The title of the post presumes that certain beliefs are directly connected with eternal salvation. In our (inclusivistic, egalitarian, relativistic, pluralistic, socio-politico-religio-savvy) Western culture, I have already presumed too much in the opinion of some people. For example, when a Christian can claim that the biblical doctrine of exclusivism "always ends up turning Christianity into some sort of Creedology: 'Believe thus-and-so (on pain of Hell) and you shall be saved.' . . . But, it is Christ alone who is the Savior!", we must ask ourselves: 1) Are not all people already self-condemned (John 3:18)? and 2) How does Christ the Savior save (1 Cor. 1:21)?
I could empathize with this complaint if Christ Jesus saved people in the manner in which Calvinists think -- by regeneration, due to an unconditional election. But when one considers that this statement belongs to a Wesleyan-Arminian, one should expect the answer to take on the conditional tone of salvation by grace through faith (i.e., "believe thus-and-so . . . and you shall be saved") since Scripture itself uses the exact same language (Acts 16:31).
What did the apostle Paul write? He emphatically declared that "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9 NASB, and henceforth, emphases added). From Scripture, then, we understand that right belief ("Believe thus-and-so (on pain of Hell [cf. John 3:16-18, 36]) and you shall be saved"), actually is connected with our salvation. "Right belief" is not our salvation, but it is certainly connected with our salvation.
By "right belief" we do not mean mere mental assent to some historical documents or creeds. By "right belief" we mean a faith in the right God, who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the agency of the Person of the Holy Spirit. Wrong belief will certainly lead no one to salvation.
In a politically correct American society where even Mormons are thought by some to be viable candidates for the orthodox Christian name, this subject matter becomes all the more controversial. Historically, groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have always been considered “Christian heretics,” not orthodox Christians possessing salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Regarding heresy, Religions and Cult expert Ron Rhodes comments:
It is for good reason that every book in the New Testament except Philemon has something to say about false teachers, false prophets, false gospels, or heresies. Jesus Himself sternly warned His followers to watch out for false prophets (Matt. 7:15-23) and false Christs (Matt. 24:5). The apostle Paul warned of a different Jesus, a different spirit (2 Cor. 11:4), false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15), and those who preach “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4).1
Rhodes continues, “First John 4:1 understandably urges believers to ‘test the spirits.’ The concern is obvious: Counterfeit prophets who speak of a counterfeit Christ who preaches a counterfeit gospel can yield only a counterfeit salvation. Because there are eternal consequences to false teachings, Scripture bears numerous warnings.”2 (author's original emphasis) Because anyone can claim to be a Christian -- or a minister of the gospel or a “believer” in Christ Jesus -- we must understand what beliefs are entailed for one to call himself a Christian.
Must an individual have exhaustive knowledge of Christian orthodoxy before he can be saved? Of course not; he need know about sin, salvation by grace through faith in Christ, His substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection brought about by His Father, His own volition, and that of the Holy Spirit. After he receives the gospel by faith and is thus regenerated, he should then be made into a disciple of Jesus through orthodox Christian teaching.
In order to be called an orthodox Christian, a person should believe in one God. As obvious as that statement may seem, what I mean by “one God” is the Creator-Covenant-God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible (Gen. 1:1-2, 26; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3). Already we have excluded Jews who reject Christ from salvation. Hence the exclusivity of the Gospel.
More particularly, I mean that the “one God,” though strictly one essence, exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one God in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34; 14-16; 2 Cor. 13:14). This is the God of Scripture. I do not mean one Person who manifests Himself at times as Father, other times as Son, and other times as the Holy Spirit. I mean three distinct Persons who each equally share the essence called God. No individual can become a god (as in Mormonism), since only the triune God can be and is by essence God (or by essence has God-ness, which is something human beings can never possess).
The Son of God, named Jesus from birth, was God incarnate, born of His virgin mother (Matt. 1:21). He was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God, the only, unique Son of God the Father (cf. John 1:1-3; 3:16). Jesus lived a sinless life, was wrongly accused and tortured and murdered on a cross for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 8:46; 19:28-30). His body was actually dead after six hours of crucifixion, and Roman soldiers buried Him in a tomb (John 19:31-38). He was subsequently raised to life by the Father, by His own will, and by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:24; John 10:18; Rom. 8:11). He was raised to life so that those who trust in Him could be justified in God’s sight (Rom. 4:25).
Jesus ascended back to the Father, sat down at His right hand, and the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the Church and the world through the gospel subsequently took on a new dimension (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit, called the third Person of the triune Godhead, convicts sinners of their sin, lack of inherent righteousness and need of the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, and the judgment to come (John 16:8-11). He indwells those who by grace trust in Christ, and immerses them into the body of Christ, the Church (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13).
Every person born into the world is in need of salvation -- salvation from one’s own sins and salvation from the wrath of God which is still to come (John 3:36; Rom. 3:23; cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17). Deliverance from sin comes only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, for there is “no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, emphases added); and be saved we must (John 3:3-5)!
In other words, we all need saving, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Christ will return, and when He does, all people “will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another” (Matt. 25:32-33).
Those who have been “saved” or "born again" in this life (delivered from the wrath of God by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which brings about one’s renewed life or regeneration, cf. John 3:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5), will be ushered into the coming kingdom of God (Matt. 25:34), while those who have not been saved and born again will be thrust from Him “into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41; cf. John 3:36).
In other words, after this earthly life, there will be recompense, however one reckons the particulars of the event. “Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace” (Dan. 12:2 NLT). God’s kingdom will reign in the new heavens and the new earth forever and ever (Rev. 21:1-4, 22-27; 22:1-5).
The authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit to convey the truth that all of God’s words are “true” (Ps. 119:160), and considered absolute, objective “truth” (John 17:17) -- that Scripture is “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), and that human initiative played no part in its origination, but that men were “moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21 NLT). Since Scripture plays such an important role in what we as Christians believe to be God’s revealed truth, no other writings are to be considered on par with Scripture (including but not limited to the Book of Mormon, the writings of the Watchtower Society, or any other alleged “prophetic” writings).
These are the essentials of the Christian faith. As anyone can see, there is room for diversity on other non-essential matters (though not exhaustively so), such as one’s view of how the end of days will be carried out, one’s view of baptism, one’s view of church government, or one’s view of election unto salvation. These diverse views do not affect one’s salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Therefore, we can affirm one another where we are in agreement, and challenge one another where we disagree, holding each other accountable to our only inerrant rule of authority: Scripture.3
__________
1 Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 19.
2 Ibid.
This is a question which depends upon the circumstances. I once listened to a tesimony from a missionary associated with MAF.
ReplyDeleteThey were at an unreached people group somewhere in Brazil (I think). Anyway, they had a cassette tape with someone sharing the gospel in their own language and with understandable idioms. When the pushed play and the sound came on, all the natives ran into the woods.
Afetr a few hours they all gathered in a hut and began to listen once again. The pilot was seated next to a woman who began coughing up blood, and who was obviously in the last stage of tuberculosis.
The people around her began to scatter. The pilot began to share that God was one, and that He gave His Son to make a way to go to be with God, and other things along that simplistic line. "Do you believe in that Son named Jesus?", the pilot asked. The woman nodded, and repeated the "I believe and please take me to be with You" prayer led by the pilot.
The woman died in less than one hour. All things being as was presented to me, I believe that woman went to heaven if she did in fact believe.
The Jews on the Day of Pentecost knew very little. In fact the Trinity and virgin birth and other things might have offended them.
So in response to your title I have a grace filled view, even though I am an exclusivist. Good question, though.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteNeat story. I agree: I too think the woman was saved. I like your final comment and am very inclined to agree. As I stated before launching into what I consider to be a universal orthodox Christianity:
Must an individual have exhaustive knowledge of Christian orthodoxy before he can be saved? Of course not; he need know about sin, salvation by grace through faith in Christ (His substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection brought about by His Father, His own volition, and that of the Holy Spirit).
I think salvation is simple, and some make it harder than what it actually is: trust in the Savior, which brings about one's new birth.
WWB,
ReplyDeleteYou allude to an interesting point in the first and second paragraph: Calvinism and Inclusivism are cousins--Calvinism through its conception of unconditional election and Inclusivism through it application of unlimited atonement. Both beliefs posit an efficacious monergism accomplishing salvation.
SLW,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I was going to use nearly the exact same response you just posted here over at the blog on which the comment was found, but I decided not to. I was amazed at that similarity.
Grateful minds think alike ;-)
DeleteAnd it can be sooooo dangerous, bwahahaha ....
DeleteOn secong thought, there is only one thing you need to know to be saved.
ReplyDeleteTithing!
Hahahaha ... spoken like a true Baptist! (Mal. 3:10)
DeleteHi William,
ReplyDeleteInclusivism is not "egalitarian, relativistic, pluralistic, socio-politico-religio-savvy". Inclusivists can be egalitarian, but some are also complimentarian. For example, William Lane Craig is an inclusivist complimentarian. And not that it matters really, but I affirm marital complimentariansim also (as does my wife), I'm just opposed to those who use complimentarianism as an excuse to prevent gifted women from teaching and preaching.
Inclusivists are not relativistic. We believe in absolute truth, especially salvation in only Jesus Christ. Inclusivists are not pluralistic. All religions are in error except Christianity. However, God is still capable of drawing all people to Himself. I don't even get what "politico-religio-savvy" is a reference to. Perhaps I'm not savvy enough. ;)
Inclusivists affirm all of the passage you list. We believe that salvation is found in Christ only, anyone who rejects him will not be saved. Romans 9-11 should be read together as one passage, not in isolation. :) Paul's argumentation is specific to the topic at hand - the Jews' rejection of Christ. He closes by writing that "all Israel will be saved" and that "God has bound all to disobedience so that he can have mercy on all."
I don't get the inclusivism/monergism connection at all. Inclusivists certainly don't think God is irresistible or coercive in the way that he draws us. Moreover, we believe people must accept Christ's sacrifice to be saved, they will be eternally lost if they do not. We believe it's possible to affirm Christ without complete knowledge of who he is.
There is, however, a direct connection between exclusivism and and Calvinistic limited atonement. Inclusivists believe that Christ died for all, and that anyone can be saved. Exclusivists do not. I'm not saying you're a Calvinist (God forbid!), but rather that the implications of exclusivism have the same end result as Calvinsim: Most of humanity damned by default, without the ability to do other than what they do.
Sorry if this comes across as overly blunt, but I just don't understand the eagerness to damn people who lack specific knowledge of Christ through no fault of their own. I agree with Craig that exclusivism is a type of creedalism. By the way, I'm upset at you (or SLW, or Roy or whoever else) at all. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. :) I respect your desire to be faithful to the gospel, I just think you're off on this particular issue. Exclusivism is ultimately (though inadvertently) damaging to the character of God.
Who is eager to damn anyone? Arminian exclusivists are eager to preach the gospel because apart from hearing it, there is no biblically clear means of salvation. That being said, hearing the gospel won't save anyone because repentance and faith in Christ are required. In my experience, most people who hear the gospel don't respond to it anyhow. We'd be jumping to an unfounded conclusion to assume that God won't get the message to those who actually would respond.
Delete"We'd be jumping to an unfounded conclusion to assume that God won't get the message to those who actually would respond."
DeleteI absolutely agree.
Kevin,
DeleteI never said that Inclusivism is "egalitarian, relativistic, pluralistic, socio-politico-religio-savvy." If you'll read carefully, I wrote: "In our (inclusivistic, egalitarian, relativistic, pluralistic, socio-politico-religio-savvy) Western culture. . . ." Do you now see how everything in the parenthesis modifies "our Western culture," and not Inclusivism?
I won't bother with the rest of your comments, as they are not worth the effort.
God bless.
I probably need to explain why I insisted that the rest of your comments are not "worth the effort," lest you think I'm just dismissing you because I cannot answer you.
DeleteI can certainly answer you, but when you start making comments such as, "but I just don't understand the eagerness to damn people who lack specific knowledge of Christ through no fault of their own," I understand that emotions are involved, and it is nearly impossible to discuss objectively an issue where emotions are involved.
It's funny how perspective is king. I think Inclusivism is destructive to the very Gospel of Christ Jesus itself, and you think Exclusivism is damaging to the character of God. Oh, the irony. I think Inclusivists could read an entire chapter in Scripture on Exclusivistic claims and still come away Inclusivists. You think we're a stone's throw away from Calvinism. Oy! And I want to get involved in that dialogue? Not likely.
Your post yesterday was the cherry on top of a well baked cake, layered with tons of icing, as to what I've perceived as Arminianism's problems -- problems that will never be fixed as long as there remains Inclusivistic Arminians (who also deny Inerrancy). To me, all the criticisms of Calvinists who say that Arminianism leads to liberalism are proven true every time an Arminian expresses his Inclusivistic, non-Inerrantist views.
That's why I've decided to distance myself from the pack. I had high hopes for a Classical Arminian resurgence, but it's impossible. As long as the Roger Olsons and the Bill Craigs and the Jerry Walls of Arminianism continue to spread, people can forget a conservative resurgence of Arminius's views, because nothing on earth is more clear than that Arminius was an Exclusivist, despite Olson's revisionist views.
Meanwhile, young conservative men in seminaries will continue to reject Arminianism and most likely, tragically, adopt Calvinism. I would say at this stage in the game that Arminianism is its own worse enemy.
William,
DeleteMy question then is why did you even bring up egalitarianism, pluralism, etc, in the first place? I interpreted it as a broadly bushed equivocation of inclusivism with other separately non-related issues that inclusivists do not affirm. You did something similar with Olson a while back, labeling him "egalitarian, neo-evangelical" etc. If you don't like Olson, fine. If you don't like inclusivism, that's fine too. I just ask that when you're criticizing a person or a position that you stay on the topic at hand.
You make a legitimate point about perspective. Perhaps my comment about the eagerness to damn people was over the line. The point I'm making is that (in my view) exclusivism runs into the exact same "character of God" problems as Calvinism, and for the same reasons. Since you affirm the character of God, it should at least be food for thought.
Inclusivism is not synonymous with liberalism, and is not the cause of the Calvinist resurgence. Zwingli and Wesley were both inclusivists, as were most of the pre-Augustinian church fathers (who read the NT in their native language of Greek). Southern Baptist Dale Moody was also an inclusivist. As are others like C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, William Lane Craig, etc.
Kevin,
DeleteYou interpreted it that way because you have an issue about Inclusivism -- that's why. Our Western culture is all of those things and more, but you read into it your particular pet peeve regarding Inclusivism. So, I was on topic, I did not single out Inclusivism in that statement, and you misread it.
As for the character of God and exclusivism: the reason why people do not hear the gospel is our fault, not God's. So I find your claim of miring God's character entirely untenable.
Moreover, Exclusivism has absolutely nothing in common with Limited Atonement whatsoever, as you stated above, and that was ridiculous on your part. In LA, Christ died solely for the unconditionally elect. Even in biblical Exclusivism -- at least to the Classical Arminians who hold it -- Christ still died for every single individual. Hence the ridiculous nature of your attempt at a connection.
As to what makes for liberalism, some say one thing, others another. I find the view unbiblical and liberal in nature. You disagree. We'll disagree until Jesus returns or one us changes his mind. That's the way of the world.
William,
DeleteIf you can honestly tell me that you place inclusivism in a separate category from all those other things you listed in the intro, then I accept that. However, I still don't understand your point of listing them in the post. What was the relevance?
You said "As for the character of God and exclusivism: the reason why people do not hear the gospel is our fault, not God's"
I agree that we as Christians have dropped the ball, but that's not the whole picture. Europeans didn't even know about the Americas until midway through the second millennium. They didn't have the capability to evangelize Native Americans (or Maori or others) even if they wanted to.
Also, if exclusivism and God's exhaustive foreknowledge are both true, then God created a massive number of people who (due to our disobedience which he foreknew) had zero opportunity to be saved. While not as egregious as Calvinism, it's still a character of God issue.
It's a character of God issue to "bind all men over to disobedience", and to not have "mercy on them all". It's also inconsistent with scripture. It's a character of God issue to maintain that God gives enough revelation to damn, but not enough revelation to save.
Do you think that every person who has ever lived (and ever will) has a genuine opportunity to be saved? If you do, we agree. I don't mind if you want to avoid the inclusivist label. I can appreciate that. But if you actually do believe that entire people groups have zero chance to be saved, then we clearly have a different understanding of the nature of the atonement and the character of God. And exclusivism (like it or not) is Calvinistic in that way.
Kevin,
DeleteAmericans have inclusivistic notions: "everyone deserves a chance to be saved," "God wouldn't send someone to hell who had never heard of Jesus," etc. That's our Western culture, and Inclusivism is part and parcel of it, like the other beliefs I mentioned. I didn't connect them all to each other. Rather, that is a brief list which categorizes American "theology/worldview."
While not as egregious as Calvinism, it's still a character of God issue.
Well, you'll have to take that up with Him, brother.
It's a character of God issue to maintain that God gives enough revelation to damn, but not enough revelation to save.
Perhaps you're aware Scripture teaches that all men are already damned (John 3:18). You act as though everyone is neutral. They're not: they're depraved; they want nothing of God until His gospel penetrates their sinful heart. Your gooey theology has much in common with Oprah and Joel Osteen, I fear.
But if you actually do believe that entire people groups have zero chance to be saved, then we clearly have a different understanding of the nature of the atonement and the character of God. And exclusivism (like it or not) is Calvinistic in that way.
1) I don't care that it's Calvinistic. Do you hold to Total Depravity and Total Inability? Since you're a member of SEA, I hope your answer is yes. If so, then that's Calvinistic. It must be wrong, eh?
2) I guess we have a different understanding of the nature of God, then. So be it.
Umm, that should be "I'm not upset at you". Bad typo. :)
ReplyDelete"I just don't understand the eagerness to damn people"
ReplyDeleteI do not damn anyone, and I am certainly not eager to see lost people head to eternity. Sinners are not damned because they have not heard the gospel, they are born lost. Every year the earth brings forth enough food to feed the world, however millions starve.
Whose responsible for that? I don't know, perhaps a journey to an American garbage dump might give us a clue.
Whose fault is it that some have not heard the gospel? I guess those who are inundated by the gospel and refuse to share so we might enjoy our own lives. Is it right that an infant falls to his death even though his parents did not see him go into the road? But the car kills him nonetheless. I am not eager to see that, nor did I orchestrate it.
Damaging to the character of God? How about Sodom and Gommorah? How about Jericho? How about the firstborn of all the Egyptians? Unless all of it is metaphorical and God never executes justice, well then God is quite capable of projecting and protecting His own character.
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Quite irrelevant if there are none, and if anyone who has never heard gets a merciful ticket to heaven, then simply by the missionary effort we have unwittingly damned sinners who otherwise might have been included. There have been two times the entire world was saved - Adam and Eve and Noah and his family.
So whose fault is it that so many now are unsaved? I guess we could blame it on them but certainly not God. I hope God eventually includes everyone, but the New Testament give no hint of that and to the Scriptures we must bow, our "eagerness" notwithstanding.
Hi Rick,
DeleteI agree with you that it's our fault that some don't hear the gospel.
It's certainly damaging to the character of God (and in the same way that Calvinism is) to argue that those without the ability to do other than what they do are damned by default.
Inclusivists don't believe "that anyone who has never heard gets a merciful ticket to heaven". What the inclusivist believes, however, is that God is able to save at least some people from every tribe, nation, people, and language (Rev 7:9). They are drawn, through resistable grace, to the person of Jesus Christ. And God is able to do this despite the reality that those people groups have not had the word preached to them by missionaries (which is due to our failure, and not God's, as you point out).
That is quite the exegetical stretch of Rev.7:9.
Delete"What the inclusivist believes, however, is that God is able to save at least some people from every tribe, nation, people, and language."
God is able to save every single sinner. Christ died for all sinners. However there is one caveat.
Heb.7:25 - Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
I believe the operative words are "by him" (Jesus). There is no salvation without Jesus and there is no salvation without faith. You know, without faith it is impossible to please God - and all that jazz.
Rick, The inclusivist affirms all those things. We simply believe that through Jesus Christ God gives everyone a genuine opportunity to be saved. That's why it disturbs me when Arminians fall into Calvinistic language and start arguing for active reprobation. God is able to save some through Jesus even though (through no fault of their own) they have an inadequate or distorted view of who Jesus is.
DeleteThe problem here (again) is the eagerness of the exclusivist to damn those who haven't had the same advantages that we have had. As John Wesley wrote: "I have no authority from the Word of God “to judge those that are without.” Nor do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to him that made them, and who is “the Father of the spirits of all flesh;” who is the God of the Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made."
Who dies, and styands before the Risen Christ, and rejects Him on their post mortum second chance? Answer: No one. But it isn't fair that many had to make their decision in the midst of earthly deception and influenced by the lives of carnal Christians (Gandhi) while others get to make their choice apart from those distractions. (If we are dealing with "fairness")
Deletewesley's musing seems much like doctrinal philosophy rather than Scripturally revealed truth.
In fact, redemption for any sinner is observably unfair, beside the fact that the New Testament gives no teaching about the hope of an unreached islander. That teaching emanates from a fallen sense of compassion and a desire to make God more "fair". Our sense of spiritual fair play must remain not only suspect, but inadmissible as it pertains to discerning divine truth.
John Wesley is not the Bible. All men have feet of clay, and although I respect and admire Wesley, his opinion means nothing to me. (But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:)
I think I might go with Paul on this one.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Exceptions?
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?"
Now either that is truth, or like Captain Barbossa said, "the code (Word) is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules (truth).
Rick,
DeleteYes, and Amen! Preach it, pastor!
I ran across this quote today and find comfort in it:
ReplyDeleteThe living God can always be relied on to awaken living faith in the discerning human heart. (M. Henry)
II Cor.4:4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
ReplyDeleteThat deception is unchallenged in unreached sinners. Without the gospel there is no chance of faith in Christ. But since God has given to every man the measure of faith, everyone believes something.