The Case for Inclusivism

Inclusivism is the Christian doctrine that teaches it is possible to be justified through Jesus Christ without explicit or complete knowledge of who he is.  Specifically, inclusivists hold that it’s possible that some who have never heard the preached word can still be saved through Christ.  Inclusivists believe that Jesus died for the world, and that God is working in the heart of each person in order to draw them them to Himself.  Given God’s character, we can trust Him to do what is right.  The intent of this post is to illustrate that inclusivism is Biblical, and that it is a position that Arminians should endorse as orthodox.

Inclusivism is often maligned by those from the Reformed perspective.  It has nothing to do with universalism or pluralism (see this post, where I address what it is, and what it is not).  Inclusivists believe that non-Christian religions are in error and keep people from God.  But we also believe that God has the capability to save some non-Christians.  This is in spite of their errors, not because of them.  Inclusivists believe that Jesus is the only way.  We also believe that those who reject Christ will be eternally lost.

I am a hopeful inclusivist.   Given what scripture teaches about the character of God, inclusivism makes the best sense to me.  God can be trusted.  He sees the heart.  Through Christ, God is capable of saving those who have a distorted view of who he is.

Biblical support
A plenary reading of scripture gives us evidence that inclusivism is likely to be true. God shows no favoritism, but accepts people everywhere who fear him.  God is love.  Jesus’ blood purchased people from every tribe and nation.  Jesus is good news and great joy for all people.  The shepherd seeks out the lost sheep.  Jesus is the light of the world.  Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Jesus died for the world. God is not willing that any should perish, but wants all to repent. The grace of God brings salvation to all men. God did not send his son to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Jesus is the propitiation not just for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. When Jesus is lifted up he will draw all men to himself. The servant who does not know his master’s will is beaten with few blows. A multitude that no one can count will be before the throne.  These verses (and other verses like them) make inclusivism probable.

Every Tribe and Nation?
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb (Revelation 7:9). People from every tribe and nation will be represented in heaven.  Every tribe.  This presents a problem for exclusivism, as there are tribes who have not heard of Christ.  Moreover, there are extinct people groups who never heard the preached word.   Inclusivists believe that people from those groups will be represented before the throne, just like John’s vision affirms.  One such tribe is the Teotihuacans – a group that lived in southern Mexico between 300 BC and 900 AD.  Other tribes in the Americas (and throughout the world) disappeared prior to the arrival of  missionaries.  Since these tribes never heard the preached word, they will only be represented in heaven if inclusivism is true.

Mercy Trumps Doctrine – the Good Samaritan
The Samaritans were the heterodox heathens of Jesus’ time.  We have a tendency to romanticize them today, however, their history and religion were despicable.  Imagine a voodoo worshiper who integrates a few Christian symbols into his religion, and you have a pretty good idea of what Jews thought about Samaritan religion.  The Samaritans were those from the northern kingdom that had intermarried with pagans, and had worshiped Baal.  In Jesus’ time they refused to worship in Jerusalem, and they had dedicated their mountain temple to Zeus.1  In one case they opposed Jesus simply because he was on his way to Jerusalem.  James and John despised them so much they asked Jesus if they could call down fire from heaven to have them all destroyed (Luke 9:51-56).  Yet only a few verses later in Luke, an expert in the Law asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus’ answer was the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus said that the Samaritan who had mercy was preferable to the Levite and Priest who did not.  Jesus said the same thing about the sheep and the goats. “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.” (Matt 25:31-46). John said the same thing about love.  Everyone who loves others has been born of God. Whoever “claims” to love God yet hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:7-21).  In God’s view, mercy trumps doctrine every time.

The Shortcomings of the “Biblicist” Argument
Exclusivists argue that inclusivism is wrong because it is not explicitly affirmed in a particular proof-text. But there are other doctrines that exclusivists do not hold to the same standard – such as the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of Prevenient (or Irresistible) grace.   A teaching that deserves special attention is the “age of accountability”. Outside of a few hyper-Calvinists, there is broad consensus that those who die in infancy and the severely mentally handicapped will be saved.  This doctrine is arrived at through a plenary reading of scripture that appeals to the character of God.  The “age of accountability” is a type of inclusivism. It affirms that God will not by default reprobate those who lack the capability to understand the gospel.  In order to be consistent, those who reject inclusivism because it’s not “Biblical”, also ought to hold the same standard for infant salvation.

Inclusivism in the Early Church
Perhaps without realizing it, today’s exclusivists are promoting doctrinal prejudices that are holdovers from Roman Catholicism. Wesleyan Jerry Walls notes that “There is a significant tradition of Inclusivism going all the way back to the church fathers.”2  Forms of inclusivism were advocated by church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria,  Origen, Athanasius, and others (see this post).  These include the same fathers who spoke Greek natively, defeated Arianism and wrote the creeds.  But after Rome began to control the church, inclusivism dropped off the radar until the time of the Reformation.  The state church had a vested interest in dictating who was and wasn’t saved.  Augustine went so far as to state that all Christians not submitting to Rome were damned3, as were all non-baptized infants4.  Augustine’s view became the default one.  During the Reformation, theologians both inside (Erasmus) and outside the Catholic Church (Luther, Zwingli) began to consider inclusivism once again.  They placed more emphasis on scripture, and less on Catholic tradition.  Some Reformers continued to hold to exclusivism, replacing “Catholic” with their own state sponsored Protestant denominations.

Exclusivism is Synonymous with Calvinist Thought
All Arminians ought to reject exclusivism for the same reasons they reject Calvinism. Our view of God ‘s character demands it.   Calvinists claim that God wants everyone to be saved, but then go on to argue that God doesn’t give grace to everyone, and justly leaves the reprobate in their sin.  Exclusivists claim that God wants everyone to be saved, but then go to argue that some don’t hear the gospel, and God justly leaves them in their sin.  There is no practical difference.  Neither group has genuine means to be saved. Anyone who believes that God is drawing everyone to himself ought to be at least sympathetic with the inclusivist view.  We can leave those who do not hear the preached word to our good and capable God.  He always does what is right.

—————————————————————–
(1) David Carson, Who were the Samaritans?
(2) Jerry Walls, Heaven: The logic of Eternal Joy, p81
(3) Augustine, Address to the People of the Church at Caesarea “Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church”
(4) Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants

About these ads

35 Comments

Filed under Inclusivism

35 Responses to The Case for Inclusivism

  1. Oh, and one further thought: exclusivism always ends up turning Christianity into some sort of Creedology: ‘Believe thus-and-so (on pain of Hell) and you shall be saved.’ Or: ‘experience thus-and-so and you shall be saved.’ But, it is Christ alone who is the Savior! And, anyway: holiness is the goal God is seeking in human lives. Not primarily: ideas, experiences or (certainly) religiosity.

  2. I disagree with the overwhelming majority of this. Would you be offended if I responded to this in a post of my own tomorrow? If you think it would cause further tension or disunity between us, just say so. I won’t be put off in the slightest. But I did want to get your go-ahead before writing one.

    God bless.

  3. Craig,
    Thanks for the comments, good point about “creedology”.

    William,
    Feel free to write up a post, I won’t be offended at all. :)

  4. Kevin – done well, being of the Wesleyan tradition, you would know that I would find much of what you written as being spot on.

    You made one comment, “One such tribe is the Teotihuacans – a group that lived in southern Mexico between 300 BC and 900 AD.” When I think of “every nation, tribe, people and language” I think that the Teotihuacans survived. They just are not called by that name anymore. Myself, I represent individuals from Germany, England, Scotland and Ireland as well as America and speak two languages but also represent more languages than that. So, for “every” to be represented, IMHO, doesn’t necessarily mean someone who calls himself a Teotihuacan but someone with Teotihuacan lineage.

    I admire you and Mr. Birch and look forward to his response to this post even though this is the ONLY area in which I disagree with him. I think that you are of the same mindset :-)

    • Hi Dale, I have descendents from all those countries too. Perhaps that helps to explain why we get along so well. ;) I do see your point, but interpret the passage more broadly. The Teotihuacans have descendents, but the descendents speak a different language, and live in a very different culture than their ancestors. There is a real sense in which they are not the same people group that they were 1,000 years ago.

  5. slw

    Not to be combative, but…
    Biblical Support: I can handle all of those verses without difficulty or contradiction within an exclusivist framework
    Every Tribe and Nation: an argument from ignorance and silence, in that our history of any given people, its migrations, assimilations, adaptations, etc, is incomplete
    The Good Samaritan: citing a teaching illustration meant to shock as much as to make a point is a far way from establishing any inclusivist claim
    The Biblicist claim: is comparing apples to oranges since there are verses which clearly state that specific response to the Gospel is essential to salvation. Furthermore, I do not hold to the “age of accountability” because it is not found in scripture (although I do believe something akin to it for the children of believers)
    The Early Church: arguments citing agreement or disagreement with the early church really hold very little if any water. Acts and the Epistles demonstrate more than clearly that error was rampant in the pristine church. Therefore, the only testimony that is trustworthy doctrinally is the scriptures themselves
    Calvinism Synonymous With Exclusivism: Calvinism was bound to get something right, exclusivism was one of those things. The way Calvinism derives exclusivism doesn’t have to be right for exclusivism to actually be right. Synonymous is therefore too strong a term for the relationship.

    Thank you, Roy, for the defense of inclusivism. It does clarify in my own mind why I am not an inclusivist.

  6. Doubting Thomas

    Kevin, this is a balance post with which I find myself in substantial agreement. Another passage that comes to mind is in Acts 17 which of course contains Paul’s preaching in Athens:

    “And He has made from one blood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ ” Acts 17:26-28

    So Paul indicates that God arranged the people/nations in their historical and geographical situations so they might seek God. It’s hard to imagine given this statement that God would so prearrange where/when folks would live for the purpose of seeking Him while leaving them devoid of any grace by which to seek Him and revelation of Who He is. Of course, this is not the same as advocating pluralism and universaliwm, because all the other religions have MUCH error mixed in (and perhaps only a glimmer of truth) and many choose not to seek after God by purposefully ignoring the real revelation God has given them and cling to the erroneous aspects of their false religions (or no religion at all). I remain a HOPEFUL inclusivist, and I think your quote from C.S. Lewis from your other linked article sums up my thoughts pretty well:

    “…But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other [unreached] 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.”

    Lewis goes on to write (in MERE CHRISTIANITY) that (wtte) that perhaps those are saved who haven’t had the opportunity to hear the name of Jesus Christ yet who by God’s grace focus on the TRUE aspects of their particular religion, aspects which are in common with Christian teaching.

    At any rate, since we aren’t sure how God will specifically deal with these cases, we can trust Him to be just and merciful, and we are still called to evangelize

    • Hi Doubting Thomas, Thanks for your comment, well stated. Regarding the passage you referenced in Acts, it’s interesting to note that Paul was quoting the pagan poets. I think one of the reasons Paul was such a successful evangelist was that he was “all things to all people, in order that he might save some.” Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he was not opposed to using nuggets of truth (from a false religion), if it helped him to reach the audience he was preaching to.

  7. LexCro

    Kevin,

    I appreciate the clarity with which you presented this view. I must admit that I’ve never seen inclusivism defended via the use of Rev. 7:9. I’ll really have to think about this in light of the fact that some extinct tribes/nations (to the best of our knowledge) never heard the gospel. My question at this juncture would be: What constitutes a tribe or a nation in God’s eyes? Is there always an exact parallel between our concept of tribe/nation and God’s? I don’t posit this in a combative fashion, but from a curious posture. I’m open.

    As for your treatment of the biblical account of Samaritans, I don’t think I agree. Without question, Jesus’s commendation of the Samaritan’s behavior is intended to tease out the veiled sinfulness of many of his Jewish religious contemporaries. However, upholding the Samaritan’s actions is not the same as unconditionally including the Samaritans in the kingdom. I mean, in John 4:22, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” This is not an instance of mercy trumping doctrine! If anything, Jesus is correcting the woman’s doctrine. Granted Jesus is also not automatically underwriting the (doctrinal/theological) beliefs of his own people (the Jews). This is evidenced by his challenge to the Jewish AND Samaritan beliefs about the “correct” place to worship Yahweh (Jerusalem vs. Gerazim, in Jn. 4:20-21, 23-24). Also, I’ll grant that Jesus correction of the Samaritan woman’s doctrine is not the end of the story; he directs her to the Spirit as the proper sphere of worship (over and against geography–a big deal in John’s gospel) and the Father (through the Messiah) as the proper object of worship. So Jesus is not first and foremost concerned that all her doctrinal i’s are dotted and t’s crossed. However, Jesus does place some value on setting her straight in this regard. I think Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4 is far more instructive for how we handle inclusivism vs. exclusivism than is the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

    Lastly, in response to post-mortem inclusivism, I think it better to argue that God is FAR more concerned with the salvation of the living than we often give Him credit for. In other words, why is it that we assume that God’s reach with respect to those who have not heard the Gospel is limited by what we know of the move of the Spirit and the move of God’s people? Here’s one example: In the late 19th/early 20th century an Indian Sikh named Sadu Sundar Singh was miraculously converted to Christ. He subsequently had what could only be described as an apostolic ministry to many, including Buddhists in the Himalayas. In one instance, Singh was rescued from persecution by members of the Sannyasi Mission, a secret Christian society claiming to have 24,000 members scattered throughout India. They traced their roots back to the Magi who visited Christ and the ministry of Thomas the Apostle (who many Indian Christians claim brought the Gospel to India). Singh claimed to have encountered members of this society all over India.

    What if there are more stories like this than dare imagine? I for one believe that many Western Christians don’t have this kind of imagination because we conceive of Christian missionary history to flow from the West to “the rest”. But what if God has had a veritable cornucopia of witnesses and witnessing communities doing things on this side of eternity that beggar our imaginations? Also, in the power of the Spirit, God has and does perform miracles that prepare peoples’ hearts for the Gospel. Granted the preaching of the Gospel comes via human, Christian witnesses, BUT many of these miracles (dreams, visions, healings) occur by the hand of God without the agency of believers. I think of the visions that many Muslims in countries closed to the Gospel are having of Isa (Arabic for “Jesus”) the Man in White. I have actually met a handful of former Muslims who converted to Christ as a result of these miraculous encounters with the Lord. Jesus presented the miracles as a means of preparing them for the Gospel and guiding these then-Muslims to hidden individuals/communities who eventually presented the Gospel to them.

    Sorry to have prattled on so long. I realize that I haven’t necessarily answered every question or assertion made by hopeful inclusivists like yourself. I also recognize that many exclusivists are faaaar too comfortable with a kind of hope-bashing cynicism with regard to those who we perceive to be bereft of a Gospel witness. But I think it’s more responsible to anchor our hope in God’s work among the as-yet-unreached on this side of eternity. As someone who was converted miraculously myself from another religion (there, my cards are on the table!), I look forward to continued discussion about this on this thread. Thanks for having the courage to broach the subject while maintaining a desire for biblical and doctrinal acuity!

    • Hi LexCro, thanks for stopping by. I agree with a lot of what you say here. It sounds like we may be pretty close in our understanding. God does reveal himself in miraculous ways to the non-believers, that’s certain! I agree that God’s reach is beyond what we know and understand. Really, that’s the type of inclusivism that I lean towards, not one of “man centered works”, but rather one that acknowledges that God is interested in all people, and that He has ways of supernaturally reaching everyone who is lost. Importantly, God’s methods of reaching the unevangelized (like the dreams Muslims have) always point to the person of Jesus Christ. I going to have to read up about Sadu Sundar Singh, his story sounds fascinating.

      Regarding tribes/nations, John’s description is pretty specific – “every nation, tribe, people and language”. That would include people groups that haven’t heard the word preached. It’s likely, however, that the reason some from those groups will be in heaven is that God supernaturally reaches those people in the ways that you describe above.

      You make some good points about the “Good Samaritan”. For starters, Jesus is using a parable to make a point, and is not speaking of real people person. However, I think the parable does also have some reference to salvation. The expert in the law asks “what must I do to be saved?”. The answer is: “Love God, Love your neighbor”. Jesus’ parable is specifically about what “loving your neighbor” means. Put differently, if the Samaritan in the story didn’t love God, he wouldn’t have stopped to help the neighbor. His treatment of the neighbor is evidence of his relationship with God. I also agree that Jesus places value on setting us straight with doctrine, like he did with the Samaritan woman. But doctrine is of little value if it’s not also accompanied by love.

  8. Kevin,

    Interesting post. While it motivates sympathy for inclusivism, what I don’t see addressed is how the unevangalized get saved. Do they have to believe something and if so, what? In your view, could a Muslim (who believes what Islam teaches) be saved?

    God be with you,
    Dan

    • Hi Dan, good question. I believe that God (through prevenient grace) is in the process of drawing everyone to himself – even the unevangelized. This is a wooing, and is resistible. God holds each person responsible based on how they respond (or do not respond) to the grace that he gives them. For those who positively respond to the limited grace they receive, they will at death instantly recognize Jesus as the person who was drawing them, and that it was him that they were seeking.

      In the case of devout Muslims, God works in a similar way on their hearts. He draws them in spite of all the false parts of Islam that they believe. Some of them might have visions that draw them to Christ (as LexCro describes above). Others may receive less spectacular sorts of drawing. Either way, God holds them accountable for their response.

      Bill Craig expresses something like this, and I’ll include a quote by him, since I know you’re a fan. :)

      “But the Bible says that the unreached will be judged on a quite different basis than those who have heard the gospel. God will judge the unreached on the basis of their response to His self-revelation in nature and conscience. The Bible says that from the created order alone, all persons can know that a Creator God exists and that God has implanted His moral law in the hearts of all persons so that they are held morally accountable to God (Rom. 1.20; 2.14-15). The Bible promises salvation to anyone who responds affirmatively to this self-revelation of God (Rom. 2.7)..” (source).

      It’s worth noting too that some Molinists think that God can save the unevangelized based on what their response would have been in a different reality where they did hear the gospel preached. I’m not convinced of that view, but it’s worth considering.

      • slw

        Given what the Bible says about believing in Christ being the only surefire means of being saved and God’s desire to save people, if God knew that different circumstances were all that was required in order for a person to be saved, would he not have put them in those different circumstances?
        I think inclusivism fails the Bible test, but Molinistic inclusivism relying on alternate possibilities is just ludicrous.

      • SLW, I’m not convinced of Molinism, however, Jesus does seem to suggest that given different possibilities people would have responded differently (Luke 10:13).

      • KJ,

        Why not just believe (or hope) that God somehow gets the gospel to those who respond to the revelation they receive? That view enjoys all the sound points you made in your main post without saying people can be saved without the gospel (which contradicts scripture).

        God be with you,
        Dan

      • Dan, I agree with you that no one can be saved without the gospel. I think that those who respond to the revelation they receive are in the process of embracing the gospel. I don’t know how explicit that is for each person, but agree with you that God will provide them with the revelation that is necessary for them.

      • slw

        I actually do believe something along the lines of what Dan suggested. If God has that much insight into the response of people, trusting him to make sure the Gospel gets to those who would benefit does no damage to those things stated clearly in scripture. Believing in some kind of theorized unfinished process does.

  9. Kevin,

    Maybe I am not clear what I mean by gospel. Natural revelation leading to the belief God exists is not the gospel. Conscience, leading you to believe you are a sinner and under God’s judgement is not the gospel. The gospel is that God promises forgiveness to sinners whoever believes in Christ: especially in who He is and in His work of His death, burial and resurrection.

    Do you have a different understanding of the gospel?

    God be with you,
    Dan

    • Dan, I agree with you that “The gospel is that God promises forgiveness to sinners whoever believes in Christ: especially in who He is and in His work of His death, burial and resurrection.” Jesus is the culmination of the gospel. Scripture also teaches that if someone has not heard the gospel, they are held to a different standard. (Romans 2:6-17). People can only relate to God based on the terms that He has revealed himself to them.

      My primary concern here is protect the character of God. I believe that the offer of salvation through Jesus Christ is both offered to all and accessible to all.

  10. Kevin – It seems to me that Wesleyanism tries to reconcile the love of God with those individuals who have never had a chance to hear the gospel. We know Rev 7:9 is true, so how will there Teotihuacans in the “great multitude” if there are not some elements of inclusivism in God’s salvation of mankind?

    Otherwise, as you point out, if God created people without ever having a chance of being lovingly reconciled to Him, then the Calvinist belief of reprobation is true (which it is not). God doesn’t create people just to throw them away. Every person has a chance to come to Him. God has created each and every person with the ability (thru His prevenient grace) to call upon Him.

    Wesley stated that prevenient grace elicits, “…the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning His will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against Him.”

    So, then as Wesleyan-Arminians, we need to reconcile our hopeful inclusivism with Romans 10:14 which, of course, Wesleyan-Arminians hold to be true as well. It seems, to me, when I try to reconcile this, Wesley points to Rom 10:15 and the need for evangelism and then points to Israel as an example of people who “heard” but “did not believe” and then points to Joel 2:32 and Isaiah 53:1. Throughout, Wesley, in his commentary, continues to use “Gospel” as the means of salvation. I would think that Wesley is using “Gospel” the way other Christians do.

    So, you can see, at least in my mind, there is a conundrum. The comforting fact is that we know God is just and loving. His character is impeccable and all His judgments are right and true.

    My conclusion is that we are to tell others about Christ, wherever we go in the world, and pray that God sends His prevenient grace ahead to till the soil for the seed of the Gospel. I can trust that those who never hear the Gospel will be judged rightly by our LORD whether I have my theology perfect or not.

    • Thanks for the thoughts Dale. I really like what you said here:

      “if God created people without ever having a chance of being lovingly reconciled to Him, then the Calvinist belief of reprobation is true (which it is not). God doesn’t create people just to throw them away. Every person has a chance to come to Him. God has created each and every person with the ability (thru His prevenient grace) to call upon Him.”

      And there is a conundrum. We want to emphasize both the centrality of Christ and the character of God.

  11. Kevin,

    You seem to be saying some people both A) embrace the gospel and B) never hear the Gospel. I take that from these two comments.

    Where I got “A”:

    “I agree with you that no one can be saved without the gospel. I think that those who respond to the revelation they receive are in the process of embracing the gospel.”

    Where I got “B”:

    “I agree with you that “The gospel is that God promises forgiveness to sinners whoever believes in Christ: especially in who He is and in His work of His death, burial and resurrection.” Jesus is the culmination of the gospel. Scripture also teaches that if someone has not heard the gospel, they are held to a different standard. (Romans 2:6-17). People can only relate to God based on the terms that He has revealed himself to them.”

    That’s either a contradiction or you are using gospel in two different senses.

    BTW, I strongly disagree that Romans 2:6-17 teaches people who have not heard are held to a different standard. It’s just saying God reveals His standard of the law in different ways.

    I hear you on “the character of God”, but I think there are better ways then inclusivism.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    • Hi Dan,

      Sometimes our Calvinists brothers argue that God gives a “genuine offer” of salvation to everyone, but then at the same time they also hold that God doesn’t enable the faith response in most individuals. Arminians rightly point out that if a person is unable to respond to an offer, the offer was not genuine. That’s the same type of concern the inclusivist has for the unevangelized. Unless salvation through Jesus Christ is in some way accessible to every person, it is not a genuine offer for every person. The way I resolve that “conundrum” is by being hopeful that God is able to save some through Christ, even though they (through no fault of their own) don’t cognitively have an adequate understanding of who Jesus is. Wesley said that such people are to be pitied rather than blamed for the narrowness of their faith. Their limited understanding is not due to a lack of sincerity, but rather due to a lack of light. I believe God judges these persons based on how they respond to the light that they do receive. They can be credited with righteousness in a way not unlike what happened for Abraham (for example). This is possible because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

      I’m also interested in hearing the “better ways than inclusivism” that you mention. Do you believe that those who haven’t been evangelized are damned by necessity? That’s the root issue that I’m concerned with. If you think there are genuine ways that God can reach such people, we are probably not very far apart.

  12. KJ,

    I think if people responds to the light God gives them, He provides more light (to him that hath, more shall be given…). Most of the time that involves God sending a person to preach to them, but I would sooner believe those in remote locations are evangelized through the ministry of angels then that they are saved without the gospel.

    God be with you,
    Dan

  13. Great article. I too have been using the character of God to deal with the death of infants etc. However I had never heard this doctrine espoused like you have done. Great job, however Romans 10 is a problem for me…

    For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:13-15)

    Just wondering if you could share how you reconcile this passage?
    Thanks!

    • Hi James, thanks for stopping by, and great question. It’s helpful to identify Paul’s primary concern in Romans 10. I think it’s this: Why hasn’t Israel accepted Jesus as the Messiah? Is it because they haven’t heard the gospel preached? No, they have heard the gospel preached, and yet they still haven’t believed.

      Read through Romans 10 in one sitting and see if you agree about Paul’s focus on the Israelites.

      Romans 10:1 “Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.”
      Romans 10:16 “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”"
      Romans 10:18 “But I ask:”Did they not hear? Of course they did…”

      As the above verses indicate, Paul is focusing on Israel, and is considering the question “Why hasn’t Israel accepted the person of Jesus Christ as the Messiah?” This is actually Paul’s primary concern throughout all of Romans 9-11. In these chapters he looks at different possibilities for why Israel (by and large) has rejected Jesus.

      Specifically in chapter 10 Paul asks if the the reason Israel does not believe is because they have not heard. But he comes to the conclusion that Israel has heard, so that can’t be the case.

      Paul doesn’t really have the unevangelized in mind here. Rather, He’s concerned about the lack of response of the Israelites to Jesus – and this is in spite of the fact that they actually have heard the gospel preached. So even though Romans 10:13-15 seems to have the unevangelized in mind, it really does not. It’s misapplying and over-reading the passage to take the focus off of Israel and to put it on the unevangelized.

      • Kevin – I had been reading thru Wesley’s take on this passage as well. What you are saying is quite consistent with his take on it.

      • Thanks Dale, I actually haven’t read Wesley’s take on Romans 10, but it’s encouraging to know that I’m on the same track. Now I’m going to have to look it up. :)

        And nice blog btw. I was just looking at it after you mentioned it on facebook. Very good stuff on men’s issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s