Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism and Christianity

Different Positions On How God May Relate to Those Lacking Revelation

1 Exclusivism (restrictivism, fundamentalism)
- All religions are different and only one is true
- One can only be saved by hearing and accepting the message of Jesus in this life.
- Sharp distinction between general revelation and special revelation
- Christians have little or nothing to learn from others (at least with regard to salvation)
- There are few or no redeeming qualities in other religions
- People of other religions are at best tragically ignorant or at worst evil
- Harsh exclusivism or compassionate exclusivism.
Pros - Clarity, Strong set of convictions and lines in the sand, urgency of being missionary focused, Helps make sense of certain passages of scriptures, something stable and something to hold onto.
Cons - Very Narrow , How many people have no hope then?, How is this in line with a good and merciful God?

(Defense: A Calvinist might argue that humans do not really deserve forgiveness, hence anyone being forgiven at all is still testament to Gods incredible mercy, whereas one who adheres to this who believes in Free-will would argue that we should not blame God for the failures of humanity, and if we as humans and as Christ's Church had lived up to our ideal potential, then this would be a non-issue, hence the problem that is created by exclusivism is only the manifestation of a failure to truly follow God with abandon on the part of Christians or the Church.)
2 Pluralism (Liberalism)
- All religions are basically the same and all roads lead to God.
- No one religion can claim uniqueness or supremacy
- Christianity is one true religion among many
- Different religions are simply different cultural/historical expressions of the universal quest for truth.
- Normative Pluralism - All religions have "independent salvific potential"

John Hick - Grew up conservative Christian "God has many names" "the Metaphor of God incarnate"

Pros - Peace between religions, tolerant, Everyone wins, Room for explorations without fear of doing something wrong, Bridges for peace, All religions have the ability to teach one another about God.

Cons - Causes those to choose the God they want rather than conforming to Gods image, what do we do with the differences?, what about conflicting truth claims, what of religions that are harmful?, What does a Christian to do with pluralism and with Jesus Exclusivist claims? Seems to promote epistemological relativism. Arrogant in that it presumes that all religions actually are literally wrong. Has to claim that everyone misunderstands their own religions and that "I have to explain your religions for you". What about Evil? Claim to reinterpret all religion for all history for all people. Pluralism needs a mythological approach to truth. All world religions need to be mythological.

(defense: Talking about major world religions - must always move people from being self to God or others centered. All seek to bring peeps toward God. Similarities exist with regard to morality in mahy major world religions, (Blind men and the Elephant) and they would argue that the differences are due simply to cultural, manifestations, or what was needed to address the culture.)

3 Inclusivism (bahai are a good example of inclusivism)
- God can beeseen in other religions but all going in a single direction
- Progressive revelation

Christian inclusivism
- many starting points and many roads, but they all eventually lead to Jesus (even if the people don't know it)
- Christianity is unique, Jesus is The Answer, but God still mediates grace through others.
- Everyone that is saved is saved through Christ, even if they do not know it. (one can have a relationship with God, saved through the blood of Jesus and not know it)
- what they do not know is they have their access through Jesus.
- God saves people apart from a cognitive conversion to the christian faith.
- "Wider hope" - a wider hope for those who are not Christians
- God can be seen in other religions
- Saving grace in General revelation

Christian Inclusivists - C.S. Lewis!!!!, Clark Pinnock, Karl Rahner - "anonymous Christians" - Saved By Jesus and living in line with Gods Grace that don't even know it yet.

Pros - Wider hope, Continues maintaining a traditional understanding of who Jesus is, Not abstract there is still clarity and absolute truth, a more humble approach with allowing God to be God, and upholds the teachings about different religions about their own respective claims. Seems to uphold a high Christology, Who Jesus IS, in line with God's Mercy.
Cons - Less driven for missions, does spreading the Gospel decrease their chances?, Does it compromise teachings about Jesus?, How does it work what does it mean to be saved by Jesus without knowing it, Is there any reason for evangelism?

(Defense: A missionary to whom these questions were posed (who also happens to be a professor of philosophy) gave this answer, that the Gospel has the power to transform lives of both those who were previously receptive to revelation and those who were unreceptive too it in very positive ways, and while, it may not necessarily be an issue of salvation for all individuals, an understanding of Jesus kingdom, and Jesus plan has truly benefited their lives. (generally the most radical transformations occur in those least receptive to revelation before the arrival of additional revelation) There are dramatic turn arounds in many after the Gospel is introduced. For those who may not recognize Christ as who he truly is, the fundamental tenet of Inclusivism would still apply, that one could walk the path without recognize it.)

My own view:

I am an Inclusivist, I believe this makes the most sense and is rooted in the Christian faith, for example, if as according to Hebrews "the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins" then how were the Hebrews or Abraham saved? Was it because they were all around "nice guys"? Or because of the death of Jesus? If we will claim that Christ's mercy extended to those who had not heard Christ's message before he came, then the examples of faith cited in the New Testament are lost. If, as some might do, one claims that God had mercy on those without full Revelation previously, yet now only those who hear and accept "Christianity", then to call the Gospel "Good News" is very misleading, as it would be very bad news in fact.

If we excuse the retarded or infants because they cannot be accountable for what they did not know or understand, how could we say differently for others? How could anyone be held accountable for revelation they have not been given?

I believe we need to take into account the principles found in Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:12 - 15,

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So why it that men are without excuse? Because revelation is present. Is it a fully developed Christology with Jesus being made flesh and dying for one's sins present in this general revelation? Hahaha, NO!

Next passage:

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

But do you suggest a *Gasp* works salvation? Hell no. One is not saved by their works, they are saved by and through Christ, while one might typically pull out this verse to object to inclusivism, but it is not in conflict with it, but an important element one must understand about inclusivism.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The only different way an inclusivist would interpret this passage than an exclusivist is the inclusivist would say this is true whether the person knows it or not.

C.S. Lewis had an interesting way of looking at the situation: “The world does not consist of 100 percent Christians and 100 percent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand."

Now that I have largely addressed exclusivism, I do not see the pluralist position as tenable either. The position taken makes each of the religious figures to be either extremely deluded or entirely dishonest. Between that, and the allegation that despite over a milennia, or in the very least, centuries of intellectual discussion and evaluation of a religion by its adherents, that they do not themselves understand the tenets of their own belief system, wherein an individual even with a shallow, understanding of any of these religions in question or their propositions has the intellectual authority to soundly "reinterpret" everything seems to be the height of arrogance.

Now I do not mean to undermine anyone, I have found very kind and well meaning individuals in every position nor will I be so bold as to claim that I can speak for God, but I will say that based upon what God has given us, to the best that I understand the issue, Inclusivism makes the most sense, and is the most defensible, and humble out of any of these positions.