Scripture simply does not picture fallen humans as having some vague but noble desire for mercy and forgiveness. So will God condemn the innocent tribesman who has never heard the name of Christ? No, because there are no innocent tribesmen. In other words, not because of the absence of something (faith), but because of the presence of something (rebellion). 20). Humans aren’t guilty because they haven’t heard the gospel they’re guilty because they haven’t honored their Creator. 21), he “suppresses the truth” (v. 18) perceptible in nature and is therefore “without excuse” (v. Though the man on the island “knows God” (v. Paul’s argument is that God’s revelation in nature is sufficient only to condemn, not to save. Here are five.įirst, though inclusivists sometimes employ Romans 1:18–23 to highlight the importance of general revelation, on closer reading the text actually supports the exclusivist view. 3 Several texts are commonly cited in its defense.
2 This has been the predominant Christian position throughout church history and remains so among Bible-believing evangelicals today. In contrast to inclusivism, exclusivism is the view that redemption is possible through only faith in the gospel. Because “God is love,” the argument goes, he’d never condemn someone who didn’t even have a chance to be saved (1 John 4:8, 16). “I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and the evidence for it is less than one would like,” Clark Pinnock admits. “But the vision of God’s love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me.” Many inclusivists appeal to God’s character in defense of their view. The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it.” 1 One pastor put it this way: “I believe the most Christian stance is to remain agnostic on this question.
It’s unwarranted, then, for anyone to claim to know the fate of the unevangelized. What matters to God, the inclusivist says, is human faith responding to the “light” he has provided at a given time or place. Nothing has been changed in that respect. (138) Salvation has always been appropriated by faith.
The basis of acceptance would be the work of Jesus Christ, even though the person involved is not conscious that this is how provision has been made for his salvation. (138)īut doesn’t this parallel trivialize Christ’s saving work? Not at all, Erickson insists, for Jesus is still the source of every saving benefit:
#Christians who have never read a book except the bible full#
They had the form of the gospel without its full content. Yet they knew there was provision for the forgiveness of their sins, and that they could not be accepted on the merits of any works of their own. upon the mercy of God, not knowing on what basis that mercy was provided? Would not such a person in a sense be in the same situation as the Old Testament believers? The doctrine of Christ and his atoning work had not been fully revealed to these people. As Millard Erickson explains, “The rise of more inclusive views of salvation, even among evangelicals, is based on a belief in the efficacy of general revelation for a salvific relationship to God” ( Christian Theology, 123).Īdditionally, many inclusivists appeal to the precedent of Old Testament saints who were saved without knowing the name of Jesus. 2:14–15)-provides sufficient knowledge for salvation. The content of general revelation-both the created order without (Rom. Inclusivists often cite Romans 2:1–16, a passage taken to imply that salvation is possible apart from God’s special revelation. Simply put, Jesus may save some who never hear of him. They are redeemed by the person and work of a Christ they do not consciously embrace. Inclusivism is the belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ, but that there may be persons who are saved without knowing it. While both views maintain that Jesus is the only way to God, only one insists on the necessity of conscious faith in him. When it comes to this emotionally vexing issue, there are two dominant positions among professing Christians: inclusivism and exclusivism.
0 kommentar(er)
