As pneumatological and missiological conversations have developed over the past fifty years, many have looked to the logos theology of the early church fathers to develop a theology of religions that is more optimistic regarding the eternal state of the unevangelized (Pinnock, 1992; Sanders, 1992; Yong, 2003, 2019; Kärkkäinen, 2003, 2015). One of the more recent voices in this conversation, Amos Yong, has looked to Justin Martyr for historical precedent. Yong has argued for a more soteriologically open theology of religions fit for “a postcolonial, post–foundationalist, and postmodern world” that emerges out of genuine dialogue with world religions so that one avoids both “monologistic, a prioristic, and colonial/imperialistic” defining of religions on the one hand and a crass syncretism on the other (Yong, 2003, 18–20, 92, 112; cf. Lyman, 2002 on the concept of hybridity in Justin and Chadwick, 1993; Dulles, 2005 on natural religion in Justin). Yong found support in passages where Justin developed his account of the logos spermatikos and called those, like Socrates, who lived reasonably before Christ Christians (1 Apol. 20, 46; 2 Apol. 10–13). Specifically, Yong built off Pinnock’s argument that Justin’s doctrine supported a “cosmic Christology” where special enlightenment could be received “outside the institutional boundaries of Israel and the church” to put forth his proposal in which the cosmic activity of the Spirit ought to be discerned in and through other religions (Yong, 2003, 92, 112–128). Likewise, Kärkkäinen contended that “According to Justin and other Apologists, access to salvation, at least in some form . . . was available through the Logos that was ‘sown’ in all human cultures and religions” (Kärkkäinen, 2003).
My goal in this presentation is not to offer a theological evaluation of the proposals of Yong, Kärkkäinen, Pinnock, et al. Rather, I will evaluate the historicity of the supposed retrieval of the general principles in Justin. To do this, I first will trace the apologetic role Socrates played in the broader philosophical context as well as in Justin’s writings. Then, I will examine pertinent passages to show that while Justin does fit some of the categories of recent theologies of religions, Justin is far less compatible with these proposals than indicated. Lastly, I will conclude with some brief suggestions regarding how Justin’s monologistic commitment to natural law and genuine, but a prioristic, dialogue with other religions can aid global evangelicalism’s contextual engagement of surrounding cultures as it seeks to be faithful to Christ’s mission.