Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Universalism.

[Tercel]

This is a major issue in Christianity, especially with the new addition of the Open View to the Inclusivist side.

Exclusivism:
Only Christians are saved. An example of an exclusivist attitude is: “we need to preach the gospel to those tribes in the deepest amazon jungles, because, if we don’t they’ll all go to hell. Hundreds of people are going to hell at every moment because they have not heard the gospel.”

Inclusivism:
Inclusivism, by contrast is the view that it is possible for people who have not actively heard and accepted the gospel to be saved. A typical comment from an inclusivist would be that “it is up to God to judge the people who haven’t heard the gospel, and not for us to condemn them automatically.”

Universalism:
Universalists teach universal salvation – ie that everyone is saved or will eventually be saved. Universalism is considered a heresy by most Christians.

I think it is also useful to divide Inclusivism into two positions, which I call “weak” and “strong” - the first being closer to Exclusivism and the later to universalism.

Weak Inclusivism:
This is the belief that those who hear and reject the gospel are certainly damned (unless they later accept it of course), but that for those who have not heard the gospel there is hope.

Strong Inclusivism:
This is the belief that even for those who have actively heard and rejected the gospel there is still hope for their eternal salvation even if they were to die in this state of rejection.


Several years ago, when I first began to seriously study theology, my very first questions were about the logical coherency of it. I came to the conclusion that Exclusivism is not logically self-consistent. The Exclusivist position begs some fairly fundamental questions about God’s desire for universal salvation. Calvinism aside, and working with the assumption that God desires everyone to be saved, we must face the fact that the Gospel has not being preached to everyone. There is a serious logical tension here:

1. The Gospel is necessary for salvation.
2. God desires salvation for all men.
3. God is capable in His omnipotence of having all men hear the Gospel.
4. The Gospel has not been preached to all men.

The other three premises serve to undermine the importance of the Gospel: The gospel message cannot be essential for salvation. The alternatives are the Calvinist position, or a middle knowledge position (that God made sure the Gospel got preached to everyone that God knew in advance would accept it) neither of which I consider seriously tenable. I find the Calvinistic assumption that God doesn’t will all to be saved unreasonable in the light of the revelation of God’s love in the Bible, and the idea that every single person that didn’t hear the gospel would have never have accepted it no matter how it was preached to them, seems ad hoc.

But there are two further important points:
1a. The Gospel wasn’t preached until after Jesus. What about people before Jesus?
1b. Babies who die without hearing the gospel, what happens to them?

It is ludicrous to say that “Abraham is going to Hell” or “Moses is going to Hell”. But neither of them believed the Gospel in a modern sense. Yet Abraham was justified by his faith. Perhaps these two examples are special – perhaps these two secured salvation for themselves by direct interaction with God? -But then what about the people of Israel? What about the other nations? If you were born in England in 300BC was damnation inevitable?

And consider babies and children, about whom Jesus told His disciples of God’s love. Does God damn every baby that dies because it hasn’t heard the gospel? Or perhaps we can suggest some ad hoc age of accountability. But if that exists, then shouldn’t we kill babies to assure them of a place in heaven – especially if they are going to be brought up in non-Christian homes?

2. What about after we die? We know that “every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Obviously when we see the Lord of Glory, everyone will know the truth of the gospel. If an African tribesman who never heard the gospel in his life, falls before the feet of Christ and says, “Lord, Lord, save me”... what then?

It seems to me that if “accepting the gospel and being saved” = hearing it and believing it, then everyone is going to get saved in the throne room at the judgement. Unless of course, Christ rejects those who come to Him at that point, which seems to be fundamentally contradictory to our assumptions about His love and compassion and mercy. Alternatively, and much more reasonably, we could equate acceptance of the gospel with acceptance of Christ’s lordship of your soul.

I’m sure many here have heard a the Sunday school on how we have chosen to go our own way and make ourselves the lord of our lives and putting ourselves in the drivers seat and how we need to move over and let Christ rule us. So perhaps we could say that even though the truth will be revealed to all at the judgement, not all will accept Christ’s lordship of their innermost self.

But according to this understanding many of those who never heard the gospel preached will be saved, and many of those atheists who didn’t believe in Christianity because there wasn’t enough evidence will be saved as well.


This solution nicely solves the other problems. Babies would (presumably) have time after death to grow up mentally and hence choose to submit themselves to Christ’s lordship or to reject it. Even more importantly it posits one system of salvation for everyone.

Some people like to hold to the idea that everyone can be saved, but in order to do that they suggest that in different times and places people needed to do different things to be saved. eg the idea of the Age of Accountability, or dispensationalism etc. But isn’t it a bit “unfair” if some people get easy entry into heaven by happening to die young, or if others live in a culture where the commonly taught “scientific opinion” is against the things they need to believe to be saved. We know that God is “no respecter of persons” and that He would not favour one person or group arbitrarily over another in such a way because He equally desires the salvation of all His children.

The other problem with having different systems of salvation for different people is that it seems to make salvation arbitrary. If God wants us all to be saved, then there must be a fundamental thing that we need to be saved from, that God cannot simply magic away. God cannot simply ordain multiple systems of salvation because the system of salvation has to deal with the problem. eg Can God say “those who dance on one leg and say ‘Yidda, yap, yah’ ten times are saved”? There seems to be no correspondence between such a system of salvation and the problem. But if God can make up arbitrary methods of salvation like this, then clearly the salvation rests purely in His hands, and since we know He wants everyone to be saved, we know that if the salvation rests purely in His hands everyone would be saved. Thus God cannot make up arbitrary systems of salvation: There must be one system of salvation for all mankind which must be fundamentally tied to the problem that is stopping salvation in the first place.

And, as we have seen, that salvation must be applicable to all people everywhere. Hence I concluded: Assuming universalism is false, Strong Inclusivism is the only logical option.

[NeilUnreal]

I'm a strong inclusivist Christian, leaning universalist. Universalist in the sense that I don't think God will ever give up trying to reach a lost soul*, though that soul may choose to hold out for eternity.

I don't have any formal basis for this belief, it's result of life experience, thinking and feeling about the problem, reading the scriptures and studying the theology and philosophy of my own and other religions.

-Neil

*"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." - I John 4:8

"[Love] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails." - I Corinthians 13:7ff

So if God is love and love always perseveres, God will never give up!

[AcousticJS]

I found out I'm a Weak Inclusivist. Not that there's any specific scriptures I know of that teach that - it just seems to me to be the option most consistent with what God has revealed about who will be saved and who won't and what we know of God's character (perfectly just and fair) applied to those who haven't heard the gospel.

[themuzicman]

1. The Gospel is necessary for salvation.
2. God desires salvation for all me.
3. God is capable in His omnipotence of having all men hear the Gospel.
4. The Gospel has not been preached to all men.

I disagree with #3. Men who have freely rejected God through sin do not hear God. God, even in his omnipotence, does not override the free will of men to refuse to hear Him.

So, your case is not yet made.

Michael

[studyhound]

I am a partial Exclusivism, and partial Inclusivism, I believe that Only Christians/the saved are going to enter Heaven. But the tribal group in the deep amazon have a responcablity to seak after God and to presue the light, and if the persue the light god will grant their desire and give them the truth. But if they reject the light and harden their hearts no amount of light will change there mind.

Just my quick :coin: :coin: before going out the door to church. ( probly not my best thought on the subject!!)

[Tercel]

TMM,

I gave a few other lines of argument which all pointed for the same conclusions (ie "What about babies?", "people who lived before Jesus" etc). The point of that was that people who disagreed with one of them would still be convinced by the others.

I don't really agree with your object either: I was speaking only of physical hearing (or physical reading) of the Gospel message. Obviously God doesn't override people's freewill and force them to receive the message - it was one of my assumptions that Calvinism is false. But the fact of the matter is that the gospel has not been preached to even a majority of all men. If hearing the gospel in this life is a prerequisite for salvation, that says that God hasn't even given the majority of men the opportunity to be saved. Given that He is quite capable of ensuring virtually everyone gets the gospel physically communicated to them (eg He could speak from the sky in a booming voice, He could send angels disguised as humans to preach etc), this would show that He doesn't in fact desire the salvation of all. We know this conclusion is false, thus from our argument we can conclude our assumption that hearing the gospel in this life is necessary for salvation, is false.

[themuzicman]

TMM,

I gave a few other lines of argument which all pointed for the same conclusions (ie "What about babies?", "people who lived before Jesus" etc). The point of that was that people who disagreed with one of them would still be convinced by the others.

I don't think the issue of babies is addressed in the bible, so the best answer is "who knows?"

I'll address the other in a minute, except for this one point:

There existed communities who believed in God besides the Israelites before Christ. Abraham encountered a Royal High Priest of God and gave him a tithe. Obviously there was a community believing in God there. We don't know what happened to them.

Likewise, Ninevah reptented from their sins after Jonah prophesied to them. Certainly they didn't become a part of the nation of Israel, since they were mortal enemies, yet there was a community who put their faith in God.

So, we can't say that anyone who didn't go to Israel didn't hear of God. We don't have all the facts ,but the evidence suggests communities of faith beyond Abraham and Israel.

I don't really agree with your object either: I was speaking only of physical hearing (or physical reading) of the Gospel message. Obviously God doesn't override people's freewill and force them to receive the message - it was one of my assumptions that Calvinism is false. But the fact of the matter is that the gospel has not been preached to even a majority of all men. If hearing the gospel in this life is a prerequisite for salvation, that says that God hasn't even given the majority of men the opportunity to be saved. Given that He is quite capable of ensuring virtually everyone gets the gospel physically communicated to them (eg He could speak from the sky in a booming voice, He could send angels disguised as humans to preach etc), this would show that He doesn't in fact desire the salvation of all. We know this conclusion is false, thus from our argument we can conclude our assumption that hearing the gospel in this life is necessary for salvation, is false.

Well, you're arguing from outrage (in this case over fairness), which doesn't work. When you strip away your opinion which is the assumption, the argument can't stand.

However, if we go over to Romans, we find that every man knows enough of the law that they know right from wrong. (Even those without the law have the law of their conscience.) Thus, the first chance at heaven is to obey the law. Now it is true that none obeys the law, because we all sin. However, the law and condemnation of the law is the basis for our need for salvation, and every man knows he has broken the law.

Paul prefaces chapter two with this statement from Romans 1:21:

Scripture Verse:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Every man sees the evidence, but breaks the law, so all are without excuse.

Thus, if God never promised atonement and Jesus never died for our sins, God would be justified (in fact compelled by His just nature) to condemn EVERYONE to eternal torment.

However, God, in His love, chose to send an atonement to satisfy this need for justification, and Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law in us (Romans 8:2-3)

Thus, God is not required to follow your view of "fairness", because no one has an excuse not to seek Him.

Clearly Paul was an exclusivist, and does not share your outrage.

Michael

[Tercel]

Hi AcousticJS,

I'm got a lot of sympathy for weak inclusivism. I think a careful study of scripture and the early non-scripture Christian writers shows that the early church was probably weak inclusivist. However, there is nothing much in scripture that is fundamentally against strong inclusivism - Mark 16:16 is the only definite verse and that verse is believed to be a later addition to Mark's Gospel by most scholars today.

My disagreement with weak inclusivism, which you might want to have a think about, is that it introduces alternate systems of salvation. Some are saved by the gospel, while others are saved by searching for the truth. As I see it, you can't have two separate systems of salvation, because that would make salvation arbitrary on the part of God (bringing us back to Calvinism), so you've got to try and combine these into one system. With what you've suggested it doesn't seem too difficult - "People will be judged based on how they responded to the level of truth that was available to them". Sounds fairly good to me.

However, consider the question of atheists who have heard, or know of, the gospel. I have spent more than three years talking over the internet to perhaps a hundred such atheists about Christianity. While it is quite true that some of them weren't very nice people, or making much effort to respond to truth, I am convinced that many of them are searching for truth to the best of their ability and that the reason many of them didn't believe in God was simply because they had been intellectually convinced by logical arguments that God didn't exist. A couple suggested that if God really existed He would approve of them searching for truth and following their convictions to whatever end (they said they didn't particularly want to be atheists, and would much rather be Christians, but they simply couldn't believe it was true) rather than just settling on something that made them happy.

Now it might be that I'm a terrible judge of character, and that God will see the evil in their hearts that I don't see and judge them for it, but my experience leads me to doubt this. So I would have to conclude that by the standard of judgement stated above, I would still probably have to be a strong inclusivist.


But actually I think that phrasing the system of salvation that way is putting the cart before the horse a bit: It is right, but causally backwards. Consider John 3:19-21:
"And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate th light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

As this points out - whether or not people search for the light of truth, is fundamentally related to, and caused by, whether people are good or evil. Those who have light in their hearts will seek the light as something familiar, those who have darkness in their hearts will hide from the light and see it as something alien and flee its revealing presence.

My conclusion then is that it is the light or darkness in the hearts of men that leads men to search for the truth or hide from it. I do not believe that those searching for the truth always find it - men are fallible, and the world is under the power of the evil one. Similarly those who have light in them are more likely to do selfless good than those with darkness in their hearts. If we say that men are judged purely on their belief in the Gospel, what are we to make of Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus depicts a judgement based on good deeds? But if we say that men are judged on their inner hearts -that are visible to God- then we can see why it is possible to depict the judgement as being either works based or faith based: Those who have light in them will seek the truth and likely believe the gospel when they hear it and probably do more good deeds of love, while those who have darkness in them will deny the truth and likely reject the gospel when they hear it and probably do more evil deeds. Jesus said that by the fruits we could know the tree. I suggest that the judgement itself is based on the tree itself that is revealed by God's light on the Last Day, but that in the here and now we can guess at the nature of the tree by looking at the nature of its fruit - it's response to truth and its deeds.

Hence I am a strong inclusivist.

[Tercel]

TMM,

I don’t think I’m arguing from outrage. Given my assumptions, the argument seems purely a logical one. It is a fact that the gospel has not been physically communicated to most people who have lived. It is a fact that an omnipotent (or even semi-powerful) God would have the power to physically communicate the gospel message to the vast majority of people.

Neither of these seems to be making a claim that this is “unfair” or arguing from outrage. Given the addition premise that God desires the gospel to be physically communicated to as many people as possible, there is a logical contradiction created. No outrage, no assumption of unfairness, just logic. God logically does not place a high degree of value on the gospel being physically communicated to all people. This means that either the gospel is inessential, or He doesn’t desire the salvation of all.

At this point I am going to make a leap and deny Calvinism and therefore affirm that it is the first of these: Having the gospel physically communicated to you during your life is inessential for your eternal salvation. The only thing “unfair” here is your accusation that this is an argument from outrage.


I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation of Romans, but that’s related to me being both Orthodox and a follower of the New Perspective, and you following the Protestant tradition. I think you need to be more careful not to confuse God’s temporal dealings with man with things relating to eternal salvation, I fully agree with the New Perspective in its assessment of Romans as being an apologetic concerned mainly with temporal things rather than Luther’s reading of it as a systematic answer to the question of “how can I be saved?”. Once you realise that Paul wasn’t writing to us and he didn’t have our questions about eternal salvation in the forefront of his mind when he dictated every sentence, interpretation inevitably changes.

I think Paul briefly summarises his teaching on eternal salvation in a parenthetical Romans 2:6-16: That the good will be eternally saved and the wicked condemned and points out that even those who don’t have the law still have a conscience by which they can know right from wrong. This is a fairly standard inclusivist view of the Gospel. I think you’ve got a problem in trying to interpret the conscience passage legalistically as meaning that everyone knows they are guilty because Paul specifically states that some will be excused but their consciences (Rom 2:15)..

Similarly I think you’re wrong to understand 1:18-32 as talking about eternal salvation, its focus seems to me to be on the here and now. “God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (1:18). When is it revealed? Now! Against the wickedness that now exists in the world. God opposes wickedness and there is wickedness now in the world and so He now actively opposes it. This is not saying “I’ve had a revelation that God will one day oppose wickedness and on the Last Day He will smite those sinners good,” it’s a statement of God’s activities in the here and now.

You need to remember that Paul is writing to Jews who had been waiting centuries for God to save them, not in the afterlife, but by inflicting temporal judgement upon their physical enemies who were controlling their nation. We see in Acts 1:6 that even after a few years with Jesus the apostles still hadn’t understood that Jesus wasn’t going to wipe out the Romans and establish a physical kingdom in Israel, so ingrained in them was this expectation. God’s failure to do this raised for the Jews the inevitable question of “is God unfaithful to His promises?”. Thus when God saved Israel not physically, but by establishing a spiritual kingdom in Jesus, the Jews weren’t exactly marvellously happy at this “good news”. Thus we get Romans, a convoluted apologetic answering Jewish questions and objections. Thus Paul starts off by proclaiming that God isn’t unfaithful to His promises after all and the faithfulness of God has been vindicated by the Gospel (1:17).

I think Paul was probably a weak inclusivist, but I do not rule out the possibility of his either being an exclusivist or a strong inclusivist. I’m not up with the play on what the New Perspective says on this, so I can’t really be sure.

[TWells]

I would place myself on the strong inclusivist side and I think another point to be made has to do with the type of Gospel that most people come into contact with. I live in the southern United States and many of my friends growing up in this area rejected Christianity long ago. When talking to them about it the only honest reply I can give to their reasons are "I dont blame you."

If its not sleazy, cheessy televangelists or bad Sunday Morning aired services. Its the tacky billboards and evangecubes. Not to mention doomsday theology, left behind novels, some rather odd forms of Charismatic mysticism, the so-called "good news" of Calvinism, Christians who in general are not so well known because of how they love each other and of course the fact that Gods "justice" is going to torch people for eternity in a cosmic weenie roast.

Like I said, I dont blame them.

[themuzicman]

Well, look at the entire block of scripture, chatpters 1 through 3.

Scripture Verse:

Romans 1:19-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

The bolded section leaves us wondering who is unrighteous? And Paul continues this discourse about these men, what they will do, why they are condemned under the law, and even those who don't have the law have the law of their conscience.

And, finally, at the end of chapter three, Paul sticks the knife in: Who are the unrighteous? "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

So, none of us are without excuse, because the evidence is clear to everyone, and all have sinned. Paul is very precise in that statement. No one gets in on merits. He even addresses those who don't have the law, since their conscience condemns them.


Michael

[rmwilliamsjr]

2. God desires salvation for all men.

Historically and in systematic theology this has revolved around the questions of what does it mean for God to desire.

sometimes it is in terms of universal or revealed and hidden or secret wills as in:

4. There can be no conflict between God’s universal will that all men be saved and the fact that men will refuse to receive the grace offered in the Gospel by their own sinful, willfulness.

5. The hidden will of God regarding the question, “Why does God choose some and not others?” remains hidden and is not exposed in the Scriptures. To attempt to divine the hidden will of God is foolishness and arrogance on the part of man. We wish to say only what the Scriptures say; no more and no less, and we will not attempt to answer questions the Scriptures themselves do not answer.

from: http://www.oslcpagosa.org/predestination.htm

but more commonly, at least in the Reformed tradition, it is argued in terms of decrees with similiar language

So God desires all men to be saved in the same way He desires all men to obey His commands. This desire (or will) is not His "will of decree" but His "revealed will" (commanded will). The “will of decree” (or secret will) always infallibly comes to pass but His “revealed will” or His commands, although according to His desire, do not infallibly come to pass, as is obvious from the fact that we are all sinners. It is true, God came to save "His people"from their sins, and them only, but the text in 1 Tim 2: 3, 4 & 2 Peter 3:8-9 does not seem to be speaking of this concept (i.e. those the Father has given the Son). It, rather, appears to be referring to God's "revealed will" or what He commands in Scripture to all men (like Thou shalt not kill, etc.).

from: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...eallsaved.html

but with the emphasis not on a revealed/secret axis but on a decree to cause to happen versus a desire without action. (Sort of like, i'd love a piece of pie versus i'd like to have a piece of that pie.) the end result being two wills:

Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least "two wills" in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.

from: http://www.desiringgod.org/cgi-bin/p...ce/2wills.html

This essay by Piper defends the traditional view very well and is certainly a must read to come to grips with the doctrine. Once you understand the historical defense, then the choices of various shades of exclusivity to inclusivity scale fall naturally into place depending on your acceptance of the two wills or not. Without this doctrine there is an inconsistency that drives many people towards a universalism as you point out.

[themuzicman]

Ah, yes.. The Scitzophrenic god. I want it, but I don't want it...

Michael

[jason]

I guess technically I am a weak inclusivist.

Does God save babies ? Maybe. How can we know ? I am sure God does what ever is just.

I think it is fair to say that if you reject the Gospel when it is presented to you, you are hosed. I am not sure how you could biblically arrive at any other position. I don't even think this is unfair. After all, you have been warned. If you want to ignore the warning and stick your head in the lions mouth then you deserve what you get.

As for people who never here the Gospel. Well when I think about this question I always think of Job. Abraham and Moses are dud examples because they were part of the people of God (pre-christians in a sense).

But look at Job. A pagan that clearly recognised the existence of God and Job bows down and worships him never the less. I am sure Job is saved because he acknowledges God and worships him.

As for many of the tribes in "deepest darkest africa", I have seen bits and peices that suggests that many of these tribes are actually monotheists that worship a God that they are forbidden from making images of. So these people groups may be saved as well.

Again, I trust God to do what ever is Just. I think we should take up our mandate to spread the Gospel to all the world because, if for no other reason, we are commanded to.

Jason

[Tercel]

Ah, yes.. The Scitzophrenic god. I want it, but I don't want it...

Well at least we can agree on this.
Up with the Open View, down with Schizophrenic theology!

As to the exegesis of Romans, yes I think that Paul's saying that all have sinned. Hence we conclude that the door to the kingdom is opened to all through God's grace. I just don't think he's talking about the afterlife. He's talking about the here and now judgement. God in the here and now has opened the doors for anyone to be his people in this life. God didn't have to accept people because of any super-special righteousness they possessed because no one is that righteous. So He accepts anyone who wants to come. This has nothing directly to do with the afterlife, but everything do with how we live our lives in the here and now. The focus is on God's actions on earth in the here and now and how the Jews are missing out on what God is doing with the new Israel. Just as Israel were His chosen people in the OT and God guided and protected them as a nation, so the new Israel is the same. Perhaps the most difficult question Paul has to try to deal with is why doesn't the new Israel include many of the physical nation of Israel and does this mean that God's promises to Israel through the prophets are not being fulfilled?