Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism

[RickD]

Interesting discussion with some interesting points.

Nothing has drawn me enough to choose one way or the other though.

[Jac3510]

I'm not sure what it would take then, Rick. The Bible is as clear as it could possibly be. Look at what our discussion has shown:

1. Salvation has always been dependent on belief in the testimony of God, not on general revelation
2. Those who have not heard are explicitly said to be without excuse
3. Those who seek God are said to be put in a place where they may find Him
4. Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are condemned already
5. We cannot respond to the gospel unless there is a preacher to share it
6. If would seem if general revelation could save, Cornelius would have been saved, but he needed to hear and believe the gospel, too
7. Having a zeal for God is not sufficient if it is not according to knowledge (which is rooted, of course, in believing the gospel)

I could continue with the things we've brought up, but if this isn't enough, then I frankly think a lack of evidence isn't your problem. I understand that hell is a deeply emotional issue, so I doubt that continuing to show you the Bible's exclusivism is going to make a difference. You're either going to have to decide to believe what you want to believe or believe what the Scripture actually says. I hate to put it in such stark terms, but that's the reality of the matter. You'll notice that there is not a single verse anywhere in Scripture that says that people can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Inclusivists just try to make inclusivism permissible and then let the emotional appeal to the rest. But it isn't permissible, because the Bible is plainly against it.

I don't say this to convince you. I say it to get you to think about the root of your own rejection of the fact that a person cannot be saved from their sins unless they place their faith in Jesus Christ. Opening a second way out of a desire to be compassionate by offering down a watered down salvation by works (hey, I know you sin all the time and the Bible says you are dead in your sins, but just believe there is a Creator God who you really want to serve, so just do your very best, and it's all good!) isn't compassionate. It's emotionally gratifying, I'll grant that. But not compassionate.

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. There are no "except fors" here.

[Storyteller]

Agree that the only way to God is through Christ.

Still wrestling with it though. Took me a while to really discover Christ, what if I had died before I did?

Is it possible we all meet Christ when we die and that is our last chance?

[RickD]

I'm not sure what it would take then, Rick. The Bible is as clear as it could possibly be. Look at what our discussion has shown:

1. Salvation has always been dependent on belief in the testimony of God, not on general revelation
2. Those who have not heard are explicitly said to be without excuse
3. Those who seek God are said to be put in a place where they may find Him
4. Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are condemned already
5. We cannot respond to the gospel unless there is a preacher to share it
6. If would seem if general revelation could save, Cornelius would have been saved, but he needed to hear and believe the gospel, too
7. Having a zeal for God is not sufficient if it is not according to knowledge (which is rooted, of course, in believing the gospel)

I could continue with the things we've brought up, but if this isn't enough, then I frankly think a lack of evidence isn't your problem. I understand that hell is a deeply emotional issue, so I doubt that continuing to show you the Bible's exclusivism is going to make a difference. You're either going to have to decide to believe what you want to believe or believe what the Scripture actually says. I hate to put it in such stark terms, but that's the reality of the matter. You'll notice that there is not a single verse anywhere in Scripture that says that people can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ. Inclusivists just try to make inclusivism permissible and then let the emotional appeal to the rest. But it isn't permissible, because the Bible is plainly against it.

I don't say this to convince you. I say it to get you to think about the root of your own rejection of the fact that a person cannot be saved from their sins unless they place their faith in Jesus Christ. Opening a second way out of a desire to be compassionate by offering down a watered down salvation by works (hey, I know you sin all the time and the Bible says you are dead in your sins, but just believe there is a Creator God who you really want to serve, so just do your very best, and it's all good!) isn't compassionate. It's emotionally gratifying, I'll grant that. But not compassionate.

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. There are no "except fors" here.

Jac,

I'm certainly open to going one way or the other on this. I think I'm getting stuck on God's nature(at least what I perceive it to be). And I see inclusivism fitting better with His nature.

You're probably right, and I'm getting stuck on something I shouldn't be. Because your argument makes sense.

[Jac3510]

I don't want to be pedantic, but I didn't say you shouldn't get stuck on it. It's a hard issue. Human beings don't like to see other human beings suffer, and the idea of somebody suffering eternal torment is hard to stomach. So far from saying you shouldn't get stuck, I think it it didn't give you pause, THAT would be the bigger concern. What I am asking you to do is to think about the root of the problem. I don't know this for sure, but it seems that your issue is basically emotional. I do not say that to dismiss the issue. I say it to honor it as what it is. Emotions are powerful things. When they lead us right, they give us true willpower. I can promise you I have a strong emotional attachment to the gospel! But when they lead us wrong, we have to hear what it is they are saying and gently but firmly hold to truth.

You speak of God's nature. Yes, God is love. But absolutely fundamentally God is free and at His core nature cannot be under obligation to anyone in any sense. He can only be "under obligation" to Himself, and even that is being very metaphorical. My problem with inclusivist arguments "from God's nature" is that they say that God owes us something He never promises. In fact, Jesus seems to condemn the very idea behind the inclusivist notion that everyone deserves the same access to grace in His parable of the workers (see Matt 10:1-16). He gives grace as He so chooses, and He has chosen to give grace to those who believe His testimony.

Do I suffer from some survivors guilt, so to speak? Yes, I do! Do I wish things were different? Yes, I do! Do I think God could have done things differently? Yes, I do! Does that warrant the claim that God actually has done things differently, that people can be saved apart from faith in Christ? I say with true sadness that it does not. So it's just a matter of consistency for me. I don't get to say I believe the Bible on some things but not others. If I do, then I don't really believe the Bible at all. I just believe me and I use the Bible to support myself where it suits me. And sometimes, that means I have to affirm things that I don't want to affirm (such as people going to Hell that I, from my finite, human perspective, think "don't deserve it").

Anyway, I just want to emphasize--I don't say this to convince you. I really and truly say all this to get you to think about what is motivating your inclination to reject exclusivism. So far as I can tell, it's not because a particular verse says, "Whoever believes the revelation available to them shall be saved." No, in the face of verses like, "They are without excuse," you seem to feel a need to provide an excuse. And I just want you to figure out in yourself what that means for your own theology. Because believing something because I say so, or even because you feel like the Bible has bullied you into believing it!--is a far more serious theological issue, at least from my perspective.

[RickD]

I know one thing that's a sticking point. The idea that the unborn, babies, and those who aren't mentally able to accept or deny Christ, go to heaven, is an idea based on God's nature. At least that's how I've been looking at it. So I reason that if they are incapable of being able to place their faith in Christ, then what about those who are incapable of placing their faith in Christ, because they haven't even heard of him? I guess that possibility is still in my mind.

So, while that may be emotional, it is kinda based on logic too.

Know what I'm saying?

[Jac3510]

Sure. I guess where I don't have that hang up is that I don't see God saving babies as a matter of His nature, as if He somehow owed them salvation. I think they are "saved" insofar as they never sinned. If you want to go with God's nature, why should they be punished for a crime they did not commit? On the flip side, God has said clearly that everyone whose name is in the Book of Life is saved, and it seems to me that our names are blotted from the Book when we die in our sins. Babies don't die in sin, so why would God condemn them? For me, that's a totally different category than an adult who has lived a sinful life being saved because he at least wanted to serve God. Heck, why not say all Muslims and Hindus are saved then, so long as they haven't heard the gospel? In fact, on this "inclusivist" argument, the only people in danger of Hell are the people who actually get a chance to hear about Jesus!

Well, shoot, if that's right, then stop all the missions right now. Forget the Great Commission. Better to let people die in their error when at least the are trying their best and let them go to heaven then preach them a gospel the aren't likely to believe and for that send them to Hell.

[Storyteller]

Are we not all born sinners though?

And what if the Christ you are introduced to isnt Christ?

Could it not be whats in your heart?

[RickD]

Sure. I guess where I don't have that hang up is that I don't see God saving babies as a matter of His nature, as if He somehow owed them salvation. I think they are "saved" insofar as they never sinned. If you want to go with God's nature, why should they be punished for a crime they did not commit? On the flip side, God has said clearly that everyone whose name is in the Book of Life is saved, and it seems to me that our names are blotted from the Book when we die in our sins. Babies don't die in sin, so why would God condemn them? For me, that's a totally different category than an adult who has lived a sinful life being saved because he at least wanted to serve God. Heck, why not say all Muslims and Hindus are saved then, so long as they haven't heard the gospel? In fact, on this "inclusivist" argument, the only people in danger of Hell are the people who actually get a chance to hear about Jesus!

Well, shoot, if that's right, then stop all the missions right now. Forget the Great Commission. Better to let people die in their error when at least the are trying their best and let them go to heaven then preach them a gospel the aren't likely to believe and for that send them to Hell.

As to the underlined, I wasn't trying to say that. Yet, when you put it that way, that's kinda what I was saying, without realizing it. At the very least, that's the logical conclusion to what I was saying.

I think you steered me in the right direction Jac.

Thanks.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Are we not all born sinners though?

Jac explained this well in his post just above yours,

God has said clearly that everyone whose name is in the Book of Life is saved, and it seems to me that our names are blotted from the Book when we die in our sins. Babies don't die in sin, so why would God condemn them?

And what if the Christ you are introduced to isnt Christ?

The "Christ" most people know about before they accept Him as Lord isn't the real one, but a phantasm, or a lie, or some guy who started a religion with his buddies. So, we all start off on an even footing: ignorant of God and not wanting to know anything about Him.

But God, in His infinite mercy has promised to be found by those who seek after Him, 1 Ch 28:9 states this quite plainly, and many other verses back it up. So, God's promise is valid for Bippy's Amazonian, for the woman in Pyongyang who doesn't have a clue about Jesus, for the terrorist with second thoughts in Palestine who only knows the fake Jesus of the Koran,

All who seek Him will find Him, that's God's promise. God doesn't change. His promise was valid in OT times, it is valid today and will be valid until He closes the curtain on this show.

Christianity is exclusivist to the core. If you don't get that, it's because you don't understand something fundamental about your faith. Study the Word and pray that God will show you.

FL

[melanie]

I'm not voting
Not a fan of labels that restricts my views into one camp or another. I am though a big fan of Jesus and scripture.

' I am the way, the truth and the light, no man comes through the Father except through me'.
Jesus is the only way.

How and when a person comes to Christ is a matter between them and God.
Whether we have heard the gospel, the right gospel makes no difference, doesn't matter if we are born in China, Afhganistan or Australia we are all unworthy. The best of us are still not good enough. Hearing the gospel doesn't mean salvation, belief does. We are all born with an innate connection to God. Missionaries are spreading the 'good news' to bring truth and understanding to that which is already within us.
Is it possible that a person who has never been exposed to the bible, I don't just mean the Amazon jungle man, can be already on their journey to Christ. How important then to get the gospel to them of course, but arguing that spreading the good news would be pointless and damaging if they were better of not knowing is presuming God does not know and could not possibly know the acceptance or rejection of our innate knowledge of God. He would be completely reliant on us to reach into the spirit of others to reveal truth. God is the revealer of truth, not us. Does God use missionaries in the most wonderous of ways, of course, but He is not reliant on it to reveal our rejection of Him. Before those missionaries step into that tiny village in Africa or Asia God already knows those who reject Him. They already reject Him. In heart and spirit. They are just given the script to reject in mind. I am not arguing against evangelising, just the notion that if someone hasn't been reached, like many in years past, that that would leave God oblivious to their acceptance or rejection of Him leaving Him no choice but to grant universal entry into heaven. Therefore making it better to not preach the gospel, thus 'getting more souls into heaven' because God would be terribly confused as to who accepts or denies Him.
I just don't think God is limited by this.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I'm not voting
Not a fan of labels that restricts my views into one camp or another. I am though a big fan of Jesus and scripture.

' I am the way, the truth and the light, no man comes through the Father except through me'.
Jesus is the only way.

How and when a person comes to Christ is a matter between them and God.
Whether we have heard the gospel, the right gospel makes no difference, doesn't matter if we are born in China, Afhganistan or Australia we are all unworthy. The best of us are still not good enough. Hearing the gospel doesn't mean salvation, belief does. We are all born with an innate connection to God. Missionaries are spreading the 'good news' to bring truth and understanding to that which is already within us.
Is it possible that a person who has never been exposed to the bible, I don't just mean the Amazon jungle man, can be already on their journey to Christ. How important then to get the gospel to them of course, but arguing that spreading the good news would be pointless and damaging if they were better of not knowing is presuming God does not know and could not possibly know the acceptance or rejection of our innate knowledge of God. He would be completely reliant on us to reach into the spirit of others to reveal truth. God is the revealer of truth, not us. Does God use missionaries in the most wonderous of ways, of course, but He is not reliant on it to reveal our rejection of Him. Before those missionaries step into that tiny village in Africa or Asia God already knows those who reject Him. They already reject Him. In heart and spirit. They are just given the script to reject in mind. I am not arguing against evangelising, just the notion that if someone hasn't been reached, like many in years past, that that would leave God oblivious to their acceptance or rejection of Him leaving Him no choice but to grant universal entry into heaven. Therefore making it better to not preach the gospel, thus 'getting more souls into heaven' because God would be terribly confused as to who accepts or denies Him.
I just don't think God is limited by this.

Kinda wish I didn't vote (I don't like the stigma attached to the label), I think the issue is way to complex to say either way really and I feel the Bible is kind of grey on the subject, it's almost like were not mean't to know......................

Good arguments can be had for both sides and neither really has a defeater for the other.

I try to keep it simple and believe that God is just and merciful, and whatever happens, happens.

[Philip]

Note the important parameters: God desires ALL come to faith in Him; He finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked; Christ died for the sins of ALL; But yet God also places people in specific time and place, some of which the places are extremely remote and without the Gospel.

The above tells me that God works within parameters that don't seem to make sense to us, and in ways we might not realize or be able to see. Nonetheless, HE is unlimited in how He sends and reaches those who want to know Him, those who seek him, those who are open and willing to know Him, as no jungle, no dark culture, no remote place can ever stop Him. But He also knows ALL of those whom the Gospel message would only be wasted upon - as just further revelation about Himself, the very same God that they have basic but key knowledge about, that He knows they have ALREADY, and yet nonetheless have permanently rejected Him (in their closed hearts) and He knows precisely the ones who, no matter what He shares about Himself, will NEVER change, will NEVER be willing - as that is what one must be, willing to listen and to obey - although God must do different things with different people to woo and draw them. But He will NEVER force them - as FORCED love is no love at all. We have to constantly remember that God perfectly sifts hearts and minds and knows ALL things.

Of a few things we can be sure: God did NOT willy nilly or haphazardly scatter people across place and time, so as to greatly reduce the potential of many to have access to information that might lead to their salvation. Instead, He places ALL people with great precision and based upon His divine foreknowledge and eternal purposes, to save ALL throughout time, that would not permanently reject His overtures. Funny, so many Christians have no qualms about believing God started the universe through His spoken Word and with the Big Bang, that He created with staggering scale and complexity that we can scarcely fathom - and YET, we think oceans, borders, geography and time limit who He can reach. Strange, very strange!

Rick: The idea that the unborn, babies, and those who aren't mentally able to accept or deny Christ, go to heaven, is an idea based on God's nature. At least that's how I've been looking at it. So I reason that if they are incapable of being able to place their faith in Christ, then what about those who are incapable of placing their faith in Christ, because they haven't even heard of him? I guess that possibility is still in my mind.

God is also just - meaning, He does not expect what is impossible - for babies and children (of whatever age), or the mentally ill to properly understand their sin and choices concerning Himself. And so He doesn't require of a person what they CAN'T understand, but only as to what they CAN understand. And He knows that He will reach anyone with the Gospel that He also knows that they will be receptive to it, at least at some point. He knows precisely which hearts need what level of softening, and which will forever remain hard as rocks, no matter what knowledge of Himself He gives them.

Funny, but it appears that many believe that what people have is an information deficient - often due to some remote location or whatever pagan, Godless society. But Romans 1 (and other Scripture) tells us that what people CAN understand - and yet they also typically reject - though, limited, is ENOUGH for God to consider that to be a total rejection of Him. It's just that we can't see peoples' hearts and minds like God can. We think that, "if only they heard the Gospel, had access to godandscience.org, etc., they would likely believe." And so we tend to think that, to be just, God must provide a way for them to hear the Gospel - as people think that it specifically is the rejection of their knowledge of JESUS that causes people to perish. But Scripture teaches they DO know far more than we might suspect, that they know of God's existence and His basic provision and benevolence, but yet they want to serve their "own little gods (themselves)," instead. So God doesn't condemn for rejection of what people DON'T know, but for their rejection of what they DO know.

To me, if one believes people can be saved without hearing the Gospel, it makes a mockery of doing missions (think of all the martyred Christians) and the Great Commission. Now, does God not send visions and dreams to some that are remote and isolated from the Gospel? No doubt, He probably does (He did for Cornelius). Does He sometimes appear to remote, isolated people at the cusp of (but not after) death? Perhaps. We just don't know these any of these things. But however God operates, He's told us people must first hear the Gospel and that we are to help spread it. And we need to just trust Him with the rest of how He might work HIS plan while being obedient and diligent with OUR part.

[abelcainsbrother]

Reading through this there are some interesting points and I think Jac nailed it.But this scripture pops in my mind as I read through Jesus said ' And the gospel of this kingdom shall be preached and published and taught in all nations,languages and tongues and then shall the end come" realizing this we need to realize that not everybody is going to accept the gospel of Jesus and God already knows who will and who won't so if it has'nt been preached somwhere yet which is hard to believe,but if, maybe they would not believe anyway.God is not willing that any should perishFor the Lord is not slack as some men count slackness but is longsuffering to usward,not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ"

[abelcainsbrother]

Come on some of you,take a stand one way or another.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XHIw6vs4z0w