and special revelation:
The
law written on the heart informs the creature of his spiritual duties vis-a-vis
the Creator and Judge of the world. Only when one is
conscious of his guiltiness does the receptivity of grace become a
possibility. Only when one sees himself as a sinner before the
God of Creation does the offer of reconciliation in the gospel make sense. If intuitional
and inferential knowledge of God were not present, God’s gracious
communication
to man in the form of special revelation would remain a meaningless abstraction.
Special revelation, then, begins at the point where man’s natural knowledge of
God
ends. Special revelation completes, not negates, the disclosure of God in
nature, providence,
and conscience.82
The biblical continuity-discontinuity position
maintains that a discontinuity exists between Christianity and other belief systems in regard to salvation. This
position advances a strongly conversionist position and emphasizes that
salvation exists through explicit faith in Jesus Christ. Sinful men and women must repent of their sins and
give their allegiance to Jesus Christ rather than to themselves or other gods.
However,
in spite of this discontinuity, some continuity exists between the gospel and
other belief systems. Despite man’s fallen, rebellious nature, God seeks to
redeem unbelievers and restore them to right
relationships with him. Through general revelation, God pursues a relationship
with mankind. J. Budziszewski believes that general revelation itself serves as
a point of contact with non-Christians. He argues, “Our
point of contact with nonbelievers is established
by God himself. That point is general revelation.”83
The
biblical continuity-discontinuity model argues that points of contact from
general revelation occur in nature, conscience, and
history. Every person and culture responds to the revelatory information
of these three domains in different ways. But these manifestations of general revelation
establish a measure of continuity with the gospel. The degree of this
continuity varies from person to person and from
culture to culture. Many animistic cultures have a substantial degree of
continuity with Christianity. Alan Tippett explains:
I
contend the philosophical presuppositions of animism are such as permit our engagement
in evangelistic dialogue in terms of scriptural values.
The animist is open to Scripture. The Evangelical
who takes the Bible at its face value has a common basis for discussion with the
animist. This is not so with the demythologizer or the
universalist (emphasis mine).84
Cyril Okorocha’s study of the Igbo
of Nigeria support Tippett’s postulate. He contends that the Igbo
converted to Christianity rather than Islam because they found more theological
points of contact between that religion than Islam.”85
Several of Tippett’s
“philosophical presuppositions” correspond favorably with the three domains of general revelation mentioned above:
nature, conscience, and history.
The
philosophical continuity between many animistic belief systems and Christianity
necessitates the use of the biblical continuity-discontinuity
model because the biblical continuity-discontinuity model provides a
theologically sound integration of general and special revelation.86
This model recognizes points of contact in general revelation, but resists
viewing points of contact as potentially salvific. In this model,
general and special revelation are understood as both personal and
propositional, thus avoiding the extremes of the discontinuity position
which emphasizes the propositional nature of revelation and the continuity
position which emphasizes the personal, subjective nature of
revelation. John Stott illustrates the focus of the continuity-discontinuity
position when he states:
The living God is a
personal God, who made us as persons in his own image and insists on treating as persons the persons He has made. So the
whole process of revelation has been the self-disclosure of a Person to
persons, to real persons like ourselves who actually lived in a certain place
at a certain time. In saying this, I am not denying that God has revealed His truth in word, I am rather asserting that His
revelation has been ‘personal’ and
‘propositional’
at one and the same time. That is, the truths He has revealed have not descended
from heaven by parachute. They have rather been made known in and through
the living experience of
human beings, culminating in His own Son, the Word made flesh.87
The
apostles encountered a variety of religions as they preached the gospel during
the New Testament period. Paul in particular utilized cognitive
bridges between the gospel and his audiences as he proclaimed the
gospel. Paul also addressed the function of general revelation in
regard to one’s
knowledge of God. The following section focuses on several key passages of Paul
that relate to using points of
contact as bridges for cross-cultural communication of the gospel.
Key Biblical Passages Relating
to the Point of Contact Concept
Four primary New Testament passages support the
point of contact concept. The first two, Rom 1:18-21 and 2:12-15, support the doctrine of general revelation. In this
regard, these passages provide insight
into the point of contact concept. As noted earlier, point of contact theory
rests upon a certain degree of continuity between Christianity and the
belief systems of non-Christian individuals.
This continuity resides in the three domains of general revelation: knowledge
of God’s existence, knowledge of God’s
character or attributes, and knowledge of right and wrong. These two passages
describe how God reveals himself to all mankind through the creation of the
world and people.
The first passage examines the creation of the
world and its revelation of God’s existence and attributes. The second passage
explains how God created people with a conscience and innate knowledge of right
and wrong. When combined, these passages forcefully demonstrate that all peoples and cultures possess significant points of
contact that can facilitate communication of the gospel.
The third and fourth passages are Acts 14:8-18 and
17:16-32. These two passages illustrate the apostle Paul’s use of general revelation as he communicated the gospel to
first century, non-Christian peoples.
The passages relate to the effective use of points of contact for current attempts at cross-cultural evangelism. These
verses also demonstrate the biblical appropriateness of the use of points of
contact in all types of evangelism.
Romans 1 and 2
Rom 1:16, 17 explain the focus of Romans 1 and 2.
Rom 1:16 declares the universal nature of the gospel when it states that the gospel of Christ is “the power of God
to salvation for everyone who believes.”
This verse also recognizes the particularity of the gospel audience when it
says that the gospel is “for the Jew
first and also for the Greek.” Paul emphasizes the different audiences
of the gospel in order to lay the foundation for his discussion of the
different types of revelations God has given
to Jews and non-Jews.
These
passages also highlight the progressive self-revelation of God from the general
to the specific. In Rom 1:17, Paul characterizes the subject of the entire
epistle as righteousness by faith, rather than by one’s
obedience to the law. Marvin Vincent argues that for Greeks during the time
of Paul’s writing to the Romans, social usage and context determined
righteousness.88 In other words, the morality of the Greeks, which
the classical philosophers held as self-evident, depended
upon a social basis of righteousness and utilized social constraints to limit
the
individual
desires or preferences for the well-being of the society. This stands in sharp
contrast to Paul’s explanation of righteousness in Romans. In
Romans, “God is the absolute and final standard
of right, and every wrong is a sin against God. Righteousness is union with God
in character.”89
This contrast
between the classical Greek view of righteousness and Paul’s teaching in
Romans, illustrates the qualitative
difference between the truth revealed from general revelation and that revealed by special revelation. Vincent argues that
“righteousness as an attribute of God was revealed before the Gospel [through general revelation]. Righteousness in
this [New Testament] sense is a matter
of special revelation through the Gospel.”90 Douglas Moo supports
this interpretation when he states that Rom 1:18-3:20 is “ a preparation for,
rather than as part of, Paul’s
exposition of the gospel of God’s righteousness.”91 According to
Moo, the gospel that reveals God’s
righteousness makes sense only against the backdrop of man’s sinful condition with its rejection and subversion of God’s natural
revelation. He states, “The knowledge of God rejected by those depicted in Rom 1:18-32 comes solely through ‘natural
revelation’--the evidences of God in creation and perhaps the
conscience.”92 These two passages teach that both Gentiles (Rom 1:18-21) and Jews (Rom 2:12-15) carry
responsibility and guilt for their sins whether that knowledge comes through general revelation or through
special revelation.
A progression from general revelation to special
revelation exists among the non-Jewish and Jewish subjects of Paul’s writing. Romans 1-3 define four possible
categories of relationship to God,
which correspond to this progression. These categories reflect the type of
revelation received. Moo contends, “Paul’s indictment of humanity in 1:18-3:8
proceeds as if it were moving inward
through a series of concentric circles: from the whole of humanity (1:18), to humanity apart from special revelation--mainly,
then, Gentiles (1:19-32), to the ‘righteous’ person but mainly the Jew (2:1-16), to the Jew explicitly (2:17-3:8).”93
Rom
1:19-21 declares that God makes known to all people his existence and his
nature. A. T. Robertson notes that this knowledge of God (yv6is5 iov 0s_v) in Rom 1:19 and 21 refers to
“a knowledge by personal experience.”94 The phrase
“manifest in them” (Tavsp6v Ev a_io_5) in verse
19, refers to the place of this knowledge, “in their hearts and consciences.”95
These verses clearly indicate that this knowledge was evident
to all and in all through the creation. Aída Spencer argues, “Paul uses voikw [to comprehend], a synonym of xa9op_w [to clearly see] which,
according to Bauer’s Lexicon, is
‘of rational reflection or inner contemplation.’ In the Gospels,
Eph 3:4, and Heb 11:3, voikw, refers to more than knowing a
fact; it refers to perceiving the significance of the fact.”96
Spencer argues that in verses 19-21 Paul stressed the clarity of God’s
self revelation by word order (Tavsp6v precedes its verb) and by the use
of many synonyms for clarity (Tavsp6v, ‘manifest’; Tavsp6w, ‘make clear’; yv6is5 ‘known’; xa9op_w, ‘see
thoroughly’).97
John Murray argues that this knowledge does not
refer to the knowledge of Rom 2:14, 15. The knowledge of Rom 2:14-15 exists in
the mind of man and is sometimes called notitia
Dei insita or sensus
divinitatis. Instead, the
knowledge of Rom 1:19-21 refers to a “knowledge derived
from revelation that is
external to himself,” in creation.98 Frederick Godet states
emphatically that Paul in this
passage, refers to “what can be known of God without the help of an extraordinary revelation.”99 The
reason this knowledge may be manifest in them stems from the important fact that “manifestation of truth to men
always presupposes the mind and consciousness
of men.”100
The content of this
knowledge resides in the creation. According to H. C. G. Moule, Paul means that “ever since there was a universe to observe,
and a man to observe it, the being and will of the Divine Artificer have been discernable.”101
Robert Haldane explains, “By the works of creation, and from those of a general providence, God can be
fully recognized as the Creator of heaven
and earth, and thence His natural attributes may be
inferred.”102 John Calvin believed that creation functions in a manner similar to a
mirror, reflecting the invisible attributes of God the Creator.103
In these verses Paul perpetuates the common Old Testament argument found in the
Psalms, Job, and Isaiah.104 This
argument asserts that the created world demonstrates the character and existence of God.
Paul lists only two
attributes of God that creation reveals. These two attributes, the eternal
power of God and his divinity,
though invisible to the senses of man, are “clearly apprehended in mental conception.”105 Other attributes of God
exist even though Paul only lists two. The eternal power of God and his divinity serve as representative
attributes for God’s entire nature. They summarily state his existence and his all-encompassing
omnipotence.
The first attribute
mentioned by Paul relates to God’s eternal power. Godet argued that “power is that which immediately arrests man, when the
spectacle of nature presents itself to his view.”106 Concerning eternal power Murray writes:
[Eternal
power] is specific and it means that the attribute of eternity is predicated of
God’s power. The implication is that the eternity of God as well
as the eternity of his power is in view. Phenomena disclose the voovusva of
God’s transcendent perfection and specific divinity. It is not a finite cause
that the work of creation manifests but the eternal power and divinity of the
Creator.107
Paul asserts that the majesty of creation requires
an omnipotent Creator, who himself never grows old but is everlasting. John Parry insightfully delineates the
progression of Paul’s logic by writing:
The
primary conceptions of the Maker, formed by reflection upon things, are power
and divinity. The fundamental assumption implied is that there must be a
Maker--things could not make themselves, and man
obviously did not make them. This assumption might well be
taken by Paul as universally agreed. From that he sees man’s reflection passing
to the conception of power, and lasting or spiritual power; the
conception of divinity is a further step, logically if not
chronologically, first involving hardly more than antithesis to man and
nature, but growing more complex with continued reflection; it involves
qualitative
conceptions of the Maker, not merely quantitative
conceptions of His power.108
Paul’s phrase “eternal power” results in a
knowledge of God’s existence because the entirety of creation is a
demonstration of power, which itself shows the power of the one who created it.
The fact that this power is eternal
implies that God has existed from eternity. Albert Barnes argues these verses
demonstrate “there is proof, in the works of creation, of power which must have
existed from eternity, or have
belonged to an eternal being.”109
Concerning the second attribute, the Godhead, (9sa6MS) or God’s divinity, Robertson writes that this word refers to the quality of 9s_oS and corresponds to the Latin divinitas or divine. 9sa6M~ therefore,
means “God’s divine nature and properties.”110 9sa6MS is a summary of all the attributes of God. The revelation through creation
results in a limited knowledge of God’s deity, but sufficient to keep people from idolatry. Richard Trench argues that 9sa6MS only refers to those attributes of God knowable only by God’s revelation of Himself
through nature. He argues:
It is not to be doubted that St.
Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word,
just
because he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty from his works;
but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short
of the revelation of his Eternal Word. Motives not dissimilar induce him to use 9s_ov rather
than &6q in
addressing the Athenians on Mars’ Hill (Acts 17:29).111
Charles Hodge argues that the
invisible attributes refer to God’s “goodness, wisdom, power, and majesty.”112
God’s works of creation manifest his invisible attributes. However, they only
declare his eternal power and divine nature. “One has to look elsewhere for the
disclosure of his love and grace --i.e., to Scripture and especially to the revelation
of God in his Son (Jn 1:14).”113
Haldane states, “In the revelation of the word, the grand truth
is the deity of Christ; in the light of nature, the
grand truth is the deity of the Creator.”114
Calvin argues that the “idea of goodness is conveyed
in the word, *16mS.”115
He substantiates this claim by
applying verse 21 to Paul’s choice of the word 0.-16mq. He writes, “Two things are laid to the
charge of the Gentiles which bear a reference to the two things said here--they
did not glorify him as God, and they were
not thankful. He made Himself known by power as God, and by the beneficent exercise of that power, he had
laid claim to the gratitude of his creatures.”116
The eighteenth-century theologian Herman Venema
noted that “goodness was regarded by many of the heathens as the primary attribute of Deity. Among the Greeks,
goodness was the expression by which the Supreme Being was
distinguished.”117 This
explains how the Greeks in Paul’s day would
have understood his argument in verses 18-21. They likely agreed with him that goodness constitutes a primary attribute of
God. Paul used this same line of argument with the Lycaonians and Athenians as
he sought to communicate the gospel to them.
Paul argues in Rom 1:18-21
that through creation, God reveals his existence. He also argues that creation demonstrates certain attributes of God,
such as his benevolence. But a further
understanding
of God’s benevolence emerges through the passage of time which provides a historical
perspective of God’s goodness to all mankind. Thus, these verses illustrate
general revelation manifested in two domains, nature and history. Paul uses
points of contact from these two domains in Lystra and
Athens. This will be examined later. Before discussing these examples
in Acts, the author examines the third domain, conscience, in Rom 2:12-15.
In Rom 2:12-15 Paul shifts his focus to the
revelation given to the Jews. Paul’s argument demonstrates that the Jews, with the revealed Law (the Torah), possess
as much guilt before God for their
sins as do Gentiles, who sin in regard to the natural law written on their
hearts. While Rom 2 primarily
focuses on the Jew, the contrasts Paul makes with the Gentiles, shed light on
the knowledge of God in the
non-Christian through the function of the conscience. Therefore this passage is germane to the point of contact
concept because of what it teaches concerning the role of conscience in the
non-Christian and the existence of a law written on their hearts.
The work of the law written on the heart (Rom
2:15) refers to a “natural, inborn capacity, through their own innate sense” to understand right and
wrong.118 The effects of the law relate to a person’s ability to distinguish right from wrong
or to understand “things required and stipulated by the law.”119
The notion of an innate sense of right and wrong
reflects a popular Greek conception in Paul’s day. Godet explains how in Greek society, pre-Christian philosophers
such as Neoptolemus in Philoctetes,
Antigone, Socrates, and Sophocles exemplify in a positive manner, the effects
of this innate law.120
But Paul uses the concept negatively rather than positively. Therefore, Paul’s argument declares that the knowledge of God’s
moral demands demonstrates the guilt of all rather than their piety.
The heart (xap6ia)
functions as the “source of the instinctive feelings from which those impulses go forth which govern the exercise of the
understanding and will.”121 The heart instinctively responds to right and wrong, without reasoned
consideration. Hodge forcefully states that Paul’s aim was to:
. .
. show that the heathen world have a rule of duty written on their hearts; a
fact which is not proved by some heathen obeying the law, but
which is proved by the moral conduct of all
men. Men generally, not some men, but all men, show by their acts that they
have a knowledge of right and wrong. The man who pays his debts,
honors his parents, is kind to the poor, does the things of the law.122
The heart is “that which is deepest and most
determinative in their moral and spiritual being.”123
Furthermore, the
conscience (ovv.-i64a.-wq) is “separated from the
self and personified as a further witness
standing over against it.”124 The conscience reflects and recognizes
right from wrong. The conscience
displays “co-knowledge, the knowledge or reflective judgment which a man has by
the side of or in conjunction with the original consciousness of the act.”125
The
conscience
then works in tandem with the works of the law written on the heart. Harrison
notes, “The conscience operates through a process of accusation
or defense by the thoughts of a man, the inner life being pictured as
a kind of debating forum, so that at times he finds himself exonerated
at the bar of conscience, at other times convicted of wrong.”126
The role of the conscience in the first
presentations of the gospel cannot be overemphasized. The conscience serves as an inner witness to the
gospel message. Robert Priest posits that the content of the conscience corresponds with God’s own moral
standards to the extent that it functions as God’s initial reference point in revealing our own moral failures and
need of grace.127 Culture influences
consciences, but the works of the law written on the heart provide sufficient
overlap between the unbeliever’s knowledge of morality and biblical morality to
ensure that the gospel’s call to
repentance is not without meaning. Priest posits the application of this truth
by writing, “We must preach in such
a way that native conscience functions as an independent inner witness to the truth of what is proclaimed about sinful
selves. In this fashion conscience works with the missionary message.”128
Acts 14 and 17
Two passages in Acts illustrate Paul’s use of
general revelation in presenting the gospel. Acts 14:15-17 and 17:22-31 record Luke’s summary of
Paul’s first two presentations of the gospel to non-Jewish people. Paul’s audiences consisted of people, “who, unlike
the Gentiles that attended synagogue
worship, had no acquaintance with the God of Israel or with Hebrew prophets.”129
Thus these passages demonstrate the
value of the point of contact concept for communicating the gospel among adherents of traditional religions
today. Darrell Bock notes that Paul’s speech in Acts 17 “establishes a fundamental approach to the ‘religious’ world of
those who do not know
Jesus.”130
In both of
these passages, Paul engages his audience along three lines of argument that correspond to the three domains of general
revelation discussed earlier. The first line of argument concerns God’s existence. The second argument
relates to God’s attributes. The third argument deals with the third domain of
general revelation, the knowledge of right and wrong enforced by the
conscience. Space does not permit a full discussion concerning the entire
context of each of these passages, nor the entire content of each witnessing
encounter. The following discussion focuses only on those verses that
illustrate Paul’s use of general revelation as points of contact.
Stott notes that Paul’s sermon in Acts 14:15-18
holds “great importance as his only recorded address to illiterate pagans.”131 Prior to the sermon, Paul
and Barnabas gained an audience with the Lycaonians through the healing of a
crippled man in Acts 14:8. The Lycaonians concluded from this that Paul and Barnabas were the gods
Hermes and Zeus and therefore deserving of their worship. Paul’s response did not consist of an emotionless presentation
of logic. In verse 14, prior to
Paul’s presentation concerning the true God, both he and Barnabas had torn
their clothes and run into the
multitude to prevent the Lycaonians from worshiping them. The phrase “tore
their clothes” (&a_4uuw)
expressed their horror as well as their “grief and pain at seeing or
hearing anything actually blasphemous or sacrilegious.”132
They “sprang forth” (E~En8116av)133 into the multitude to prevent the crowd from offering
sacrifices to them.
Once among the pagan multitude, Paul and Barnabas
showed respect to the Lycaonians when they asked “Sirs” (Av6pq), which
indicates an abrupt but courteous manner,134 “why are you doing these things?”135 They then sought
to positively and sympathetically identify themselves with the humanity
of the Lycaonians and thus deny any concept of their personal divinity.136
Paul and Barnabas reject the Lycaonians’
misguided beliefs and actions, not the Lycaonians themselves. One can easily overlook this point,
but it serves as an essential element in any attempt at gospel communication among traditional religious adherents.
The missionary’s attitude towards
non-Christians must remain respectful of the people, in spite of their
religious beliefs and practices.
Only after this attempt at identification had been
made, did Paul and Barnabas begin to present their argument about the only true God. Paul initiates his argument
stating that the one true, living God
exists and is knowable. Paul began by proclaiming that “God is One, the
Almighty Creator.”137 Paul
uses 9s_ov, without the article, because only one true God
exists.138 The true God
did not equal the vain things or idols (1aiaiwv) the
Lycaonians customarily revered as gods. Instead the true God is a living God, not a dead statue. The evidence for
his living existence resides in the
creation, “who made the heaven, the earth, the sea and things that are in them”
(14:15d). Stott notes that in this
verse, Paul “focused not on a Scripture they did not know, but on the natural
world around them, which they did know and could see.139 Marion
Soards contends, “The images of
creation echo the universal character of the divinely achieved salvation to
which the disciples are calling
their hearers, and the images are a clear recognition of God’s authority as Creator.”140 Paul seeks to establish
first that only one true God exists, and as their Creator he, rather than vain idols, deserves their worship.
Verse 16 reinforces that the God of Creation is eternal because he allowed bygone generations to walk in their ways.
Paul’s second
line of argument focuses on God’s nature as demonstrated through his
providential goodness. Paul reminds the
Lycaonians that they have seen this living God through his acts of benevolence in nature. Burnside observes Paul’s
reasoning to be that “God is true to Himself in nature.”141 God does not leave himself without witness
anywhere in his Creation. In verse 17 Paul
states that God has made himself known through “doing good” (aya0oupycbv) to the
Lycaonians. Two parallel participles “giving you” (&6o6q) and
“filling” (k1ntn ,cbv) elaborate how God did good to the Lycaonians. God gave rains and fruitful seasons,
and God filled their hearts with food
and gladness. All of these gifts of God bear witness to him. “In the bounty of nature there was testimony to both the being and
the nature of God.”142 Though these verses do not per se present the gospel, Paul clearly outlines his
purpose. He intends to persuade the Lycaonians
that this good, caring, giving, living God desires to do even more good towards
them in the offer of salvation
through Jesus Christ.
In
summary, Paul’s approach to the Lycaonians illustrates three types of points of
contact. First, by seeking to identify with the Lycaonians Paul validates
Kraemer’s contention that the
missionary
himself serves as a point of contact. Second, Paul uses creation as a point of
contact to argue that God exists and is not inanimate. Third,
Paul reminds the Lycaonians that throughout their
history their material needs had been met through nature. Paul asserts that God
used nature to meet their needs. He thus established God’s
benevolent character by using rain, food, and gladness
of heart as points of contact which reflect God’s attributes.
Acts 17:22-33 records Paul’s
other speech to non-Christians given at the Areopagus in Athens. Athens
constituted the leading center of learning in Paul’s day and served as the
“native city of Socrates and Plato and the
adopted home of Aristotle, Epicurus and Zeno.”143 An
extraordinary number of idols occupied the city. A. T.
Robertson notes Pliny’s observation that in the time of Nero,
Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless ones in the homes.
Similarly,
Petronius sneered that it was easier to
find a god than a man in Athens.144
Luke records in verse 17, that this center of
idolatry provoked (7apco~~vs~o) Paul’s spirit. zapco~~vsro, a strong word, can be translated enraged.
Gaebelein notes that the Holy Spirit used this provocation to drive Paul to witness against the idolatry.145
His form of witnessing though took into consideration the nature of his
audience. In verse 17 Paul reasoned (&s0h7szo)in the marketplace in a manner consistent with
philosophical debate common in Athens. In verse 22, when Greek philosophers gave Paul the opportunity
to defend his teaching about Jesus and the resurrection (17:18), he contextualized his speech so that he “comes to
the Grecian philosophers as a
philosopher.”146
Paul’s manner of approach corresponds well with
his audience. His audience at the Areopagus probably consisted of Epicureans, Stoics, representatives of other
philosophies, followers of the traditional
state religion, and perhaps even some who were not followers of any philosophy
or religion.147 Paul addressed his audience in forms and styles
appropriate to the world of Greek philosophers. Simon Kistemaker argues that,
“Paul addresses his audience with the same formula that had been used by the famous orator
Demosthenes. With this address he touches the hearts of his hearers.148
Paul’s speech in Athens parallels his speech in
Lystra. He exhibits the same respectful attitude towards the Athenians as he does to the Lycaonians, thereby making
himself a point of contact. He also uses the same argument that creation
demonstrates God’s existence and uses this as a point of contact (vs 24). He
continues by arguing in verse 25 that the Athenians also know of God’s existence because he bears witness to
himself as he “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (14:25).
Because of these similarities, the following
discussion on Acts 17:22-32 does not address these points of contact again. Instead it focuses upon
two other aspects of Paul’s discourse to the Athenians. The first regards his use of existing religious beliefs as
points of contact. The second relates
to his appeal to the consciences of his hearers.
Paul begins his sermon to the
Athenians by tactfully addressing the questions raised by the
Epicurean
and Stoic philosophers in verse 18. Verse 18 records the philosophers’ concerns
that Paul illegally proclaimed a new religion consisting of
the “foreign gods” (-Evwv 8aigoviwv), Jesus
(7ijuo6v) and
Resurrection (av_uzauiv).
Apparently the philosophers believed that av_uzauiv
represented another deity on par with Jesus. Robertson notes that the
“Athenians worshiped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues
and they misunderstood Paul on this subject.”149
But Paul
takes advantage of the existing beliefs of the Athenians by declaring that he
knows the unknown god whom they worship without
knowing. Paul says, “Therefore the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you. . . .” (17:23c). Paul
uses the altar to the unknown god (Ayvouz_ 9s_) as a point of contact with his audience. This
point of contact benefits Paul’s
proclamation of the gospel in three ways.
First, he
positively identifies with the Athenians by commenting on their uncommon
religiosity (17:22). They were so religious
they even built an altar to a deity of whom they had no knowledge (17:23b).
Secondly, he maintains that his preaching about
Jesus Christ does not break the Roman law against proclaiming a new deity or religion. Instead, his message about
Jesus Christ relates to their already
existing belief in a god whom they refer to as the unknown god (17:23b).
Thirdly, this point of contact opens the door for
Paul to address the real need of the Athenians, i.e. a true knowledge of God. Though unintentional, the Athenians had
acknowledged their ignorance of the
true God, by virtue of erecting an altar to the unknown god. Paul recognized in
this inscription the deep, unsatisfied yearning of the Athenians for a true
knowledge of and relationship with God. F. F. Bruce states, “Paul starts with
his hearers’ belief in an impersonal divine
essence, pantheistically conceived, and leads them to the living God revealed
as creator and judge.”150
Paul declares in Acts 17:23, “the One whom you
worship without knowing Him I proclaim to you.” Pluralists and inclusivists use
this verse to claim that sincere worship in other religions equates to the
worship of Jesus Christ. For example, Panikkar, in The
Unknown Christ of Hinduism writes, “In the footsteps of St. Paul, we believe
that we may speak not only of the unknown
God of the Greeks but also of the hidden Christ of Hinduism.”151
But this interpretation inaccurately
interprets Paul’s purpose. Paul focuses on the lack of knowledge among the Athenians rather than on their worship. Kistemaker
summarizes Paul’s purpose well when he writes,
“Paul transfers the concept unknown from the deity to the worshipers. They worship without knowledge. . . . They concede that this
unknown god exists, but they have no knowledge of him. Paul calls attention only to their lack of knowledge and thus
takes the opportunity to introduce God
as Creator and Judge of the universe.152
Paul
utilizes other points of contact later in his sermon. These points of contact
reside in quotations of Greek philosophers. These quotations
stem from the influence of the Old Testament revelation. R. C.
Hanson following B. Gärtner writes that these quotations are not
reproductions of
popular philosophy, but thoroughly traditional Old Testament or Jewish ideas
which occasionally clothe themselves in Stoic expression.”153
This writer concurs and believes that
Paul used Stoic writings as points of contact because he saw enough similarity
between these Stoic statements and
Old Testament ideas to justify their use.
Space does not permit a full discussion of each
allusion to or quotation from Greek philosophy in Paul’s sermon.154 The significance to
point of contact theory concerns the fact that Paul used existing beliefs of his audience to communicate
effectively with first time hearers of the gospel. Bruce observes, “Paul
here touches on issues not unfamiliar to cultured Athenians; he knows the importance of establishing as much initial common
ground as possible with his hearers, as he tries to lead them on from the known to the unknown, or from error to
truth.”155 Green argues that verses 22-29 illustrate Paul’s
use of “heathen poets to preach biblical doctrine.”156
The specifically Christian content of
the sermon begins in verse 30, “at the point where the hearers have been jolted into awareness of their moral
responsibility to the creating, sustaining God.”157
Paul uses these points of contact in his sermon to
the Athenians as a praeparatio evangelica.158 Aspects
of truth from general revelation and the Old Testament influenced some Greek philosophers to the point that Paul could quote
them to illustrate the fuller, revealed truth about Jesus Christ and the resurrection. Underlying
Paul’s use of these points of contact was an assumption that the consciences of his audience enabled them to discern
the moral accurateness of his arguments. Gooding illustrates this in
reference to Paul’s quote from Aratus, “we are his offspring” (vs 28). Gooding states:
Aratus’
concept of God would have been pantheistic and therefore inadequate. But it served
the point that Paul wanted to make. If as creatures we have sprung from a
Creator, we can tell a great deal about our Creator from looking at
ourselves. We human beings know ourselves to be personal: the
Source we come from cannot be and is not less than personal. Our Creator, then,
is not less personal than we are, but more.159
Paul challenges his audience to rethink their
moral attitude towards God. God was not an impersonal statue but a
living God. Paul contends that truths from general revelation as well as statements by their own philosophers declare that
their approach to God was morally wrong. Paul’s reasoning with the Athenians demonstrates the significant role of
the unbeliever’s conscience in
communicating the gospel effectively.
Conscience, as the arbiter of right and wrong,
functions as a point of contact for the discerning missionary. As with the Athenians, present day
cultures and worldviews influence the conscience,
and possess discernable points of contact for the gospel. Paul did this with
the Greek philosophers of his day and
serves as a model for all cross-cultural missionaries today.
Historical
Survey of Point of Contact
For centuries the Church has adapted in
varying degrees, Paul’s evangelistic approach to the non‑
Christians
in Lystra and Athens. Lactantius illustrates a partial adaptation of Paul’s
model in the early fourth century. He contends:
Now
the first step is to understand false religions, and to throw aside the impious
worship of gods which are made by the hand of man. But the second
step is to perceive with the mind that there is but one
Supreme God, whose power and providence made the world from
the beginning, and afterwards continues to govern it. The third step is to know
his Servant and Messenger, whom He sent as His ambassador to the earth.160
A clear
progression exists in Lactantius’ evangelistic approach. He moves the
non-Christian from worship of false gods to
the Creator God, appeals to the non Christian’s mind regarding the Creator God’s power and providence as reflected
through general revelation, and then presents Jesus Christ as God’s messenger
and servant.
Prior to Lactantius, physical and philosophical
persecutions forced the early church to examine its beliefs, in order to defend itself so that it might survive and even
win over its opponents. A crucial
question in this effort concerned “the relationship between their faith and
pagan culture.”161 There was common agreement that they should not
tolerate or indulge in the idolatrous
practices of the non-Christian cultures surrounding them. Discontinuity between
Christianity and other religions
prevailed. The pluralist and inclusivist perspectives concerning the
possibility of salvation in the non-Christian religions did not exist.
Justin Martyr, an apologist of the second century
and one of the first Christian thinkers to attempt to reconcile reason and faith, uses Greek
philosophy and reason in his apologetics. His apologetics assume a certain amount of continuity between Christianity
and non-Christian belief systems. His
writings illustrate an “early effort toward a synthesis of Christian and
Hellenic thought. He saw the
philosophers in partial possession of the seminal Logos that is wholly manifest only in Jesus Christ; and in Judaism also
noted a truth needing and indeed essentially pointing to, completion in Christ.”162
Justin believes that whatever truth the Greek
philosophers possess constitutes a dim reflection of Christian truth. Some historians contend Justin, in
the Apologies, “anticipates
Clement of Alexandria and the
Alexandrian school by arguing that a ‘spermatic
logos’, identical with or related to Christ instructs every man in wisdom,
so that even pagan philosophers foreshadowed Christian truth.”163
By using the concept of the logos
spermatikos Justin sought to
explain and enhance the attraction of
Christianity for Greek-speaking intellectuals of the period. He willingly
acknowledges anything good in
paganism. Justin writes, “Christ is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are
Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus. . . .”164
Green says Justin “did not make the mistake of
thinking that the ‘good’ pagan did not need
converting.”165 Instead Justin uses Greek
philosophy, especially the doctrine of the Logos, as points of contact to his advantage in seeking to persuade men that Jesus
Christ is the eternal Logos.
Clement of Alexandria adopts a similar position.
His writings relate to the point of contact concept because he holds a “positive approach to philosophy which laid
the foundations for the idea of philosophy as a ‘handmaid’ to theology.”166
Clement represents the second century apologetic
tradition of “evaluating Greek philosophy positively as providential praeparatio evangelii for Greeks.”167 Clement follows
Justin in asserting that whatever
truth philosophers and prophets had before Christ, originated from the Word or Logos, and this Logos became incarnate in
Jesus Christ. W. C. Weinrich explains Clement’s
position:
The
divine Logos, creator of all things, guides all good men and causes all right
thought. Greek philosophy was, therefore, a partial
revelation and prepared the Greeks for Christ just
as the law prepared the Hebrews. Christ is the Logos incarnate through whom man
attains to perfection and true gnosis
(emphasis mine).168
Clement liberally quotes Greek
philosophers, prophets, and poets, to make his claim that the God of
Christianity has made himself known to them.169
Clement calls upon his audience to recognize that Jesus Christ is the God these
philosophers sought to explain and he alone deserves their trust and belief.
The Greek fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria,
follow the example of Justin Martyr, and accept a greater degree of continuity between Christianity and
non-Christian belief systems. However,
the Latin fathers, such as Tertullian and Augustine emphasize discontinuity.
Tertullian makes his position clear with his famous phrase, “What indeed has
Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the
Church?”170
Augustine
occasionally speaks approvingly of philosophy in contrast to the old gods.171 His De Civitate Dei demonstrates the “providential action of God in
the development of human history”172
and could be used as points of contact.
Augustine strengthens the note of no compromise in
the Church’s attitude towards the possibility of salvation in other faiths. His works combating Pelagian views, in
which he argues that Pelagians resemble the Greek philosophers, and
promise men fulfillment by their unaided efforts, illustrate his view of no compromise.173
All of the early church leaders stress
discontinuity between Christianity and non-Christian belief systems in regard to salvation. Despite the
existence of various degrees of continuity, the phrase “no salvation outside the church” constitutes the
common belief of the early church writers previously mentioned.
Protestant Reformation
theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin focus more of their attention on distinguishing between the true church
and the false church. Nevertheless, the reformers speak of common grace in addition to saving grace, “thereby attesting
its belief that all people are
inescapably related to the living God and all are therefore beneficiaries of
his providential care.”174
Likewise, common grace leads Reformed theologians to conclude that all people possess a knowledge of God’s wrath against
their sin.
The Reformers do not devote their attention to the
implications of common grace for the mission fields of the world. Clearly though, neither Luther nor Calvin allow for
salvation apart from the special
revelation of Jesus Christ through the Scriptures. Luther argues that “outside
the Christian church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness or no
holiness.”175 Calvin followed this position.
Reformed theologians understand general revelation
in a manner that supports the point of contact
concept. Calvin emphasizes the sensus divinitatis in all mankind. The sensus
divinitatis consists of “an innate, intuitive perception in all
people of the existence of the divine, which forms the basis for all
religion and a natural theology.”176
Calvin denies the possibility of this knowledge
resulting in salvation, because the fallen nature of man corrupts this
knowledge. Nevertheless, he maintains
that it was “not to be controverted, that the human mind, even by natural instinct, possesses some sense of a Deity.”177
For Calvin the sense of
deity exists universally. He states, “Now, since there has never been a country or family, from the beginning of the world,
totally destitute of religion, it is a tacit confession, that some sense of the
Divinity is inscribed on every heart.”178
Calvin also believes that God uses the conscience
of every person to witness to Himself. “Our conscience does not allow us to
sleep a perpetual insensible sleep without being an inner witness and monitor of what we owe God, without holding
before us the difference between good and
evil.”179
Reformation theologians continue
the line of discontinuity as seen among Tertullian and other early church
leaders. Some argue that the entire Reformation movement constitutes a critique
of all religions from the standpoint of the Gospel. Interpreting Karl
Hartenstein’s position towards the Reformation, Gerold Schwarz writes:
Through
the intensive concentration of the word of the Bible alone, the Reformation,
for the first time in the history of the church, led to a
theology of religion and the religions that was
sharply distinct form the Christian philosophy of religion of the medieval
Scholastics. For Hartenstein, the reformational contrast between
religio vera (the theocentric form of religion
of grace and salvation) and religio falsa (the
anthropocentric form of religion of work-righteousness and
self-redemption) remains fundamental to a theological interpretation of the
religions.180
Originally, point of
contact theory developed in a theological context but eventually entered the missiological context as a solution to bridging the
gap between non-Christian religions and Christianity. During the modern missions era,181 the variety
of strategies for communicating the gospel
among non-Christian peoples reflect interest in bridging this gap. Some of
these strategies for introducing
Christianity include Alan Tippett’s “power encounter,” Don Richardson’s “redemptive analogies,” Marvin Mayer’s
“bi-culturalism,” Peter Beyerhaus’ “possessio,”
and Charles Kraft’s “dynamic equivalence.”182 All
of these strategies focus on finding the best method
of bridging the tremendous religious and cultural gaps which exist between
Christianity and other religions. Most significantly for this paper, they all view
the non-Christian religions as potentially
valuable in regard to containing elements conducive for communicating various aspects of Christianity.
These approaches may be classified as contextualization
strategies. David Hesselgrave proposes that
cross-cultural missions functions as an enterprise of bridge-building and
risk-taking. He contends:
A
number of terms and concepts relate to bridge-building in
missions-identification, adaptation, accommodation,
indigenization, inculturation, and dialogue, to name some of the major ones.
(And various strategies have been proposed with a view to accomplishing
this--using
‘eye openers,’ finding ‘redemptive analogies,’ and establishing ‘common ground,’
among others.) All of these terms have their own nuances, but the one term at
one time or another has been applied to all of these and other bridge-building
efforts is the new term ‘contextualization.’183
Hesselgrave
correctly notes that contextualization encompasses point of contact strategy
for cross-cultural missions. However, usage of the point of
contact concept during the initial communication of the gospel, as proposed in
this paper, represents only one aspect of the contextualization process.
Beyerhaus’ “possessio” and Richardson’s
“redemptive analogies” approximate the point of contact concept as held by this author. Beyerhaus views mission as
translation. He maintains that, “When
the biblical message is transmitted into the realm of a different culture, this
culture necessarily will have to
provide the material elements in which it will be embodied.”184
Possessio consists of a three-step process: selection,
rejection, and reinterpretation. In the selection step, the missionary adapts
“phenomena of indigenous religion” as vehicles for translating the gospel message. During the
rejection step, the missionary purifies the adapted cultural material to guard against their
interpretation in the light of their former conception. The third step involves reinterpretation in which a
complete change of the pre-Christian concepts occurs in order to reflect biblical meanings.
General revelation makes this three-step process
possible. Beyerhaus wrote that “on account of
general revelation,
non-Christian religion may contain some foreshadowings of that divine reality which is brought authentically in God’s historic
self-revelation.”185
Similarly, general revelation provides the basis
for Don Richardson’s redemptive analogies. Richardson writes, “Outside the Scripture, it appears that God’s general
revelation is the source of
redemptive analogies worldwide.”186
Richardson’s well-known experience among the Sawi
in Irian Jaya thrust the concept of redemptive
analogy onto the evangelical missionary scene in the early 1980s.187
At first, Richardson proposed redemptive analogies as a strategy of
concept fulfillment whereby those redeemed become aware of the spiritual
meaning dormant within their own culture.188 Later Richardson broadened the range of redemptive
analogies to concepts that “facilitate human understanding of redemption.”189 God ordains these
concepts to precondition the mind in a culturally significant way to recognize
Jesus as Messiah.190
Many missiologists freely interpret the redemptive
analogy concept in their strategies for contextualizing the gospel among non-Christian peoples. Harold Dollar
understands redemptive analogies as a
matter of clothing the gospel. He argues, “To put it crudely, the gospel in its
pure form is naked and the task of
missions is to clothe it appropriately. For the Westerner these clothes may be a double-breasted suit and for the
Motilone of South America these clothes may be a G-string.”191 R. Daniel Shaw uses cultural analogies
synonymously with redemptive analogies and views them both as keys which enable
people to discover the truth about God within
their context.192 Paul Hiebert refers to redemptive analogies as
“practices that can be used to convey
biblical truths by way of comparison.”193 David Hesselgrave likens
Richardson’s redemptive analogies to
“entering wedges” for the gospel.194
Richardson’s redemptive analogy, when broadly
defined as concepts that facilitate human understanding of redemption, fits well this paper’s definition of points
of contact--manifestations of general
revelation that enhance communication of the gospel. Some scholars prefer Richardson’s broader definition since redemptive
analogies per se
are not intrinsically salvific. “They
are examples from ordinary human existence that the evangelist can use to
establish contact with non-Christians
and to illustrate important aspects of the gospel.”195
For this reason Kenneth Kantzer argues that
Richardson’s redemptive analogies such as the peace child are best termed points of contact. He
contends that it is desirable to use the peace child as an instrument of communication and as a point of
contact to introduce Christ.196 This author concurs with Kantzer’s appraisal.
Contemporary missiologists use a
variety of terms to reference the point of contact concept. Such terms
include bridges, human universals of culture, eye-openers, points of entry,
starting points, contact points, and keys of common
ground.197 These also correspond well with the definition of point
of contact as used in this paper.
Modern evangelical
missiologists differ from Brunner in that they do not limit points of contact to only the sense of guilt in the sinner’s
conscience. Neither do they limit points of contact to Kraemer’s contention that the missionary serves as
the only point of contact. McGrath states that points of contact demonstrate occasional convergences of factual or
cognitive knowledge of God.198 Nida believes that points of contact
denote parallelisms which provide one with an intelligible basis for communication.199 Steyne argues that
points of contact hold value because they
help to highlight the motives and ways of dealing with felt needs.200
All of these reflect useful
applications for the point of contact concept.
The point of contact concept continues to gain
acceptance as an essential element in strategies designed for cross-cultural
communication of the gospel.201 These strategies focus on bridging the communicational gap between Christianity and
the world religions by utilizing points of contact.
Charles Taber argues that the use of points of
contact indicates that the process of contextualization is occurring. He
states, “The sharper focus of good indigenization serves to heighten both the positive points of contact and
the confrontation between Gospel and
culture.”202
This writer believes that in the future, points of
contact will become an important strategy for contextualizing the gospel message during the initial communication
process. Such strategies will not be
limited to only the remote peoples and areas of the world. Instead these
strategies will prove useful wherever
the need exists for cross-cultural communication of the gospel.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, one cannot overemphasize the universal scope of general revelation,
with its three domains of knowledge: God’s
existence, God’s attributes, and God’s morals. These three domains of general revelation are foundational for
point of contact theory. All people possess some knowledge of God as a result
of general revelation. Therefore, points of contact for communicating the
gospel exist among all people.
Christianity
has certain inherent analogies with other religious belief systems. These
include the use of rituals, prayer, sacrifice, as well as concepts and words for
God, sin, and salvation. These similarities
offer significant points of contact for enhancing the initial communication of
the gospel. Points of contact find
expression within the context of an individual’s worldview and cultural structures. It is important therefore to
examine these areas in order to determine their role in communicating the
gospel cross-culturally.
Bibliography
Books
Anderson, J. N. D. Christianity and Comparative
Religion. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.
Barth, Karl. Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Vol. 1.
Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G., 1948.
_____ . Church
Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated
by G. T.
Thomson and Harold Knight. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956.
Barrett, C. K. A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. The
International
Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, ed. Charles Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles Driver,
and Alfred Plummer. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Berkouwer, G. C. General
Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Bleeker, C. J. Christ in Modern Athens: The
Confrontation of Christianity with Modern Culture and the Non-Christian
Religions. Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1965.
Bloesch, Donald. A Theology of Word and Spirit. Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in
Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991.
Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. New
International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988.
__ . The
Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary.
Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Brunner, Emil. Revelation
and Reason. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946.
Budziszewski, J. Written on the Heart: The Case for
Natural Law. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977.
Bulato, Jaime. Phenomena and Their Interpretation:
Landmark Essays 1957-1989. Manila: Ateneo de Manila, 1962.
Burnside, W. F., ed. The
Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and
Colleges, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press, 1916. Burnett, David. Clash of Worlds. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1992.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Romans. Edited and translated by John Owen.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947.
___ . A
Compendium of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by Hugh T.
Kerr.
London: Lutterworth Press,
1964.
Carter, Charles W., and Ralph Earle. The Acts of the
Apostles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. Copeland, E. Luther. A
New Meeting of the Religions: Interreligious Relationships and Theological
Questioning. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 1999.
D’Costa, Gavin. Theology and Religious
Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions. Oxford: Blackwell,
1986.
Demarest, Bruce A. General
Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982.
Dewick, E. C. The
Gospel and Other Faiths. London: Canterbury Press, 1948.
Dollar, Harold. St. Luke’s Missiology: A
Cross-Cultural Challenge. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1996.
Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of
Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of
Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1989. Erickson,
Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. Farquhar,
John Nicol. The Crown of Hinduism. London: Oxford, 1913.
Fernando, Ajith. The Christian’s Attitude
Toward World Religions. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1987.
Gaebelein, A. C. The
Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition. New York: Our Hope, 1912.
Garrett, James Leo. Systematic Theology:
Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical. Vol. 1. North Richland Hills,
TX: Bibal Press, 2000.
Gehman, Richard. African Traditional Religion in
Biblical Perspective. Kijabe, Kenya: Kesho Publications, 1989.
Gnanakan,
Ken. The Pluralist Predicament. Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1992.
Godet, Frederick. Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans. Trans. A. Cusin. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity.
Vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation.
San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1994.
Guthrie,
Shirley C. Christian Doctrine. Atlanta: John Knox, 1968.
Haldane, Robert. Exposition of the Epistle to
the Romans. Evansville, IN: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1955.
Hallencreutz, Carl F. Kraemer Towards Tambaram: A
Study in Hendrik Kraemer’s Missionary Approach.
Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1966.
Hanson, R. P. C. The Acts. The New
Clarendon Bible, ed. H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Harrison, Everett F. Romans. The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gabelein. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1976.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation and Authority.
Vol. 1, The God Who Speaks and Shows: Some Preliminary
Considerations. Waco, TX: Word, 1976.
Hesselgrave, David J. Planting Churches
Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond. 2d ed. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2000.
___ . Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An
Introduction to Missionary
Communication. 2d
ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
_________ . Today’s Choices for Tomorrow’s Missions.
Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988.
Hick,
John. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
Hick, John, and Paul F. Knitter eds. The Myth of
Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology
of Religions. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1987.
Hiebert,
Paul, R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou. Understanding Folk Religion: A
Christian
Response To Popular
Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Hocking, William. Re-thinking Missions: A
Layperson’s Inquiry After 100 Years. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1932.
Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on
Romans. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975.
_________ . Systematic Theology.
Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Keesecker, William F., ed. A Calvin Treasury:
Selections from Institutes of the Christian Religion. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1961.
Kirk, J. Andrew. Loosing the Chains: Religion
as Opium and Liberation. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1992.
__________ .
The Mission of Theology and Theology as Mission. Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity Press
International, 1997.
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary:
Exposition Of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Knitter, Paul. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of
Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1985.
Kraemer, Hendrick. The Christian Message in a
Non-Christian World. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938.
Kraft, Charles. Christianity
in Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979.
Lactantius. A Treatise on the Anger of God. The
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the
Acts of the Apostles. Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1934.
Lindsell, Harold. A Christian
Philosophy of Mission. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen, 1949. Luzbetak,
Louis J. The Church and Cultures. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988.
Mayers, Marvin K. Christianity Confronts
Culture: A Strategy for Cross-Cultural Evangelism. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974.
McKim,
Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Moule, H. C. G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges,
ed. J. J. Stewart Perowne. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1896.
Murray, John. The
Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Nash, Ronald H. The
Gospels and the Greeks. Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992.
Netland, Harold. Dissonant Voices: Religious
Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Household of God: Lectures on
the Nature of the Church. New York: Friendship Press, 1954.
________ . The
Finality of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: Sketches for a
Missionary Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
___ . The
Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church. New York:
Friendship
Press, 1954.
_________ .
The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Newport, John P. Life’s
Ultimate Questions. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989.
Nida, Eugene. Customs,
Culture and Christianity. London: Tyndale Press, 1954.
___ . Message
and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith. Rev. ed. Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library,
1990.
Okholm, Dennis L., and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More
Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995.
Okorocha, Cyril C. The Meaning of Religious Conversion
in Africa. Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1987.
Panikkar, Raimundo. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964.
Parry, R. John, ed. The
Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, ed. ?? Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press, 1912.
Pederson, Philip E., ed. What Does This Mean?
Luther’s Catechisms Today. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979.
Pinnock, Clark. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The
Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992.
Priest, Doug, Jr. Doing
Theology with the Massai. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1990.
Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism:
Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1982.
Richardson, Don. Peace Child.
Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1974.
_________ . Eternity in Their
Hearts. Ventura, CA: Regal Books 1981.
Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul. Nashville: Broadman, 1931.
____ . Word
Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. 4, The Epistles of Paul.
Nashville:
Broadman, 1931.
Sanday, W., and A. C.
Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans. The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,
ed. Charles Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Alfred Plummer. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1900.
Sharpe, Eric J. Comparative
Religion: A History. 2d ed. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1986.
Shaw, R. Daniel. Transculturation: The Cultural
Factor in Translation and Other
Communication Tasks. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1988.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Towards a World Theology:
Faith and the Comparative History of Religion. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1981.
Soards, Marion L. The
Speeches in Acts. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994.
Speer, Robert E. The Finality of
Jesus Christ. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1933. Steyne, Philip M. Gods of Power: A Study of the
Beliefs and Practices of Animists. Houston:
Touch Publications, 1989.
Stott, John R. The Spirit, the Church and the World:
The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.
___ . The Letters of John: An
Introduction and Commentary, Leicester, England: Inter‑
Varsity Press, 1988.
_________ .
Understanding the Bible. Glendale, CA: Regal, 1972.
Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology: A
Compendium. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1907. Sundkler,
Bengt. The World of Mission. London: Lutterworth Press, 1963.
Tippett, Alan R. Solomon Islands Christianity: A
Study in Growth and Obstruction. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1967.
Trench, Richard C. Synonyms
of the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1880.
Veen, Jan Mari van. Nathan Soderblom, Leven en Denken
van een Godsdiensthistoricus, Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1940.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament.
Vol. 1, The Epistles of Paul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1914.
___ . Word
Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul. New
York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1914.
World Missionary Conference. The Missionary Message
in Relation to Non-Christian Religions. Report of Commission 4.
New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910.
Articles
Anderson, Joy. “Behold! The Ox of God.” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 34 (July 1998): 316- 20.
Anderson, Justice. “The Great
Century and Beyond.” In Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations,
History, and Strategies of World Missions,
ed. John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, 199-218. Nashville:
Broadman, 1998).
Barth, Karl. “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of
Religion.” In Christianity and Other Religions, ed.
John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite, 32-54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1980.
Bediako, Kwame. “Kwame Bediako.” In The Unique
Christ in Our Pluralist World, ed. Bruce J. Nicholls, 47-56. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Beyerhaus, Peter. “Possessio and Syncretism in
Biblical Perspective.” In Christopaganism or Indigenous
Christianity?, ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber, 119-41.
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1975.
Bock, Darrell L. “Athenians Who
Have Never Heard.” In Through No Fault of Their Own?, ed.
William
V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos, 117-24. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Braaten, Carl E. “Who Do We Say That He Is? On the
Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus Christ.”
Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 4 (January 1980): 2-8.
Brunner, Emil. “Nature and Grace.” In Natural
Theology, ed. John Baillie, trans. Peter Frankel, 59-60. London: Geoffrey
Bles, 1946.
Clark, David K. “Is Special Revelation Necessary for
Salvation?” In Through No Fault of their Own?, ed. William V. Crockett
and James G. Sigountos, 35-45. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Demarest, Bruce A., and Richard Harpel. “Don
Richardson’s ‘Redemptive Analogies’ and the Biblical Idea of Revelation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 583
(July-September 1989): 330- 40.
Erickson, Millard J. “Hope for Those Who Haven’t Heard?
Yes But . . . .” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 11 (April 1975): 122-6.
_______ . “The State of the Unevangelized and Its
Missionary Implications.” In Missiology: An
Introduction
to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions, ed.
John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, 148-65.
Nashville: Broadman, 1998.
Geivett, E. Douglas, and W. Gary Phillips. “A
Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach.” In More Than One Way?, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Philips,
213-45. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Henry, Carl F. H. “Is It Fair?” In Through No
Fault of Their Own?, ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos,
245-56. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Hick, John. “Response to R.
Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips.” In More Than One Way?: Four
Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed.
Dennis L. and Timothy R. Phillips, 246-50. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Hughes,
Robert Don. “Cross Cultural Communication.” In Missiology: An Introduction
to the
Foundations,
History, and Strategies of World Missions,
ed. John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, 278-300. Nashville:
Broadman, 1998.
Kantzer, Kenneth S. “A Theological Brief.” In
Philosophy of Religion and Theology: 1976 Proceedings
of the American Academy of Religion,
comp. Peter Slater, 184-7. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976.
Lewis, James F.
“Christianity and the Religions in the History of the Church.” In Christianity
and
the Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, ed.
Edward Rommen and Harold Netland, 145-65. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1995.
McGrath, Alister E. “A Particularist View: A
Post-Enlightenment Approach.” In More Than One Way?:
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed.
Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 151-86. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995.
Moreau, A. Scott. “The Human Universals of Culture:
Implications for Contextualization.”
International Journal of Frontier Missions 12 (July-September 1995): 122-5.
Nash, Ronald H. “Restrictivism.” In What About
Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on
the Destiny of the Unevangelized,
ed. John Sanders. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
Newbigin, Lesslie. “The Gospel
Among the Religions.” In Missions Trends No. 5: Faith Meets Faith,
ed. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, 3-20. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Packer, J. I. “‘Good Pagans’ and God’s Kingdom.” Christianity
Today 30, no. 1, 17 January 1986, 22-5.
Phillips, David J. “The Need for a Nomadic Theology.” International
Journal of Frontier Missions 17 (Summer 2000): 25-34.
Pinnock, Clark. “Toward an Evangelical Theology of
Religions.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990): 359-68.
____ .
“Acts 4:12--No Other Name Under Heaven.” In Through No Fault of Their Own?,
ed.
William V. Crockett and
James G. Sigountos, 107-16. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Priest, Robert J. “Missionary Elenctics: Conscience and
Culture.” Missiology: An International Review 22, no. 3 (July 1994):
291-315.
Rahner,
Karl. “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions.” In Christianity and
Other Religions,
ed. John Hick and Brian Hebbelthwaite, 52-79. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Richardson, Don. “Redemptive
Analogies.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 3d
ed., ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 397-403. Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1999.
____ . “Finding the Eye Opener.” In Perspectives on
the World Christian Movement, ed.
Ralph
D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 421-7. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981.
.
“Concept Fulfillment.” Moody Monthly, 9 (1976): 54-7.
Sanders, John E. “Is Belief in Christ Necessary for
Salvation?” Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 241-59.
Schroder, Martin. “Nyakibel Nyakoit: A Redemptive
Analogy for the Toposa.” Hundredfold 8 (July-December
1993): 30-7.
Schwarz, Gerold. “Karl Hartenstein 1894-1952: Missions
with a Focus on ‘The End.’” In Mission Legacies: Biographical
Studies of the Modern Missionary Movement,
ed. Gerald H. Anderson, Robert T. Coote, Norman A. Horner,
James M. Phillips, 591-601. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994.
Smith,
Ebbie C.. “Contemporary Theology of Religions.” In Missiology: An
Introduction to the
Foundations,
History, and Strategies of World Missions, ed.
John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson,
416-433. Nashville: Broadman, 1998.
Smith, Ebbie, and Carlos Martin. “Strategies for
Introducing Christianity.” In That All the World May
Hear, ed. Ebbie Smith, 115-29. Fort Worth, TX: n.p. 1991.
Smith, Gordon T. “Religions and the Bible: An Agenda for
Evangelicals.” In Christianity and the Religions:
A Biblical Theology of World Religions, ed.
Edward Rommen and Harold Netland, 9-29. Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1995.
Smith, W. Douglas. “Melchizedek and Abraham Walk
Together in World Mission.” International Journal of Frontier
Missions 13 (January-March 1996): 45-8.
Spencer, Aída Besancon. “Romans
1: Finding God in Creation.” In Through No Fault of Their Own?, ed.
William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos, 125-136. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
Taber,
Charles R. “The Limits of Indigenization in Theology.” Missiology: An
International Review 6 (January 1978): 53-79.
Tippett, Alan R. “Possessing the
Philosophy of Animism for Christ.” In Crucial Issues in
Missions Tomorrow, ed. Donald McGavran, 125-43. Chicago: Moody, 1972.
______ . “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity.” In
Christopaganism or Indigenous
Christianity?,
ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber, 13-34. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1975.
_____ . “The Meaning of Meaning.” In Christopaganism
or Indigenous Christianity?, ed.
Tetsunao
Yamamori and Charles R. Taber, 169-96. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1975.
Van Engen, Charles. “Reflecting Theologically About the
Resistant.” In Reaching the Resistant: Barriers
and Bridges for Mission, ed. J. Dudley Woodberry, 22-78.
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998.
______ . “The Uniqueness of Christ in Mission Theology.”
In Christianity and the Religions: A
Biblical
Theology of World Religions, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold
Netland, 183-216. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995.
Winter, Ralph. “Four Men, Three Eras, Two Transitions:
Modern Missions.” In Perspectives on the
World Christian Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven
C. Hawthorne, 253-61. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999.
Unpublished
Works
Bolden, Kenneth D. “The Relevance of Covenant Concept in
Developing a Strategy for Christian Ministry Among the Luo People of
Kenya.” M.A. thesis, Wheaton Graduate School, 1994.
Electronic Sources
Augustine. The City of God.
The Ages Digital Library Collections: The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers
[CD-ROM], ed. Philip Schaff, Vol. 2. Albany, OR: Books
for the Ages Software, version 2.0, 1997.
Barnes,
Albert. Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Romans. PC
Study
Bible:
Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database [CD-ROM].
Seattle, WA: Biblesoft 1997.
Clement
of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen. The Ages Digital Library
Collections: The Ante-Nicene Fathers [CD-ROM],
ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Vol. 1. Albany,
OR: Books for the Ages Software, version 2.0, 1997.
International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist
Convention. “World A Database: Design Definitions.”
Richmond, VA: Global Research Office, 1994.
Justin Martyr The First Apology of Justin Martyr.
The Ages Digital Library Collections: The Ante-Nicene
Fathers [CD-ROM], ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Vol.
1. Albany, OR: Books for the Ages Software, version 2.0, 1997.
Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics. The
Ages Digital Library Collections: The Ante-Nicene
Fathers [CD-ROM], ed. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, Vol. 3. Albany, OR: Books for the Ages Software, version 2.0, 1997.
Endnotes
1E. C.
Dewick, The Gospel and Other Faiths (London: The Canterbury Press,
1948), 92-102. 2Ajith
Fernando, The Christian’s Attitude Toward World Religions (Wheaton, IL:
Tyndale House,
1987), 19-27.
3Paul Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey
of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1985). Also, see Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: Sketches for a Missionary Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 190-206, who
posits six perspectives.
4Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., More
Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 14. See Hendrick Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938); John Nicol Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism (London:
Oxford, 1913); William Hocking, Re-thinking Missions: A
Layperson’s Inquiry After 100 Years (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1932).
5See David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm
Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1991); Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of
Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992); J. Andrew Kirk, Loosing the Chains: Religion as Opium and Liberation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1992); Ken Gnanakan, The Pluralist Predicament (Bangalore:
Theological Book Trust, 1992); Kwame Bediako,
“Kwame Bediako,” in The Unique Christ in Our Pluralist World, ed. Bruce
J. Nicholls (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
6Alan
Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology
of Religions
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1982). Also see Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious
Pluralism:
The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).
7The definition of syncretism used
throughout this dissertation is “the union of two opposite forces, beliefs, systems or tenets so that the
united form is a new thing, neither one nor the other.” Alan Tippett, “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity,” in Christopaganism
or Indigenous Christianity?, ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1975), 17.
8Some
representative extreme exclusivists include Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only
Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ronald Nash, “Restrictivism,” in What
About Those Who Have Never Heard?, ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1995); Harold Lindsell, A Christian Philosophy of Mission
(Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1949).
9The term “Split-level Christianity” was posited by
Jaime Bulato in Phenomena and Their Interpretation: Landmark Essays 1957-1989
(Manila: Ateneo de Manila, 1962). Bulato’s “split- level Christianity” is synonymous with “two-tier
Christianity,” the term used in Paul G. Hiebert, R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou, Understanding Folk Religion: A
Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1999), 15 ff.
10E. Luther Copeland, A New
Meeting of the Religions: Interreligious Relationships and Theological
Questioning (Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 1999), 8. He proposes nine new categories: negativism,
dialecticism, confessionalism, Christocentric pluralism, theocentric pluralism, regnocentric pluralism, paradoxical
pluralism, non-relativistic pluralism, and pre-eschatological
agnosticism.
11Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of
Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997).
12Copeland, 32.
13For a discussion of the relationship between the imago
Dei and points of contact, see Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 1, The God Who
Speaks and Shows: Some Preliminary
Considerations (Waco, TX: Word,
1976), 395-409.
14These three domains are nature, conscience, and
history. These will be further explained later in this paper.
15Donald K. McKim, Westminster
Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1996), 12.
16Emil Brunner, Revelation
and Reason (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946), 214. 17Donald
Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1992),
153.
18Emil Brunner, “Nature and Grace,” in Natural
Theology, ed. John Baillie, trans. Peter Fraenkel, (London: Geoffrey
Bles, 1946), 59-60.
19Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, ed.
G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. T. Thomson and Harold
Knight, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), 265.
20Carl F. Hallencreutz, Kraemer
Towards Tambaram: A Study in Hendrik Kraemer’s Missionary
Approach (Lund, Sweden: Gleerup, 1966), 300.
21The major international missionary conferences
prior to the Jerusalem Conference in 1928, maintained a biblical
continuity-discontinuity position in regards to missionary methodology among non-Christian religions. Richard Gehman, African
Traditional Religion in Biblical Perspective (Kijabe,
Kenya: Kesho, 1989), 265-9.
22The following summary of these two concepts is
based upon Eugene A. Nida, Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith, rev. ed. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library
1990), 15-20.
23Ibid., 16.
24Ibid., 17.
25Lesslie Newbigin, “The Gospel Among the
Religions,” in Missions Trends No. 5: Faith Meets Faith, ed.
Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 7.
26Charles Van Engen, “Reflecting Theologically
About the Resistant,” in Reaching the Resistant:
Barriers and Bridges for Mission,
ed. J. Dudley Woodberry (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 42.
27Some evangelical missiologists
use common ground today. However, unlike the ecumenicals,
they emphasize the importance of commonality between missionary and non-Christian
rather than commonality between Christian beliefs and other non-Christian
beliefs. See Robert Don Hughes, “Cross Cultural Communication,”
in Missiology, ed. John Mark Terry, Ebbie
Smith, and Justice Anderson (Nashville: Broadman, 1998), 278-81. Hughes states,
“Common ground is the pathway of communication. You must
share something in common with another person--a common
language, a common interest, a common concern, a common need, a common value--in order to
have a bridge between you.”
28Nida, Message and
Mission, 18.
29Eugene A. Nida, Customs, Culture and
Christianity (London: The Tyndale Press, 1954), 261.
30Hendrick Kraemer, The Christian Message in a
Non-Christian World (New York: Harper and Row, 1938).
31Kraemer does not use the term “general
revelation.” Instead he uses “natural theology.” These terms are
discussed further in the section below on discontinuity.
32Kraemer, The Christian Message, 140.
33Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology
(Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press), footnote 6, 121-2.
34See, Don Richardson’s use of
redemptive analogies in Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, CA:
Regal 1981). Contemporary usage of this concept is discussed later in this
paper. 35Grudem, 121.
36World Missionary Conference, The
Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian
Religions,
Report of Commission 4 (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910), 22.
37Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative
Religion: A History, 2d ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1986),
13.
38Gehman, 245.
39Ibid., 262.
40Gerald Anderson, “Continuity and Discontinuity,”
in Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission.
41J. H. van Veen, Nathan Söderblom,
Leven en Denken van een Godsdiensthistoricus, (Amsterdam: H. J. Paris,1940), 226; quoted in C.J. Bleeker, Christ in
Modern Athens: The Confrontation
of Christianity with Modern Culture and the Non-Christian Religions (Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1965), 109.
42See John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, eds. The
Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987); John Hick, God Has Many Names,
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982); Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World
Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981); Hocking, Re-thinking
Missions.
43See Clark Pinnock, “Acts 4:12--No Other
Name Under Heaven,” in Through No Fault of Their
Own?, ed. William V. Crockett and
James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Clark Pinnock, “Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990): 359-68;
Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy; Karl Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions,” in Christianity and
Other Religions, ed. John Hick
and Brian Hebbelthwaite (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 52-79; John E.
Sanders, “Is Belief in Christ
Necessary for Salvation?,” Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 241-59;
Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1981).
44Rahner, 61.
45Ebbie
Smith, “Contemporary Theology of Religions,” in Missiology: An Introduction
to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World
Missions, ed. John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson (Nashville:
Broadman, 1998), 419-22.
46Also see
Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church
(New York: Friendship Press,
1954); Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Grand Rapids: William,
1986); Carl E. Braaten, “Who Do We Say That He Is? On the Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus Christ,” Occasional
Bulletin of Missionary Research (January
1980); John Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary,
(Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988).
47Alister
E. McGrath, “A Particularist View: A Post-Enlightenment Approach,” in More
Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a
Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and
Timothy R.
Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 179.
48“The pluralist alternative to Christian
mission assumes that any activities that cannot be shared by people of all faiths and by other people of goodwill should
not be undertaken by the church.” J.
Andrew Kirk, The Mission of Theology and Theology as Mission (Valley
Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997), 44-5.
49J. I. Packer, “‘Good Pagans’ and God’s Kingdom,” Christianity
Today (17 January 1986): 25.
50Gehman, 251.
51James F. Lewis, “Christianity and the
Religions in the History of the Church,” in Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold Netland
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 160.
52“The study of comparative religions and the
science and philosophy of religion tended with many to create the idea that religion is a universal and essentially
identical thing always and everywhere,
and that each historic religion, Christianity included, is only a branch of a
common trunk.” Robert E. Speer, The Finality of Jesus Christ (Westwood,
NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1933), 170.
53Natural theology is “the body of knowledge about
God which may be obtained by human reason alone without the aid of
revelation.” E. A. Livingstone, ed., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 122.
54G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 22ff. General revelation
refers to “the knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which
comes through creation to all humanity.” Grudem, 122.
55Karl Barth, “The Revelation of God as the
Abolition of Religion,” in Christianity and Other Religions,
ed. John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 32.
56Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol.
1, pt. 2, (Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G., 1948), 356.
57Bengt
Sundkler, The World of Mission (London: Lutterworth Press, 1963), 53. 58Emil
Brunner, “Nature and Grace,” 31.
59See Hocking, Re-thinking Missions; William
E. Hocking, Living Religions and a World Faith (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1940).
60Kraemer,
The Christian Message, 199.
61Ibid.,
252.
62See Lindsell, A Christian Philosophy of
Mission; Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?; Nash “Restrictivism.”
63Ebbie Smith, “Contemporary Theology of Missions,” 432.
64Fernando, 23.
65John Hick, “Response to R. Douglas Geivett and W.
Gary Phillips,” in More Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 250.
66Harold Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious
Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 34. Also see Charles Van Engen, “The Uniqueness
of Christ in Mission Theology,” in Christianity
and the Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold Netland (Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 186-7. Van Engen describes this problem further and explains how pluralists and
inclusivists make three types of unfavorable comparisons to the
exclusivist position.
67Gordon T. Smith, “Religions and the Bible: An
Agenda for Evangelicals,” in Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical
Theology of World Religions, ed. Edward Rommen and Harold Netland
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 18.
68Carl F. H. Henry, “Is It Fair?,” in Through No
Fault of Their Own?, ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 250.
69Ibid., 251.
70These three domains are taken from Paul Enns, The
Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 157; Carl F. H.
Henry, “Special Revelation,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology; and
Grudem, 122-3.
71Henry, God, Revelation and Authority,
1:408.
72Some who hold to a biblical
continuity-discontinuity position maintain that salvation can occur through general revelation. The individuals
saved by this means are extremely few in number but, nevertheless, it remains a possibility. For further
discussion, see J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity
and Comparative Religion,
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971), 100-7; Packer, 22-5; Millard Erickson, “Hope for Those
Who Haven’t Heard? Yes But . . .,” Evangelical
Mission Quarterly 11, no. 2
(April 1975): 122-6; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1979), 843;
Alister McGrath, “A Particularist View,” 151- 80.
73Millard
J. Erickson, “The State of the Unevangelized and Its Missionary Implications,”
in Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History,
and Strategies of World Missions, ed. John Mark Terry, Ebbie
Smith, and Justice Anderson (Nashville: Broadman, 1998), 163.
74Bruce Demarest and Richard Harpel, “Don
Richardson’s ‘Redemptive Analogies’ and the Biblical Idea of
Revelation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 583 (July-September 1989):
333-4.
75Enns, 156.
76See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 175-203; Shirley C. Guthrie, Christian Doctrine (Atlanta: John Knox, 1968), 76-81;
William B. Nelson, “Revelation,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible.
77Carl
F. H. Henry, “Special Revelation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
78Grudem, 123.
79David
K. Clark, “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?,” in Through No
Fault of Their Own?,
ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 37.
80Ibid. Clark argues that
relativism is the most extreme form of continuity. He contends that it
is the relativists who “believe
in no exclusive truth and who occupy the farthest pole from exclusivism.”
Relativism argues that “we simply have no way to decide matters of religious ‘truth.’”
81The use of “preparatory” is not intended to
reflect the meaning of its usage as defined at the Edinburgh Conference
of 1910 and the vast amount of subsequent literature advocating that position.
At the Edinburgh Conference “preparatory” meant that other religions served as
a preparation for Christ in the sense that
the gospel fulfills them. See Newbigin, “The Gospel Among the
Religions,” 3-19.
82Bruce A. Demarest, General Revelation
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 250-1.
83J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart: The
Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997),
185.
84Alan R. Tippett, “Possessing the Philosophy of
Animism for Christ,” in Crucial Issues in Missions Tomorrow,
ed. Donald McGavran (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 132.
85Cyril C. Okorocha, The Meaning of Conversion
in Africa: The Case of the Igbo of Nigeria (Aldershot: Avebury,
1987), 217.
86See also E. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips,
“A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach,” in More Than One
Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed.
Dennis
L. Okholm and Timothy R. Philips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); John P.
Newport, Life’s Ultimate Questions (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989); James Leo
Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, vol. 1 (North Richland
Hills, TX: Bibal Press, 2000).
These authors similarly
integrate continuity with discontinuity. They contend salvation comes through
explicit faith in Christ. They argue that existing non-Christian religions do
have value and should not be discarded as totally evil.
87John R. Stott, Understanding the
Bible (Glendale, CA: Regal, 1972), 33.
88Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New
Testament, vol. 3, The Epistles of Paul (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1914), 10-2.
89Ibid.,
12. 90Ibid., 14. 91Douglas
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 92.
92Ibid.,
97. 93Ibid., 92. 94A.
T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, The
Epistles of Paul
(Nashville:
Broadman, 1931), 328.
95Ibid.
96Aída Besancon Spencer, “Romans 1:
Finding God in Creation,” in Through No Fault of
Their Own?, ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 127. 97Ibid., 135.
98John Murray, The Epistle to the
Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 37-8.
99Frederick Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans, trans. A. Cusin (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 103.
100Murray, 38.
101H. C. G.
Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, in The Cambridge
Bible for
Schools and Colleges, ed. J. J. S. Perowne (Cambridge,
England: University Press, 1896), 60. 102Robert Haldane, Exposition
of the Epistle to the Romans (Evansville, IN: Puritan Classics,
1958), 58.
103John Calvin, Commentaries on
the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1947), 70.
104See
Psalms 19, 94, 104, 148; Job 12:9; 26:14; 36:24; 39:5-41:34; and Is 43:5;
45:18. 105Murray, 38.
106Godet,
103. 107Murray, 39.
108John
Parry, ed., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Cambridge,
England:
University
Press, 1912), 45.
109Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament,
Explanatory and Practical: Romans, PC Study Bible: Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database [CD-ROM](Seattle, WA:
Biblesoft 1997), Rom 1:20. 110Robertson, 3:329.
111Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New
Testament (London: MacMillan and Co., 1880), 8. 112Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans
(Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 37.
113Everett F. Harrison, Romans,
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gabelein (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 23.
114Haldane, 59.
115Calvin, Commentaries
on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 70.
116Ibid.
117Ibid.
118Moo,
150. 119Murray,
75. 120Godet, 123. 121Ibid.,
124. 122Hodge, A Commentary on Romans,
55.
123Murray, 75.
124W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, The International
Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,
ed.
Charles Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles, and Alfred Plummer (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1895), 60.
125Ibid.
126Harrison, Romans,
31-2.
127Robert J. Priest, “Missionary
Elenctics: Conscience and Culture,” Missiology: An International Review 22, no. 3 (July 1994):
298.
128Ibid., 310.
129F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts,
rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988), 276.
130Darrell
L. Bock, “Athenians Who Have Never Heard,” in Through No Fault of Their Own?,
ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991),
121.
131John Stott, The Spirit, the Church and the
World: The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press,
1990), 231.
132R. C. H.
Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Columbus, OH:
Lutheran
Book Concern, 1934), 569. 133Vincent, 1:522. 134Robertson, 3:211. 135Acts 14:15.
136Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of
the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 199.
137W. F. Burnside, ed., The Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge Greek
Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1916), 168.
138Lenski, 571.
139Stott, The
Spirit, the Church and the World, 232.
140Marion L. Soards, The
Speeches in Acts (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994), 89.
141Burnside, 169.
142C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New
Testament, ed. Charles Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles, and Alfred
Plummer (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 682.
143F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The
Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), 375.
144Robertson, 3:278.
145A. C. Gaebelein, The
Acts of the Apostles (New York: Our Hope, 1912), 303.
146Ibid., 305.
147For a helpful description
of Paul’s audience at the Areopagus, see David Gooding, True to the Faith: A Fresh Approach to the Acts of the
Apostles (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1991), 293-300.
148Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary:
Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990),
631.
149Robertson, 3:282.
150Bruce, Acts of
the Apostles: The Greek Text, 381.
151Panikkar, 137.
152Kistemaker, 632.
153R. P. C. Hanson, The Acts,
The New Clarendon Bible, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967),
177-8.
154For introductory remarks and an extensive
bibliography, see Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 378-87. For a helpful discussion entitled “The
Culpability of Pagan Ignorance of God” see Gooding, True to the Faith,
305-13.
155Bruce, The Acts
of the Apostles: The Greek Text, 382.
156Green, 128.
157Ibid.
158McKim,
218, defines this as “a term used to describe the work of God in preparing the world
for the coming of Jesus Christ.”
159Gooding, 311-2.
160Lactantius, A
Treatise on the Anger of God, The
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers Down to A. D. 325,
ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, authorized edition, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 259.
161Justo L. Gonzalez, The
Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The
Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984), 53.
162R. B. Eno, “Justin Martyr,” in Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Religion.
163William Frend and Mark Edwards, “Justin Martyr,”
in The Oxford Classical Dictionary.
164Justin Martyr, The
First Apology of Justin Martyr, The
Ages Digital Library Collections: The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed.
A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, [CD-ROM] (Albany, OR: Books for the Ages Software Ver. 2.0, 1997), 326.
165Green, 157.
166W. C.
Weinrich, “Clement of Alexandria,” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology. 167B.D. “Clement
of Alexandria,” in Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs
and Religions. 168Weinrich,
“Clement of Alexandria.”
169The progression of Clement’s argument resembles
Paul’s sermon in Athens. He argues that the true God makes himself known throughout history in acts of
benevolence to all people. But people
turn away from the true God and make gods of their own. He quotes the Sibyl
prophetess to buttress his argument.
He calls upon Plato to support his argument about the true God. Clement quotes Sophocles as a poet who bears
testimony to the truth. Then Clement follows Paul’s example in Acts 17 and
turns to the Scriptures to close his arguments. He states the difference between the oracles of philosophers
and poets with the revelation of Scripture. See Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, The Ages Digital Library
Collections: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson,
[CD-ROM] (Albany, OR: Books for the
Ages Software Ver. 2.0, 1997), chapters 6 and 7.
170Tertullian, The
Prescription Against Heretics, The
Ages Digital Library Collections: The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, [CD-ROM] (Albany, OR: Books for the Ages Software Ver.
2.0, 1997), 443.
171Augustine,
The City of God, The
Ages Digital Library Collections: The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff,[CD-ROM](Albany, OR:
Books for the Ages Software Ver. 2.0, 1997), 281. Augustine
argues that the philosopher Varros “seems in some fashion to at least
acknowledge one God.”
172Larry Hainsworth, “Augustine,” in A Dictionary of Classical
Antiquities.
173John F. Mathews, “Augustine, St.” in The
Oxford Classical Dictionary.
174Donald G. Bloesch, God
the Almighty (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), 65. 175Philip E. Pederson, ed. What
Does This Mean? Luther’s Catechisms Today (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1979), 124.
176McKim, 255.
177John Calvin, A
Compendium of the Institutes of the Christian Religion ed.
Hugh T. Kerr (London: Lutterworth Press, 1964), 7.
178Ibid.
179William F. Keesecker, ed. A Calvin Treasury:
Selections from Institutes of the Christian Religion (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), 21.
180Gerold
Schwarz, “Karl Hartenstein 1894-1952: Missions with a Focus on ‘The End,’” in Mission
Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, ed.
Gerald
H. Anderson and others (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), 597.
181Generally scholars regard the modern missions era
as beginning with William Carey’s treatise of 1792, “An Enquiry into the
Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens” and extending into the
twenty-first century. See Ralph Winter, “Four Men, Three Eras, Two Transitions: Modern Missions,” in Perspectives
on the World Christian Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 253-61; and Justice Anderson, “The
Great Century and Beyond,” in Missiology: An Introduction to the
Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions, ed. John Mark
Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson (Nashville: Broadman, 1998), 199-218.
182See Alan Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity (Pasadena:
CA William Carey Library, 1967); Alan
Tippett, “The Meaning of Meaning,” in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?, ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber (Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library, 1975); Don Richardson, Peace Child (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1974);
Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, CA: Regal,
1981); Don Richardson, “Redemptive Analogies,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, 3d ed., ed.
Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 397; Marvin K. Mayers, Christianity
Confronts Culture: A Strategy
for Crosscultural Evangelism
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974); Peter Beyerhaus, “Possessio and
Syncretism in Biblical Perspective,” in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity? ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1975); Charles Kraft, Christianity in Culture (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1979); Ebbie Smith and Carlos Martin, “Strategies for Introducing
Christianity,” in That All the World May Hear, ed. Ebbie Smith (Fort
Worth, n. p., 1991).
183David Hesselgrave, Today’s Choices for
Tomorrow’s Missions (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988), 151.
184Beyerhaus, “Possessio and Syncretism,”
135.
185Ibid., 137.
186Richardson, “Redemptive Analogies,” 397.
187See Richardson, Peace
Child, and Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts.
188Don Richardson,
“Concept Fulfillment,” Moody Monthly 9 (1976): 54.
189Richardson, “Redemptive Analogies,” 397.
190Ibid.
191Harold Dollar, St. Luke’s Missiology: A
Cross-Cultural Challenge (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1996), 89.
192R. Daniel Shaw, Transculturation:
The Cultural Factor in Translation and Other Communication Tasks (Pasadena, CA: William
Carey Library, 1988), 15.
193Hiebert and Meneses, 148.
194David J. Hesselgrave, Planting Churches
Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2000), 152.
195Demarest and Harpel, 337.
196Kenneth
S. Kantzer, “A Theological Brief,” in Philosophy of Religion and Theology:
1976 Proceedings of the American Academy of Religion,
comp. Peter Slater (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 186.
197Hiebert and Meneses, 148; A. Scott Moreau, “The
Human Universals of Culture: Implications for Contextualization,” International
Journal of Frontier Missions 12 (July-September 1995): 122-5; Don
Richardson, “Finding the Eye Opener,” in Perspectives on the World Christian
Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1981), 421-7; David Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ
Cross-Culturally, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 233;
Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 241ff.; David Burnett, Clash
of Worlds (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 244ff; Louis J. Luzbetak, The Church and Cultures (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,1988), 284; David J.
Phillips, “The Need for a Nomadic
Theology,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 (Summer 2000):
26.
198McGrath, “A Particularist View,” 165.
199Nida, Message and Mission, 18.
200Philip M. Steyne, Gods of
Power: A Study of the Beliefs and Practices of Animists (Houston: Touch
Publications, 1989), 248.
201See Kenneth D. Bolden, “The Relevance of Covenant
Concept in Developing a Strategy for Christian
Ministry Among the Luo People of Kenya” (M.A. thesis, Wheaton Graduate School, 1994); Martin Schroder, “Nyakibel Nyakoit: A
Redemptive Analogy for the Toposa,” Hundredfold 8 (July-December 1993); W. Douglas Smith,
“Melchizedek and Abraham Walk Together in World Mission,” International
Journal of Frontier Missions 13 (January-March 1996); Joy Anderson, “Behold! The Ox of God,” Evangelical Missions
Quarterly (July 1998); Doug
Priest Jr., Doing Theology with the Massai (Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library, 1990).
202Charles R. Taber, “The Limits of
Indigenization in Theology,” Missiology: An International Review
6 (1978): 54.