Michael S. Heiser on Natural / general revelation
None of the stances fits without misdescribing the figure
Every listed stance was tested against the sources, and each asserts something the figure does not. The reasoning is recorded in full, and it is the content.
"Paul never says that what he describes in Romans 1 is sufficient for salvation. He never makes that claim. It's not sufficient." and "There are people who are considered believers who will be in heaven who have never heard the Gospel. This is up to God to decide."
THE POSITION
Denies that general revelation is sufficient for salvation — creation yields knowledge about God but not the plan of salvation — yet also holds that some who never heard the gospel will be saved, on the criterion of believing loyalty to the true God, with the mechanism explicitly left to God. He declines to systematize the two, and says so.
19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
WHAT OTHERS HOLD HERE
ABOUT THIS FIGURE
Old Testament and Semitic languages scholar (PhD, Wisconsin, 2004), Scholar-in-Residence at Faithlife/Logos, and host of the Naked Bible Podcast. Argued that the Hebrew Bible assumes a real divine council of lesser elohim under Yahweh, and held that this reading defends rather than threatens the deity of Christ.
Cite this page
"Michael S. Heiser on Natural / general revelation", Examined Doctrine, July 2026 edition, https://examineddoctrine.com/position/heiser/natural-revelation (archived at https://examineddoctrine.com/editions/2026-07/position/heiser/natural-revelation).