Intellectuelle

Thanks for explaining those views in a short manner that is very good to understand. I have struggled with this question for quite a while already (especially after being quizzed by some teenage girls from church several times). I think I tend towards inclusivism - but maybe because it just sounds more appealing to me ... I haven't really found a basis in scripture for it yet either, but I haven't really been searching for it before.

I always have the impression that C.S. Lewis tended towards inclusivism too. At least that is my impression after reading "The last battle" (one of my favorites from the Narnia Chronicles). The explanation why the young Calormene soldier is taken into Aslan's country sounds quite like inclusivism to me. What's your opinion on that, Hannah and everyone?

Jeannine, I'm only a fan not an expert on C.S. Lewis, but I have the same impression of his beliefs that you do. I think he did lean towards inclusivism.

I'm just now deepening my understanding of these doctrines and nothing helps me clarify my beliefs more than writing it down for someone else.

Let me see if I understand...in Universalism, *no* atonement is necessary...in inclusivist particularism, an atonement *is* necessary, but one need not be aware of it to be saved?

Samantha, From my understanding of inclusivist teachings, that is correct. Obviously, I don't agree with that, but I do think they are not identical with universalism. They don't believe that other religions can provide a way to salvation, only Christ.

I think I am becoming more inclusive than I used to be. I'm weary of us trying to decide who is in and who is out.

I do have a small quibble with your explanation, though. If everyone is saved, it will be because of Christ's work, even if that work is not appropriated by the faith of the individual. That is, salvation would not be apart from the particular work of Christ, but very much because of it.

I enjoy reading your weblog daily. Thanks for the work you are doing.

Well written explanation, helpful to me. Whether inclusive or exclusive I do not know, but I do know scripture reveals a just and loving God. I remain content with that, I find not much other evidence in scripture for much else.

Now that's some heavy lifting, Hannah. Great reference tool links.

When I've thought of this before, though I didn't know the exact vocabulary of it, I asked my self what difference in would make in my life and how would it affect my conversations with others.

The first conclusion I reached is that I believe God is a just God. He's the judge, not me. (There's that submission/God created order thing.)

The second thing I came away with was, "What difference would it make in my life on a day to day basis?" Pray more for people who don't have a faith in Christ or haven't hear, which leads to prayer for missionaries, etc.

Some people might use the particularist position as a reason they don't believe in God or Jesus. How could God judge people on something they don't know?

First, that means their faith would be limited to things they understood. They would be leaning on their own understanding. We all want to understand things, but at some point we have to drop back and punt saying, "God, I don't know how all this makes sense, but I still trust in You."

Second, since they've heard of Jesus they can't use the excuse of not having heard of Him. Then I would look for ways to share the truth of Jesus with them.

Like Barbara said, scripture reveals a just and loving God. I'll hang my hat, and my life, on that.

Hi all, I've been reading the contest and this new blog with great interest and enjoyment, and I hope you won't mind the occasional comment from a Catholic perspective. :)

I've never heard it called inclusivism before, and it may be newly popular in Protestant circles, but it is the view of the Catholic Church (and I think of the Orthodox as well). Salvation is only through Christ, and it is normatively a necessity to be a Christian to be saved. However one if one is invincibly ignorant of this necessity, one may still be saved.

For instance, St Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology (ch 46), around 150 AD, "We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word [Logos] of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably [meta logou],are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists."

St Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it...It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

"If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If suchlike unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief." (Summa Theologica, II II 10)

C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, "Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can
be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. "

And the young Calormene in The Last Battle was named Emeth - Hebrew for truth. I think it's safe to say Lewis was an inclusivist.

Randi, Thanks for your comments! I am very weary too, believe me, but my search is not to determine who is in and who is out but answer the question, "How is salvation given to people?" But I will write more on that in my next post.

Can you explain to me again what your quibble is with my explanation? What you described is inclusivism exactly as I described it.

I'm not sure I understand where you are disagreeing, except for the fact that you lean towards inclusivism and I don't. In that case, your quibble is with my position but not my explanation.

You mentioned on your blog that you will be posting less often throughout this summer. Enjoy your time!

Lexie, I really like how you think things through with clarity and with a view towards the practical.

I agree fully with you and with Barbara the Scripture reveals a just and loving God. Throughout any debate, we need to remind ourselves of this.

I may get more into the practical ramifications of this in my next post. In short, I think there are fewer ramifications for individuals such as ourselves in the short term. That is why on the surface this issue may seem unimportant. But I believe that when church leaders and missionaries hold a wrong view of the means of salvation and spread those ideas widely, the ramifications will manifest themselves more clearly. And I think that wrong doctrine will create real problems over time.

Atlantic, I would be very happy to have a Catholic perspective on each and every post I write--but I don't expect you to put this much work into looking up quotes every time.

While I do not consider the church fathers or later church leaders authoritative, I try to be conscious of the historical teachings of the church and to be aware of what great minds of the past.

I am already aware that Justin Martyr taught that great men of the past, such as the Greek philosophers, were saved. This seems to derive more from Justin's admiration of their powers of thought than from sound exegesis. Besides, his examples are from the time before Christ. I and all other Christians (well, I think) would agree that people who lived before Christ were saved apart from conscious faith in Christ. The inclusivists use this argument as a primary means to prove their view. Exclusivists believe that the NT teaches that coming of Christ made conscious faith in Christ necessary.

I can agree with your quote from Acquinas. Notice that he says, "If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief." He does not say that those who do not believe because they have not heard are not damned. He say that IF they are damned that are damned for OTHER SINS. I agree. I do not believe that people are damned because they have not responded to a gospel they have never heard.

As for Lewis, I would ask, on what basis does he determine what is fair? His own feelings of justness or the teaching of Scripture? I think that the most fair thing that God could do is to allow all of us to go on hating him and let all of us reap the consequences of our hatred. Lewis also said, "But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are." Well, that depends upon how clear he believe Scripture to me.

But merely from the quote, I gather that he has an agnostic position regarding the salvation of those who have never heard. Saying "We don't know what happens" is very different from saying "We are certain that people are saved apart from conscious faith in Christ"--which is where some in the inclusivist position go. It is one thing to not know; it is another thing to be certain.

Romans:19-20 says -- "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For 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 men are without excuse."

To me, these verses are suggesting inclusivism. That one can believe simply because God has revealed the truth to them, whether a formal gospel message has been delivered or not.

Anita, No one, whether inclusive or exclusive, is denying the existence of general revelation. But the verse you quoted is right in the midst of a passage on the universal condemnation of humans because of their universal rejection of Him.

You quoted only Romans 1:19-20. Here is Romans 1:18-21. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--having been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Paul continues on like this all the way to Romans 3:23, making the case that all humanity is under the curse of sin, whether Jew of Greek.

Hannah,
I appreciate your point. There must be more within the definitions of inclusive and universal that I'm not understanding. I'll have to read more about each of them. This is the first time that I've heard the terms used, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

The whole Lewis:

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.

This is not just an issue with those who have not heard the gospel. If one must "hear the gospel and consciously believe in Christ" in order to be saved, what about children? And what what about those who are mentally handicapped and unable to understand the gospel message and apply it to their lives? Can we say of a whole group of people that God simply does not choose them? Does this not make God a "respector of persons"?

I have to go with both of Lewis's themes: we do not know God's mind on this; and we must make the body of Christ as strong as possible, and work to make sure all that can know do know. It is on my list of things to ask God when I see Him.

“I do not believe that people are damned because they have not responded to a gospel they have never heard.”

I had thought this was part of exclusivist teaching; I’m glad to find I’m wrong. This is the same as the most restrictive interpretation of invincible ignorance.

“Saying "We don't know what happens" is very different from saying "We are certain that people are saved apart from conscious faith in Christ"--which is where some in the inclusivist position go. It is one thing to not know; it is another thing to be certain.”

Well, the Catholic Church does not say that we are certain that any particular people are saved except for canonised saints – who are all formally Christians except for Old Testament prophets and patriarchs. When it comes to ‘inclusivism’, the idea as expressed in the Catechism is “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (CCC 847)

Note the may. And “through no fault of their own” is naturally left to God to judge. Maybe it only includes those who have literally never heard of Christ. Or maybe it includes those who have only ever met scandalously sinful and/or doctrinally outrageous “Christians”. Or maybe it includes people who have a serious psychological block against Christianity due to their upbringing (say in militant atheism or another religion). I don’t know, and I don’t believe anyone but God knows.

jchfleetguy, I completely agree with the rest of the quote – I just thought I was taking up enough space as it was!

Sorry about that last paragraph...

I meant to have:

Note the may. And “through no fault of their own” is naturally left to God to judge. Maybe it only includes those who have literally never heard of Christ. Or maybe it includes those who have only ever met scandalously sinful and/or doctrinally outrageous “Christians”. Or maybe it includes people who have a serious psychological block against Christianity due to their upbringing (say in militant atheism or another religion). I don’t know, and I don’t believe anyone but God knows.

Great dialogue going on here!

It seems that the question of inclusivism, exclusivism is really only a problem for those who are arminians - those who believe that it is our own choice to have faith that saves us as oposed to God's effective election and regeneration.

It also appears to be an issue rooted in the wrong question, perspective or set of assumptions. I know that there are "wrong questions" because so often Jesus did not answer a person's question directly, but changed it or gave some other answer, because the question was rooted in unbelief, fear or pride and therefore on "the wrong plane" from truth altogether. Fortunately or unfortunately, our understanding and intellect are inextricably tied with our emotions and spirituality as well. Our reason, try though it might, cannot be wholly separated.

If we address this issue of those who have not heard the gospel with the biases resented in the word - that we are all worthy of condemnation, the problem largely disappears, or at least changes. COnsider the recent attacks in London. I have no problem with those terrorists going to hell. If someone raped my 3 year old daughter, I would have no problem with their damnation, regardless of whether or not they had heard the gosple. When I read Romans 1-3 and realize that the same cursing, violent heart is within me, and recieve the grace and humility to realize it is only the gracious upbringing and work of the Living Word in the world and in my life that has prohibited that cursing heart within me from developing into the outward manifestation that the terrorist is, I am humbled and doctrine becomes easier. The tough question for me has become, how are any of us saved at all? I agree with CS Lewis where he writes that the idea of those who seek God is foolish. I know that I didn't truly seek Him. In truth I was running form the one who sought me.

From a different angle, I highly recommend the book "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson. It is full of amazing stories of tribes in the middle of nowhere, who, when the missionaries finally reached them, already had knowedge of Christ through a dream or an ancient legend. God is the one who saves, He can save who He wants to. It is a miracle both that He saved me in churched America and that He has saved the unknown tribal man in deep central Asia.

I als recommend John Piper's "Let the Nations Be Glad." Piper is wonderful help for understanding the more difficult teachings of scripture.

Sorry to write a book - I have thought long and hard on these issues.

Here is the vague CS Lewis refrence I made -

Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about 'man's search for God.' To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat" -C.S. Lewis