Inclusivism...NOT! (Part 2)

As a missionary and church leader, the topic of what happens to people who die without ever hearing the Gospel comes up frequently. This post is part 2 of a series that contain an unpublished article I wrote on this issue some time back after devoting serious time and effort to studying this issue. When I need to refresh my memory on the relevant Bible verses and arguments, this article is still what I turn to as a starting point. Please feel free to ask questions or challenge any of my Biblical interpretation, reasoning or conclusions.

Go to Part 1

The other evangelical answer concerning the question of the unevangelized is known as exclusivism or restrictivism. This view has been the one historically preferred by the church and, until recently, has clearly been the dominant view among orthodox Christians. Among the most prominent defenders of exclusivism are Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Carl Henry, R.C. Sproul, and Ronald Nash.[1]

Exclusivists affirm several beliefs that comprise their argument. First, all are guilty and without excuse before God, even the unevangelized. Inclusivists agree with this point, but they have a problem with the exclusivist view that, without special revelation, men and women will always suppress the truth. The only special revelation valid for salvation after the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is the explicit gospel message as communicated by a human witness or by the written Word of God, although some allow for supernatural communication of the gospel through visions, dreams, or heavenly beings. In other words, a person must place explicit faith in Jesus Christ, including His atoning death and His resurrection, in order to be saved. The exclusivist position enjoys the best support in scripture and will be argued in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Exclusivists and inclusivists agree that every individual on earth needs to be saved. As Paul clearly states in Romans 3:10-18, quoting a litany of Old Testament passages, “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one…destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” The reason the unevangelized are included among the unrighteous is “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what had been made so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks…and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:19-21). While there is great debate regarding the content of the revelation that can be gleaned from nature and human conscience, the context of Romans 1-3 clearly suggests that the only sure result from this knowledge is just condemnation for rejecting it.[2]

The point that exclusivists make regarding these truths is that individuals are guilty and subject to judgment because they are sinners who have rejected God. Biblically, it is inappropriate to say that God sends people to hell “because they have not trusted God through what they have.”[3] It is not even appropriate to suggest that God condemns people for rejecting an explicit gospel presentation. God saves people because they have trusted Jesus Christ, but he condemns people for their sin. An important truth to grasp is that God is not obligated to save anyone! Whether He is just or not does not depend upon His decision to make salvation available to all. Thus it is true that the unevangelized are not guilty of rejecting the explicit gospel message, nor are they condemned for this sin. They are guilty, however, of rejecting God as He has revealed Himself to them and they are born tainted with original sin. For these reasons, they are judged.

More to come in Part 3.

---

[1] Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, 20.

[2] See R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 50-52.

[3] Millard Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved: The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 194.

Inclusivism...NOT! (Part 1)

As a missionary and church leader, the topic of what happens to people who die without ever hearing the Gospel comes up frequently. The following few posts contain an unpublished article I wrote on this issue some time back after devoting serious time and effort to studying this issue. When I need to refresh my memory on the relevant Bible verses and arguments, this article is still what I turn to as a starting point. Please feel free to ask questions or challenge any of my Biblical interpretation, reasoning or conclusions.

What happens when a person dies? Every human alive who is mentally able to consider such a question has pondered the answer. In a world where the concept of a “global village” is increasingly becoming a reality, an individual can choose from any one of a multiplicity of answers to this “big question.” In fact, a growing number of people would answer by rejecting the need to decide on one answer to the question.

Christians who believe in the God of the Bible answer that a person will either face judgment after death in hell or experience reward and blessing in heaven. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? Evangelical Christians also agree, against pluralism, that heaven will be occupied only by those who have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, through faith.

What is the fate of the unevangelized who do not have the opportunity to hear of Christ? Is salvation possible for this incredibly large group of people? Is it possible to be saved apart from knowledge of Christ and conscious saving faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ? Among professing evangelicals, there are different answers offered to this question.

Among evangelical believers, there are two main answers given to this all-important question.[1] The first is widely known as inclusivism. Leading defenders of an inclusivist perspective, in past and present generations, include Justin Martyr, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and John Sanders.[2] Inclusivists answer “yes” to the question concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ. In the formulation of an argument for this position, there are several key tenets.

First, almost every inclusivist places emphasis upon the scriptural truth that God desires the salvation of all humans. Key texts cited in support of this truth are 2 Pet 3:9, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance,” and 2 Tim 2:4 which speaks of God “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[3] Sanders speaks of the “theological axiom” of “God’s universal salvific will” and identifies this truth as a “control belief” which guides inclusivist reflection on the issue at hand.[4] The truth of God’s universal salvific will leads inclusivists to deduce that God must, therefore, make salvation accessible to all humans.

The second “control belief” of inclusivism is the affirmation by all evangelicals of the finality and particularity of Jesus Christ.[5] No person can be saved apart from the atoning work of Christ. A familiar text which supports this notion is John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.”

After inclusivists decide that salvation is universally accessible and affirm the particularity and finality of Christ, they then conclude that salvation by Christ must be possible for the unevangelized. To suggest that salvation is not possible for those who have never heard is either to require a radical change in the definition of God’s desire that all be saved or to deny the sovereignty of God. Neither alternative is acceptable for inclusivists.

Discussion then turns to the question of how this salvation is possible. Inclusivists claim that salvation for the unevangelized comes through “implicit faith” which might be described as a response to the light of general revelation which they have. As Pinnock states, “According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology.”[6] Support for this concept involves assertion that general revelation can provide substantive and even saving truth. Also, appeal is made to the numerous examples in Scripture of people who were saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Among these believers are Old Testament saints like David, “holy pagans” like Melchizedek, and “God fearers” like Cornelius.[7] In the words of Augustus H. Strong, the unevangelized may “be saved by casting themselves as helpless sinners upon God’s plan of mercy, dimly shadowed forth in nature and providence.”[8]

(to be continued in Part 2)

---

[1] Pluralism is not an evangelical option. Postmortem evangelism is held by evangelicals, but will not be dealt with in this paper.

[2] John Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 20.

[3] Unless otherwise cited, all scripture quotations come from the New American Standard Bible.

[4] John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 25,32. See also, Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 18.

[5] Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, 10.

[6] Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 157.

[7] For OT believers, see Millard Erickson, “Hope for Those Who Haven’t Heard? Yes, but…”, Evangelical Missions Quarterly 11, no. 2 (April 1975) : 125; Sanders, No Other Name, 224-228. For holy pagans, see Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 94-95. For God fearers see Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, 39-41.

[8] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1952), 646.

Friday Photo

In a shameless example of stealing what seems to be a good idea from another blogger, I've decided to devote each Friday to sharing a favorite photo. Those of you who know me know that photography is a hobby of mine that has grown considerably over the last 5 years or so. I have always been fascinated by God's creation. I love the joy of capturing images of His creation to share with others and to enjoy myself when I can't be in those beautiful places myself. Anyway...here's installment number 1!

November and December are the months when the sunflower farms in central Thailand are blooming. The home group from our church had a wonderful outing to see these fields of yellow!

Daddies of Abortion

Dr. Albert Mohler makes reference to an interesting group of people who are often overlooked in the abortion debate in a recent blog post: fathers of aborted children. Check it out and continue to pray that God will use all means possible to communicate the truth about this horrifying injustice to Americans and the rest of the world.

Could 'One Issue' Be Making A Difference?

Almost two months ago I posted on One Issue Voting related to Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudi Giuliani for President. I made clear my displeasure with a candidate who is unwilling to take a moral stand for the rights of unborn children in America. Back then, Giuliani looked like the most likely Republican who could beat the Democratic front-runner at that time, Hilary Clinton. How times can change in an election year!

Perhaps Iowa was an indication that there still exists a large and influential part of American society that is strongly attracted to a leader who is willing to stand up for traditional values and who is not a member of a 'Christian' cult. I'm not excited about Huckabee just because he is a former Southern Baptist pastor:) In fact, I believe someone can be a fantastic president without being a Christian believer. I'm not sure who I'll vote for if my primary absentee ballot gets here to Bangkok fast enough (and I probably won't tell even if I do get to vote since IMB missionaries are not supposed to get too tied up into politics)...

I simply feel compelled to point out my gratefulness that Republicans (at least in Iowa) haven't capitulated on one of the major issues of justice that still faces our nation. We'll have to pray and wait to see what happens with the primaries. After that, we'll have to assess and look towards election day. Praise God that He remains in control!!!