Westminster Larger Catechism # 60
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q60. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor
believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?
Answer: They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not
in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the
light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there
salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the
church.
References: Rom. 10:14; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; Eph. 2:12; John 1:10-12; John 8:24; Mark 16:16;
1 Cor. 1:20-24; John 4:22; Rom. 9:31-32; Phil. 3:4-9; Acts 4:12; Eph. 5:23.
Of all the questions covered thus far, this has caused more prayer and searching of the
Scriptures, perhaps as much as all previous questions combined. I have some difficulty
accepting this statement exactly as presented by the Divines. Before I attempt to explain
this question as I feel God has given me liberty to do, I want to state without
qualification that this denies none of what has been the reformed position from the
beginning. I am not attempting to overthrow the doctrine of Christ alone. I invite you to
prayerfully read what follows and with prayer let God bring you to His place of peace with
this question.
First off I would hedge a bit, and not completely accept the opening words of this
question. "Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus
Christ..." I don’t think I need to know the name "Jesus Christ" to be
saved. We are working within a time line as men, and this will qualify what I am saying
somewhat. Which of the Old Testament saints knew of the "name" Jesus Christ. We
have absolutely no indication from Scripture that Moses nor Elijah for example knew His
name. Yet, we find these two standing on the Mount of Transfiguration in the Gospels. Let
us pause to realize that Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Messiah of the Old
Testament, and these men and all other Old Testament saints knew of the coming Messiah,
and put their faith in Him. Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and did
(John 8:56). Though we speak from silence, what was it Abraham saw? Did he know the
"name" of Christ? Perhaps, we have no way of knowing, but I submit that Abraham
was "saved" by believing God and placing his trust in God. I submit that man is
responsible for the light revealed, and though it is by faith in an unborn Savior, these
saints of the Old testament knew salvation as fully as those of the New Testament.
Though in shadow and type throughout the Old Testament, Christ was present and thus it
is not a new salvation but a more complete revelation we have in the New Testament. The
shadow and type being able by faith to save as surely as "faith" in Christ saves
today. Faith having been the gift of God from the beginning, and never of man alone.
Moving to the New testament are we to assume that salvation is dependent upon man?
Paul’s words in Romans 10 aside (lest they hear) do we think that God
"needs" the ministry of man to bring about His plan of salvation of the elect.
If I demand the hearing of the Gospel and the "name" of Jesus do I not condemn
to hell every child that dies before coming to age and acceptance of Christ. Do I not
destroy the election? I submit such would be the case. I do not think we can place God
into this man made box. We are missing some understanding of the revealed word here. The
Spirit blows where He may, and we have no control thereof. Christ alone? An emphatic yes!
Do I need to know His name is Jesus Christ? I am not as dogmatic on this point, and
believe that even today God is working His plan where the church has not yet accepted her
responsibility to go with the Gospel. Can man be saved by the light of nature alone? I
don’t think so, but the Bible speaks of a supernatural revelation through nature
whereby I have not the light of nature alone, but of nature and the Holy Spirit. I believe
this combination may reveal enough light to have faith in God, and even His Son to effect
salvation apart from any interference by man.
Romans 1: 17-32 tells the story of such a supernatural revelation of God. To the extent
that man knew of even the invisible things of God, to include his eternal power and
Godhead. What do we think Paul intended by "Godhead" in this passage? Is this
evidence that apart from the Gospel, man had knowledge of the Messiah, though perhaps they
don’t know His given Name? Is this saying that enough knowledge has been given by
direct revelation that if the gift of faith is bestowed by the Holy Spirit these too by
faith may enter the gates of heaven? My answer is perhaps. Please note that Paul was
asking questions in Romans 10, "How can," not making doctrinal statements that
they cannot. We do not have the revealed word of God to be quite as dogmatic here as
perhaps we would like.
There are some 11,000 people groups existing today that have never heard the Gospel.
The resources to have had the word preached to them have existed within the church for
centuries. Note that it doesn’t say they have to have the word printed in their own
language, nor churches founded. These things will follow the preaching of the Gospel. Are
we then saying that hundreds of generations of these people have all been non-elect and
doomed to hell because the church has not been obedient and gone with the Gospel to the
ends of the earth? We are dealing with the election here! While I believe the true elect
may be very small in number in any particular generation, being only 7000 during the
ministry of Elijah; I cannot accept that if the elect, despite their numbers fail (as men
always have) to live up to the burden of the word of God, that God cannot act
independently of man. Christ said God could raise up seed to Abraham from the stones. Are
there no elect upon the earth except in those areas where God has had men faithful to His
call, go with the Gospel?
Now back to Christ alone. "Nor believe in him..." is another story altogether
if I have the leeway to allow God to act as He desires without limiting God to the
faithfulness of man. Despite the source of the knowledge, man has and will ignore the
knowledge, in fact walk contrary to the knowledge without the gift of faith and the action
of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Here I move back into accord with the words of the
Divines. I have no problem that nature alone will not reveal God sufficiently to bring
salvation. Nature is visible and tangible and it is no more hope if we can see it. Faith
is of tomorrow and hope, not of the tangible and today. Yet I reserve the right for God to
use nature with the revelation of Himself to effectively call those who don’t know
the personal name of His Son Jesus Christ.
I agree that salvation is of Christ alone, and agree that He is the savior of His
church alone if we are referring to the "catholic" (universal/invisible) church
that transcends both Testaments, church walls, national borders, add etc... Question 61
sheds a little more light on this particular point concerning the invisible church and the
body of Christ, while questions 64-65 expand this understanding of the invisible church.
So don’t tire out and quit reading just yet. Again we must take the whole section of
the catechism dealing with salvation as a whole to begin to understand the great truth of
God’s love and grace.
This question as noted deals with election and is perhaps one of the strongest
witnesses to the third petal of the TULIP. The election stands, despite of our
understanding or acceptance. But in accepting this biblical doctrine, let us be careful we
don’t assume the prerogatives of God and read into the Scriptures more than God has
revealed.
As a whole then, with the further light shed by the following questions, question 60
stands, with the one reservation concerning knowing the personal name of Jesus Christ,
which I reserve the right to differ with. Knowing that I am treading thin ice and the
reformed doctrine of Scripture alone. But then when we have a whole series of these
"alone" statements, are any really alone? Are we treading the legalistic web of
the pharisees? The only absolute "alone" is by grace alone, for it is all of
grace, or it isn’t of God.
Dr. Chuck Baynard -- Jan 98
Catechism Index
Observer Home Page
1st EPC Home Page
