Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"

Despite my hesitancy to use selective passages of Scripture to “make a point” and my general aversion to bullet-points, I felt it necessary to include a more detailed presentation of a biblical alternative to exclusivism for the benefit of those readers who are themselves searching for one. I should mention that I am forever indebted to the scholarship of Clark Pinnock on this subject. His book, “A Wideness in God’s Mercy” (Zondervan, 1992) opened my eyes to the theme of God’s universal love too often overlooked in Scripture.

I’ve organized my thoughts under the headings of “Some Things I Know,” “Some Things That Give Me Hope,” and “Some Things I Don’t Know.”

Some Things I Know:

   


Some Things That Give Me Hope:


Some things I don’t know:

*For my response to the oft-quoted "I am the way, the truth, and the life" verse, see my comment on the previous post.


Micah
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #1 on : Thu May 01, 2008, 12:13:07
Eh. For better or worse, moral monothiests are never criticized in the Old Testament. Zoroastrianism was a big hit during the times of Esther, Cyrus, etc, but the Bible never criticizes these people for their religion. There's a lot wrong with Islam, but I'd much rather be a devout Muslim than an atheist on the day of judgment.

Really it's going to depend on how you take the stuff of Romans 2. But pretty much everything in theology works better once you ditch TULIP. A lot of the theological problems just cease to be problems when you don't have to defend Calvin.
kristen
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #2 on : Thu May 01, 2008, 16:19:45
thanks for your concise thoughts in the last two posts, rachel. melissa and i were just discussing it the other day.

i do indeed hope that there is some third option, though i admit i had given up on wrestling with this topic for a bit. i just grew tired and unsatisfied with all of the 'answers.' i trust God and am compelled to believe. i also take some comfort in the new consideration i find that non-believers give to my beliefs when i am honest about my discomfort on this matter.

this gives me new impetus to delve into the question again and that's a good thing.
mitch
Comment
An Inconvenient Truth
Reply #3 on : Thu May 01, 2008, 21:47:19
An exclusive view may be inconvenient, but that does not make it false. Nor should the very inconvenience of it lead to revising our theology to be more convenient. Instead, the Lord Jesus calls us to die that others may live. We must respond to the exclusive claims and life of Jesus revealed in Jesus life, death, and resurrection, "the fullness of grace and truth". We must live and die sacrificially that God will be worshipped for who He is and what He has done in sending Jesus, the promise of all history and all the future.

This is inconvenient because we must respond by leaving our comfort, desires, and selfish ambitions behind, regardless of the geographic location. The convenient method is to change our theology to remove the dissonance. The biblical method, the calling of the church, is to respond by spending, by life or by death, ourselves so that the glorious knowledge of Jesus Christ will be published to the world.
Matt
Comment
I probably shouldn't...
Reply #4 on : Thu May 01, 2008, 23:02:41
but I just can't help but say how annoying it is when a group of one camp (be it theological, political, or whatever) tries to dismiss another groups beliefs by accusing them of taking the easy way out. This happens in all fields of public discourse and all parties tend to have a few people who find security in such nonsense. In the case at hand, everyone is striving for coherence. We all are trying to reconcile natural revelation with special revelation with our own finite minds. We are all trying to remove dissonance.

Let's give each other a little more respect than that.
Melissa
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #5 on : Fri May 02, 2008, 11:40:08
Thanks for the thoughts, Rachel, and others who have responded with sincere thought and consideration. This topic has been renewed in my mind lately and I have been, as Matt said, trying to "remove dissonance." This was helpful and encouraging that I am not alone in struggling to reconcile these ideas!
Mitch
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #6 on : Fri May 02, 2008, 19:49:44
Matt,

I am saying that I don't think the goal is to remove dissonance, but rather to know what God reveals. Call me a premodern, but I am willing to live with dissonance if it is derived from the revelation of Jesus Christ as told in the Bible. My security lies not in dismissing other's views. . . I take no joy in that, nor was that my intent. I apologize if that is what I communicated, that means I poorly communicated my point.

I am not dismissing the fact that people sincerely struggle with this fact, nor am I throwing accusations around that "taking the easy way out" is the only way people end up at an inclusive view. I am saying, that however one ends up at an inclusive view, the result is a lack of dissonance, which is convenient. I am also saying that arriving at an inclusive view is not predominantly biblically derived, but is derived by a rationalistic approach, with my reason at the center, and with occasional biblical appeal to verses that are then interpreted in a different manner than they have traditionally been understood (postmodern deconstruction does this frequently through there is room for legitimate disagreement about textual evidence).

This is convenient, however you get there, whatever the motive, because it removes the dissonance. I think the primary goal should not be the removal of dissonance, but to understand what God has revealed. If there remains dissonance, then I choose to believe that the God who has revealed truly, has not revealed it all to my finite mind. I can live with dissonance because I don't have to figure it all out, I may trust the one who has it all figured out. His character is both good and holy. He loves the world and He will destroy it and remake it. He eternally rewards and eternally punishes. Any dissonance from the revealed nature of a loving God who has great wrath against sin and, yes, even sinners, can be easily explained by the fact that I am finite.

This leaves me in the inconvenient position of urgently living out and declaring the Gospel so that those who do not know God will learn of Him through my life. This is the calling and purpose of the church according to the scriptures.

Again, to restate my main point. If removal of dissonance is my main goal, then the whole discussion is ultimately about the comfort of my own mind and life. If understanding the truth God has revealed, the reality of the world, is my main goal, it isn't about me. My dissonance or lack of dissonance is simply an effect, not causal to my conclusions.
Mitch
Comment
An example
Reply #7 on : Fri May 02, 2008, 20:01:00
I just thought of an example of what I mean. Job suffered unjustly, because he was righteous. He was brutally attacked by Satan endured great sorrow. This created massive dissonance in his mind as clearly expressed in the book of Job. He cried out repeatedly to God to answer him which God did not do for a long time. Job played lawyer and made his case to God before asking for God's answer, his judgment.

God answered, but not to any of Job's questions. His response did not remove dissonance from Job's mind about why these things happened to Him. He was left without the answers. God simply stated His character, His nature, who He is. Job as the created being had nothing to say. He humbled himself before the Almighty and affirmed that he (Job) had nothing worthwhile to say before this Great God. He remained without answers about his specific circumstances and the seeming lack of justice in what was happening, but trusted in the character and nature of a good and holy God who is the Ultimate Reality. The removal of dissonance was not the point, trust in the revelation of the nature and work of God was all that was necessary. He was greatly rewarded for this faith.
Comment
Biblical support for inclusivism
Reply #8 on : Sat May 03, 2008, 10:04:10
Mitch,

Considering the fact that there is a lot of biblical support for inclusivism, (much of which I presented in the post), why do you think believers "must" hold to the exclusivist position? I understand why a lot of fundamentalists hold to exclusivism, but I think it's unfair to characterize it as the only biblical view.
Matt
Comment
Dissonance
Reply #9 on : Sat May 03, 2008, 19:52:30
Mitch,

I appreciate your clarification. I still think you are employing an implicitly condescending rhetorical strategy, albeit in a more polite manner. I appreciate the comments nonetheless.

As a point of clarification of my own, I would add that I did not mean to intend that the ultimate goal was simply to remove dissonance. If that was the goal, I wouldn't bother with Scripture or revelation at all and I would simply pursue an entirely hedonistic philosophy. The end goal, I emphatically agree with you, is to "know what God reveals," and consequently correctly orient my life and beliefs accordingly. In pursuit of this goal, we both look to Scripture. And, I believe, whether you like the terms or not, we all seek to remove dissonance between what the text appears to say and what makes sense to us (morally, theologically, and otherwise). This is the very act of exegesis. I don't think any of us attain a point where there is a total lack of dissonance, there will be problematic passages or concepts for us all. We all make a choice to be content with a degree of dissonance in certain areas--an inclusivist viewpoint is no more "convenient" than an exclusivist viewpiont. Only the dissonance lies in different areas.

I hope this makes sense.

-Matt
Mitch
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #10 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 00:25:36
Rachel,

By "must" I am not implying anything other than my conclusion that exclusivism is faithful to the biblical text. In the context of persuasive speech I use it, not as necessity of salvation.

I believe that of those that start with a high view of scriptural inerrancy, the overwhelming conclusion is exclusivism (though not all). I think that you and I are back to our disagreements obout hermeanutics and epistemology which leave us unable to interpret the same verses in the same way in this area.

I do think there is only one right answer on this issue. For instance, on the range of choices between exclusivism and inclusivism, I think there is only one reality. In that sense I think my conclusion of exclusivism is correct just as you think your answer, leaning toward inclusivism) is correct. In that sense I think my answer is biblical. We can disagree in a kind manner but I can not call your answer biblical. If I did, it contradicts my previous claim that exclusivism is biblical. They are mutually exclusive.



Matt,

I appreciate the strength of your argument in this manner. I find it compelling but also the exception. Perhaps I am skewed by my experiences, but many incusivists that I have interacted with arrived at their conclusions and then went looking for scriptural backing. In other words they weren't reading the Bible one day, stumbled across a passage that caused them to come to an inclusivist view. Some didn't even care if they had scriptural backing. I find a high correlation between inclusivism and a low view of scriptural inerrancy. I am far less critical of those who begin with scripture, wrestle with it's truth, and come to a different conclusion.

The second correlation I have seen with inclusivism is a low view of missions and the preaching of the Gospel. Missions becomes the "social gospel" which again I find unfaithful to the Scripture that repeatedly calls for proclamation of truth. My experience again with those who hold to inclusivism is that they want to learn about other religions more than they wish to proclaim Jesus Christ crucified for the sins of the world.

If you are an inclusivist that through careful study of scripture (not just dissonance) came to your conclusion and who are faithful to proclaim the gospel (Christ penal substitutionary atonement) in obedience to the command of Christ then two things:

1. I am pleased to call you "brother" though we disagree in our conclusions.
2. I think you are very strongly in the minority in the inclusive camp.

If I am cynical or jaded let me know. This has been my experience.
kristen
Comment
Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"
Reply #11 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 17:12:22
i would just like to add that i do not believe that i have formed my beliefs as a convenient way to remove dissonance in the matter of "those who have not heard." my point was merely to acknowledge that dissonance and to say that my response to it has been to just stop thinking about it. neither exclusivism nor inclusivism sit well with me, so i have placed my trust in God to sort it (and me) out and just stopped thinking about it very much.

i am not pleased to admit that but i am pleased to find an intelligent and biblically based forum in which to explore the possibilities (even those which may ultimately prove false).

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code