Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism

[Danieltwotwenty]

To Echo all the other inclusivits here, Christ is the only way to salvation and when I read the Bible I get the message that God will welcome all who thirst for him.

[PaulSacramento]

Neither, I leave it up to God to decide.

[RickD]

According to the link, to be an exclusivist, the deciding factor is faith in Christ. In other words, no faith=no salvation.

Yet, I believe the unborn, babies, and mentally handicapped, are saved. As well as OT saints who had faith in God, but not in the person of Jesus Christ. Then that would make me think that someone who trusts in God, without having full knowledge of Jesus Christ, could still be saved.

So, does that make me an inclusivist? Or an exclusivist who allows exceptions? Or neither?

For now, I vote neither.

[Jac3510]

I might suggest that your examples of infants and the mentally retarded don't count as defeaters for exclusivism because it would also count as a defeater for inclusivism. Granted such people do not place their faith in Christ, but neither do they place their faith in God generally or in any kind of revelation, which is the essential component of inclusivism. In fact, I would reduce the entire debate to this question:

For the person who has not heard of Christ, is it sufficient for eternal salvation to believe the revelation one has received?

Inclusivists say yes, exclusivists no. But it should be evident that the mentally retarded and infants aren't even in consideration in such a question simply because they have not received any revelation. Therefore, to adopt a strict inclusivism and say that to be saved a person must believe the revelation that have received would actually condemn these people to hell, which is exactly the opposite of what inclusivists would argue here! Better, then, to recognize that this type of case falls under an entirely different category than the case of mature, full functioning adults who have never heard of Christ.

And from a specifically FG perspective, I would claim that infants and the mentally handicapped, having not received any revelation, are not guilty of sin. Having not sinned, they have not died, and therefore they remain in the book of life.

[RickD]

Jac, what about OT saints then? Wouldn't that be similar to those after Christ's sacrifice, who haven't heard of Christ, but have faith in God as He has revealed Himself to them?

[Jac3510]

What about them? No exclusivist has ever claimed that explicit faith in Christ has always been the requirement for salvation. It has always been recognized that while faith has always been the means of salvation, the object of that faith has changed. John 3:33 and 1 John 5:9 get at the heart of the matter. The reason faith is the means of salvation is because it is to accept God's testimony. "Faith in God" has never been an abstract idea along the lines of, "Oh, I just love the Creator so much. I really want to serve Him!" It has always been a matter of believing what God has said and trusting Him to do it. So for Adam is was apparently that God would provide a Savior that would fix the mess he had made (so Gen 3:15). For Abraham it was believing that God would give him a son of his own flesh and that son would become a great nation that would bless the whole world (So Gen 15:6). For David it was that God would establish his throne forever and that the Messiah would come from his line (so 2 Sam 7:12-16), and so on. Such revelations have always been connected somehow to Christ, and that is why the revelation of Christ Himself is so important. The resurrection of Jesus is not merely a piece of good apologetics. It is, rather, the very testimony of God concerning the man Jesus Christ, namely, that He is the Messiah, the Resurrection, Eternal Life, and His Only Begotten Son.

Bottom line: OT saints were saved exactly the same way you and I are -- by faith in what God has revealed. To say that we don't have to believe what God has revealed because we are ignorant of it contradicts what Paul says in both Rom 1 and Rom 10. Such people are without excuse, even if the have a great zeal for God though not according to knowledge.

[RickD]

Ok Jac, I'm with you so far. But could you clarify a question I have regarding what you said here:

Bottom line: OT saints were saved exactly the same way you and I are -- by faith in what God has revealed. To say that we don't have to believe what God has revealed because we are ignorant of it contradicts what Paul says in both Rom 1 and Rom 10. Such people are without excuse, even if the have a great zeal for God though not according to knowledge.

Are you saying that since salvation is now based on Christ, because that is what God has revealed, that all people have or will have knowledge enough of Christ, in order to have a chance to believe in him before it's too late?

Or are you saying that there are those who have never heard of Christ, and are going to hell?

[Jac3510]

I'm saying that every normal adult in all the world since the time of Christ who dies without having put their faith explicitly in Him are condemned. I deny a "second chance" to believe after death (it is appointed once to die and then judgment). I affirm in theory the possibility that someone could live a sinless life and be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ (so Rom 2:5-15). But, of course, no one ever lives a sinless life, which will be revealed definitively at the GWTJ when the books are opened and the evidence presented.

Whether or not Jesus chooses to miraculously reveal Himself to those who do not have access is up to Him. I have heard stories of that happening. It's not stated in Scripture, so I can't make a doctrine out of it as some are inclined to do by insisting that everyone will be given a chance to believe. At this point, all I can do is trust the mercy, justice, and love of God and that He knows better than I do. But in the meantime, I am bound by Paul's statement that all are without excuse, for even Gentiles who do not have the law show that they have the law written on their hearts even as the daily violate that same law. All stand condemned before God. To claim, then, that it is not "fair" for some to be offered salvation and some not seems basically wrong headed to me, for the implicit assumption is that God somehow owes us that grace. And surely you believe even hearing the gospel is a matter of grace! The salvation of ANY of us is by grace, not deserving, so that this is not a matter of fairness.

I can hope with you that people who have not heard in large part because the Church's laziness in missions and disbelief that such people NEED to hear will miraculously receive a gospel presentation. But can I say that is or must be the case? No. I can only say what I understand Scripture to say, which is that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and that those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Jesus Christ and that they are without excuse.

[PaulSacramento]

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that, outside of personal divine revelation, people may only know the gospel via the preaching of others.
So, what happens to those that decide NOT to follow the gospel because the gospel that was taught them is either a false one OR was taught by / exemplified by, well, an ASS ( westboro baptists come to mind)?

A person that turns from Christ because of being exposed to a false gospel or because those preaching have tainted God's word with their own views and examples, has that person lost salvation?

[Rob]

Is a person turns from Christ because of being exposed to a false gospel or because those preaching have tainted God's word with their own views and examples, has that person lost salvation?

I would say that person never had salvation to begin with. To turn from Christ is to never have really known Him in my opinion. For me it'd be like trying to unlearn that water is wet.

[Jac3510]

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that, outside of personal divine revelation, people may only know the gospel via the preaching of others.
So, what happens to those that decide NOT to follow the gospel because the gospel that was taught them is either a false one OR was taught by / exemplified by, well, an *** ( westboro baptists come to mind)?

A person that turns from Christ because of being exposed to a false gospel or because those preaching have tainted God's word with their own views and examples, has that person lost salvation?

A person only gains their salvation when the believe the gospel. If what was preached to them is another gospel, which is no gospel at all, then never believed the gospel in their first place, so there is no salvation to be lost. This is not like saying someone believed the gospel and then fell away was never saved to begin with. This is more akin to someone being told that rat poison is good for you so they eat it, and then when the die, their family wonders what happened. Rather than getting life promoting nutrition, they ingested life killing poison.

On the other hand, if someone does hear the gospel and is later confused by a false prophet or false teacher--which is sadly all too common--then they have not lost their salvation. They are merely a wayward believer, akin to the third soil in Jesus' parable. They are saved. They will just fail to produce good fruit.

[PaulSacramento]

Is a person turns from Christ because of being exposed to a false gospel or because those preaching have tainted God's word with their own views and examples, has that person lost salvation?

I would say that person never had salvation to begin with. To turn from Christ is to never have really known Him in my opinion. For me it'd be like trying to unlearn that water is wet.

But that person did NOT turn from Christ, they turned from a false gospel, a false Christ that was passed off as Christ.
See the issue here right?

Outside of divine personal revelation, all that person had to go on about who Christ was and what was his message was what they were told.

[PaulSacramento]

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that, outside of personal divine revelation, people may only know the gospel via the preaching of others.
So, what happens to those that decide NOT to follow the gospel because the gospel that was taught them is either a false one OR was taught by / exemplified by, well, an *** ( westboro baptists come to mind)?

A person that turns from Christ because of being exposed to a false gospel or because those preaching have tainted God's word with their own views and examples, has that person lost salvation?

A person only gains their salvation when the believe the gospel. If what was preached to them is another gospel, which is no gospel at all, then never believed the gospel in their first place, so there is no salvation to be lost. This is not like saying someone believed the gospel and then fell away was never saved to begin with. This is more akin to someone being told that rat poison is good for you so they eat it, and then when the die, their family wonders what happened. Rather than getting life promoting nutrition, they ingested life killing poison.

But they were never saved in the first place, is that what you are saying?

[Jac3510]

Correct. They are like anyone else who has never heard the gospel.

[Philip]

Romans 10 tells me that first hearing the Gospel is key to being able to RESPOND to it, in faith in Christ.

"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Acts 17: " 26From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us."

One thinking that those without having heard the Gospel have somehow been placed in time, geography and proximity that places them at a disadvantage and thus are unable to receive the Gospel, are mistaken. Note why the Scripture above says God places people EXACTLY where he does: "So they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and FIND Him." This tells me that God has a plan to reach remote ones who truly want to know Him and seek Him. God has a plan to reach those in remote places, who He has ALREADY made aware of Himself and seek Him, to honor at least what they DO know about God.

Remember the Roman Centurion Cornelius, in Acts 10? He did not know the Gospel, but He did know that God existed and so He sought Him and tried to honor Him as to the very basic knowledge that God had ALREADY revealed of Himself (Romans 1). And so God honored his seeking by sending Cornelius an Angel in a vision: "“Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter." And, very key, Cornelius was not saved UNTIL he heard Peter preach the Gospel.

Note another interesting hing from Acts 17:27, speaking of those in remote places where the Gospel has not yet penetrated: "... “he is not far from any one of us." And that is exactly what all people without the Gospel CAN do - PRAY and seek Him, as God is no further than one's own breath. Which is precisely what Cornelius did and God honored. Missionaries have many stories of how those in remote places first heard the Gospel, often in the most obscure and least likely ways - certainly not like WE would have sent it.

And Romans 1 tells us exactly what people EVERYWHERE know about God, at the very least (Romans 1:19): "... since what may be known about God is PLAIN to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Very telling, Scripture says those that reject even the very basic revelation from what has been made, and what God has made "plain" to them, are enough for them to respond and to not reject Him. But, clearly, they most certainly do and this is why they are without excuse! Notice something also very key, in Romans 1, Paul mentions not one whit about the heathen rejecting or not knowing the Gospel. In fact, he doesn't even mention Jesus. And that is because people CAN and DO reject God without knowing or ever hearing the Gospel. Why? Because what He has ALREADY revealed about Himself, and that they have rejected, is enough for their condemnation. And so what does God accuse them of?

Romans 1 gives a laundry list of why those without the Gospel can still be condemned, and not a word about Jesus or His rejection:

- "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"

- "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts."

- "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"

- "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind."

- Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

So, there are very basic things that one can know about God and live where the Gospel has not reached them. And thus, their rejection of even those things that God has ALREADY made "clear" to them, is enough for their condemnation. And, by the way, Jesus is part of God - to reject any part of the Trinitarian God is to also reject God as He truly is.

And when Paul rhetorically asks, "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can anyone preach unless they are sent," one can see that the Great Commission is crucial, as people must first HEAR it before they can respond to it. And God can provide that to anyone He knows that would positively respond to further enlightenment about Himself and their need to accept and believe the Gospel. But for those whom He well knows have already and continue to reject what they ALREADY know about Him, He knows that the Gospel, for them, would only be met with further rejection, and would thus not benefit them. God reaches all who want to know Him, who would obey Him, IF they only had the Gospel. I would say that most remaining without the Gospel were likely placed where they were PRECISELY BECAUSE God has ALWAYS known they would be unwilling to listen or obey. Is our own society any different - a Gospel-saturated society and yet so few (in comparison) want anything at all to do with it.

Edited to add: God can reach ANYONE, ANYWHERE, who wants to know more of Him and is willing to positively respond to Him AS HE REVEALS HIMSELF. They can know more - all the way to being made aware of the Gospel message - if they will positively repspond to what God ALREADY HAS shown them about Himself. NO jungle, no remote place is too far to prevent God from reaching a person. And communicating with HIM is as close as one's own breath. Those who REMAIN forever without the Gospel, meaning they die without ever hearing, very likely had already rejected God on many levels. We just don't see people's hearts and minds like God can and does. And make no mistake about it, believing in some false God or no god, adopting false religions, is also to reject the REAL God! Never has God condemned a person for not hearing the Gospel, but for rejecting what they already have been shown about God - Jesus is a FURTHER revealing of God that is critical to salvation. But one's rejection of what they DO know about God is also a rejection of the deeper knowledge and understanding of Him in Jesus.