Inclusivism is often confused, sometimes intentionally conflated, with Universalism (or Pluralism). Indeed, in some cases, Inclusivists DO embrace Universalism. However, there are extremes to any theological position. In the same way that an Exclusivist can slide further right into a “hyper” position (babies go to hell or God actively chooses / predestines souls for hell), an Inclusivist can slide further left. Their logic looks like this:
Since God loves the world and has given witness of Himself to everyone in the world, why wouldn’t He just save everyone?
It’s important to note that traditional Inclusivism does not hold that God saves everyone.
Look at Theopedia’s definition of Inclusivism:
“Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved. In contrast to pluralism, inclusivism agrees with exclusivism in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ. But unlike exclusivism, inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. God expects from man a response proportional to the light given. Saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality.”
Inclusivism is contrasted against Pluralism, in fact agreeing with Exclusivism “in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ.”
Apologist Randall Rauser in his article Why Inclusivism makes Sense, distinguishes between Inclusivism and Universalism (or what he calls “soteric pluralism”):
Within this discussion it is crucial to distinguish epistemic inclusivism from soteric pluralism because the two are often conflated. Epistemic inclusivism says that cognitive awareness of Christ is not necessary for salvation by Christ. In other words, it does no good to quote John 14:6 to the inclusivist, for they agree that Jesus is only the way. The point at issue is what a person needs to know of Jesus in order to be saved by Jesus.
By contrast, soteric pluralism posits multiple ways to be saved: e.g. through Jesus, the Buddhist 8-fold path, Amway, et cetera. I don’t think that soteric pluralism is consistent with Christian convictions.
It is important to note that Inclusivism does not posit that people can be saved apart from Christ (as some of the objectors in these posts assert). To quote Lewis (again),
“We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.”
Like Lewis, the Inclusivist believes that “no person can be saved except through Christ.” Buddah doesn’t save. Himduism doesn’t save. Humanism doesn’t save. There are not “multiple ways to be saved.” To reject the clear teaching of Scripture that only Christ saves is to run off the rails of orthodoxy.
Indeed, Universalism is problematic on several grounds, the least of which is the lack of biblical evidence. Elsewhere, I have outlined 13 Problems with Universalism. Two of those objections overlap with this discussion:
- Universalism soft pedals, reinterprets, and/or denies the basic teachings of Jesus about hell. Jesus spoke about hell more than any other figure in the Bible. Example: “…so it will be at the end of the age.The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 12:40-42 NIV). Or, “Then he (the Son of Man) will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Matt. 25:41 NIV). And many other verses.
- Universalism soft pedals, reinterprets, and/or denies the basic teachings of Scripture about hell. Debate usually targets words and concepts employed in Hebrew and in Greek. Nevertheless, the New Testament is adamant about a Final Judgment where “the dead were judged according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:12) and some are thrown into a “lake of fire” where “they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (vs. 10). (See The Importance of Hell by Tim Keller for a good summary of these last two points.)
There is an afterlife for the saved and the unsaved, the good and the wicked. In fact, the same book of the Bible that describes
“…a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” — Rev. 7:19
also says that if
“…anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” — Rev. 20:15
From this, and many more references, one can conclude that the Bible simply does not teach that all will be saved.
As much as Inclusivists believe that the scope of salvation may be bigger than just those with explicit knowledge and profession of Jesus Christ, they, unlike the Universalist, affirm a line of demarcation. Namely, the point at which someone “responds affirmatively” to the revelation of God, whether general or specific.
Philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig puts it this way in his essay Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
How can God condemn people who through no fault of their own never had the opportunity to receive Christ as their Savior? A person’s salvation or damnation thus appears to be the result of historical and geographical accident, which is incompatible with an all-loving God.
This objection is, however, fallacious, because it assumes that those who have never heard about Christ are judged on the same basis as those who have. 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).
Please note:
- One of the main differences between the Inclusivist and the Exclusivist is “what a person needs to know of Jesus in order to be saved by Jesus.”
- One of the main differences between the Inclusivist and the Universalist is the belief that ANY affirmation of God is necessary at all.
The point at which someone asserts that
- all will be saved
- all paths lead to God
- all religions are equally valid
is the moment one passes from a traditional Inclusivism into Universalism.
Whereas Inclusivists believe that a positive response and affirmation of God / God’s Truth, in whatever form it comes to a person, is necessary for salvation, the Universalist believes that such responses are really unnecessary. In fact, for Universalism to be true, morality has no bearing on ones experience in the afterlife. Whether they are a genocidal dictator or a missionary nun, all are admitted.
Billy Graham, perhaps the greatest evangelist of the 20th century, who proclaimed to millions the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, once said this:
“…that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”
This is a simple summation of the Inclusivist’s position. Like Billy Graham, the Inclusivist believes in heaven and hell, they believe everyone goes to one of these two places, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Where they differ from the Exclusivist is in none of these positions, save that if anyone “turn[s] to the only light that they have,” they can be saved.
So does Inclusivism lead to Universalism? Well, it CAN. But only in the way that Exclusivism can lead to hyper-Exclusivism, and by ignoring or misinterpreting a host of Scriptures to the contrary.
Mike,
I have a good friend who is an atheist. He is very aware of the Jesus stories, but he believes that these stories are fiction or myth and that a real man “Jesus” as described in the Gospels never existed. In your opinion, will God condemn him to eternal torment in an afterlife if he doesn’t make a big change in belief before he dies?
Gary, I usually refrain from making specific judgments on anyone. I don’t know your friend’s heart and ultimately can’t say. What I will say is that Scripture is very clear about those who consciously deny God and reject Christ. They will be forever damned. In the scheme of things, if your friend is correct and there is no God or afterlife, both of us will suffer the same fate: nonexistence. If Jesus was correct, however, then your friend is on a terrible path.
My friend does not believe that God and Jesus exist, so I guess that would count as “consciously deny[ing] God and reject[ing] Christ.” Based on your answer, my conclusion is that if God exists, then your Scripture if false and does not come from God because no perfectly moral being would ever set up a system in which any human person who did not believe that God and Jesus exist would be “forever damned.” First, no morally perfect being would damn anyone forever! That goes against the moral principle of proportional punishment. Secondly, no morally perfect being would punish anyone for failure to believe propositions for which there is inadequate supporting evidence, and that is the case with the propositions “God exists” and “Jesus existed or exists.” Unlike my friend, I do think that Jesus probably existed and died around 30 CE, but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to establish that he was “Christ.” Thirdly, an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly moral being might punish people for behaviors, not beliefs, and this punishment would follow the moral principles of proportionality and individual accountability.
Please re-think your position.
“no perfectly moral being would ever…”
You say that as if you were a perfectly moral being.
Please focus on the issues, not on me. If you think that a perfectly moral being would behave differently from the way I suggested, then please state how you think this being would behave and why.
As I said before, Gary, you assume to know how a morally perfect being would act and think. Unless you believe you are morally perfect, I don’t how could could presume that. I believe the historical evidence for the reliability of the New Testament and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is sufficient to persuade an honest seeker. Have you considered these?
Please focus on the issues and not on me. In what way do you think a perfectly moral being would behave differently from the way I have described? And explain why you think that.
For example, if you think a perfectly moral being would damn some people forever (presumably torture them forever), then please explain why that action is consistent with moral perfection. Please address the issue directly instead of focusing on my beliefs about my myself.
Yes, I have thoroughly considered the New Testament evidence and found it insufficient to reach the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. What about this evidence makes it seem sufficient to you?
But even if the evidence were sufficient to justify the conclusion, would God require belief in the resurrection for salvation from eternal punishment? If you think so, please explain why.
As I said before, Mike, neither you nor I KNOW how a morally perfect being would act or think, but we both have beliefs about this. I don’t think your belief on this is justified. So, please try to justify it.
I don’t think your second statement here is valid either. Here you assume that a person could not know how a morally perfect being would act and think UNLESS that person were himself a morally perfect being. On the other hand, you assume that a morally perfect being has made himself known through Scripture, from which you have come to know how a morally perfect being would act and think, even though you are not a morally perfect being. So, you contradict yourself. Please clear that up.
After doing that, please focus on the main issues. I think that if God does exist, he must have some kind of exclusivist position, but I think it would be nothing like what you imagine it to be, as I have tried to explain in my other posts.
Gary, as I said, I believe there’s is strong, ample evidence that 1.) The Bible is a reliable historical document and 2.) That Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave. That’s an immense discussion / debate that I’m not debating here. (If you are genuinely interested in some of the defenses for these positions, I’ll track down some links.) Suffice to say, both of us approach the question differently: Me from the vantage of what the Bible seems to say, you from what you personally believe. In other words, the lens we approach this subject is completely different.
You wrote, “…you assume that a morally perfect being has made himself known through Scripture, from which you have come to know how a morally perfect being would act and think, even though you are not a morally perfect being. So, you contradict yourself. Please clear that up.” There’s no contradiction. I can’t perfectly know how someone would act… unless they conclusively reveal that. Likewise, I may not have all the moral tools to completely grasp what a perfectly Moral being would do and why. But this doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge (imperfectly, yes) some revelation made by a perfectly Moral being. There’s no contradiction whatsoever.
Also, your “main issue” is that a perfectly moral being would not make the demands I claim. Again, we are simply approaching this from two different perspectives: Objective and Subjective. Objectively, I believe the Bible reveals God’s mind on the matter. Subjectively, you must rely on your own logic, preferences, and emotions. My suggestion is that if one only relies are their feelings and opinions, they can make God out to be and demand anything.
Mike, I partly agree with your first claim that there is “strong, ample evidence that the Bible is a reliable historical document.” My guess would be that this is the case for about 25% of the truth claims within the Bible related to history and science. But this is neither relevant nor true with respect to the specific truth claim we are considering here – that Jesus came back to life.
I strongly disagree with your second claim that there is “strong, ample evidence that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave.” The evidence for this is neither strong nor ample. There would have been no audio-video recordings back then, which we could use as evidence today. I have no idea what physical evidence could be found in support of a bodily resurrection of Jesus. The only kind of evidence which might be supportive of the claim would be eyewitness reports. Unfortunately, there are no first-person, immediate, detailed, self-identified eyewitness reports of the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and its aftermath. All we have is stories, and these are hardly “strong, ample evidence.” Neither you, I, nor anyone else should believe that Jesus came back to life on the basis of this paltry evidence, if it can even be called “evidence.”
Like you, I approach the question also from what the Bible seems to say. But I go one step further and I wish you’d do the same – approach the question from evidence, logic, and reason. We should be using the same master “lens” to approach the question.
You still are not seeing your contradiction because you have failed to quote my sentence preceding the one you quoted AND you have forgotten what you had said in the earlier post. You said “…Gary, you assume to know how a morally perfect being would act and think. Unless you believe you are morally perfect, I don’t how could could [you could] presume that.” But, Mike, even though YOU are not morally perfect, you are presuming that YOU know how a morally perfect being would act and think. You’ve said twice that you presume to know through revelation. Please read the relevant quotes again and I think you will see the contradiction. You can’t hold both these propositions to be true at the same time – a) only morally perfect beings can know how morally perfect beings would act and think vs. b) morally imperfect beings can know how morally perfect beings would act and think through revelation.
I have more than one “main issue” with the claims you make about God, if he exists. You believe that the Bible reveals God’s mind on the matter. It’s fine that you believe such a thing; many people do. But is it a justified belief? I don’t think it is for the specific items we are discussing. Some men who wrote some passages of the Bible claimed that 1) God would torture some human persons forever in an afterlife. And 2) God would save people from this eternal torture only on the basis of whether or not they held certain beliefs about Jesus, mainly with respect to the resurrection and atonement. You are arguing from authority, not from reason, to support these claims. You are simply saying that you believe #1 and #2 because “the Bible tells me so.” Reason tells me otherwise. Dealing with #1 for now, once again if you actually believe that God would torture some human persons forever in an afterlife, please justify that belief, using reason. I would ask the ancient men who originally made the claim to justify this extraordinary claim, just like I am asking you to do today. When authority contradicts reason, I go with reason. I simply cannot understand why anyone today would think that a morally perfect person would torture some human persons forever. Please explain your position on this issue to your readers; they have a right to know where you stand. We have a right to know where you stand.
Interesting conversation. Just thinking…Biblically speaking we do know “how a moral being would act”: he would act the way God in Christ commands us to act (or does God tell us to be other than moral beings?):
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you…love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6)
To act like a moral being is to act as God commands us to act.
And does God say, “Do as I say, not as I do”? That is a terrifying thought. It diminishes God. It turns Him into the worst of fathers, and it directly opposes what we have just read above.
Hi Mike,
Where did Inclusivism # 5 (Why Evangelize) go?
Regards,
Sam
Samuel, I was wondering if anyone noticed that. I inadvertently published it before it was finished. That will be my next and final post on this subject. For now. Thanks for asking.
Mike, I am sure you hate it when people misrepresent inclusivism but you do the same with universalism. Have you read any Christian Universalists? If you had you would know they don’t say preaching the Gospel is unnecessary or that impenitent dictators go to heaven. They say everyone goes to hell until they repent and confess Jesus. I understand your wish to distance yourself from universalism but it doesn’t excuse misrepresenting what they believe. I’m not advocating this doctrine, I just believe in integrity and charity.
Hope that didn’t sound too confrontational! Didn’t mean to imply you are unconcerned with integrity or charity!