The doctrine of inclusivism
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
Image via WikipediaWhat is inclusivism? While inclusivists believe Jesus is the only Savior and that no person can be saved by anyone but Jesus, what sets the inclusivist apart is his belief concerning the necessity (or lack thereof) of sinners to trust in Christ for their salvation. For the exclusivist, it is necessary that a sinner have faith in Christ to be saved. However, for the inlusivist, while faith in Christ is best, it is not the only way to be saved. In other words, those who have never heard of Christ may very well be in heaven one day since they responded genuinely to the general revelation that was available to them.
As you might have guessed, the debate over inclusivisim has caused quite a stir in evangelicalism. The theological contours of the debate cannot be quarantined either. Everything is impacted by an inclusivist view, including general revelation, divine justice, one's view towards world religions, one's understanding of Old Testament "pagans," and the nature of saving faith itself.
And it would be naive to think that inclusivism has not affected Baprists to Pentecostals as well. While many Christians have affirmed the exclusivity of the gospel, other have differed. Some have all made the argument that the unevangelized may be saved through general revelation. Even those in other religions can be saved through general revelation, though other religions are not a means of salvation. Others, go even farther, arguing that not only general revelation but other religions contain truth sufficient for salvation.
But is this what Scripture teaches?
Jesus is the only way to God.” “One must place faith in Christ in order to be saved.” Most evangelicals affirm both of these statements as representative of biblical teaching. However, a number of evangelical leaders teach that Jesus is the only way to God (affirming statement 1), but that hearing and believing the gospel is not always necessary for salvation (denying statement 2). We call this position “inclusivism.” In other words, sincere adherents of other religions may be saved unknowingly through Jesus’ work.
Perhaps some find this view attractive because it softens the exclusive claims of Jesus without completely doing away with them. We can go right on saying “Jesus is the only way” while acknowledging the possibility that people outside the Christian faith may still be saved. Unfortunately, adopting the inclusivist approach does harm to our Christian witness by lessening the urgency of taking the gospel to people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. It also represents a capitulation to Western notions of “fairness,” subjective views of faith, and worldly descriptions of “goodness.”
Evangelism
Evangelism for the inclusivist isn’t telling people, “Trust Jesus before it’s too late!“ Instead, it implies that even though it may not matter what one does with Jesus in this life for one’s eternity, Jesus is still better than all the other religious options. Many non-Christians find this view patronizing. It’s offensive to claim that Hindus or Jews wind up in heaven through Jesus when they most assuredly did not believe in Christ. Inclusivism lightens the burdened conscience of the Christian who is not active in fulfilling the Great Commission. It does not soften the offense of the gospel to those who want nothing to do with Christ.
Fairness
Inclusivists believe it is unfair for some people to have access to God’s salvation while others perish without ever hearing the gospel. But even if the gospel were accessible to everyone, would the good news be accessible to every person equally? Is it not unfair that a person who lives sixty years may have more opportunities to hear the gospel than the person who dies suddenly at the age of thirty? The inclusivist position fails to show how a view of universal accessibility of salvation resolves the issue of “fairness.” In fact, inclusivism fails to show how God must be held accountable to this notion of fairness in the first place.
Inclusivists believe it is unfair for some people to have access to God’s salvation while others perish without ever hearing the gospel. But even if the gospel were accessible to everyone, would the good news be accessible to every person equally? Is it not unfair that a person who lives sixty years may have more opportunities to hear the gospel than the person who dies suddenly at the age of thirty? The inclusivist position fails to show how a view of universal accessibility of salvation resolves the issue of “fairness.” In fact, inclusivism fails to show how God must be held accountable to this notion of fairness in the first place.
Faith
Today’s world tends to see “faith” as a purely subjective emotion, divorced from objective content and made effective by the intensity and sincerity with which a person exercises belief. By adopting a similar stance, inclusivists downplay the importance of faith’s objective content. Biblical faith, in contrast, finds its expression in both the objective content of the Christian gospel (the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and the subjective feelings that indicate true heart transformation (trust and sincerity).
Today’s world tends to see “faith” as a purely subjective emotion, divorced from objective content and made effective by the intensity and sincerity with which a person exercises belief. By adopting a similar stance, inclusivists downplay the importance of faith’s objective content. Biblical faith, in contrast, finds its expression in both the objective content of the Christian gospel (the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and the subjective feelings that indicate true heart transformation (trust and sincerity).
Goodness
Inclusivists are distressed by the idea that good people who adhere to other religions would be consigned to hell. But lurking behind this protest is the unbiblical assumption that heaven is somehow deserved. Furthermore, who determines what is good? We cannot simply adopt the world’s standard of “goodness” and apply it uncritically to the people around us. Scripturally speaking, the problem is not that good people do not go to heaven; the problem is there are no good people.
Inclusivists are distressed by the idea that good people who adhere to other religions would be consigned to hell. But lurking behind this protest is the unbiblical assumption that heaven is somehow deserved. Furthermore, who determines what is good? We cannot simply adopt the world’s standard of “goodness” and apply it uncritically to the people around us. Scripturally speaking, the problem is not that good people do not go to heaven; the problem is there are no good people.
Instead of adopting an inclusivist position, evangelicals ought to be “inclusive exclusivists.” We believe that Jesus is the only way to God and that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (exclusivism), and we evangelize because the call to salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls all people everywhere to repentance.
Related articles
Related articles
