Alive in Christ
New Member
This issue has come up before, and the topic produced what I thought was interesting conversation...without vitriol and mean spiritedness.
So, as a result of some new material I have come across, I thought I would ressurect the topic again.
Here is a start...the entirety is linked below.
-----------------------------------------
THE CASE FOR INCLUSIVISM
The majority of evangelicals today seem to be hardline restrictivists, believing that only a few will be saved and all the unevangelized will be {61} damned.
The only possibility for encountering God and receiving salvation in the restrictivist view is by exercising explicit faith in Jesus Christ in this life.
Sanders and Pinnock, following the lead of Anderson, affirm that the Bible presents a much more hopeful picture than restrictionists present. God includes before He excludes. “All are included in God’s grace and only those who spurn this grace are excluded in judgment,” stated Sanders in a paper given at the 1992 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.
“Because of the work of Christ, God accepts all. Only those who decline to accept God’s grace are excluded.”
Inclusivism is presented within the framework of two axioms: The love of God for all humanity, and salvation found only in Christ. People are saved, whether they hear of Christ or not, through “the faith principle” i.e., they fulfill the conditions of Hebrews 11:6: they believe God exists and that he rewards those who seek Him. “Holy pagans” in the Old Testament are cited in Hebrews as examples of faith we should emulate. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, Abimelech, and Naaman sought after God and Paul declares that all who do likewise will receive eternal life, because God shows no partiality (Romans 2:6-8).
These God-seekers were saved by faith without any knowledge of Christ, says Pinnock, so in the same way today, people who are spiritually ‘Before Christ’ even though chronologically ‘After Christ’ can trust in God on the basis of the light they have. Premessianic Jews were saved by faith in God even though they knew very little about Christ. Though they never confessed the Saviour, they were nevertheless saved by His redemption.
Much is made of the Cornelius story (Acts 10). Pinnock calls Cornelius “the pagan saint par excellence of the New Testament” (p. 165). God had accepted Cornelius’ prayers and alms (Acts 10:4) yet Peter was commanded to preach Christ to him to bring “messianic” salvation to his household. Cornelius was a believer before this and not hellbound. “True,” writes Pinnock, “he needed to become a Christian to receive messianic salvation, including assurance and the Holy Spirit, but not be saved from hell” (p. 166).
Regarding the salvation of babies and mentally incompetent people who die, most Christians believe that such people are saved. But this seems inconsistent with the belief that all must be evangelized. This inconsistency doesn’t seem to bother traditionalists, say these authors. “Why so great compassion for infants who cannot believe and so little for numbers of others perishing without God lifting a finger to help them?” asks Pinnock (p. 167). He contends that we need to apply Christ’s atonement {62} in the same way to the entire range of the unevangelized that we do to infants who die.
Salvation is Accessible for the Unevangelized
Without being naively optimistic by believing all religions are ways to God, inclusivists say we should not think that God cannot work in and through them. We ought not deny that there is some truth in other religions. The point is, God will judge all people fairly in terms of the light they have received in their own historical situation. God, in grace, grants every individual a genuine opportunity to participate in the redemptive work of Christ. Salvation is universally accessible apart from evangelization and people who respond in faith to the revelation they do have will attain salvation even if they never hear the gospel.
Sanders and Pinnock affirm that the unevangelized are saved or lost on the basis of their commitment, or lack thereof, to the God who saves through the work of Jesus. This saving grace is mediated through general revelation and God’s special workings in human history.
The inclusivist view raises the matter of motivation for missions. Sanders argues that even if “belief in the wider hope were conclusively shown to reduce support for missions, this would not in itself indicate that the wider hope view was false; the problem might well lie elsewhere - in an inadequate theory of missions” (p. 284).
A number of reasons are given why proponents of the wider hope are strongly motivated to bring the gospel to the unevangelized. Jesus commanded us to go and preach the gospel to all people. Christians deeply desire to share Christ and cannot keep the blessings of a personal relationship with Him to themselves. The Bible teaches that God wants to bring fullness of eternal life into the lives of all people now. The good news is not only for the life beyond this one, but for the life we live now.
Pinnock suspects evangelicals have narrowed the motivation for missions down to one thing - deliverance from wrath. “Sinners are not in the hands of an angry God,” he writes.
Our mission is not to urge them to turn to Jesus because God hates them and delights in sending them to hell. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save the world (John 3:17). No, our mission is to announce the wonderful news of the kingdom of God (p. 177).
CONCLUSION
It is clear that devout Christians disagree regarding the fate of those who have never heard of Jesus and that the dominant restrictivist stance is {63} not the only orthodox interpretation. Hermeneutical problems exist on both sides of the issue.
The sense this reviewer received from reading widely on the topic is that this question is a serious one and cannot be pursued as a mere academic curiosity but is vital to our understanding of the nature of God and our sense of mission.
The conclusions we reach must be consistent with the full-orbed portrayal of God in Scripture, and our theology of the unevangelized must not diminish our sense of urgency in proclaiming the gospel throughout the world.
The Bible is clear about this: only those who personally respond to Jesus in repentance and faith may know the present blessing and assurance of salvation. We long deeply for all to enter in to the joy of Christ’s redemption.
entire article...
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?822
So, as a result of some new material I have come across, I thought I would ressurect the topic again.
Here is a start...the entirety is linked below.
-----------------------------------------
THE CASE FOR INCLUSIVISM
The majority of evangelicals today seem to be hardline restrictivists, believing that only a few will be saved and all the unevangelized will be {61} damned.
The only possibility for encountering God and receiving salvation in the restrictivist view is by exercising explicit faith in Jesus Christ in this life.
Sanders and Pinnock, following the lead of Anderson, affirm that the Bible presents a much more hopeful picture than restrictionists present. God includes before He excludes. “All are included in God’s grace and only those who spurn this grace are excluded in judgment,” stated Sanders in a paper given at the 1992 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.
“Because of the work of Christ, God accepts all. Only those who decline to accept God’s grace are excluded.”
Inclusivism is presented within the framework of two axioms: The love of God for all humanity, and salvation found only in Christ. People are saved, whether they hear of Christ or not, through “the faith principle” i.e., they fulfill the conditions of Hebrews 11:6: they believe God exists and that he rewards those who seek Him. “Holy pagans” in the Old Testament are cited in Hebrews as examples of faith we should emulate. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, Abimelech, and Naaman sought after God and Paul declares that all who do likewise will receive eternal life, because God shows no partiality (Romans 2:6-8).
These God-seekers were saved by faith without any knowledge of Christ, says Pinnock, so in the same way today, people who are spiritually ‘Before Christ’ even though chronologically ‘After Christ’ can trust in God on the basis of the light they have. Premessianic Jews were saved by faith in God even though they knew very little about Christ. Though they never confessed the Saviour, they were nevertheless saved by His redemption.
Much is made of the Cornelius story (Acts 10). Pinnock calls Cornelius “the pagan saint par excellence of the New Testament” (p. 165). God had accepted Cornelius’ prayers and alms (Acts 10:4) yet Peter was commanded to preach Christ to him to bring “messianic” salvation to his household. Cornelius was a believer before this and not hellbound. “True,” writes Pinnock, “he needed to become a Christian to receive messianic salvation, including assurance and the Holy Spirit, but not be saved from hell” (p. 166).
Regarding the salvation of babies and mentally incompetent people who die, most Christians believe that such people are saved. But this seems inconsistent with the belief that all must be evangelized. This inconsistency doesn’t seem to bother traditionalists, say these authors. “Why so great compassion for infants who cannot believe and so little for numbers of others perishing without God lifting a finger to help them?” asks Pinnock (p. 167). He contends that we need to apply Christ’s atonement {62} in the same way to the entire range of the unevangelized that we do to infants who die.
Salvation is Accessible for the Unevangelized
Without being naively optimistic by believing all religions are ways to God, inclusivists say we should not think that God cannot work in and through them. We ought not deny that there is some truth in other religions. The point is, God will judge all people fairly in terms of the light they have received in their own historical situation. God, in grace, grants every individual a genuine opportunity to participate in the redemptive work of Christ. Salvation is universally accessible apart from evangelization and people who respond in faith to the revelation they do have will attain salvation even if they never hear the gospel.
Sanders and Pinnock affirm that the unevangelized are saved or lost on the basis of their commitment, or lack thereof, to the God who saves through the work of Jesus. This saving grace is mediated through general revelation and God’s special workings in human history.
The inclusivist view raises the matter of motivation for missions. Sanders argues that even if “belief in the wider hope were conclusively shown to reduce support for missions, this would not in itself indicate that the wider hope view was false; the problem might well lie elsewhere - in an inadequate theory of missions” (p. 284).
A number of reasons are given why proponents of the wider hope are strongly motivated to bring the gospel to the unevangelized. Jesus commanded us to go and preach the gospel to all people. Christians deeply desire to share Christ and cannot keep the blessings of a personal relationship with Him to themselves. The Bible teaches that God wants to bring fullness of eternal life into the lives of all people now. The good news is not only for the life beyond this one, but for the life we live now.
Pinnock suspects evangelicals have narrowed the motivation for missions down to one thing - deliverance from wrath. “Sinners are not in the hands of an angry God,” he writes.
Our mission is not to urge them to turn to Jesus because God hates them and delights in sending them to hell. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save the world (John 3:17). No, our mission is to announce the wonderful news of the kingdom of God (p. 177).
CONCLUSION
It is clear that devout Christians disagree regarding the fate of those who have never heard of Jesus and that the dominant restrictivist stance is {63} not the only orthodox interpretation. Hermeneutical problems exist on both sides of the issue.
The sense this reviewer received from reading widely on the topic is that this question is a serious one and cannot be pursued as a mere academic curiosity but is vital to our understanding of the nature of God and our sense of mission.
The conclusions we reach must be consistent with the full-orbed portrayal of God in Scripture, and our theology of the unevangelized must not diminish our sense of urgency in proclaiming the gospel throughout the world.
The Bible is clear about this: only those who personally respond to Jesus in repentance and faith may know the present blessing and assurance of salvation. We long deeply for all to enter in to the joy of Christ’s redemption.
entire article...
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?822
Last edited by a moderator:
