Re: Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:35 pm
Mel, at the very least, we must admit that God decided to place certain people in time and place without the Gospel, and that He had some (ok, debatable) purpose for doing so. We also know from Scripture that He has condemned many people without the Gospel. And Paul informs us that people have long rejected God and been condemned, yet without them having the Gospel. He rhetorically even asks how people can even have the ABILITY to respond to that they have never heard, as IF, that is (at least, typically) impossible (and none of that means that He MIGHT not also reach some people directly, without using human messengers). We've got NO Scriptural examples of anyone, post-Christ, being saved without FIRST hearing the Gospel. We're told The Great Commission is crucial to reaching the unsaved for Christ. This means that there is a very good chance that those who live their live their lives without ever hearing the Gospel will not be saved - NOT because the Gospel has been withheld from them, but because of how they have responded (they PERMANENTLY reject Him) to what they DID know about God before they died (or for those living, when they die), that Paul appears to say ALL know. We see our own Western societies with the Gospel prolifically saturated and debated, yet look at the masses that want nothing to do with God. People saw Jesus do countless miracles - what more proof does one have than seeing Jesus in action, and yet the asserted He was of the devil.
So, for all those who never had the Gospel, I think there is a good chance they doomed themselves by rejecting God (even though they didn't know of Jesus). And I also sincerely hope I'm wrong!
So, for all those who never had the Gospel, I think there is a good chance they doomed themselves by rejecting God (even though they didn't know of Jesus). And I also sincerely hope I'm wrong!