Home » Religious Pluralism » Per Your Request (of My Posts) . . . and a Clarification

Per Your Request (of My Posts) . . . and a Clarification

Photo of author
Written By Tim Brister

Tim has a missionary heart for his hometown to love those close to him yet far from God. He is husband to Dusti and father to Nolan, Aiden, and Adelyn - fellow pilgrims to our celestial city.

Over recent days, I have received several emails about some of the research, bibliographies, and particular posts on my blog. One of the most unfortunate things about my blog (from what I have been told) is that you can’t copy and paste the material without the background green color. Therefore, I thought I’d take a moment to mention that I do have my posts and/or research in Word and PDF documents if the interest is there to obtain a copy. The reason I make public my study is so that as many Christians can be informed and benefited from it. I want to give away as much as I can. So if you want or need of anything I have done or will do, simply drop me an email (found in my profile), and I would be happy to assist in any way I can.

One more note: I was talking with my dad last week about an inclusivist in his church. He made it aware that the commentary of my 15 questions could easily lead one to assume that I am defending or supporting inclusivism. For the record, this is NOT the case. My commentary are supportive of the questions of inclusivism, not inclusivism itself. However, I do feel that it is the top priority of a student to have the intellectual integrity to accurately present the topic as fair, objective, and thorough as possible. Therefore, it may appear that I am defending what I am explaining, but this is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. The prescriptive part comes when I respond to what I hope to have accurately portrayed. If I fail in the presentation of the issue, I would find myself arguing against something that doesn’t exist (except in my mind!), my caricature, or some straw man. Therefore, while I hold my convictions strongly on these matters, I hold the conviction to be fair and objective in the full presentation of the facts of those with whom I disagree. If I fail to give a prescriptive in a post, it may be that my only intent is to be descriptive, and my prescription may follow at a later time. Hope that makes sense and clarifies some of the questions or assumptions that may be in the air.

2 thoughts on “Per Your Request (of My Posts) . . . and a Clarification”

  1. could you give your definition of a “inclusivist”. so I might have more clarity of the subject you are writing? Thank you.

  2. Honest,

    Inclusivism can narrowlhy or broadly defined. By that I mean there are some inclusivists who will call their position “modal inclusivism” or others “anonymous Christianity.” Basically and generally, inclusivists believe that Jesus Christ is an ontological necessity but not an epistemological necessity. In simpler terms, Jesus Christ is the only way (ontological necessity), but one does not need to know about Jesus in order to be saved (no epistemological necessity).

    Evangelical inclusivists operate on two axioms–the axiom of particularity (uniqueness of Jesus Christ) and the axiom of universality (God’s universal salvific will). There are other control beliefs and presuppositions of inclusivists, but they argue for their position primarily on these two principles. From the axiom of particularity, inclusivists separate themselves from pluralists, arguing that there is only one normative and definitive way of salvation, namely through the person of Jesus Christ. From the axiom of universality, they separate themselves from exclusivists, arguing that everyone will have the opportunity of going to heaven, even if they have never heard of Jesus. Therefore, within inclusivism, you will hear arguments for eschatological evangelization or post-mortem encouters where those who did not hear about Jesus will have the opportunity of receiving him in the afterlife. This is because those who are “inculpably ignorance” cannot be guilty of hell since they did not have the chance to make a choice whether they want to believe in Jesus or not. Looking at this, you will see that inclusivists do not believe a person is lost (at least not finally) until they can choose on their own free will. Others will argue that there is not enough information (general revelation) available in creation and conscience to cause a person to respond in faith towards their Creator, and God consider their faith as an acceptable response leading to their salvation. More extreme forms of inclusivism comes where the argument that other religions are “vehicles of salvation” and people can be “anonymously Christian,” even atheists.

    To summarize, there is only one way to heaven, namely through Jesus Christ alone. However, there are many ways inside the particularity of Christ to get to heaven, including pagan saints, chronologically displaced persons, unevangelized believers, etc.). With that said, inclusivists have a picture of heaven where they overwhelming majority of those in heaven will have never heard of Jesus Christ will have benefited from his death on the cross. Consequently, very few people will be in hell. They are those who did hear about Jesus and chose not to accept him as their Savior. A person does not go to hell because they are a sinner. They go to hell because they did not choose Jesus as their Savior.

    I hope that summary is a little more clarifying. If you have any other questions, please let me know. 🙂

Comments are closed.