As I’ve attempted to show in my previous posts, there are different categories of people in different approximation to the knowledge of the Gospel. Those groups are:
- Infants / the unborn
- The mentally ill or deranged
- Unreached people groups / primitives
- Old Testament Jews
There are some Christians, perhaps a minority, who believe that most (if not all) of these individuals will perish because they did not / cannot have explicit knowledge of the Gospel and the post-crucified, post-resurrected Christ. Others will make some concession, usually with infants and the mentally ill. My contention is that once we begin conceding that different groups of people are judged differently based on their knowledge / lack of knowledge of the Gospel, we give ground to Inclusivism. By that I mean, we are forced to acknowledge that salvation is not a cut-and-dried proposition; it will look different for everybody.
There’s two sets of biblical realities we are forced to grapple with here. First:
- God loves everyone (Jn. 3:16).
- God makes Himself known to everyone (Rom. 1; Jn. 1:9).
- God judges everyone on the basis of their response to His witness (Rom. 1-2).
Perhaps these best fit in the “general revelation” category. The idea being that, even before / apart from / outside the historical revelation of Jesus Christ, God does not / has not left Himself without witness. His great love reaches everyone, in some fashion, whether Inuit or Native American or ancient Babylonian. So no one is “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
But this must be squared with the New Testament’s clarion call:
- Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father (Jn. 14:6)
- Salvation is found nowhere else than in Christ (Acts 4:12)
- Whoever believes in / confesses Him is saved (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9; Acts 16:30-31)
So how do we harmonize these two realities? If God loves and has given Himself witness to everyone, but believing in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, how do we account for those who
- Are incapable of comprehending and professing Christ
- Never hear about Jesus and thus, don’t / can’t profess Him
- Only receive partial revelation about the Messiah (like the OT Jews)
The question could be framed simply in the words of the Philippian jailer:
“…what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)
Paul and Silas answered that with resounding specificity:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
But what of those in the categories above who are incapable of comprehending the Gospel, live in a culture foreign to a biblical worldview, or those who predated the first coming of Christ? How do we answer the question — What must I do to be saved? — as it relates to unevangelized people groups or those raised in non-Christian cultures? Are they automatically sanctioned to hell because of their historical distance, geographical isolation, or religious indoctrination?
The Inclusivist position allows for several different possible resolutions.
First, there’s a big difference between knowing God and knowing about God. Jesus said,
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. — Acts 17:3
Understanding a series of propositions or a theological checklist does not grant one eternal life. It is a relationship. In fact, Jesus framed the final judgment thus:
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ — Matt. 7:22-23
Knowing Jesus / God is the essence of eternal life. But this is quite different from just knowing about God. Furthermore, one needn’t know a lot about God to know Him.
Let me illustrate it this way: A one year old baby knows her mother. The child cries when her mother is out of eyeshot and she feels comfort when her mother holds her. However, she knows a very limited amount about her mother. She doesn’t know what her mother’s life experiences are; she is ignorant of her mother’s views on nuclear armament and public education; she can’t define her mother’s deepest values or essential character traits. Yet she has a relationship with her mother. Likewise, there’s a big difference between knowing God and knowing about God. One needn’t know everything about their mother to have a relationship with her. Likewise, one needn’t know everything about God to have a relationship with Him.
We needn’t pass a theology exam to enter heaven. Everyone who goes to heaven will be wrong about some area of theology. The question is, How much must one know about God and the Gospel before they can be saved? How much must one have right about God in order to be accepted by Him? Is it enough to believe there is one God who loves me? Or must I also know that Christ is the Savior of the world and I need to make a public profession of Him? If the Old Testament believers are any example, it is possible for someone to have a partial, incomplete knowledge of God and His plan of salvation and still know Him.
Indeed, Christ described the kingdom of heaven in terms of child-likeness.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” — Matt. 19:14
Children are simple, naive, and sometimes just stupid. And yet “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Some use this as a proof text that all children go to heaven. My point is to illustrate that simple, naive, ignorant, or incomplete faith needn’t be an obstacle to salvation. In this sense, pagans, those in false religions, or even the misguided seeker, needn’t have a perfect, detailed theology in order to pursue God. It’s possible that they may know Him without knowing the specificity of His plans and promises.
Second, to know God is to know Christ. And vice versa. Jesus said,
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.– Jn. 14:9
Which would also mean that seeing the Father — YHWH / Jehovah — is seeing the Son. So did Moses see Christ? Did all the Old Testament believers who believed in God and His promises see Christ? In some way, yes. The writer of Hebrews says this about Moses’ exile from Egypt:
He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. — Heb. 11:26
How could Moses suffer disgrace “for the sake of Christ” if he’d never seen Christ? Was this just the New Testament author reading his knowledge of Jesus into the ancient text? Was this simply an interpretation of the Old Covenant from the vantage point of the New Covenant? Or when God revealed His glory to Moses (Ex. 13:18-23), was it actually a theophany (an appearance of Christ in the Old Testament)? If Jesus was actually revealed to Moses, the Old Testament writers never specified, nor is it recorded that Moses’ message ever changed. Either way, if Jesus is YHWH, then suffering reproach for Him would be suffering reproach for the Other.
Point is, the delineation of Christ as Savior is an extension of the Gospel, not an overhaul of it. The God of both the Old and New Testament are one and the same. Likewise, the terms of surrender are the same: “Seek me and live” (Amos 5:4).
- Seek God and live
- Seek Christ and live
The proclamation of Christ as Savior is part of a progressive historical unveiling of God and His plan. Salvation through Christ is not Plan B. It is an extension of a plan laid from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).
Peter Kreeft frames the argument using Socrates. While Socrates lived long before Christ, there’s much of what Socrates taught that aligned with a biblical worldview. Kreeft writes:
What might it mean to say Socrates could have had faith in Christ? To have faith in Christ, you must somehow know Christ. How could Socrates have known Christ? In the same way everyone can: as “the true light, which enlightens everyone” (Jn. 1:9). As the preincarnate Logos, the divine Word or Light or Reason.
No one can know God except through Christ (Jn. 1:18; Lk. 10:22). But pagans know God (Acts 17:28; Rom. 1:19-20; 2:11-16). Therefore pagans know Christ.
For Christ is not just a six-foot-high, thirty-three-year-old Jewish carpenter. He is the second person of the eternal Trinity, the full expression, or revelation, or Logos, of the Father (Col. 1:15, 19; Jn. 14:9). He is to the Father as sunlight is to the sun. As such he is “light, which lightens everyone” through reason and conscience.
In the same way that a child can be in relationship with a parent, but not know everything about that parent, one can be in relationship with God — at least, pursuing a relationship with Him — and be theologically askew or incomplete. Knowing Jesus is much more than just acing a theological pop quiz. Which means that the pagan who is crudely groping their way to God may actually be better off than the Westerner who has their theological ducks in a nice row.
Mike, a couple things come to mind. As I read your post, I couldn’t help but think there is so much of human logic behind what you’re saying. But God tells us,
In other words, because something seems logical to us, or you see a connection (infants, mentally challenged, unreached people, OT Jews—a connection even I could debate), doesn’t mean God sees things the same way.
Second, you said
I certainly agree that none of us has perfect theology or need such to come to Christ. But we do have to believe what God has revealed to us.
When Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, he still didn’t know that Jesus would die for his sins. At some point, though, he had to stop thinking the Messiah would be who Peter expected him to be.
In other words, part of a relationship is growth–a drawing closer, a progressively deeper understanding. No infant has the same relationship with his mother at ten that he had at ten days. He still doesn’t know a lot, but he knows more.
I bring this up because one of the things that bothers me about the inclusivism position is the idea that someone could be saved and not know it. I’ve said a number of times that this idea does not square with Scripture. The passage in James–Draw near to God and He will draw near to you; the John passage that states the sheep of Christ’s flock will know His voice.
The greatest problem I have is the idea that these “saved” pagans would either not have the Holy Spirit or they would have the Holy Spirit and He would not lead them to the truth about their salvation. This latter is simply not true to the nature of God. He specifically says, If you being evil know how to give your children good gifts, what will God not give to those who love Him? But if “saved pagans” don’t have the Holy Spirit, God does withhold good gifts from those who love Him. And if He gives the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell them about Christ–their bridegroom, their Head, their cornerstone, their Mediator–then the Holy Spirit is withholding good gifts.
Where is the growth in the relationship of a “saved pagan” with the God who won’t reveal the truth to him? The only possibility I see is a stagnate one of hoping something might be true and not knowing.
Lastly, I find it interesting that the writer you quoted added to the verse: “As such he is ‘light, which lightens everyone’ through reason and conscience.” Scripture doesn’t say that. To get to this inclusive view, a person has to sidestep the clear statements of God’s Word, and that has implications for all kinds of things people want to believe.
OK, I know I said “lastly,” but here’s what I really think is at issue with inclusivism–trust. Do we trust God to do what is right? Do we trust Him to do what is right when I can’t see how it could be right? Do we trust Him to do what is right even when it looks like it is wrong? That’s really what Abraham was faced with when God told him to sacrifice Isaac. Perhaps God is asking us to “sacrifice” pagans, but will in the end, provide the ram–which, of course, He’s done, if they believe. Can’t He also make a way for them to believe? I think we need to trust Him. If He is good, if He does what is right, if He is the sovereign Lord of all, should we not trust that He knows what He’s about when He says, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Becky
Thanks for hanging with my posts Becky! I’ll answer your points as you made them.
Re: “human logic.” That could work both ways. I could turn the argument around and suggest that you’re trying to force your interpretation into a logical construct. So we’re both at the mercy of God’s potential illogic!
Second: “we do have to believe what God has revealed to us.” Agreed. But depending upon what stage of life we’re in, that could be minimal. If you concede that children can be saved (which I’m not sure you do), God’s revelation can only be grasped to the extent their minds are capable. “When I was a child, I understood as a child” ( I Cor. 13:11). Unless there’s some super-intellect, super-intuitive gift that God imparts to youthful believers. God apparently didn’t impart full knowledge of Christ to Old Testament believers. They believed what was imparted. If this can work on the level of a child and an Old Testament era Jew, couldn’t it also work on the level of the pagan?
Third: “The greatest problem I have is the idea that these ‘saved’ pagans would either not have the Holy Spirit or they would have the Holy Spirit and He would not lead them to the truth about their salvation.” How could they not have the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is the one who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn. 16:8). Prevenient grace assumes God’s Spirit is striving with all people. Indeed, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit might be the wholesale resistance of His relentless presence with all flesh. Furthermore, we all die in process. None of us fully grasp or realize “the truth about their salvation.” Which means we all die at some stage of incomplete revelation. This could apply to the pagan, the child, or anyone. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit has failed, but that God seems inextricably bound with human growth and intellectual advance. He doesn’t make 5 year-old believers as mature as Saint Paul. But if they die as an immature 5 year-old believer, does this make the Holy Spirit’s work a failure?
Fourth, “I find it interesting that the writer you quoted added to the verse: ‘As such he is ‘light, which lightens everyone’ through reason and conscience.’ Scripture doesn’t say that.” Scripture says that Christ is “the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (Jn. 1:9). Or the alternate translation: “which enlightens every person coming into the world.” How does He do this? Kreeft links this with Romans 1-2 and the Moral Law and conscience. If God is the one who imparts His Law in our hearts and mind, and Christ is God, then it’s reasonable to conclude that Christ “‘lightens everyone’ through reason and conscience.’ ”
Finally, you said, “Do we trust God to do what is right? Do we trust Him to do what is right when I can’t see how it could be right? Do we trust Him to do what is right even when it looks like it is wrong?” Again, this question can be flipped. Do YOU trust that God could save far more people than those who just explicitly know Christ, proclaim faith in Him, and are baptized? Do YOU trust that God’s plans might be more encompassing and more intricate than you’ve ever realized? Do YOU trust that God’s love might be more vast and powerful than you’ve ever believed?
Mike, I agree that human logic can work both ways, but the inclusivist argument depends on if-a-then-b thinking, and so much hings on a. My contention is that believing Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, is not dependent upon human logic but a trust in the words God wrote—that He said what He meant, and meant what He said.
You said, “God apparently didn’t impart full knowledge of Christ to Old Testament believers.” That’s one of those Point A starting places that begins a logical progressing. But here’s what Jesus said:
Clearly, Jesus believed Moses wrote about Him and that what he wrote was sufficient for people to come to believe in Him. Hence, the idea that the OT saints didn’t have “explicit knowledge” of Jesus is not true.
They didn’t have complete knowledge about Him (which is not the same thing as explicit knowledge), but neither do we. They still had explicit knowledge that pointed to God’s promise of a Messiah. They believed not some nebulous truth but explicit truth that God would send His Redeemer. That’s how they were saved, as Jesus makes clear.
You also said, “Which means we all die at some stage of incomplete revelation. This could apply to the pagan, the child, or anyone. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit has failed.” I’d have to disagree, Mike. Jesus specifically told His disciples, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26, emphasis mine).
He went on to say that the Holy Spirit convicts the world “concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me” John 16:9).
He further elaborates that
In other words, whatever infant stage of understanding a person starts with, the Holy Spirit won’t leave him there. In fact, His role is to point to Jesus. Any “pagan” then, who remains without Christ is demonstrating that he doesn’t have the Holy Spirit. So either Jesus told the truth here or He didn’t.
As to the fourth point, you say Kreeft is interpreting John 1:9 in light of Romans 2. But shouldn’t he first interpret in context? I mean, a person can prove anything from Scripture by taking verses and marrying them to other passages as they will. Here’s the context of that verse:
Clearly the world did know know God (which is what Romans 1, 2, and 3 say, contrary to what Mr. Kreeft seems to think); only those who receive the Word made flesh and believe in His name have the right to become children of God.
And to answer your flipped question, Mike, though you didn’t answer the ones I asked, I do trust God to do what’s right. If somehow He works through inclusivism and it does not contradict His inspired word, I’d rejoice at the miracle He brought about which I never saw coming. But the fact is, to believe that God will contradict what He has clearly stated takes faith in something other than Scripture. To me that sounds a lot like what Paul referred to as a different gospel.
So what was the gospel Paul preached? I Cor. 15:3-4: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
Mike, I know you believe the Bible. I’ve read enough of your posts and seen you use Scripture to refute any number of positions. I guess that’s why I keep coming back to the question about evidence from the Bible about inclusivism. There are so many clear passages that cut the legs out from under such thinking, so it appears to me that a person like Mr. Kreeft must come to the Bible with the intention of interpreting it according to his own conscience. The clear, straightforward interpretations of verse after verse after verse lead straight to Christ as the way to God, the only way to God.
I’m not a seminary graduate, but I had a pastor (and others since) who taught that understanding the Bible starts by accepting the “plain things” and interpreting what doesn’t seem as plain in light of those passages.
Mr. Kreeft sounds to me as if he is starting with his conscience and what he thinks must be right and interpreting Scripture accordingly. I haven’t read him, only your explanation of his thinking, so I could be wrong. But whatever his starting point, he isn’t saying what the Bible says. The plain passages say things like John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
Becky
Re: “…the idea that the OT saints didn’t have ‘explicit knowledge’ of Jesus is not true.”
So did Rahab have explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ? Did Abel and Enoch? Did Samson and Gideon? Did all those listed in Hebrews 11? If so, the Bible doesn’t say so. Neither did the OT writers. See, you’re following a similar a-then-b logic. In your case, you believe a person must have explicit knowledge of Jesus to be saved. (Again, I’m not sure how you interpret this in relation to infants. You haven’t said. If you hold true to your logic, then you must believe infants who die before they have a chance, go to hell. Is this what you believe? If not, then you are making a concession towards a non-literal application of Jesus’ salvation demands.)
Re: “whatever infant stage of understanding a person starts with, the Holy Spirit won’t leave him there.”
But everybody dies in a state of spiritual incompletness, right? Again, you are forcing your interpretation into the belief that no one can be saved apart from a literal, formal confession of Christ. I’m suggesting that the Holy Spirit is at work in the process, guides people through various stages of understanding (as the OT believers), and people can be in different stages of that process. Is it a failure of the Holy Spirit if someone dies seeking God?
Re: “I keep coming back to the question about evidence from the Bible about inclusivism. There are so many clear passages that cut the legs out from under such thinking.”
Totally disagree! I’ve reached this position from studying the Bible. Furthermore, all of my posts contain references to Scriptures. We just don’t agree about the interpretation and application of some of these verses. Inclusivism is something that the Church and theologians have long pondered. Just peruse THIS LIST for example. Point is, I think we should be careful to assume one position is THE definitive biblical position.
I’m not sure what other questions you think I haven’t answered, but I’d love to take a stab at them. Thanks, Becky!
You’re making a case for inclusivism from the argument of silence? Clearly Rahab and Gideon, Samson and the rest of those listed in Hebrews 11 believed in God’s promised Messiah. They’re listed in Hebrews 11 as examples of people of faith! Scripture doesn’t tell us anything about God commanding Abel and Cain to offer a sacrifice, but Abel’s was acceptable and Cain’s wasn’t. Did God tell him what was required or was He withholding needed information, then scolding Him? The fact that Scripture doesn’t give us instant replay is not evidence that God didn’t provide what each needed. How do we know God didn’t say to Cain and Abel, do these sacrifices because this is a picture of the Redeemer I will one day send to save people from their sins? It’s an assumption to say God was silent because it’s not recorded for us to read.
You said earlier that Moses didn’t have faith in Christ, though that’s what Hebrews 11 says. You concluded that he had faith in God and thus, through God, in Christ. But Jesus Himself specifies that Moses wrote about Him.
Philip made the same point: “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ ”
I don’t see Jesus’s name in the OT. But clearly, God showed Him to those who believed. Above all, we know this because He told us they had faith. That faith is all about Jesus. The book of Hebrews was written as a treatise explaining why the Jewish believers shouldn’t just go back to the synagogue and worship as they had before.
Mike, I don’t see what infants have to do with this discussion. Why do you keep bringing them in? You yourself said they are in a different category. I agree specifically because Scripture is largely silent about their state. Not completely silent. But the Bible is not silent about adults and what is required. That’s something we can know.
Everyone does not die in spiritual incompleteness. I am clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That’s as complete as it gets. My sins are no longer a barrier between me and God. My spiritual condition is complete. My knowledge may be less so. I have lots of questions about God, but one of them is not whether or not Jesus has forgiven me my sins. I don’t see how faith can come into play if we don’t know for sure if God did what He said He would do.
That’s what’s at stake here, Mike. Do you believe what God has said?
As far as my other questions, “Do we trust God to do what is right? Do we trust Him to do what is right when I can’t see how it could be right? Do we trust Him to do what is right even when it looks like it is wrong?”
Becky
They believed in a promised Messiah… who hadn’t come. Their knowledge was limited. Vague. Incomplete. They didn’t know He would be God incarnate. They didn’t know He would come in lowly fashion. They didn’t know He would be crucified for their sins. They didn’t know He would be raised again for their justification. All those things were a shadow. “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest [Christ] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Heb. 10:1, 11-12, 14). Christ was the full revelation, the apex of biblical history. If you’re suggesting that all these Old Testament believers knew this, had explicit knowledge of the post-crucified, post-resurrected and glorified Jesus, then we completely disagree. The Old Testament was a shadow of these things, the fullness was Christ.
I’d go one step further and suggest that you are forced into this position because you are holding to a literal Exclusivist position. In other words, because you’re arguing that one needs explicit knowledge of and profession of Christ to be saved, the Old Testament saints MUST have had this.
Paul wrote “‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'” (Rom. 4:2-3). What did Abraham, the father of the faith believe? “He took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the heavens and count the stars–if indeed you can count them.’ Then [God] said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be'” (Gen. 15:5). Abraham believed that God would make him, a childless man, a father of many nations. This was the faith of Abraham. His faith was just a “shadow” of the promise of a coming Messiah.
You asked, “I don’t see what infants have to do with this discussion. Why do you keep bringing them in?” Because if you concede that infants are in another category, a category that does not require an explicit, literal knowledge of Christ to be saved, then why not other categories? If God deals with infants differently than adults, then why not pagans and the “civilized.”
Finally, do I trust God to do what’s right? Absolutely! One of my all-time favorite Bible verses: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). Whether God saves many or few, I trust that His love and wisdom will have done what was right.
Mike, I feel like we’re going around in circles (maybe because we are, back and forth from #4a to #4b! 😉 ) At any rate, this will be my last comment.
I agree with you that the OT saints did not know all about Jesus. What they did know was that God promised a Redeemer. They knew other specifics, too—see Sally’s earlier list. But the important thing is, they awaited His coming much the way we await His second coming. We don’t have a lot of specifics (though some make much of the specifics we do have). The important thing is that we believe He will do as He said.
Jesus Himself explained the Law and the prophets to His disciples after His resurrection. “Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ ” (Luke 24:44)
He also clearly stated to the Pharisees in John 5 that Moses wrote of Him: “46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
So did they have explicit knowledge of Jesus? Explicit enough! Just as we have explicit enough knowledge to wait for Jesus to return. We’re basing our hope completely on His promise. So were they.
That makes them nothing like the “unreached peoples.” The truth they had was special revelation, not general. It pointed to Christ.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).
Actually I’m saying this because Scripture says it (see verses above). I don’t hold an exclusive view for any other reason. I’ve thought long and hard about how OT saints were saved. After this discussion and the verses I’ve read, I’m more convinced, not less, that they knew a lot about God’s promise. That’s what Hebrews 11 said. It’s kind of like, if I die before Christ comes back and God writes a hall of faith for the second coming, I’d qualify. I believe the promise, though I might not see its fruition. My belief is not vague or generic. Theirs wasn’t either.
Human logic, Mike. What I’ve said is, Scripture doesn’t tell us about the children in a definitive way. He has told us about adults in ways that can’t be refuted. You yourself say that these saved pagans must be saved by the blood of Christ. What inclusivism removes is the belief factor, and it is this that is at the heart of the gospel; it was at the heart of the relationship of Israel with God. It’s all a matter of taking Him at His word.
That’s precisely what Abraham did. You mention one occasion when God interacted with him but there were more and each time we learn more about the promise that Abraham believed. He would be the descendant of a people as numerous as the stars; he would be the father of nations; he would give birth to a son by Sarah; he would be a blessing to the nations. It was the promise that Abraham believed. He took God at His word, as He wants us to do. It’s not complicated.
Actually, Satan tries to make it complicated. He said to Eve, Did God really say . . . And he continues to do that. Now he’s saying, Did God really say Jesus is the only way? How narrow! (Well, yes, Jesus said it would be that). How exclusive! (Well, yes, Jesus said only those sheep who know His voice are His; so yes, it’s exclusive).
I say again, Mike, it’s a matter of trust. Will the God of creation, the Judge of the earth, as you rightly quoted, do what’s right? You say you do believe this, and I’m happy to hear it. That’s all I’m advocating for. God’s word is not unclear here. It takes the faith of a child.
Since you ask about children, let me just say, I became a Christian when I was 3—that’s my best estimate. I don’t really remember it. I remember a babysitter asking me if I had accepted Jesus and I told her I had, so that’s how I estimate the time. I remember this because she made me pray again. This started a sequence of doubts whether or not my prayer “took.” For years I wasn’t sure if I was saved. I didn’t feel saved and I continued to sin. I thought it should be different. At last someone opened my eyes–if God said He would forgive me and cleanse me from all unrighteousness, He did. That simple.
But, as an adult I hated being asked when I became a Christian. Sometimes I said it was in fifth grade when I had a memorable period of remorse for my behavior. Sometimes I moved it up to a time I raised my hand and went forward in a church service. Or that time in college when I had assurance.
Now I have no doubts. Since Jesus Himself likened become a Christian to being born again, I know I came into His family that first occasion when I prayed whatever I prayed, about accepting Him and wanting to be with Him in heaven. I know this because I trust Him to do what He says. I also know this because I can look back and see the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.
So can children come to Christ? He Himself told His disciples to let them come and not hinder them.
That’s pretty much what Scripture says about children; anything else is human speculation. Again, I trust God as the Judge who does what’s right.
Why do we need to put our trust anywhere else?
Becky
Becky, I appreciate the passion you bring to this discussion. But I really think you’re forcing an interpretation that isn’t there. You’re using hindsight, a New Testament perspective, and reading into the Old Testament. Yes, this is a reasonable interpretative device. However, because you are rigid in believing your A — that one can only be saved by explicit knowledge and confession of a post-crucified and resurrected Christ — you read into the OT texts (from the NT vantage point), that therefore all OT believers had this revelation. I think you’re really forcing your interpretation to avoid wiggle room.
It’s very clear from the NT perspective that God progressively revealed the way of salvation and its fullness in Christ. Take Paul in Colossians:
“24Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Col. 1:24-27)
It was a “mystery” that had been “kept hidden for ages and generations” but was “now disclosed.” This, and many other passages, confirm that the Old Testament saints were not entirely privy to this unfolding mystery in all its detail. Paul had been commissioned “to present to you the word of God IN ITS FULLNESS.” The inference is clear: The OT believers and the Gentile world only had a PARTIAL glimpse of God’s unfolding plan,
My reasoning is very simple: Either OT believers were still saved without having to confess Jesus as Lord, or they weren’t. You said their knowledge was “explicit enough,” but from a NT perspective, it fell short. Rahab did NOT profess Jesus as Lord, yet she is welcomed into the Hall of Faith. So if God accepts some on the basis of an incomplete knowledge of Him and His plan, why not others?
An addendum to my “final” comment: I should have thought of this passage sooner.
Not sure how quoting scripture can be “forcing an interpretation that isn’t there,” Mike. It’s not me saying Moses or the prophets spoke of Christ, it’s Christ saying it. And Philip. And Peter. Ultimately it’s the Holy Spirit.
Becky
I appreciate this series; my philosophical journey has been similar. I especially relate to this post, as the issue of objectively knowable salvation has been a huge problem for me. This is thorny for a lot of us who were raised in Evangelical homes (with no disrespect meant to the people with Sunday school backgrounds who have overcome these problems).
Becoming “saved” is only part of the experience of some believers. Not everyone had a specific turning point. Some people were gradually drawn to the truth without knowing when they crossed the threshold of faith; others have no memory of ever disbelieving. For centuries, many Christian traditions taught neither assurance of salvation nor a need to pray specifically to petition God for it. Generations of Christians lived and died without having even the shred of systematic theology needed to speculative about how salvation “works” in practical terms.
From accepting that those medieval European Christians — and all those ancient Eastern and Semitic believers — might really have been professing genuine faith in Christ in their cold legalistic liturgies, it’s not a far step to accepting that ancient pagans might have been professing the same faith despite even greater ignorance. (Of course, I would never hazard a guess of the percentage of the traditional liturgical believers that were really “saved,” let alone of ancient pagans.)
If Inclusivism is true, though, I worry that it might be a dangerous truth. As long as it makes us appropriately miserable, maybe we have a right to believe it and promote it.
Mike,
I can’t say I’m entirely convinced, not without more research. However, I thought you did a good job presenting your case.
I wish I knew more about inclusivism about ten years ago. At that time, I had a friend who was an elder in the church. His mother, who was not a believer, died around the same time as the Indonesian tsunami.
The thought that his mother as well as 230,000 people instantly went to hell caused him to have a crisis in his faith. Because of those events, he decided that the Bible couldn’t be God’s word and left the faith, left the church, and moved his entire family to a different city.
If I had known about inclusivism, perhaps I could have encouraged him pursue that instead of denying the Bible altogether. Though I’m not yet convinced of inclusivism, it is a much healthier alternative than the turn my friend took.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this.
I have been following this series of posts, but not put my thoughts into the discussion yet. It’s a heavy subject, and I’ve had to let it stew a bit. I will say, I think your thoughts and mine line up pretty well, Mike.
Spot on. The Father alone, btw, is not YHWH, but the triune God is named as such. So yes, Christ is there for the OT saint and for all who seek God. One path to the Father, many paths to Christ.
Hi, Mike! This is a very interesting series–not at all what I expected when I first saw the word, “Inclusivism”.
Part 4A begins, “…there are different categories of people in different approximation to the knowledge of the Gospel. Those groups are:
…A…; B.The mentally ill or deranged…C…; D…
“There are some Christians, perhaps a minority, who believe that most (if not all) of these individuals will perish because they did not / cannot have explicit knowledge of the Gospel and the post-crucified, post-resurrected Christ. … “Others will make some concession, usually with infants and the mentally ill…”
Group B “mentally ill or deranged” already covers a lot of mental health territory. Even so, B is incomplete unless you add those who are severely retarded.
OTOH, some psychotic people & some suffering from dementia have a very firm grasp of who Jesus is and what He means to them personally. As do many high-functioning mental challenged people.
Other psychotic people & some suffering from Alzheimers may know nothing about our Savior or may have made a considered decision to reject Him.
People who suffer from mental illnesses–other than very severe psychoses–bear the same responsibility for their decisions about whether Jesus is their Savior as does someone who is blind, has polio or suffers from epilepsy. All these people have the intellectual tools needed to make a considered decision about their relationship with Jesus
I’m mentally ill. I began suffering from both severe depression and anxiety late in high school. Fifty years later, I still have both these forms of mental illness. In spite of my mental illness, I gave my life to Christ when I was 20 years old. At 67, I’m still a firm believer. More so–thanks to treasured experiences when God confirmed His Love. My mental illness has virtually nothing to do with my certainty that Jesus died to save me from my sins. My trust in Him is in no way connected my diagnoses. Thank God for that!
I’m looking forward to part 4B! — SherryT
Jesus says, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (that was not in Acts–it was Jesus speaking–John 17:3)
But after working through all your words and reasonings, it seems to me that you end up saying, in effect, “This is eternal life, that they believe in a creator and stumble after him, without knowing Him or Jesus Christ whom He has sent.”
You seem to be saying that you can know Jesus without knowing that you know Jesus. In which case the word “knowing” means absolutely nothing.
Peter Kreeft says:
No one can know God except through Christ (Jn. 1:18; Lk. 10:22). But pagans know God (Acts 17:28; Rom. 1:19-20; 2:11-16). Therefore pagans know Christ.
So…by Kreeft’s reasoning, every single person who has ever lived, knows Christ and is saved.
Surely you are not in agreement with Kreeft.
Kreeft has just made a case, saying that people who worship false gods–who worship many idols even idols of unknown gods–and people who have traded the truth of God for a lie, and people who obey the law without knowing the law… all of these people know God and therefore they know Christ and therefore they are saved.
He is taking passages where Paul is arguing against false worship–where he is appealing to people to be saved, to find God, to turn from idol worship to the worship of the one true God who made them and who allotted their periods and boundaries and dwelling places–he is using Paul’s appeal to them to turn and be saved as an argument to prove that people can just keep on worshipping idols of unknown gods and they will be saved as long as they’re sincere.
There are clear passages of scripture–many, many clear passages–that say we must know Jesus Christ, we must call upon Jesus, we must believe in Jesus, we must have faith in Jesus–and yet Peter Kreeft is trashing the clear passages in favor of taking passages that are doing one thing and that ripping them out of context and twisting them.
I appreciate your laying all this out and showing how you have arrived at your beliefs. I am unconvinced by your arguments, though, and hoping you will think on this more before you move from “leaning towards” to “firm belief.”
Re: “So…by Kreeft’s reasoning, every single person who has ever lived, knows Christ and is saved.”
From the same volume “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” Kreeft writes, “The exact same authority which is our only authority for believing God is love also teaches us there is a hell” (pg 285). Also, “The fact that it is not God’s will that any perish does not mean that none perish” (pg. 288). And “Hell is due more to love than justice. Love created free persons who could choose hell. Love continues to beat upon the damned like sunlight on an albino slug, and constitutes their torture… The fires of hell are made of the love of God” (pg. 292) So, no. Kreeft doesn’t believe everyone is saved.
Again, pagans “know God” in the sense that everyone does — through general revelation. God has given Himself witness in 1.) Nature and 2.) Conscience / the Moral Law imbedded in our hearts. According to Scripture, this “knowledge” appears to be sufficient to judge people. As Paul put it in Romans 2: “14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
Well if the people in Athens knew God through their idol of the unknown god and if that means they know Jesus and are saved, I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t be saved.
Good Muslims are saved. Good Hindus are saved. Good idolators are saved.
Who is not saved? OHHHH “…free persons who choose hell.”
So people who would don’t purposely choose hell are all by default saved if they believe they were created by someone.
He sounds an awful like Rob Bell in that paragraph. Love wins by only sending people to hell who CHOOSE hell of their own free will. That’s exactly what Rob Bell believes, only he also believes that after time in hell (Kreeft’s purgatory) all will decide not to stay there.
So now instead of the LORD being near to all who call on Him, he is near to all who who call on him and all who don’t call on him and all who worship idols and all who worship Mohammad and all who worship Vishnu, as long as they don’t CHOOSE hell.
Rejecting God, trading the truth of God for a lie and worshiping a created thing instead of the creator, no longer has the wrath of God coming on men. Now his love wins and they don’t go to hell unless they choose hell.
And by the way–that picture is so bad.
I am the daughter of missionaries who sacrificed much to give Jesus Christ to people who did not know him and they would never hold up a crucifix or allow anyone to bow to them or to a cross.
To offer Christ to unsaved people is not to scowl at the “heathen” and demand they bow down to your idol of a man on a cross. And I’m sorry you chose that picture, though I think it does probably reveal what you think of those of us who believe that everyone should be told about Jesus and how much he loves them and how much he sacrificed for them.
Every man should be given the opportunity to know and worship Christ. Every man should be given the chance to sing praises to Jesus Christ who alone is worthy of praise and who fills our hearts with joy. To know Christ and to worship Christ, under whom God has put all things, is the joy that passes understanding. We can’t keep that joy to ourselves. And that is why we tell our neighbors about him.
It is not because we like to scowl at people and make them bow down to a little man on a cross.
Sally, the picture was found HERE and does not appear to have been done to mock anyone. “This Spanish color line engraving from 1737 is of Father Antonio Margil de Jesus (1657–1726). He was the Spanish founder of missions in what would become Texas. Father Margil is shown here preaching to Native Americans.”
🙂 I wasn’t asking where you got it. I found it interesting that chose it to illustrate your post.
You must admit it’s a horrid picture.
Thanks for the discussion. I’ll bow out now.