see attached
joeph2
chapter_nine.docxChapter Nine
INCLUSIVISM AND THE BIBLE
Exclusivists and evangelical inclusivists affirm their commitment to the authority of Scripture. One might think that this would make a resolution of their differences rather easy. “Let’s sit down,” these disagreeing evangelicals might be expected to say, “and just see what the Bible has to say on all this.” But we will learn in this chapter just how elusive that hope is. Each side in this dispute is critical of the way people on the other side handle certain key passages of Scripture.
This chapter has two parts. In part 1 we will examine what I judge to be the important texts that inclusivists appeal to in support of their position. We will also discuss exclusivist objections to the inclusivist interpretations of these passages. In part 2 we look at the most important texts that exclusivists appeal to for support and consider the inclusivist response. By the end of the chapter we should have a clear view of the strengths and weaknesses of each position with respect to Scripture.
SCRIPTURES APPEALED TO IN SUPPORT OF INCLUSIVISM
Acts 10 and the Case of Cornelius
No passage of Scripture is mentioned more often by inclusivists than the story of Cornelius in Acts 10. The context is the period immediately after Pentecost—a hectic time for the early church (Acts 2:41; 4:4). Events were happening fast and furiously, and the threat of persecution was always present (Acts 8:1). It was also a time of some confusion, especially with regard to the relationship between features of the old Judaism and the young church (Acts 11:1 – 3). Was the salvation Christ offered only for Jews? If it was also for Gentiles, was it necessary for those Gentiles to conform to such Jewish rituals as circumcision (Acts 15:1 – 2)? These questions were compounded because the Jewish culture forbade good Jews to eat and fellowship in gentile homes (Gal. 2:11 – 14).
Cornelius was a Roman centurion living in Caesarea. As Acts 10:2 reports, Cornelius “and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.” Several matters are worth noting. Luke certainly seems to be telling us that Cornelius, though a Gentile, was a faithful believer in Yahweh. Morally and spiritually he was in precisely the same condition as any faithful and believing Jew of that time who had not yet encountered Jesus. We could go so far as to say that his relationship to Yahweh was similar to that of an Old Testament believer.
That whole first-century community of believers in Yahweh was a kind of transitional generation. Jesus had instituted a new covenant. Hence, it was important for faithful Jews to hear about Jesus as the promised Messiah whose mission, as prophesied in the Old Testament, was to die for human sin and rise again. This is why we find Paul working zealously to bring the message of Christ to his Jewish brothers and sisters. It was also important for gentile believers in Yahweh to hear the same message.
Acts 10 relates the story of how God used Peter to bring Cornelius that message, but the chapter adds an additional piece to the puzzle. Peter was not sure he was acting properly in going to Cornelius. It is clear that he was prejudiced when it came to Gentiles, despite the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8). Hence, both Cornelius and Peter had important things to learn. After Peter shared the gospel with Cornelius, the centurion and everyone in his house believed and received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
On the surface it appears that there is nothing in this biblical account to support the inclusivist claim that God saves many unevangelized without any specific reference to Jesus Christ. How did this chapter become so important to the inclusivists’ case?
For inclusivists, the key passage in the chapter is verses 34 and 35: “Then Peter began to speak: ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.’” These words are cited to show that knowledge of Christ is not necessary for salvation. 1 The entire story is supposed to support the inclusivist distinction between believers and Christians. According to John Sanders, “Cornelius was already a saved believer before Peter arrived but he was not a Christian believer.” 2 This bears further examination.
Inclusivists say, on the basis of these verses, that any person who simply fears a supreme being and lives a good life will be accepted by God. That is the inclusivist understanding of what it means to fear God and do what is right, but I disagree. In chapter 8 I took issue with the inclusivists’ taking the two points in Hebrews 11:6 (believing that God exists and seeking him) as exhausting the content of saving faith. But their treatment of Acts 10:35 falls to the same error.
Unless we challenge this approach, we will be left with the suggestion that one can approach the Father without the Son, a claim clearly contradicted by John 14:6 and 1 John 2:23. Moreover, the suggestion that living a good life can satisfy God smacks of Pelagianism and again contradicts a major New Testament emphasis. While fearing God and doing what is right are important elements of the Christian commitment, they do not exhaust what it means to be a saved believer. Peter’s words in Acts 10:35 complement the oft-cited New Testament emphasis on the centrality of Christ in the salvation process. To use Peter’s words to supplant that central point begs the inclusivist question.
None of the inclusivist claims for this chapter stand up when we view Acts 10 in the proper light. 3 Cornelius was a believer in the same sense as every believing Jew prior to Christ. Two conditions prevailed during those transitional years: (1) believing Jews and Gentiles (like Cornelius) needed to know that the Son of God had come into the world and offered his life as a sacrifice for many; and (2) Christian Jews (like Peter) had to learn how to deal with the brewing controversy over Gentiles in the early church.
Clark Pinnock describes Cornelius as “the pagan saint par excellence of the New Testament, a believer in God before he became a Christian.” 4 This incredible statement seems to be a desperate attempt to buttress the inclusivist position. Is this Gentile who feared Yahweh and who knew and believed the special revelation God delivered in the Old Testament really a “ pagan saint”? This key proof-text fails miserably in the case for inclusivism.
Acts 15
Acts 15 is second only to Acts 10 as a crucial proof-text for inclusivists. John Sanders summarizes what is at stake in this passage:
Paul argued against the Judaizers that Jesus was Lord and Savior of all and hence that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from God’s love…Our situation is somewhat similar to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). At that historic meeting, the leaders of the apostolic church decided to allow Gentiles into the church with less restrictive requirements than had previously been accepted by the Jewish Christians. 5
The point in this quotation is not entirely clear without its context, but what is behind it is the inclusivist contention that whenever the God of the Bible shows any interest in saving Gentiles, inclusivist assumptions must be present somewhere. We saw this attitude expressed in chapter 8 in reference to Old Testament passages that promise the salvation of Gentiles. As I explained, these Old Testament passages do nothing of the kind.
The question now is whether the debate at the Council of Jerusalem has implications for inclusivism. I believe it does not. Paul was arguing that the Christian church can and should include believing Gentiles without their having to conform to traditional Jewish practices such as circumcision. But these Gentiles were to become believers through explicit faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. How this passage can support the belief that millions of Gentiles can be saved apart from faith in Christ is left unexplained by inclusivists.
Acts 14:16 – 17
Speaking to a crowd in the city of Lystra, Paul and Silas explained, “In the past, [God] let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” According to Pinnock, this verse indicates that God had a witness or testimony among people who had not heard the gospel. Apparently, Pinnock declares, “these people possessed truth from God in the context of their [pagan] religion and culture.” 6 I disagree, because Acts 14:16 does not teach that other nations were saved, only that God continued to have an ongoing witness among them through general revelation. Absolutely nothing in Paul’s words suggests that the Lystrans received God’s witness through their pagan faith or that the witness they received through general revelation was sufficient to effect their salvation.
Acts 17:28 – 30
Acts 17 contains Paul’s memorable message to Athenian intellectuals, in which he quotes from a pagan Stoic philosopher: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’” (v. 28). Pinnock regards Paul’s action as an endorsement of pagan religious sentiments. 7
Alan Race claims that Paul’s message “acknowledges the authenticity of the worship of the men of Athens at their altar ‘to an unknown God.’” 8 Race’s claim, however, is falsified, first, by the conclusion to Paul’s sermon: “For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (v. 31). It is falsified in the second place in that Paul’s words led some in the audience to turn from their false gods to the truth (v. 34). Pinnock seems to forget that Paul was an educated man addressing an audience of educated people. What better way to gain their attention than to show that he was acquainted with some of their writers and could quote them? One quote hardly proves that Paul had any interest in or sympathy with Stoic thought. 9
Pinnock has more to say on this text. In verse 30, Paul states, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” For Pinnock, these words teach that God overlooks the sins of all who fail to trust in him because of ignorance. New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce has a better grasp of Paul’s meaning: However patient God may have been prior to the coming of Christ, Paul is saying that the time of patience has ended. Bruce states, “If ignorance of the divine nature was culpable before [Christ’s coming], it is inexcusable now. Let all people everywhere (the Athenians included) repent therefore of their false conception of God (and consequent flouting of his will) and embrace the true knowledge of his being now made available in the gospel.” 10
It is difficult to see how passages that clearly call upon lost pagans to place their faith in Christ can be treated as proof-texts for the inclusivist position that saving faith can exist apart from Christ.
Texts Cited for Universal Accessibility of Salvation
There is a considerable number of Scripture texts that inclusivists quote frequently in support of the universality axiom. This axiom, we remember, is one of two fundamental axioms of the inclusivist system and states that God is obliged to make his salvation accessible to every person throughout world history. It is this axiom that distinguishes inclusivists from exclusivists, because both groups agree on the other one—the particularity axiom, which asserts that Jesus is the only Savior.
The biblical texts appealed to in support of universally accessible salvation are familiar and include the following:
God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3 – 4).
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11).
[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
The one feature common to these and other supposed universalist texts is their use of words such as “all” and “world,” which inclusivists insist must always mean every human person. But it is not at all clear that these texts teach what inclusivists claim they teach. Consider Titus 2:11. Does the expression “all men” really refer to every single human being who has ever lived or will live? How can it?
Many theologians point out that expressions like “all men” may refer either to all humans without distinction or to all persons without exception. In their view, texts such as Titus 2:11 do not describe what God has done or is doing for all humans without exception, that is, for every single human being; rather, they report what God did for all human beings without distinction. That is, Christ did not die just for Jews or for males or for educated people or for powerful individuals. He also died for Gentiles, for women and children, for barbarians, for slaves and the poor. He died for Jews, yes; but he also died for Romans, Thracians, Syrians, Ethiopians, Macedonians, and Samaritans. All these passages—1 Timothy 2:3 – 4, Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9, and 1 John 2:2—tell us what God has done for all humans without distinction. 11
Summary
So far we have examined the biblical passages most often appealed to by inclusivists, and to my mind this has left their biblical support very weak. Coupled with the theological weaknesses identified in chapter 8, this discussion should lead many people sympathetic to inclusivism to re-examine their commitment.
SCRIPTURES APPEALED TO IN SUPPORT OF EXCLUSIVISM
It seems evident that, on the surface at least, exclusivism is on much firmer ground biblically than inclusivism. Not only is there a host of well-known Bible texts that teach the precise opposite of inclusivism, but also the whole thrust of New Testament evangelism and missions seems to run contrary to inclusivist assumptions. To close out this chapter I will cite a number of these exclusivist passages and then consider the inclusivist response.
Romans 10:9 – 10
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
John Sanders says of this text, “It is clear from Romans 10:9 that whoever confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. It is not clear that whoever does not fulfill these conditions is lost. Paul simply does not specify how much a person has to know to be saved.” 12
Sanders regards this passage as a conditional statement comparable to “If it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet.” That is, if you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him, you will be saved. Both conditional statements are true, Sanders assures us. But turning the nonbiblical sentence around does not yield a true proposition. The sidewalk could be wet even though it has not rained. The sidewalk might have gotten wet some other way—from a sprinkling system, for example.
Similarly, Sanders insists, we are not entitled to turn around the conditional statement in Romans 10:9 – 10. In Sanders’s words, “It is sometimes argued that since all those who accept Christ are saved, it must follow that only those who know about and accept Christ are saved. But this is like arguing that since all Collies are dogs, all dogs must be Collies.” 13 Sanders’s logic is acceptable in the case of the relationships rain/wet sidewalk and Collies/dogs. The conditional reasoning in these cases works in one direction but fails when reversed. Is Sanders, then, correct when he states that “All who receive Christ will be saved” is not synonymous with “All who do not receive Christ will be lost”? 14
If Sanders is right, the traditional exclusivist meaning applied to Romans 10:9 – 10 turns out to be an embarrassing logical blunder.
Sanders is right about one thing: Propositions of the form If A, then B do not convert simply to If B, then A. Likewise, propositions of the form All A is B do not convert to All B is A. However, there is one exception to this general rule: All A is B does convert to All B is A whenever A and B are identical. If the class of all people who have saving faith in Jesus Christ (call this A) is identical with the class of all saved believers (call this B), then every member of A is also a member of B and vice versa. In such a case, one is entitled to say both that All A is B and that All B is A. The same situation affects hypothetical statements like If A, then B.
This detour into logic reveals that the inclusivist argument cannot be used to disqualify Romans 10:9 – 10 because that would beg the very question we are attempting to settle. What Sanders does instead is simply assume that the two classes of people are different (which is tantamount to assuming his inclusivism) and then use that assumption to alter the meaning of the text. Unfortunately, Sanders does not allow at all that the exclusivist interpretation of Romans 10:9 – 10 is a possible reading of the text.
Acts 4:12
At first glance the meaning of this text seems clear: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” But the inclusivists marshal this verse for support by a procedure that proves to be quite revealing.
According to Clark Pinnock, Acts 4:12 does not speak in any way to the “fate of unevangelized people, whether they lived before or after Christ.” 15 Pinnock states further that “The text speaks forcefully about the incomparable power of Jesus’ name to save (and heal) those who hear and respond to the good news, but it does not comment on the fate of the heathen.” 16 For Pinnock, this verse “does not render a judgment, positive or negative, on another question that interests us a great deal: the status of other religions and the role they play in God’s providence or plan of redemption.” 17 But this runs counter to the verse’s unequivocal statement that “salvation is found in no one else.”
Pinnock does here essentially what John Sanders does with Romans 10:9 – 10. Pinnock agrees that Jesus is doing something unique and wonderful for the world, but he denies that this is necessarily God’s exclusive way. 18 Further, he states,
Acts 4:12 makes a strong and definitively exclusive claim about the messianic, holistic salvation Jesus has brought into the world. It is a salvation that is incomparable and without rival. It is available through no other name than Jesus the Incarnate Son of God. But the text does not exclude from eternal salvation the vast majority of people who have ever lived on the earth. 19
Responding to this view, Darrell Bock, an exclusivist who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, concurs with Pinnock that the text emphasizes a holistic salvation that includes both physical and spiritual healing. Bock also acknowledges that the text does not speak directly to the issue of exclusivism. Nonetheless, he contends that Pinnock attaches too much significance to ideas the text does not express. Alluding to references to the “God-fearing Greeks” and spiritual “ignorance” mentioned elsewhere by Paul, Bock writes that “respect for those who seek God is not the same as acceptance of their faith as ‘true’ or ‘saving.’ Luke knows the difference. Acts 4:12 is not ‘unfairly manipulated’ by exclusivists; rather it is related properly by them to the assertions and implications of the speeches in Acts 13 and 17.” 20
Bock correctly points out the importance of relating Peter’s words in Acts 4:12 to a broader context, namely, the messages found in Acts 13 and 17. But if receiving light from two additional chapters of Acts is good, then consulting the entire book of Acts is even better. What I learned as a result of this exercise contributes to the conclusion of this book.
John 14:6
In this familiar passage Jesus declares, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John Sanders feels that this verse says nothing about the unevangelized. Rather, while it states that all who believe in Christ will be saved, it does not mean to say that all who fail to believe in him will be lost. 21 I disagree.
There is an epistemological component present in the words way, truth, and life. 22 The inclusivist position effectively negates Jesus’ use of these words by denying the epistemological necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. What good is a way and a truth and a life that people know nothing about? The words “No one comes to the Father except through me” are hardly compatible with inclusivist sentiments.
Other Texts
There are several other exclusivist texts that I believe speak for themselves:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life…Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:16,18).
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23).
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5:12).
