I was recently sent this infographic by a friend. It’s a common challenge posed to Inclusivists. If pagans are saved without an explicit knowledge of the Gospel, why evangelize? I wanted to conclude this short series on Inclusivism (for now), by addressing this important question.
First, let me say that that question is very fair. If God can save the Inuit Eskimo apart from the preaching of the Gospel, why bring the Gospel to them at all? Why not just let God save whom He wants and not subject the recipients to possibly rejecting the Gospel and incurring the wrath of God in hell?
It’s important to note that any theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God must question the need and motivation for evangelism. For instance, Google the phrase “Calvinism and Evangelism” and you’ll find numerous defenses from Calvinists (Exclusivists and hyper-Exclusivists) on why belief in God’s sovereigny does not negate the importance of evangelism. Though Exclusivists and Inclusivists approach the subject from different sides, they both confront a similar problem:
- Exclusivist: Because God is sovereign and can save whomever He chooses, why evangelize?
- Inclusivist: Because God can save apart from explicit knowledge of Christ and the Gospel, why evangelize?
So, firstly, this question is not unique to Inclusivism. Any system which holds that God can do what He wants and can save apart from any effort of human beings must inevitably question the need for evangelism.
Secondly, the assumption in the above infographic is misleading. Look at it again:
Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?”
Priest: “No, not if you did not know.”
Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?”
The problem, as I see it, is in the response of the priest. The Inclusivist does NOT assume that those who don’t know about God and sin automatically go to heaven. This is a common misrepresentation of the position. It’s the equivalent of saying that some people trapped in a burning apartment building will escape. Therefore, there is no need to send in firemen.
Let me suggest several alternative answers to the Eskimo’s question that more accurately frame the Inclusivist’s position:
Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?”
Priest: “I’m not sure. It’s better to know the right path than to stumble along possible dead ends.”
Or possibly this:
Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?”
Priest: “Oh, but you DO know about God and sin. So there is no excuse to not knowing Him better.”
The infographic, as it’s framed, sets the question up for easy rebuttal. Yet Inclusivism, as I understand it, does not, like the priest in this discussion, assume that those who do not “know about God and sin” automatically go to heaven.
So let me use this as a springboard to answer the question “Why evangelize?” If the Inclusivist believes that God can save those without an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Gospel, what’s the motivation for telling them?”
- Because Inclusivism does not posit that all will be saved. As I discussed in my last post, Inclusivism must not be conflated with Universalism. The belief that God can save apart from explicit knowledge of Christ and the Gospel is not equivalent to a belief that God will save everyone. Simply put, Inclusivists should evangelize because we don’t know exactly who or how many will be saved.
- Because some, perhaps many, of the unevangelized will NOT be saved. Again, we have no conclusive way of knowing how many, IF any, Eskimos will be saved. Inclusivism does not posit that all Eskimos will be saved apart from evangelism, just that some might. Therefore, the Inclusivist, like the Exclusivist, wants to ensure that as many as possible can be saved.
- Because evangelism confirms those who are being saved. If God is at work among every people group, then evangelism is a means by which that work is identified and accentuated. The message resonates with those who are moving toward God. Like Cornelius (Acts 10), who was already a God-fearing man BEFORE hearing the Gospel and embraced the message when it was further clarified. The Inclusivist, like the Exclusivist, calls out those who are being saved.
- Because evangelism makes us co-workers with God. Throughout the Bible, God calls people to join Him in this great redemptive mission. Inclusivism posits that God goes ahead of us, preparing the soil of people’s hearts, drawing them to Himself. Evangelism is the primary means that we join God in His efforts to save souls and populate heaven.
- Because Christianity contains the fullness of God’s revelation. Everything else is just a shadow. Though “general revelation” is the light of God and points the way to Him, “special revelation” clarifies that way. It’s the difference between a trail that might lead one to the summit or a well-paved highway. God has revealed more of Himself than what one can find only in nature and Moral Law. Evangelism is the means by which we make known the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind.
- Because evangelism is a means of growth — for us and our hearers. A child can be saved. But staying infant-like in their faith is unhealthy. Likewise, a crude, rudimentary understanding of God is no excuse for not getting to know Him better. The unevangelized person who has been moving toward God will instinctively want to know Him better. Evangelism is the means by which we make “The Unknown God” known (Acts 17:23) and ensure that those who “grope for him… find him” (Acts 17:27). Also, evangelism provides the believer opportunity to grow in their own faith, understand better means of presenting and defending the Gospel, and complying with God’s directives.
- Because we are commanded to evangelize. This could be the bottom line. Jesus commissioned His disciples to “go into all the world and make disciples” (Matt. 28:19). There are no qualifiers. There is no discussion about how or if Gentiles have “general revelation.” There is no delineation of how God’s sovereignty in salvation (monergism) and man’s cooperation in salvation (synergism) overlaps. We are simply told to “go.”
Jesus told the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:1-23). In it, He described four types of soil, conditions of heart, upon which the Gospel “seed” can fall. In that story, all of the seeds don’t grow. Some are stilted and feeble. Some flourish and produce fruit. Nevertheless, the job of the “sower” is not to condition his or her effort on the response of the seed. The sower’s job is simply “to sow.” Likewise, while understanding the differences between Inclusivism and Exclusivism can be important facets of biblical study, it doesn’t change our final charge:
Both Inclusivists and Exclusivists are called to preach the Gospel. There’s no escaping this.
So even though Inclusivism asserts that some can be saved apart from an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Gospel, it doesn’t assume that ALL can be saved. For this reason, the Inclusivist seeks to join God in His work in the world, point people from the many beaten paths they travel to the Highway of Salvation, and confirm the saving power of God among all tribes and tongues.
Mike,
Your first alternative response of the priest is pretty good, but your second one is poor, in my opinion. You have the priest saying “Oh, but you DO know about God and sin. So there is no excuse to not knowing Him better.” This is an evasion of the issue since the scenario appears to assume from the start that the Eskimo did NOT know about God and sin BEFORE beginning a conversation with the priest. Prior to the conversation the Eskimo had an excuse for not knowing about God and sin because he had never been exposed to the idea or never thought about it. The priest actually causes the Eskimo to be placed in a dangerous situation he was not previously in.
I think most of your reasons to engage in evangelism are pretty good, but a few of them are poor. You said “Throughout the Bible, God calls people to join Him in this great redemptive mission.” There is no good evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that God, if he exists, has called people to join him in a redemptive mission. In fact, there is no good evidence that God, if he exists, has spoken to anyone! Think about what kind, quality, and quantity of evidence would be required to demonstrate this to have happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Compare it to the situation of a person claiming that he was abducted by aliens from another galaxy. You make the same mistake in your fifth point when you say “God has revealed more of Himself than what one can find only in nature and Moral Law.” Neither you nor anyone else has rationally demonstrated this to be the case.
In your seventh point (I wish you’d number them), you said “Jesus commissioned His disciples to “go into all the world and make disciples” (Matt. 28:19). A commission to proclaim a false or harmful doctrine should not be followed, and I think that is the case here. A doctrine which includes the notion that some people will be tortured forever in an afterlife could not be one promulgated by God, if he exists. He would never do such a thing because perfectly moral beings don’t do that. If you think that they would, then please justify your position. Please don’t focus on the obvious facts that neither you nor I are omniscient or that neither of us is God. Instead, try to justify to your readers why you BELIEVE that God, if he exists, would torture some people forever!
Gary, Email me if you’re interested in dialog. I hate arguing, but if understanding a Christian perspective is your goal, without expectation of being satisfied by it, I’d be happy to explain our position. Lyn
?
I have noticed that, on the previous post in this series, Mike responded to you and engaged at length with you in a conversation. After having read the conversation, it seems to me that you are trolling, so I answer not for you, but for those who might have the concerns you write about, as I do understand that this is a problem that many people genuinely struggle with:
God does not torture people. He does not punish them. He does not send them to hell. He does not condemn them to eternal fire. They do.
We are each given the ability to choose God or not. Jesus took on himself all the punishment, torture, and fire that we deserved so that we could have what he deserved instead. But we must choose that.
And, before you say that that sounds like a silly thing that isn’t even really a choice. It is, because not choosing Jesus means choosing something else, and that other choice is to be judged according to our own ability to measure up. Our own ability to be moral. Our own ability to know and follow the truth.
In the end, we will all go before God and make our choice: To throw our lot in with Christ, or to try to earn our way into heaven on our own. The Bible warns against choosing to be judged on our own merit. It says that all have sinned and fallen short. None of us can ever attain heaven by our own ability and strength. And so, in choosing to rely on our own ability to be good, we choose to be measured and found wanting, and we choose to spend eternity in the torment that our own actions have brought us.
A perfectly loving, perfectly moral being would provide us every opportunity to escape that end. And God has. He has made it all very, very clear through not only the Bible but the witness of creation, as Paul talks about in the first two chapters of Romans, and he makes it very, very simple to be saved, so much so that a child, and not necessarily a very bright one, could understand and receive.
Who, then, would choose eternal torture? Doesn’t that sound like a stupid thing to do? Sure it does. But, understand, that a person who has no care for God, who is convinced that God is their enemy, someone they must fight against or whose influence they must struggle to rise above, that person will choose to reject Christ. They will choose it because they are convinced that they do not want the alternative. And, with a heart in that state, I very much doubt that they would even want to be in heaven, if heaven meant being in God’s presence for eternity, in the presence of the being they want more than anything to live without.
To quote from The Chronicles of Narnia: “All men get what they want. They do not always like it.”
Like I said, Gary, I am not responding for you, so do not expect me to reply to what you have to say. This response was for those who are seeking, and whose hearts are open to receiving the truth, whatever form that may take. I sincerely hope that this is helpful to them.
Thank you, Thea! If anyone emails me, I can send them here. I say that without snark and with all sincerity. Well said and sensitively put. Lyn
The last point, that evangelism is our commission, is enough to answer any question one might have about the inclusivism position; and it serves equally well for those who think predestination exempts proclaiming the gospel.
Hi Mike.
Thanks for your explanation of inclusiveness soteriology. I appreciate the thought, though I am much more of an exclusiveness. I have written my own response to this meme here: http://chadeddy.com/is-jesus-the-only-way/
I appreciate Christian thinkers, people who are able to respond with gentleness and respect. Thanks for your ministry!