Saving Knowledge? Consider this…

By Kerwin Holmes, Jr.

So, I’ve had some heavy stuff on my mind.  Welcome to my world.  Part of it was an issue on gun rights for American citizens. See my earlier posts.

(I don’t know who this guy is, I don’t endorse him, but I did find his response to The Young Turks concerning gun-control to be hilariously fascinating:

Right now, I’d like to make a simple theoretical question…that kinda is a legit theology question.  But let’s just call it a theoretical question because it demands a very theoretical response.

I’ve come across Christian siblings who have spoken about “saving knowledge.”  Now, “saving knowledge” as I describe it is a Calvinist term that means the amount of intellectual exposure a person has about the one true God.  In other words, it is how much a person knows about the Christian God.  As Christians, we believe that God can only be known by revealing Himself to us (John 1 reasserts this major Biblical theme in its opening verses).  But the thought crosses all of our minds, What about the people who have never heard about Jesus?  Do they all die and go to Hell only because they never got an opportunity to accept Him?  Will not the Judge of all the Earth do rightly?

Thus  comes up the theological belief of “saving knowledge,” or the minimal amount of intellectual knowledge a person has to have in order to adequately choose to worship God or not.  Because in these latter days God has spoken to us through His Son, and no one can get to God without going through Messiah Yeshua/Jesus.  Those who hold to the very Calvinist view of “saving knowledge” generally believe that a person must explicitly and expressively believe in the name of Jesus the Messiah (however the name and title are translated) in order to be saved by God through faith period.  If a person living in modern times has never heard of Jesus, the average Calvinist either will say that the person’s soul in theoretical uncertainty (only God knows) or that the person is condemned to Hell for not knowing Jesus.  For the lengthy treatise of saving knowledge as believed by Calvinists (if my short version doesn’t suffice) click here.

So now, let me posit my theoretical question.

Saving knowledge according to the Calvinist tradition is knowledge about God that every Christian has.  But, the Calvinist definition of “saving knowledge” can be kinda screwy at times.  For example, when I asked my Calvinist compañeros whether a 4th century BC Japanese person could have come to know God and be saved, they would often say that it would be unlikely since the person would not have “saving knowledge.”  Within that context, what they really mean is that the 4th century BC Japanese person would most likely have zero knowledge about the Israelite God and therefore could not possibly come to know who the true God is.  Is God really that small and limited?  Is the God who Israel declared to be Eloheinu Melekh haOlam, our God the Lord of the Universe, only limited to the circular migrations of a Semitic people who were habitually willing to reject the God who saved them from Egypt?

Is the Lord of the Universe…ethnocentric?

And what really is meant by “saving knowledge?”  It can’t just change into an epistemological knowledge in the case of the Japanese person and then change into a confessional knowledge in the case of confessional Christians, can it?  Can God be just and condemn a person to Hell for rejecting a message that they have never received?

Let’s take two historic persons as examples and see how our theology fits, and then let’s have a glance at what the Bible says.

First, we’ll take the well-known atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens who passed away in 2011.  Christopher Hitchens spent a great deal of time in his latter years engaging in religious discussions and profound philosophic deliberations with some of the lead intellectuals of the Christian community of the Western world.  Surely, Hitchens had more epistemological knowledge of Christianity than many Christians do.  Does this mean that he had saving knowledge?  Well, if he did have the required amount of knowledge about God that was sufficient enough to become a Christian, then does that mean that he was “saved.”  Well, to say such a thing about a man who vehemently chose atheism in the face of the Gospel would be to not only throw out the Gospel, but it would be very much against what Hitchens himself wanted.

So, the saving knowledge would have to have been confessional.  And it wasn’t.  But that fundamentally changes the kind of knowledge that is “saving knowledge” into a confessional knowledge, but not one based upon epistemology or exposure.  Does God use a changing standard in His justice?  If so, such a standard would only work to condemn the largest possible gathering of people in the universe: if you don’t know enough theologically about God because of the lack of effective missionaries, then you’re doomed; and even if you do know enough about God but don’t trust in Him, then you are still doomed.  Sounds like a lose-lose for a lot of people, and a shaky standard by which to measure the very theologically-illiterate modern Christians.

Now, let’s take an example from America before Columbus.  What about the Indians (Native Americans)?  Let’s take Nezahualcoyotl (neza-wall-koyotal), The Hungry Coyote, ruler of Texcoco and leader of the Aztec Empire in the early 15th century.  Nezahualcoyotl was pivotal in uniting the Aztec Empire, even though the Aztecs were of the Mexica tribe and Nezahualcoyotl was actually of the Alcohuan tribe.  Though Nezahualcoyotl was surrounded by the Aztec gods who demanded human sacrifice, he refused to worship them.  Instead, he honored a monotheistic deity who he claimed was the one true master of all life and all the universe.  He called his god Tloque Nahuaque, Lord of the Near and Nigh, and honored him with a grand temple all to himself where no sacrifices were ever made unto him (most likely because Nezahualcoyotl saw Tloque Nahuaque as the Giver of all life).  The warrior-king was known for his many songs and poems, most of which involved enjoying Tloque Nahuaque’s creation and loving his fellow man.  Nezahualcoyotl also allowed others to practice their own religion, sponsoring temples to be made for other Aztec gods and for their sacrifices, including human sacrifices, to continue.

Nezahualcoyotl is a very strange case.  He was the founder of a dynasty of kings that lasted until the motley crew of Spanish conquistadores and their thousands of Indian allies obliterated the empire he established less than a century after his death.  He also worshiped only one god.

Now it has been claimed that Nezahualcoyotl’s descendants of Colonial New Spain later changed his story to fit more with the Spanish conquering culture.  But such an assertion is sort of random.  For one, monotheism among Indians prior to Columbian contact is not ahistorical.  Depending upon the nation, tribe, clan, and person, various religious ideas could have been found and were found by outsiders exploring Indian lands.  When so many Aztec rulers were very much polytheistic and proud of it, why would men descended from Nezahualcoyotl through these very polytheistic rulers only try to make one of the major Aztec kings into a monotheist, but not his father Ixtlilxochitl (isht-leel-sho-cheetle) who was the mentor to the young prince?  If the goal was to show the Aztec Empire as a monotheistic empire gone polytheistic in order to appease the Spaniards, then why not just start at the very first Aztec rulers?  At the very least the monotheistic legend could have continued until Moctezuma II, who unfortunately had garnered many Indian enemies even before Hernán Cortés arrived.  It seems that the testimony of Nezahualcoyotl is most likely credible, though I am open to challenges.

Some will point out the fact that Nezahualcoyotl allowed others to continue serving false gods in religious human sacrifices as evidence that he was only a monotheistic pagan.  But if that scale were used for the kings of Judah, like Azariah/Uzziah and his son Jotham, they too would be condemned monotheistic pagans just like Nezahualcoyotl.  Another problem is that the Bible says concerning Azariah and Jotham that their one major fault was that they did not destroy the idols, but that in everything else they did “what was right in the eyes of the LORD.”  The Canaanite god Baal who the kings allowed Israelites to worship demanded human sacrifices too, much like the Aztec deities, so we do have direct parallels here.  And besides, Azariah and Jotham had direct exposure to God and laws concerning the Israelite nation: that God expressively commanded their nation to not tolerate any idols.  In Nezahuacoyotl’s case, it could be argued that he was simply a believer of allowing religious freedom among his subjects.  That makes him just as bad as modern American presidents, save the allowance for human sacrifices (glad I’m not a liberal, cause right now cultural equality would be a hassle).

Some will then point out that Nezahualcoyotl’s deity was not expressively triune in nature, and therefore cannot be the God of Israel.  But do we really want to extend that same judgement to everybody in the Bible, including Job, Deborah, Abraham, Hannah, and Elijah?  As we learned in Hebrews 11, these men and women believed God for what He revealed to them, even without understanding the full picture or completely receiving what was promised within their lifetimes.  Because they trusted God’s word about His character, we have benefited from them by receiving the better Covenant.  They knew in part and spoke in part, much like we do today, but they still worshiped the same God who we worship.  Even for Gentiles who worshiped God, like Cornelius, God honored them and even moved so that they could inherit the promise of the Holy Spirit though they knew nothing of it.  And this lines up with what Jesus said about His flock-to-be: that they all hear His voice and know Him, but the time is come that the folds become unified as one flock.  One God, one Lord, one Way, one Gospel, and many who have been given varying degrees of revelation to trust in and serve the one God.  This necessitates that all of the revelation given not be contradictory at all.  The revelation of God is continual, but still unchanging, much like the continual revelation found in the historical narrative of the saints in the Bible.  Abraham may not have known about the revelation of the Trinity while he was alive on Earth, but that did not stop him from seeing ahead by faith into the promised Lamb of God or even meeting the God-man Himself.

Still, if we were to use comparisons of Christopher Hitchens and Nezahualcoyotl, anybody can see that Nezahualcoyotl was far closer to believing in anything close to the Christian deity.  But we can’t go upon sentiment or near-misses.  We cannot go by mere appearances in the matters of God.  We must go by His Scripture, and what does it say?

Well, first it says in Hebrews 1 that God spoke to the Israelites and their ancestors in various ways and at various times.  Stop.  How did God speak to the Israelites and their ancestors in various ways?  Well, God literally walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden face to face.  Then, He spoke to Noah in some manner (it can be assumed in the same manner that He answers us in our hearts through our prayers).  He talked to Abraham in the same way and then later appeared before him face to face.  Then things get a little weird.  God spoke to Moses through a burning bush.  Then God appeared before Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel in a very glorious form as they ate.  God spoke to Job from inside of a whirlwind or tornado.  And just in case you thought that God’s point was to show that He does whatever He wants, He trolls on Elijah just to prove how unpredictable He can be.  So already we have just about every example one can think of for how God spoke to the nation of Israel all by Himself in various ways, and this isn’t including the usage of prophets, foreign nations, or donkeys.

Do we really think that the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, couldn’t communicate with the rest of His beloved creation just because of a little geographical distance?

Many of my Calvinist friends will fear me having become a heretic (and I honor them for their concern, it is a sign of sober thinking).  Many of them will point me to Paul’s Roman epistle where the apostle explicitly states that hearing comes by the word of Christ.  They will explicitly turn to Romans 10:14-17 where Paul asks the exact questions that this entire blog post is about.

(Funny, right?  So many of us have this “forbidden question” running about in our minds looking for a place to land, when all along our question is written in the very Scripture we are oft too lazy or too intimidated to read.)

When my Calvinist friends turn me to Romans 10:14-17, I am elated because I keep reading to the end of the chapter.  And what we find in verse 18 ought to rock our socks off.  Paul, a man trained as a Pharisaic Jewish academic of the Torah, pulls an academic device still used to this day.  He cites a single verse from a source that is meant to be taken in its full context.  In other words, Paul means to use the context of the entire passage that the source is found in to answer his question in Romans 10:18.  And what does he cite as the answer to whether any human being in existence has not heard the Gospel?

Psalm 19.  Specifically, Psalm 19:4.  Now this fits directly with Paul’s basis for the entirety of humanity from past to present to future being condemned for rejecting God’s righteousness.  This is found in Romans 1, 2 and 3.  It even is a thread of thought that Paul uses in his epic speech to his cosmopolitan audience at Athens, an ancient city that was just as diverse as any of the modern major cities of today.  The very universe God created tells us about God, and even our consciences convict us of His justice and holy uniqueness.  And even more, God reveals Himself to us through His Son, the Light of the world.  And that Light shines unto all men who are in darkness so that they may come to know the Light and bask in His radiance.  So since Scripture cannot be broken, the claims of John’s Gospel and the claims of Paul’s Epistles together, then we come to conclude that Jesus Himself has been speaking to us humans all along throughout the entire Bible.  I’m not alone in this either.

Because God will ultimately judge all nonbelievers of all time for rejecting Him, will not His scales of justice be just?  We should believe so, for to whom much is given much will be required.  And just scales demand just usage, for how else will God separate the sheep from the goats?

So judge righteously, does Christopher Hitchens stand in a better position of faith than Nezahuacoyotl?  Will the amount of revelation that both men were given be taken into account during their final judgment?  Did Nezahuacoyotl even have the possibility of knowing God during his lifetime?  Was Nezahuacoyotl doomed to searching after the God of all creation, the God whose evidence he marveled at day and night in psalm of praise, just so he could never find Him?  Is there a chance that Nezahuacoyotl actually found God?

Only God knows, and I am very excited to find out.  In the meantime, I will trust in God’s character as revealed through His oath to Israel, and I will continue to live in His Kingdom and proclaim the Gospel of His conquest so that many more will inherit His promise of salvation and be saved from Death.

Ezekiel 33:11- 11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?


5 thoughts on “Saving Knowledge? Consider this…

  1. 1) Do you have a source for your information about this supposed Calvinist doctrine of “saving knowledge?”

    2) This isn’t really a Calvinist-vs- issue. It’s really more of an exclusivist-vs-inclusivist argument, though, since Calvinists seem to be the most willing to defend exclusivism, I do see the connection.

    3) “Is the Lord of the Universe…ethnocentric?” For a time, the visible church was identified as the nation of Israel under the Mosaic covenant; there’s no way to get around that. Is that ethnocentrism?

    4) “And what really is meant by ‘saving knowledge?'” See point one.

    5) “It can’t just change into an epistemological knowledge in the case of the Japanese person and then change into a confessional knowledge in the case of confessional Christians, can it?” Can you clarify what you mean here?

    6) “Can God be just and condemn a person to Hell for rejecting a message that they have never received?” This question doesn’t accurately represent my (and most folks’ I’ve heard argue on this) view. The Lord says, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” We are condemned because “none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” The message we have rejected is that of God’s “eternal power and divine nature” and the law which is written in our hearts. We are condemned before we ever hear of Jesus Christ atoning work; we’re born condemned.


    1. 1) I do have a source for “saving knowledge”. In fact, it is located in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph

      2) How is this an exclusivist-inclusivist issue when I specifically refer to only “one God” throughout the article. I also continually refer to “one Gospel” per my discussion about Christopher Hitchens and Nezahualcoyotl. Then I specifically state “One God, one Lord, one Way, one Gospel…” in my discussion. I even conclude with the Great Commission, which necessitates exclusivity.

      3) Melchizedek, Uriah the Hittite, and the Ninevites ruin that image. Also, at the very beginning of Israel becoming a nation, only two were allowed into the Promised Land, an ethnic Hebrew and an ethnic Gentile, Joshua and Caleb. Plus, if God was so exclusive to Israel then He has no basis to judge both Jews and Gentiles by the same standard (see Romans 3, especially Romans 3:29). But I also have been made away per our previous arguments of the Calvinist belief of the Church community being found exclusively in Israel…which is interestingly ethnocentric, as you have stated.

      4) See point one

      5) Epistemology is how a first grader doesn’t know the pythagorean theorem, but a fourth grader who has taken algebra does. Confessional knowledge is how a fourth grader with the pythagorean theorem uses it positively to solve a right triangle problem, while another fourth grader discards the theorem and tries to solve the math problem without it.
      One is solely depending upon exposure to knowledge or one’s ability to acquire it (epistemology) the other is dependent upon proper usage of that knowledge (application, which for sake of this argument I call confessional knowledge). Christopher Hitchens had epistemology on Christianity, but no confession. Nezahualcoyotl had no epistemology on Christianity, but he did have a knowledge of a deity that calls into question the legitimacy of his confession.

      6) We can only reject what we are offered. In this case, when Paul says that all sinners suppress the truth, then we are actually rejecting what we have already been given. And we can only be judged for what we knowingly do (see God’s response to Jonah concerning Nineveh and line that up with the whole reason Jonah is even in the story…he was given a mission to do something wasn’t he?). In the same passage that you cited is cited from Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, and the Psalms. All of which refer to people who knowingly rejected God in the original context (the nation of Israel for the Psalm and Isaiah). Also, it is the same edict declared in Genesis 6, and all knew God when the 8 got off of the ark when it was repeated again. This universal knowledge of God and rejection of Him is repeated in Acts 17:22-31 and Romans 1.
      *But if you still disagree, please give me one example of life’s instances where a person rejects a thing that is never given to them.


      1. 1) My bad. I missed that. Given that text, you have two choices (that I can see): either you deny that a man must be told a) that a righteous God and Judge exists, b) that our man is unrighteous, and c) the only way our man will be declared righteous before God is through faith in Christ the Redeemer; or you posit that point ‘c’ can be learned through general revelation. The latter is what you’ve been promoting, which is what I dispute. Perhaps we should focus mostly/solely on that?

        2) The exclusivist-inclusivist issue isn’t binary; it’s a spectrum. Plenty (most? all?) of Christian inclusivists say there’s only one God, one Way, and so forth. They even make arguments very similar to yours:

        3) Melchizedek was around before the nation, so that doesn’t challenge my original point. Uriah was in the nation, so neither does that. On the Ninevites, that they were not in the visible church doesn’t mean that national Israel wasn’t the church. It just means they weren’t in the visible church; much like a lone Saudi Arabian convert today would probably not be in the visible church.

        5) If I understand you aright, then you aren’t really talking about two different kinds of knowledge. The knowledge is just the basic Law and Gospel. The difference lies in how a person responds to the message.

        6) Well, there are sacrifices for those who “unknowingly sin.” The law is the law, whether we know it or not. My point is that the whole world is condemned for its rejection of God and its breaking of His Law, not for the explicit rejection of the message of Christ’s Incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection.


      2. 1)
        a. According to Paul, God, and myself, all men already are conscience of that. In fact, it is the self-evident truth that they are suppressing once they have come to be able to see His creation.
        b. The unrighteousness of man comes as a given. Have you read Nezahualcoyotl’s poetry? Have you looked as the laws that he passed or how he enforced them? Cause you should.
        c. Knowing that Christ is the only Redeemer for all mankind, as in Jesus of Nazareth son of Mary and Joseph, is something that Adam through Malachi was not known even in Israel. In fact, Messiah had to preach His message for 3 years just to convince His own disciples who were following Him, and even then Matthew 28:17. The revelation Moses had was more than Abraham had. David may have had more knowledge of God’s law than even the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 51:17). Use fair scales here, God surely does.

        2) In order to meaningfully engage in this dialogue of inclusion vs exclusion, then you will have to review where you stand on the spectrum of exclusion and whether there is a spectrum allowed within your own camp, if there really is such a comprehensive spectrum between the poles there.

        3) Uriah was a Hittite who, if Israel under David was following God’s word, would have come to faith in God before joining Israel, and even then, his designation as a Hittite and not as a member of a tribe (like for Caleb) means that Uriah chose to remain a foreigner, or gur, in Israel. This means he was not an official member of Israel, but the law (Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 19:34, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 9:14, and more) allowed him some of the same privileges as an Israelite.

        Melchizedek was a Canaanite. Let that sink in when it comes to ethnic promises of God. What is God really saying when He commends Israel? What is God really saying in Zechariah 14:21? Will not Rahab, the grandmother of our Lord, be there? Will not Melchizedek, the namesake of the order to which our Lord as a man was called (Hebrews 7:17)? What of Job’s Gentile friends? None of them were Israelites. The Rechabites already worshiped God, their ancestor was pivotal in helping Moses become the man God wanted him to become, and do we remember what God said about them IN COMPARISON to Israel (Jeremiah 35:13-14)? Where do the Rechabites come from? It is ironic that you made a mention about modern Arabia in your question. Actually, there are many Muslims having dreams about Messiah right now who have had no contact with a Bible or the formal Gospel. Many have come to faith and began the journey toward faith through that. These modern Acts 10 examples completely match the Areopagus Sermon that I cited earlier from Acts 17. I leave you to read it for yourself, do not take my word for it.

        *Note, where my sources are consistently coming from. I am not lying about my sources.

        Again, one God. One Lord. One Way. One Gospel.

        4) I’m glad that we are past that one. I will keep trying to be thorough.

        5) I am very sure then, that you already generally knew that eating pork was wrong since swine are unclean, since then the entire law given to Israel is not only applicable to all men but also given as general revelation. Of course, this worldview does nothing with Romans 2:11-16, which points right back to what I am saying, and it upholds what I am saying. Also, when Jesus is specifically speaking about His kingdom, what does He mean in Luke 12:47-48? Hmm…
        Sounds like Romans 2:17-24.
        The problem it appears to me, may be in your familiarity with the Old Testament. Because Paul’s reference in Romans 2:24 should settle #1, #2, and #3.

        6) God is absolutely just, so even what we do unknowingly must be judged. That was the whole point of the sacrificial system, not to take away sins but to show how God views sin. And also, to show how God views sin and still allows us a place of grace. Hence Psalm 51:17 and Romans 3:21-31.

        “My point is that the whole world is condemned for its rejection of God and its breaking of His Law, not for the explicit rejection of the message of Christ’s Incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection.”
        I bow. Not before you, my brother. But I bow before the truth you have just stated in the quoted phrase. The truth that this entire post upholds. And I push it further, those who reject the general knowledge will not accept more revelation if it is given. It is impossible to please God without faith in Him entirely, whatever revelation He has given of Himself to us, Hebrews 11:6 and Luke 16:31.

        With that, I request that our conversation continue privately through the usual channels or that you keep an open mind in speaking with our fellow members in Christ in my absence.


  2. My usage of the word “argument” is something that I have inherited from my college experience. I did have some course that were philosophic in nature, and in them any complete thought represented in a debate was called “an argument.” Incomplete thoughts were just that, or plain assertions toward a fuller idea.
    I do not mean that we have argued. I do mean that we have different views on this issue, and that we have represented them consistently.
    You should also peak Nezahualcoyotl’s poetry. It really is astounding, and I admit, some of what he says sounds strangely familiar to other famously religious poet-kings.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s