SOURCE: “Conclusion,” in Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevangelized, ATLA Monograph Series, No. 31, The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1993, pp. 250-82.

[In the essay below, Tiessen investigates Irenaeus's doctrine of divine revelation as it pertains to the “non-Christian” and compares this doctrine with the modern notion of “anonymous Christianity.”]

It is possible now to draw together the results of the investigation that has been made of the salvation of the unevangelized, in the theology of Irenaeus. The question of the state of the non-Christian, particularly of the individual who has not had opportunity to learn of God as revealed in Christ, is of great importance. In the face of the apparent failure of Christian missions to reach larger groups of people with the Gospel, various theories have been developed to describe the situation of the non-Christian in relationship to divine revelation, and to divine grace in general. In the quest for a proper perspective on the non-Christian, and on non-Christian religions, there has been a considerable amount of interest in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Frequently, one encounters the suggestion that a more positive view is found in those early centuries than in more recent Christian theology.

One theory that has received a great deal of attention, and that still has many ardent proponents, is the concept of “anonymous Christianity,” which has been most thoroughly expounded by Karl Rahner. There are writers who have claimed seeds of this idea in the second- and third-centuries, citing particularly Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. It has been the purpose of this study, therefore, to examine the views of Irenaeus regarding divine revelation, particularly as it affects the unevangelized. Given the attempts to claim Irenaeus as an antecedent of the theology of “anonymous Christianity,” special attention has been devoted to a comparison of Irenaeus's theology with that modern view of divine revelation and the non-Christian. However, the study made of Irenaeus could easily be compared with other theories now being proposed. This will be done only to a very limited extent in these final pages.

In this concluding chapter, a summary will be made of Irenaeus's doctrine of divine revelation and the non-Christian. Then a specific comparison will be made of Irenaeus's view with the theology of “anonymous Christianity” as one modern example of a perspective that has specifically been claimed by some writers (though not by Rahner himself) as having antecedence in Irenaeus.

A. A SUMMARY OF IRENAEUS'S DOCTRINE OF DIVINE REVELATION AND THE SALVATION OF THE UNEVANGELIZED

1. THE CONTEXT

In order to do justice to Irenaeus's theological formulation, it is important to understand the context within which Irenaeus was thinking and working. This will help to keep us from imposing upon Irenaeus a framework which was alien to his own context.

A. THE STRUGGLE WITH GNOSTICISM

The primary reference point of Irenaeus's theological work was his apologetic against the Gnostic heretics. Their doctrine of divine revelation and the non-Christian is the foil for Irenaeus's perspective. The Gnostic view against which Irenaeus contended was, as its very name indicates, a claim to special knowledge. They described themselves as a privileged class (the “spiritual”) who possessed perfect knowledge of God and had been initiated into the mysteries by Achamoth. They appealed to the Scriptures to support their system of truth but also claimed secret traditions (a “living voice”) handed down to them from Christ and the apostles. In this way, they represented themselves as having a knowledge of truth which was superior to that of Irenaeus and the Church which he represented.

The Gnostic doctrine of salvation was largely one of salvation by knowledge. In fact, knowledge was not only the major instrument of salvation; it was itself the form in which the goal of salvation is possessed. The situation was complicated, however, by an anthropology that distinguished between three kinds of people. Salvation was impossible for the lowest level—the hylic or material—by reason of their materiality. The metaphysical dualism of the Gnostics assumed the inherent evil of matter. The class in which Irenaeus, and most of the Church, was placed was the psychical. These are people whose destiny was not already determined. They do not have perfect knowledge but they may be saved through good works and faith. The spiritual are those who possess grace by virtue of their relationship to the Aeons, and whose salvation is ensured by their nature, apart from good works on their part, but on the assumption that they possess perfect knowledge.

The Gnostics had little to say about paganism, but they did not consider pagan religions to have attained the truth about God. The primary target of Gnosticism was not the pagan religions but the larger Christian community. It was probably assumed that the pagan was in the class of the material, and hence in a hopeless condition. Those in the Church were psychical and therefore worth the efforts made to bring them to knowledge of the truth.

B. THE SUCCESS OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSION

It has been demonstrated that Irenaeus believed that in the time of the apostles, the world had been evangelized, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and in obedience to the commission of Christ. Irenaeus viewed the Church in his own day as spread throughout the whole world with a unity of faith that was preached everywhere. This assumption on the part of Irenaeus is extremely important to this study. Because Irenaeus was wrong in this perception, the reader may be tempted to dismiss his statements on the extent of evangelization as hyperbole, and to suggest that this was not really the perspective from which Irenaeus viewed the unevangelized. However, it has been demonstrated that the assumption clearly underlay Irenaeus's understanding of the just judgment of the unbeliever. Those who are condemned are justly punished because they personally rejected the Gospel. Clearly, Irenaeus assumed that all people had salvific revelation. Yet he taught that salvation was restricted only to the Church in its institutional form. No one could be saved apart from the Church, but it was assumed that everyone had the opportunity to be saved, and those who did not believe were therefore culpable. Thus, his belief in the success of the Christian mission is evident, not only from his explicit statements regarding the spread of the Church, but even more significantly from his theology of salvation and judgment.

We have shown that Irenaeus's view was inaccurate, but what matters for this study is that he thought it was correct. Jean Daniélou therefore observes correctly that “Irenaeus's ecclesiastical frontiers are identical with those of the known world in his day.”¹ The difference between Irenaeus's view of the success of the Christian mission and the situation as we see it in our own day is definitely a limiting factor in any comparison between Irenaeus's view of divine revelation and the non-Christian and modern theories on the subject.

2. THE GRACIOUS SELF-REVELATION OF THE TRANSCENDENT FATHER

Irenaeus stressed the transcendence of God no less than the Gnostics did, but he denied the Father's complete unknowability. Though God is incomprehensible in his essence and greatness, he has graciously made himself known to humankind in his love and great goodness. This is particularly important because the knowledge or vision of God is life-giving. It is, in fact, the ultimate goal of human life. To see God is to live, to have immortality and incorruptibility. This is why it is so important that God chose to reveal himself to human beings, and that he does so out of a continual good will toward humanity. Consequently, the Father has revealed himself, in some way, to all people.

Most basically, God has revealed himself through his creative work and through his continual providence over the affairs of the world which he created. In particular, God has demonstrated his power, wisdom and goodness by these means. It is possible for people, by their natural reasoning capacity, to attain knowledge of God the Creator by means of creation. However, Irenaeus distinguishes between the knowledge achieved in this way, and the saving knowledge, which is the experience only of those who are inwardly illumined by the Word.

3. THE EXCLUSIVE MEDIATION BY THE SON

To know the Father, in the full and salvific sense, the Son's work as mediator is essential. There is no way for people to know the Father except as the Son reveals him. So interrelated are the Father and the Son that any manifestation of the Son gives knowledge of both the Father and the Son. Thus, there has been a progressive self-manifestation of God to humanity, with the Son involved as exclusive mediator at every stage of that revelation. The Son was involved in the divine work of creation and continues active in providence. He is continually present with his creatures, revealing the Father to them from the beginning, and not only in his incarnation. Nowhere is this work of the Son more intriguingly described than in the passages that describe the “cosmic cross.” The Word is invisibly imprinted upon the world, in the form of a cross, with his arms stretched out to gather the world together from one extreme to the other. He gives cohesion to all created things by his immanence in the creation. All beings participate in the cosmic cross. Furthermore, the cosmic cross has an orientation to the salvation of the dispersed elements. This activity of the Word leads to the knowledge of the Father, being the principle not only of a physical cohesion, but also of a moral and supernatural unity. The visible crucifixion of the incarnate Word thus has a particular appropriateness because it manifests that all things participate in the invisible cross.

In addition to the natural revelation of the Father by the Son, Irenaeus details the theophanic appearances of the Son to individuals of the Old Testament: Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others. From the beginning, therefore, the Word had a certain visibility and was “seen” even by people of the Old Testament. He also spoke through the prophets, both in their preaching and in their writings. The Word was thus implanted or inseminated in the prophetic announcements of the Old Testament, and the Church reaps the fruit of that sowing. The great value of the Old Testament Scriptures in evangelism of the Jews is therefore obvious. The experiences of Peter, Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch all evidence the benefit of this knowledge of the Word through the Old Testament Scriptures, which fairly easily grew into recognition of Jesus as the fulfillment of those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelization of the Gentiles was more difficult precisely because of the lack of evangelistic preparation. The visit of Christ to the subterranean regions, after his death, was also a form of reaping the fruit which had been sown in his various modes of revelation in the Old Testament. There, He appeared to those who had anticipated his coming, and declared to them the good news of his coming, namely, the remission of sins for those who had believed in him.

The coming of the Word in the flesh brought an even more privileged revelation of the same Word who had been revealing himself and the Father from the beginning. This was an important stage in the economy of salvation, because by means of the Incarnation, the flesh is accustomed to see God and God is accustomed to live with human beings. Thus progress is made toward the eventual vision of God by humankind. The significance of the Incarnation is also demonstrated by means of the concept of recapitulation. Christ recapitulated the history of humanity in himself and thus procured salvation for humankind. Passing through all the ages of life, he restored “all people” to communion with God. He recapitulated in himself all the nations dispersed from Adam onwards, and all the languages and generations of humankind. The salvific importance of the Incarnation is thus immense. Notice was taken earlier of the tendency to universalism in Irenaeus's doctrine of recapitulation, a tendency which was followed to that conclusion by Origen. However, Irenaeus does not pursue the concept to that conclusion. It would appear that in the recapitulatory work of Christ, involving both the Incarnation and the Passion, the objective salvation of humankind is accomplished, but individuals' personal participation in the saving fruit of that work depends upon their own response to divine revelation. No one could be saved without the recapitulatory work of Christ, but it does not automatically ensure the salvation of anyone.

The final stage of the Son's preparation of humanity for vision of the Father will be his millennial reign, following his second coming. This period is an important stage in the Irenaean scheme. During that time, the resurrected righteous of both Testaments will reign on earth with Christ and prepare themselves, through the contemplation of the Son, for the immediate vision of the Father in heaven. Both those who lived before the Incarnation and desired to see Christ and those who have believed in Christ since he ascended to the Father will have the opportunity to know Christ in the flesh, and will be made ready to see the Father. Following the millennium, the saved will enter into an eternity with the Father, during which time they will continue to grow in their love and knowledge, even in its direct vision, through the mediation of the Son. Those who were called early in the economy of salvation will receive the same reward (incorruptibility) as those who were called later.

4. THE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Attention has been given to the role of the Spirit in preparing humanity for the knowledge of the Father through the Son. He was active with the Word in creation and providence, as Wisdom, one of the two hands of the Father. He spoke through the prophets as they declared the Son to their generation, empowered the Son for his ministry, and was later sent by the Son to empower the disciples for the evangelization of the nations. It is the work of the Spirit to lead people to the Son, who presents them to the Father. Thus, just as it is impossible to approach the Father apart from the Word, it is likewise impossible to see the Son without the Spirit. The Spirit continues to speak through the New Testament Scriptures, but especially works in and through the Church. Indeed, his saving work is restricted to the Church, so that where the Spirit is the Church is found, and where the Church exists the Spirit is present and active.²

5. THE FAITHFUL PROCLAMATION OF DIVINE REVELATION IN THE CHURCH

Faced with the threat of Gnostic heresy and its claim to a “living voice,” Irenaeus took refuge in the Church as recipient of the apostolic tradition. The revelation that the Father has made of himself by means of the Son is now to be found in the Church, where the Holy Spirit has placed gifted people, whom he enables to understand the revelation and to faithfully proclaim it. The apostles had had a privileged position, being instructed personally by Christ and then inspired by the Holy Spirit for the recording of divine revelation, as well as empowered for its proclamation. They were instrumental in starting churches made up of those who believed in Christ and were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and they handed those churches on to other people of their choosing. It was Irenaeus's conviction that these successors of the apostles—the presbyters or bishops of the churches—were the ones whose testimony to divine revelation was to be believed. When there was a question regarding the truth, it was to these people that one ought to listen, since they are the ones to whom the apostles handed on the truth. This objective truth that was handed down (tradere) was therefore designated the “tradition” or the “rule of truth.” Its authenticity was recognizable by the consensus of the testimony of the churches all over the world to this core of truth. A particularly significant witness was to be found in the church at Rome, which had a normative role for Irenaeus, as a church whose presbyters could be traced back to Peter and Paul, and one which was a meeting point of Christians traveling from all over the world.

For those who lived in Irenaeus's day and afterwards, the divine revelation is therefore to be found in the Church. Not only is the testimony to truth clearly found there, but it is in and through the Church alone that the Holy Spirit carries out his saving operations. To be outside of the Church, as an institution led by the successors of the apostles, would be to be outside of the Holy Spirit and therefore separated from all his lifegiving work. Since no one knows the Father except by means of revelation by the Son, and no one sees the Son except by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and no one has the Holy Spirit except those who are a part of the Church, participation in the institutional Church (that is, the visible Church led by the apostolic successors) becomes the sine qua non for knowledge of the Father.

6. THE NECESSITY OF HUMAN RESPONSE TO DIVINE REVELATION

Irenaeus foresaw two possible destinies for people: the vision of God, which is life, or separation from God's light, which is darkness and death. The choice between these destinies rests squarely with the individual. God has manifested himself to all people, and given to all the capacity to believe in him. Those who believe in the Father and the Son and who follow God, as Abraham (the father of the faithful) had done, will be saved. They receive the adoption as children and, provided they steadfastly maintain their faith, they will progress toward the vision of the Father. Those who respond to the revelation of God are given an increasing capacity to see the light of God. Those who do not respond, however, blind themselves and are eventually abandoned by God to the darkness which they have chosen for themselves. The justice of God in their judgment is therefore evident because it is the implementation of their freely chosen self-condemnation. There is no deficiency in divine revelation that causes the condemnation of any person. The fault lies in the individual.

7. THE NON-CHRISTIAN

Irenaeus never uses the term “non-Christian.” He speaks of the unbeliever, the Gentile, the pagan, the ungodly, sinners, the unbelieving, and those who are outside the Church. The existence of non-Christians, designated by a variety of names, is thus perfectly clear. They are those who neither acknowledge the Creator nor recognize the providence of God from which they benefit; those who serve the creature and worship “idols of demons”; those who know God's commandments but do not do them; those who do not believe in the Father and the Son; those who not only personally reject the truth concerning the one God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but who lead others astray with them.

Irenaeus had a very negative view of other religions. The gods they served were idols of demons. However, he recognized that not all people are equally privileged in regard to divine revelation. The Gentiles or pagans did not have the words of God. However, God's punishment of the unbeliever is appropriate to the grace that he had experienced and is graded according to the opportunity of divine revelation that he had received. This is a conclusion drawn from the statement of Jesus concerning the more severe judgment of those who rejected the incarnate Christ, as compared to the people of Sodom, who had less revelation. The justice of God is evident in that distinction.

This study has concluded that Irenaeus viewed the world as evangelized to such an extent that no one was without specific revelation of Christ. This is a very important aspect of his view of the non-Christian. He therefore views non-Christians as those who had deliberately rejected Christ and preferred the darkness of their own way. He says nothing of unbelievers before Christ, who were without sufficient revelation to believe and be saved. He does not speculate about those who had neither Christophanies nor typical anticipations of Christ because of being out of contact with Israel. Although the ungodly of Psalm 1:1 are people who do not “know God,” nothing is said to imply that their lack of knowledge was due to insufficiency of revelation. Irenaeus's focus is on those who have the Scriptures and have heard the proclamation of the faith by the Church, but who have chosen not to believe.

8. THE THESIS OF IRENAEUS

In summary, the position of Irenaeus might be stated as follows:

1) God the Father has revealed himself to all people, from the beginning, by his two hands—the Word(Son) and Wisdom (Spirit)—in various modes. These included creation and providence, theophanic appearances of the pre-incarnate Logos; the preaching and writings of Moses and the prophets; the incarnate Word; the preaching and writings of the apostles, who handed on to their successors in the Church the truth taught by Christ, which they recollected and recorded with the help of the Holy Spirit; and the preaching of the Church all over the world, united in its testimony to the apostolic faith.

2) Jesus Christ, by his incarnation, obedient life, death and resurrection, has recapitulated the whole history of humankind and has, thereby, accomplished an objective reconciliation of all things to the Father. He will return to raise the righteous dead of all ages and will reign on earth with the resurrected righteous, who will become accustomed to the vision of God through their contact with the incarnate Word. At the close of that reign, the wicked will be judged, and the righteous will enter an eternity of ever-expanding knowledge of the Father.

3) Only those who believe in the Father and the Son, and do God's will, can be included among the righteous who will see the Father and live with him for eternity. People of all periods of history are saved on the same basis, and all will be prepared for eternity by the rule of Christ on earth, following his return.

4) The judgment of those who do not believe in order to be saved is a just act on God's part because of the universality of his self-revelation and because of the freedom which all people had either to believe and to obey or to disbelieve and disobey.

5) An unbeliever or “non-Christian” would therefore be someone who had known of Christ, but who had not believed in him or “desired to see him,” as the case might be. The non-Christian religions are a false worship, their gods being idols of demons. Therefore, non-Christians are not saved, and non-Christian religions are not means of salvation. The same would be true of those outside of Israel, in the Old Testament, or those who lived before the patriarchs and who were outside of the one economy which was carried forward by the revelatory activity of the pre-incarnate Logos. “Unbelievers,” in all stages of the economy, were not saved.

B. IRENAEUS AND “ANONYMOUS CHRISTIANITY”

1. “ANONYMOUS CHRISTIANITY” RESTATED

In order to determine to what extent Irenaeus may validly be cited as an early proponent of concepts that “anticipated” the theology of “anonymous Christianity,” it will be helpful to summarize the main points of the theory as Karl Rahner has developed it.

Rahner's definition of the “anonymous Christian” is clear. He is “the pagan after the beginning of the Christian mission, who lives in the state of Christ's grace through faith, hope and love, yet who has no explicit knowledge of the fact that his life is oriented in grace-given salvation to Jesus Christ.”³ Basic to Rahner's theory are the following theses:

1) It is God's will that all people should be saved, a fact often described as the “universal salvific will of God.”⁴

2) In spite of original and personal sin, God therefore offers all people a “genuine possibility of attaining to their own salvation.” This offer of salvation exists before the practical proclamation of it and makes possible both the proclamation and the acceptance of it.

3) By the grace of God, all people have been given a “supernaturally elevated transcendence,” a “transcendental experience of the absolute merciful closeness of God.” Although people may not be distinctly conscious of this, it is a reality in the inmost core of their persons. In the “depth of his concrete nature,” a human is a being who “looks for the presence of God himself.” This is one side of the event of revelation.

4) One can say that people have faith if they “freely accept their own unlimited transcendence,” which is graciously directed toward God. When people accept themselves in freedom as they are, in faithfulness to their own moral conscience, they are said to accept divine revelation (i.e., the a priori awareness of humanity) in faith.

5) The incarnation of the Word constituted a call to the human race to “share the life of God supernaturally.” Because of the Incarnation, humanity has already “become ontologically the real sanctification of individual men by grace and also the people of the children of God.” By virtue of this “consecration,” they are already a “people of God which extends as far as humanity itself.”

6) Because of this ontological reality brought into being by the Incarnation, the Church is a twofold reality. In addition to the established juridical organization, one can also describe the Church as “humanity consecrated by Incarnation.” The institutional Church is thus the “concrete historical manifestation of the salvation which is achieved by the grace of God throughout humanity.” It is the explicit expression of what is present as a hidden reality outside the visible Church.

7) Hence, people who “accept the concrete reality of their nature totally, in a free act of a supernatural justification by faith and love,” are to be considered members of the Church. They have personally accepted (albeit unconsciously) the membership of the people of God which is already a fact on the historical plane. This is not merely membership in an “invisible” Church. It is an “invisible” belonging to the “visible” Church by grace, and it has a “visible relation” to that Church even when it is not constituted by baptism, or by an “externally verifiable profession of the faith.”

8) Non-Christian religions before Christ were, in principle, willed by God as legitimate ways of salvation. The coming of Christ, and his death and resurrection, made these religions obsolete. However, non-Christian religions may maintain some validity after the Incarnation, for individuals who have not been presented with the message of Christ so clearly that rejection of that message as the way of salvation offered by God would be a grave fault. Therefore, prior to that point at which the claims of Christ are clearly presented and understood, the non-Christian religion, as a way of salvation accepted from the genuine motives of conscience, does lead one to God.

2. ANTICIPATIONS IN IRENAEUS?

To what extent is it valid to speak of Irenaeus as anticipating the theology of “anonymous Christianity”?

A. MISLEADING STATEMENT

It is clear from the careful study that has been made of Irenaeus's doctrine of revelation that such a statement could be very misleading. The reader of previously cited authors who point to Irenaeus as anticipating “anonymous Christianity” is likely to assume a much closer affinity between Irenaeus and the theology of “anonymous Christianity” than is actually the case. From the analysis that has been made of Irenaeus's position, as summarized above, it is clear that the conclusions which Irenaeus himself reached closely resemble the motivations that have traditionally stimulated missionary activity.⁵ To cite as an antecedent of “anonymous Christianity” a man who believed that only those are saved who are members of the institutional Church, and who expressly confess its rule of truth, would seem a highly questionable appeal to history. In short, any reference to Irenaeus as an “antecedent,” a “forerunner,” or an “anticipator” of modern optimism concerning the state of the non-Christian (such as one finds in the theory of “anonymous Christianity”) will have to be very cautiously worded.

There are, perhaps, two lines of approach which might be taken to the theology of Irenaeus in order to find legitimate “antecedence.” Both of these will be examined.

1) Irenaeus did not address the situation which is addressed by the theology of “anonymous Christianity,” because he was not conscious of significant groups of people without knowledge of Christ through the Church's witness. However, if the existence of unevangelized peoples is assumed, inferences could be drawn from the theological framework of Irenaeus which would point toward an optimism regarding the salvation of the “non-Christian.”

2) Irenaeus was not himself a theologian of “anonymous Christianity.” However, there are aspects of his theology which could be developed in a different direction from the one in which Irenaeus himself developed them, and which would then lead to different conclusions from the ones Irenaeus himself reached.

B. INFERENCES DRAWN FROM IRENAEUS'S SYSTEM

It has been the contention of this study that Irenaeus described divine revelation and the non-Christian in the context of the assumption that the world had been evangelized. Those who were unbelievers had chosen to be so, in explicit rejection of the Christ whom the Church had proclaimed as Savior of the world. There is always some danger in speculation about “what would have happened if … ?” However, the question still has some validity, provided that the answers reached are recognized as tentative. The question which the modern student of Irenaeus may ask is: “What would Irenaeus have concluded about the salvation or judgment of the unbeliever, if he had started from the recognition that there are large groups of people who have never had the message of Christ presented to them in an intelligible fashion?”

Irenaeus argued that God's judgment of the unbeliever (the “non-Christian”) was just, because the unbeliever had had the revelation concerning Christ and had rejected it. But what if there were unbelievers who had not had the revelation of the incarnate Word as proclaimed by the Church?

1) A Reformed direction? Might Irenaeus have followed the direction taken by a large part of the Reformed tradition, with its focus on Romans 1, 2, and 5? This view proposes that, by virtue of the solidarity of the human race in Adam (because of a federal headship or because of corporate solidarity, not because of “substantial” or “realistic” unity), all human beings sinned in Adam (Romans 5). That original sin included original guilt, and not only a tendency to personal sin and guilt. God has revealed himself to all, in creation (Romans 1:19-20), and has written his law on their hearts, and given them an inner witness to it, in conscience (Romans 2:15). However, because of the natural depravity of fallen humanity, which affects every aspect of their being, they suppress God's revelation, and worship the creature rather than the Creator, and they disobey God's law written on their hearts. The revelation in nature results only in condemnation because 1) sinful people always distort it idolatrously, and 2) it does not reveal Christ, faith in whom is necessary for salvation. Consequently, the non-Christian who does not hear of Christ is justly judged. The justice of that judgment, however, is not based on an assumption that non-Christians had adequate revelation to believe unto salvation, but on the ground of their unbelief and disobedience at the level of natural revelation, for which they are culpable because of a self-incurred inability in Adam.⁶

This direction appears unlikely. Although it has been demonstrated that Irenaeus had an understanding of original sin, that was certainly not a major consideration for him, and would not likely be a starting point in defending the justice of divine judgment of the non-Christian. Irenaeus did not emphasize the insufficiency of natural revelation, as Reformed theology has done. Assuming that all people had more than natural revelation, he nonetheless gave it a positive importance, and spoke of the necessity of faith with regard to it. Furthermore, Irenaeus's emphasis on free will, and his reaction to Gnostic determinism, made him an unlikely “antecedent” of Reformed (predestinarian) theology.

An interesting attempt has been made to develop a more hopeful view of the salvation of “non-Christians” within the framework of traditional Reformed theology.⁷ Neal Punt has suggested that the traditional Reformed manner of approaching the doctrine of election has been incorrect. The usual assumption has been that everyone is lost except those whom Scripture declares to be elect, namely, those who believe in Christ. Punt suggests that we ought rather to assume the election of everyone, unless Scripture specifically states otherwise. Rejection of Christ would thus be a clear sign of lostness (non-election or reprobation), but the position of those who do not know of Christ would be more hopeful than in the traditional formula as summarized above.

Faith in Christ is seen as the response of the elect who hear of Christ. It has, therefore, a conditional necessity (not unlike Rahner's conditional necessity of Church membership). The elect who do not hear the Gospel respond positively in regard to the revelation that they have received. The outcome is therefore similar to that discussed below, under B,2,b,2), but it begins from a Reformed concept of sovereign, divine election. Most of those who adopt the position described below would not work within the framework of unconditional election. They would be more likely to speak of an election based on God's foreknowledge. Irenaeus himself speaks of God's relationship to the unbelief of the non-Christian in terms of foreknowledge, and not of reprobation. A similarity to the work of Karl Barth is evident in regard to the concept of corporate, universal election in Christ.

Punt's work reminds one of the position of Ulrich Zwingli, in the sixteenth century. Zwingli also started with a strong doctrine of election and predestination as the cause of salvation. It is manifested in outward signs, and those signs differ according to one's situation. The pagans of antiquity, and those who have not had opportunity to hear the Gospel, may also be among the elect, because they will be judged on a different basis from those who have had Gospel revelation. Zwingli spoke hopefully, for instance, of the situation of Seneca or Socrates.⁸ It is interesting to find this kind of optimism regarding the salvation of the non-Christian in a key Reformation figure.

2) Salvation on the basis of response to revelation at whatever level it is received? Irenaeus would not have surrendered his conviction of the justice of God's judgment of the unbeliever. The justice of God was too fundamental an aspect of the nature of God to be surrendered, and was viewed in coordination with his goodness. Irenaeus believed that people were judged according to their privilege or opportunity. This was a recognition that there are gradations within the modes of divine revelation. However, the assumption was that no one was below the level of salvific revelation. If Irenaeus had recognized people who have no more than natural revelation, would he have accepted that natural revelation as sufficient to the salvation of those who receive no more? We can only speculate. It is significant, however, that Irenaeus viewed the natural revelation as mediated by the Son. Although it was possible to come to knowledge of God as Creator by reason alone, it was only by a special illumination of the Word that faith was possible, in response to that revelation. Is it possible to conceive that (given a different context) Irenaeus might have accepted the possibility of salvation by a Word-illumined response to natural revelation? If one considers only Irenaeus's discussion of natural revelation, such a direction is not conceivable. He did regard the revelation in creation, at least germinally, as salvific, and he paralleled it to the greater privilege of revelation in the incarnate Word. Within the Irenaean framework, a person saved in such a case would no doubt be resurrected at the return of Christ and would have the millennium to become accustomed to the knowledge of the Son, and to be prepared thereby for the vision of the Father. However, this view would have called for considerable change in other areas of Irenaeus's theology. He would have had to modify considerably his concept of the Spirit's work in salvation, and of the role of the institutional Church. However, Irenaeus developed his strong emphasis on saving revelation within the scope of the institutional Church in response to the threat of Gnostic schismatics. In a different context, he might have taken a different turn.

This perspective has a theological simplicity that is still far from “anonymous Christianity.” It sees no need to classify the saved as “anonymous Christians,” accepting these people as saved on the ground of Christ's work, through a believing response to the light that they had. It does not describe this as a form of “implicit faith,” or define it as an invisible form of membership in the visible Church. The assumption is simply made that explicit faith in Christ and membership in the Church are the means of salvation for those who know Christ and the Church, but that those who do not have that privilege are accepted on the basis of the response they make to the revelation that they do have. Among Protestant laypeople, this is a common view,⁹ but it would call for considerable dislocation in Irenaeus's system to attribute the “seeds” of such a view to him.

3) Toward “anonymous Christianity”? Irenaeus did view God as willing the salvation of all people, and as offering to all people a possibility of salvation. From there on, Irenaeus and “anonymous Christianity” move in different directions, because of a difference in assumptions regarding the state of the evangelization of the world. Faith, for Irenaeus, has nothing to do with accepting one's own transcendence. It is recognition of the Creatorship of God, gratitude for his providence, confession of the one God and Father of all, the one Son who is Lord and Savior of all, the one Holy Spirit, and the one economy of salvation. There is no need for a twofold reality of the Church, because all people have contact with the visible, institutional form. Membership is therefore defined in terms of that visibility. Non-Christian religions are not legitimate ways of salvation, because they all exist in conscious opposition to the Christian Church. If Irenaeus had known of non-Christian religions still without a hearing of the Gospel, he would more likely have postulated the salvation of individuals on account of a Word-illumined response to natural revelation, as under B,2,b,2) above, than because of revelational and salvific elements within the pagan religion. Irenaeus would not have called “Christian” any people who had no explicit knowledge of the fact that their life is “oriented in grace-given salvation to Jesus Christ.”

In short, the differences of perspective are considerable, because of the difference of starting point. The “what if?” question is not, after all, a means by which one can demonstrate “antecedence” of “anonymous Christianity” with any degree of certainty.

4) Toward the even greater optimism of pluralistic soteriologies? Among those who have spoken approvingly of the Patristic period, for its perspective on revelation and salvation, is Raimundo Panikkar. He suggests that Christian theology has generally tried to “accentuate the differences between Christianity and the ‘non-Christian’ religions” but that “in the Patristic period things were different.”¹⁰ Panikkar himself goes beyond “anonymous Christianity” with regard to the salvific role that he attributes to Hinduism and, by extension, to other non-Christian religions. He makes occasional use of Rahner's theology in forming his own perspective, but his approach is not just an Asian model of “anonymous Christianity.” Panikkar contends that “it is acceptable to Hindus to be ‘anonymous Christians,’ provided one also admits that Christians are ‘anonymous Hindus.’”¹¹ Interestingly, Rahner himself was once asked by a well-known Japanese philosopher: “What would you say to my treating you as an anonymous Zen Buddhist?” Rahner replied:

You may and should do so from your point of view; I feel myself honored by such an interpretation, even if I am obliged to regard you as being in error if I assume that, correctly understood, to be a genuine Zen Buddhist is identical with being a genuine Christian, in the sense directly and properly intended by such statements.¹²

The “proper sense” which Rahner intends is different from the sense in which Panikkar would use the term. For Rahner, there can come a point when the knowledge which non-Christians have of the message of Christ is such that it would be a “grave fault” for them to reject it any longer “as the way of salvation offered by God and as the fulfillment that goes beyond anything that” was offered by their former religion.¹³ Rahner thus reserves an absoluteness to Christianity that transcends the relative value of non-Christian religions which may nonetheless lead an individual to God, in the period prior to the coming of the message of Christ to that individual. For Panikkar, on the other hand, Christianity and Hinduism are both transcended by something absolute. Both are therefore of relative value.

From Hebrews 1:1-2, Panikkar surmises that “not only the prophets of Israel but also the sages of Hinduism” are inspired by the Son, who has been present “in all human endeavours.”¹⁴ The Logos himself is thus speaking in Hinduism. Furthermore, “there is in Hinduism a living Presence of that Mystery which Christians call Christ.”¹⁵ From the point of view of the Christian, Christ's grace is the force which is impelling Hinduism and he is its ontological goal.¹⁶ However, that is only true from the point of view of the Christian. In fact, the Mystery which Christians call Christ cannot be completely identified with him. He is the Mystery in the sense that “to see Christ is to reach that Mystery,”¹⁷ but “he is only one aspect of the Mystery as a whole.”¹⁸ “Even though he is the Way when we are on that way,” when Christians actually reach the summit, they discover Christ “in all those who have reached the Mystery, even if their ways have not been the Christian one.”¹⁹ It is only for the Christian that the Mystery is indissolubly connected with Christ. What Christians need to realize therefore, is that “in believing and loving Christ as the central symbol of life and Ultimate Truth,” they are being drawn towards the selfsame Mystery that attracts all other human beings who are seeking to overcome their own present condition.²⁰

Panikkar grants that apart from Christ there is no redemption (Ephesians 1:3-14ff; Colossians 1:13-22). Therefore, anyone who is saved is saved by Christ, the only redeemer. Since “we know by reason and faith that God provides everybody with the necessary means of salvation,” we must accept that “Christ is present in one form or another in every human being as he journeys towards God.”²¹ In some way, therefore, “Hinduism is incorporated into the universal economy of salvation by God through Christ.”²² Since there is no salvation outside the Church, the “‘Church’ should not be identified with a concrete organization, or even with adherence to Christianity.”²³ The normal and ordinary means of salvation within the Christian Church are the sacraments. “Yet it remains true that Christ may be active and at work in the human being who receives any sacrament, whether Christian or any other.”²⁴ Thus, the “good and bona fide Hindu” is saved by Christ, “not by Hinduism or Christianity per se, but through their sacraments, and ultimately, through the Mysterion active within the two religions.”²⁵

In this approach of Panikkar one can see clearly three of the aspects of Irenaeus's theology which might have developed in an optimistic direction. 1) God wills all people to be saved, 2) Christ is the Savior of all people, and 3) God provides everyone with the necessary means to salvation. However, Panikkar has moved on from those starting points to a position that is more distant from Irenaeus than is that of Rahner. It does not seem possible to stretch Irenaeus to the point at which Hindus could be confronted with the revelation of God in Christ, could reject Christ as the way of salvation, and the triune God as the one true God, and yet be saved (through Christ) by the sacraments and worship of their Hindu religion.

In comparing Irenaeus with “anonymous Christianity,” we encountered a situation that Irenaeus did not specifically address. Panikkar, on the other hand, has described a situation that Irenaeus did confront. There seems to be no reason to assume that Irenaeus would have felt different about Hindu gods and idols from how he felt about the gods of the Gentile religions of his day, which he called “idols of demons.” There is no reason to believe that he would treat the Hindu's rejection of Christ in a manner different from his treatment of the rejection by the Gnostic or the pagan of his own day. There is no reason to suggest that he would consider the “visible” Church dispensable for Hindus who have their own concrete manifestation of the Mystery, in Hinduism.

Irenaeus had no inclination to suggest that the Mystery toward which Valentinus moved by means of his doctrine of the Aeons was none other than the Mystery toward vision of whom Irenaeus was progressing. Nor was Irenaeus ready to accept that when he and Valentinus reached the summit they would find that they had arrived by different but equally valid ways. Even if Valentinus had been a very sincere Gnostic, with a clear conscience, unless he had given up his erroneous beliefs concerning the Aeons, had believed in Christ as the one Son of God, and had participated in the visible Church, he would have been doomed. In short, while we may discern some carefully qualified “antecedence” of “anonymous Christianity” in the theology of Irenaeus, there is a clear contrast between his thought and that of the pluralism represented in Panikkar's work.

C. DEVELOPMENT OF ASPECTS OF IRENAEUS'S THEOLOGY

James Dupuis, Gerald O’Collins, and Eugene Hillman all indicated Logos-Christology as the point of greatest hopefulness in the second- and third-century Fathers, vis-à-vis the salvation of “non-Christians.” Particularly the activity of the pre-incarnate Logos was cited. It appears that those statements have generally assumed too great a similarity between Irenaeus and Justin or Clement of Alexandria. This study has demonstrated that the pre-incarnate revelatory activity of the Logos was seen more in terms of theophanies, prophecies and types which were specifically Christological than in terms of an activity of the Logos outside of God's working within his covenant people. However, we have noticed the significance of the activity of the pre-incarnate Logos in creation and providence, and the universal cohesiveness provided by the immanence of the Word, as symbolized in the cosmic cross. The parallel which Irenaeus draws between revelation in creation and revelation in the Incarnation is very important, seen also in the relationship between the cosmic cross and the visible cross, even though Irenaeus himself did not conceive of people who were limited to natural revelation. At that most basic level of revelation, faith or unbelief is critical. The economy of salvation moves in a straight line from Adam through Enoch, Noah, Abraham, his heirs, Moses and the Hebrew prophets, toward Jesus the Christ. From the beginning, this economy was characterized by a spirit of anticipation of his coming in the flesh.

Irenaeus does not speak of an activity of the Logos through pagan philosophers, as Justin does. The “seed of the Word” was not found in pagan philosophers, but in the Old Testament prophecies, whose fruit the Church reaped. Dupuis' comment that Irenaeus “made room for a salvific value of pre-biblical religions” is very doubtful, in view of this study.²⁶ Likewise, O’Collins' statement that Irenaeus saw the “Greek philosophers as ‘Christians before Christ’” is incorrect, or at least greatly overstated (if one takes a maximally positive reading of Irenaeus's comment on Plato).²⁷ The statement is made out of a failure to distinguish adequately between the theologies of Justin and Irenaeus, and out of a conceptualization of the pre-incarnate saving activity of the Word that is different from Irenaeus's perspective. In view of the struggle that Irenaeus was having with the Gnostics, and the stress that he was forced to place on the Old Testament and apostolic Scriptures, it is very unlikely that he is the guide Vempeny is looking for with regard to the inspiration of non-biblical scriptures.²⁸

The aspect of Irenaeus's theology which seems most likely to lead to an optimism regarding salvation is his doctrine of the Incarnation, including particularly the concept of recapitulation. Here one finds a fundamental and objective work of God in Christ that makes the salvation of all people possible. It is here that one finds some similarity to Rahner's concept of an ontologically real sanctification of humanity by the Incarnation. Irenaeus spoke of Christ's recapitulating the whole of humanity in order to sanctify it.

Mention was made in the previous chapter of the parallel drawn by Wingren between Irenaeus's doctrine of recapitulation and a Barthian doctrine of universal, corporate election in Christ, the elect One. Dai Sil Kim has compared this doctrine to Teilhard de Chardin's concept of “Omega.”²⁹ Origen developed recapitulation into explicit universalism. It seems to this writer that this is a place from which one could begin, in Irenaeus's theology, to work toward an optimism concerning the salvation of the non-Christian. However, the system one would develop from this starting point would necessarily be very different from that of Irenaeus. It would hardly seem justified to call Irenaeus an “antecedent” of such a system. Even to say that the seed of such a system is found in Irenaeus would be somewhat misleading. One might say that this “seed” was not allowed to grow to maturity in Irenaeus, but that, too, is misleading. This was an integral part of Irenaeus's whole theological system. He grew the “seed” into fruit, within his own system. Others may feel, however, that this is a seed with different possibilities from those Irenaeus reaped from it.

C. A FINAL STATEMENT

Irenaeus presents a theology of revelation and salvation that has an inner consistency. Beginning with his presuppositions, the system is coherent. Although unique in certain aspects, its overall perspective represents the view that has traditionally motivated Christian missions: the view that salvation requires explicit faith in Christ and that without the Church's missionary outreach, people in other religions are going to be lost. By changing the presuppositions of Irenaeus's system, we can speculate concerning other directions which he might have taken. By ignoring his own conclusions, but taking certain aspects of his theology as starting points, we can develop a position that reaches different conclusions. All of that, however, is modern speculation, and the conclusions reached by these means must be tentative. One would have to speak in very precise and carefully qualified terms in order to claim Irenaeus as an “antecedent” of such modern developments. However, taking all of these factors into account, one might make a statement such as this:

Irenaeus believed that those who were saved, who lived before the Incarnation of the Word, had responded in faith to the various modes of revelation by the pre-incarnate Logos. He believed that, after the ascension of Christ, only those are saved who are members of the institutional Church and who believe the “rule of truth” that capsulizes the apostolic faith of the Church. However, Irenaeus was not conscious of large groups of unevangelized people. If he had known of such groups, and if he had responded to the Gnostic challenge with less emphasis on the institutional Church, he might have allowed of the salvation of individuals outside of the institutional Church.

This statement, and its supposition, could be based on the following factors in Irenaeus's theology:

1) God wills the salvation of humankind.

2) The Word's immanence in creation, symbolized by a cosmic cross, has a cohesive and reconciliatory effect upon all of creation which is not only physical but also moral and supernatural. It is this invisible cosmic cross that stands behind the saving work of Jesus on the visible cross.

3) The revelation by the Word in creation is lifegiving and necessitates a human response of faith, which is made possible by an illumination by the Word.

4) In Christ's incarnation, obedient life, death and resurrection, a recapitulation of the history of fallen humanity was made which objectively accomplished the salvation of humankind.

5) Within the economy of salvation, the same reward (knowledge of the Son of God, or immortality) is eventually given to all whom God calls, regardless of the particular stage of the economy in which they lived and in which they were called.

6) The just judgment of sinful people, by God, assumes their voluntary rejection of divine saving revelation to all people.

7) Those who believe and follow God are given a greater illumination of the mind.

8) People will be judged according to the privilege of revelation that they have received.

9) During the millennium, those who have not known the incarnate Word, but who have had some form of “anticipation” of him, will become accustomed to living with him and will be prepared for the vision of the Father.

The tentativeness of the summary statement is markedly different from those that have been cited from other authors. However, it more accurately represents the limits placed upon such a statement by our ignorance of what Irenaeus himself would have said in a different context from the one in which he actually wrote.

In formulating a position that addresses our own context, we would do well to give careful attention to the witness that Irenaeus bears to the apostolic tradition, although we recognize the “time-boundness” of his own theological formation. We must proclaim divine truth in our own age, in the power of the Spirit, that the divine economy of salvation may progress yet closer to that day when all things shall finally be summed up in Christ.

Notes

1. Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, trans. and ed. John Austin Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 2:150.

2. The work of the Holy Spirit is given much attention in recent discussion of the state of the unevangelized. For this reason, the paucity of material in Irenaeus is somewhat disappointing. However, it is not surprising when one considers the time in which he wrote and the Gnostic context which he addressed.

3. “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian,’” in TI, (1979), 14:283.

4. A fuller exposition of this summary, with source documentation, is found in Chapter 1.

5. Cf. Walbert Bühlmann's description of the missionary seal which grew out of the motivation to save the souls of pagans who were going to hell unless they heard and believed the Gospel (God's Chosen Peoples, trans. Robert R. Barr [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1982], 106-7).

6. Cf. Bruce Demarest's review of the positions of Luther, Calvin and the Puritans on general revelation and its value for salvation. General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 43-73.

7. Neal Punt, Unconditional Good News: Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

8. Cf. Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century (New York: Abingdon, 1975), 69, citing G. W. Locher, “Die Praëdestinations-lehre Huldrych Zwinglis,” [Theologische Zeitschrift] 12 [1956]:526-48).

9. Quite commonly, however, those who place a positive value on the response of the pagan to natural revelation deny the sufficiency of that response and contend that God will send them the Gospel in some way, to enable an explicit faith. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, who suggested that God could send an angel to those who have no contact with Gospel messengers (cited by Henry van Straelen, Ouverture à l’autre laquelle? L’apostolat missionnaire et le monde non chrétien [Paris: Beauchesne, 1982], 215). Stanley Ellisen has argued for the theory that God sends the light of the Gospel to those who follow the light of creation, providence and conscience. He cites the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul of Tarsus, and Cornelius of Caesarea as examples of this principle, representing the three streams of humanity from Ham, Shem, and Japheth (“Are Pagans Without Christ Really Lost?” [Conservative Baptist] Spring 1983]:6-9). Likewise, Bruce Demarest argues for “the possibility that in exceptional circumstances God might choose to reveal himself in some extraordinary way, independently of Gospel proclamation” (General Revelation, 260-61).

10. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, revised and enlarged edition (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1981), 164.

11. The Unknown Christ, 13.

12. “The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation,” TI, vol. 16 (1979), 219.

13. “Church, Churches and Religions,” TI, vol. 10 (1973), 48.

14. The Unknown Christ, 1.

15. Ibid., 2; cf. 169.

16. Ibid., 3.

17. Ibid., 24.

18. Ibid., 25; cf. 168.

19. Ibid., 25.

20. Ibid., 23.

21. Ibid., 67-68.

22. Ibid., 69.

23. Ibid., 82.

24. Ibid., 85.

25. Ibid., 85-86.

26. James Dupuis, “The Cosmic Christ in the Early Fathers,” [Indian Journal of Theology] 15 (July-September 1966):111.

27. Gerald O’Collins, Fundamental Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 125.

28. Ishanand Vempeny, Inspiration in Non-Biblical Scriptures (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, n.d.), 61.

29. “Irenaeus of Lyons and Teilhard de Chardin: A Comparative Study of ‘Recapitulation’ and ‘Omega,’” [Journal of Ecumenical Studies] 13 (1976):69-93. José González-Faus makes a similar comparison (Carne de Dios: significado salvador de la Encarnación en la teología de san Ireneo [Barcelona: Herder, 1969], 52).