Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God
March 22, 2011
Christopher Benson
The recent brouhaha over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, reminds me of why I’m not at home among exclusivists or universalists. If forced to choose, I would sit at the hearth of exclusivists any day of the week, as their message does a better job of cohering with the scandal of the gospel.
The universalist message, by contrast, conforms to “the pattern of this world” (Rom. 12:2), tickling the ears of all those who want to hear about how “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross," as theologian H. Richard Niebuhr observed 75 years ago in Kingdom of God in America.
What is the core claim of exclusivism? Catholic theologian Paul Griffiths answers: "belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation. This . . . is to deny salvific efficacy to any alien religion. But it is not to assert salvific sufficiency to the home religion; exclusivists may or may not add to the core claim the view that belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation." Those who add to the core claim are restrictivists. Those who relax their understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion are usually called inclusivists.
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it," says Griffiths. " Both positions answer the question of how religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation." I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism.
In case you missed it, the “Bell vs. Hell” controversy was an epic boxing match, exercising the Evangelical imagination for weeks. Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill in Grandville, Michigan and the bestselling author of Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith and Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality. (I didn’t read either book because of their dopey titles.)
HarperOne promoted Bell’s latest book with an ambiguous but provocative description, video, and endorsement from Emergent Church guru Brian McLaren. And exclusivist backlash occurred when Gospel Coalition blogger Justin Taylor emphatically named Bell a universalist and suggested he's a servant of Satan, invoking the warning that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
Not having read Bell’s book, Taylor later deleted the scriptural text and softened his strong claim, saying that Bell lays “his cards on the table about universalism.” Taylor’s original and subsequent posts have generated extraordinary Internet traffic, so much so that if you were only reading the Gospel Coalition website you might be forgiven for thinking "Bell vs. Hell" was the most alarming news in the world–not the earthquake in Japan or uprising in Libya. Well-known Reformed pastor John Piper went so far as to excommunicate the heretic by tweeting, “Farewell Rob Bell.” All this hellabaloo only reinforces the importance of the afterlife to this life.
Exclusivists and universalists are presumptive demographers: The former claims hell is crowded and the latter that hell is empty. By contrast, inclusivists are agnostic about the population in hell, refusing to name and number the individuals who inhabit the place of torment. God alone keeps the statistics. There’s a family resemblance between exclusivists and inclusivists insofar as they both affirm the existence of hell and believe “there is salvation in no one else [Jesus Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The feud relates to how this salvation gets worked out.
Exclusivists require a public and explicit confession of faith in Jesus Christ and a life marked by good fruit. Inclusivists acknowledge that faith and good fruit are hallmarks of Christ-followers, but are reluctant to make judgments about the destiny of ignorant or impossible souls, emphasizing that “with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26) and that “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). By “ignorant” I mean the unevangelized and by “impossible” I mean the unrepentant.
According to inclusivists, God’s rescue operation is for the entire cosmos (John 12:32, 2 Cor. 5:18-19, 1 Tim. 2:4). This doesn’t mean that all people are saved, as universalists claim, but that all are invited to the eternal banquet. People respond to the invitation with acceptance, rejection, or apathy. What happens to the rebels, fence sitters, and oblivious? While the Bible informs us that “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and specifically names “the works of the flesh” that bar admittance (Gal. 5:19-21), no Christian occupies the seat of judgment that belongs to God.
There may yet be opportunities, either in temporal life or postmortem life, where individuals can encounter and receive an optimal presentation of the Gospel, “not a mixed message of joy and terror, salvation and damnation,” as Karl Barth railed against in Church Dogmatics.
“In itself,” Barth said, “[the Gospel] is light and not darkness,” though he recognized it throws a shadow. Universalists err because they deny the shadow, as Bell’s sunny title—Love Wins—implies. If and when exclusivists err, it’s because they dim the light in their stinginess about God’s mercy. Each one of us responds to the light we have. Professing and practicing Christians respond to the light as if it’s high noon. Spiritual seekers respond to different intensities of light, as if the sun is rising or setting.
The inclusivist option has been embraced by John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and Billy Graham. Hints of it can be found among some of the early church fathers and Reformers. I sense an inclusivist attitude in Athanasius and Karl Barth, who offer the contemporary church an ancient-future voice. For them, the key verse in understanding election is 2 Corinthians 5:14: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died” (emphasis added). All human beings are included in the death of Christ, not just potentially but actually. When someone comes to the Christian faith, it’s not a transition from being an outsider to an insider.
We’re all insiders—whether we realize it or not. Christians are simply awake to the reality of being already accepted in Jesus Christ. Barth rejects the false alternative between “all are saved” (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa) and “not all are saved” (Augustine, Calvin). All are saved insofar as the Christ event is efficacious for humanity, but how that gets worked out among individuals is entrusted to the perfect mercy and justice of God. Barth leaves the question about human destiny open in hope, a position that George Hunsinger calls “reverent agnosticism.”
Reflecting on the Apostle’s Creed in Dogmatics in Outline, Barth offers the most succinct and salient teaching I've heard on hell when he comes to the line “He [Christ] descended into hell”:
In the Old and New Testaments the picture of hell is somewhat different from what developed out of it later on. Hell, the place of the inferi, Hades in the Old Testament sense, is certainly the place of torment, the place of complete separateness, where man continues to exist only as a non-being, as a shadow. The Israelites thought of this place as a place where men continue to hover around like flitting shadows. And the bad thing about this being in hell in the Old Testament sense is that the dead can no longer praise God, they can no longer see His face, they can no longer take part in the Sabbath services of Israel. It is a state of exclusion from God, and that makes death so fearful, makes hell what it is. That man is separated from God means being in the place of torment. “Wailing and gnashing of teeth”—our imagination is not adequate to this reality, this existence without God. The atheist is not aware of what Godlessness is. Godlessness is existence in hell. What else but this is left as the result of sin? Has not man separated himself from God by his own act? “Descended into hell” is merely confirmation of it, God’s judgment is righteous—that is, gives man what he wanted. God would not be God, the Creator would not be the Creator, the creature would not be the creature, and man would not be man, if this verdict and its execution could be stayed.
But now the Confession tells us that the execution of this verdict is carried out by God in this way, that He, God Himself, in Jesus Christ His Son, at once true God and true man, takes the place of condemned man. God’s judgment is executed, God’s law takes its course, but in such a way that what man had to suffer is suffered by this One, who as God's Son stands for all others. Such is the lordship of Jesus Christ, who stands for us before God, by taking upon Himself what belongs to us. In Him God makes Himself liable, at the point at which we are accursed and guilty and lost. He it is in His Son, who in the person of this crucified man bears on Golgotha all that ought to be laid on us. And in this way He makes an end of the curse. It is not God’s will that man should perish; it is not God’s will that man should pay what he was bound to pay; in other words, God extirpates the sin. And God does this, not in spite of His righteousness, but it is God’s very righteousness that He, the holy One, steps in for us the unholy, that He wills to save and does save us . . . . God’s mercy and God's righteousness are not at variance with each other.
In two paragraphs Barth covers a lot of ground. He defines the existence of hell as a self-chosen place of separation from God. He also navigates a middle way between the exclusivist tendency to focus singularly on God’s righteousness and the universalist tendency to focus singularly on God’s mercy. Christ is at the center of Barth’s attention, descending into hell when we deserve to be there. His descent doesn't empty hell of its occupants, all of whom lock the door from the inside, but it does show—without equivocation—that the Cross achieves plenitude of being and eternal peace for each one of us.
Tragically and unfathomably, individuals will elect against their own election in Christ, choosing poverty of being and eternal torment instead. Even though God has put us to rights, some don’t want to be “disentangled from the birdlime of concupiscence,” as Augustine puts it in Confesssions. We’re all invalids by the pool of Betheseda, but some will answer the perennial question of Jesus in the negative, “Do you want to be healed?” (John 5:6). No living person has undergone the descent of Christ into hell, and therefore we must never count who is there. What makes the hell-counters of Westboro Baptist Church so odious is that they feign the Cross’ knowledge without undergoing the Cross’ torture.
The American philosopher William James has persuaded me that much of our philosophical—and I would add theological—theorizing is shaped by temperament. Using his categories, it seems exclusivists are “tough-minded” whereas universalists are “tender-minded.” The inclusivist is a mediator between these extremes. Barth finesses the dialectic:
The final word is never that of warning, of judgment, of punishment, of a barrier erected, of a grave opened. We cannot speak of it without mentioning all these things. The Yes cannot be heard unless the No is also heard. But the No is said for the sake of the Yes and not for its own sake. In substance, therefore, the first and last word is Yes and not No.
We might even say the exclusivist is a Cassandra whose fire and brimstone vision overwhelms the wideness of God’s mercy, and the universalist is a Pangloss whose cheerfulness about humanity underestimates the exactitude of God’s justice. If the former preaches “Wrath Wins,” the latter declares “Love Wins.” Neither sermon gets it quite right, and that's why we need to hear the inclusivist’s message of “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God,” which preserves the dialectical tension in the Gospel: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).
We cannot know the fate of every person who ever lived. For those impossible and ignorant souls, we’re better off adopting a posture of “reverent agnosticism” about their outcome rather than assign them to a circle of hell; otherwise we shall incur condemnation for usurping the seat of judgment from its rightful occupant.
Christopher Benson writes for The Weekly Standard, Books & Culture, and Christianity Today. He blogs at Bensonian.org.
RESOURCES
Sarah Pulliam Bailey: “Rob Bell’s Upcoming Book on Heaven & Hell Stirs Blog, Twitter Backlash on Universalism”
Mark Galli: “Rob Bell’s Bridge Too Far”
Harper One’s Love Wins publicity page
Paul J. Griffiths, Problems of Religious Diversity
Dennis L. Okholm & Timothy R. Phillips, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?
John Sanders, No Other Name
Comments:
3.22.2011 | 12:29pm
Andrew Wilson says:
FYI - Rob Bell is not from Minneapolis, but Grand Rapids in Michigan. John Piper is from Minneapolis, however, which may explain the confusion.
3.22.2011 | 12:45pm
Stephen DeWitt, OFM says:
A truly excellent article. Very rarely do I read something that I agree with completely, but such is the case here. Thank you for such a thoughtful and articulate exposition of a truly Christian position.
3.22.2011 | 12:58pm
Joe Carter says:
***Well-known Reformed pastor John Piper went so far as to excommunicate his Minneapolis neighbor by tweeting, “Farewell Rob Bell.”***
From a three-word tweet you were able to determine that Piper was "excommunicating" Bell? That's some mighty impressive exegetical skills you have.
As for the rest of the article, there is much I disagree and I would have preferred to have heard an evangelical view on this subject. But I suppose that this mainline Protestant perspective is deserving of a hearing.
From a three-word tweet you were able to determine that Piper was "excommunicating" Bell? That's some mighty impressive exegetical skills you have.
As for the rest of the article, there is much I disagree and I would have preferred to have heard an evangelical view on this subject. But I suppose that this mainline Protestant perspective is deserving of a hearing.
3.22.2011 | 1:24pm
MacGabhnn says:
“We cannot know the fate of every person who ever lived.”
Well, in fact we can. They were all born into sin, and none of them chose to be so born. And if the ensuing resentment cause some to freely reject God because of it, then I do not know how God is completely without blame, if I may put it in those terms. Jesus the God-man deserves Golgotha as much as we do.
Well, in fact we can. They were all born into sin, and none of them chose to be so born. And if the ensuing resentment cause some to freely reject God because of it, then I do not know how God is completely without blame, if I may put it in those terms. Jesus the God-man deserves Golgotha as much as we do.
3.22.2011 | 1:26pm
Mike N says:
Thanks Chris--I appreciate your attempts to add a voice of moderation to the current internet uproar. I think there are multiple views that you are discussing in this article--the inclusivism of Barth is very different from that of Billy Graham. Here are a few issues I have with your position, and would be interested to hear your response:
1. The problem with Barth's view is that he seems to create a pseudo-purgatory to allow someone to continually hear the gospel message when they die. It's as if when you die you are whisked away to a courtroom, and left there to hear the best arguments possible until you make the right decision. Of course, such a location is nowhere to be found in scripture. It also diminishes the seriousness of life on earth--there's an infinite number of second chances waiting. What's the point of preaching the Gospel if God has a better presentation waiting when we die?
2. Another issue with this inclusivism is that it still manages to make judgments on people that we can't make. I would be quite offended if a Muslim told me I secretly believed in the prophet Mohammed's teachings, and that when I died Allah would present all of this information to me in a more compelling way.
Although Barth never claimed to be a universalist, it's easy to see how his beliefs could be taken to this logical conclusion. I would propose to instead simply affirm exclusivism and an afterlife agnoticism. One cannot meet our maker and be with God eternally without Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the ultimate judge of the hearts of men and women. To those who haven't heard the good news of Jesus Christ? Let's share that news with them and let Jesus sort out their eternal fate.
1. The problem with Barth's view is that he seems to create a pseudo-purgatory to allow someone to continually hear the gospel message when they die. It's as if when you die you are whisked away to a courtroom, and left there to hear the best arguments possible until you make the right decision. Of course, such a location is nowhere to be found in scripture. It also diminishes the seriousness of life on earth--there's an infinite number of second chances waiting. What's the point of preaching the Gospel if God has a better presentation waiting when we die?
2. Another issue with this inclusivism is that it still manages to make judgments on people that we can't make. I would be quite offended if a Muslim told me I secretly believed in the prophet Mohammed's teachings, and that when I died Allah would present all of this information to me in a more compelling way.
Although Barth never claimed to be a universalist, it's easy to see how his beliefs could be taken to this logical conclusion. I would propose to instead simply affirm exclusivism and an afterlife agnoticism. One cannot meet our maker and be with God eternally without Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the ultimate judge of the hearts of men and women. To those who haven't heard the good news of Jesus Christ? Let's share that news with them and let Jesus sort out their eternal fate.
3.22.2011 | 1:34pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Andrew Wilson: Thanks for bringing the factual error to my attention. I'll get that corrected to avoid confusion.
@Joe Carter: Yes, one can reasonably infer that John Piper was excommunicating Rob Bell with his tweet, in as much as this is possible for an Evangelical pastor who lacks ecclesiastical centralization. There are days, I bet, when John Piper wishes he had the authority of the pope.
You express a preference to hear "an evangelical view on this subject," which assumes that inclusivism is not a live option for Evangelicals. It may not live for you but it is for others, and I resist how you're trying to frame the debate, as if the embrace of inclusivism makes one a de facto Mainline Protestant. On the contrary, Evangelicals – who turn to Athanasius, John Wesley, Karl Barth, C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, and others – are beginning to embrace different varieties of inclusivism. See Alister McGrath's particularist argument and Clark Pinnock's inclusivist argument in FOUR VIEWS ON SALVATION IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD. See the "wider mercy" views in John Sanders' NO OTHER NAME. See the inclusivist argument in Terrance Tiessen's WHO CAN BE SAVED?
@Joe Carter: Yes, one can reasonably infer that John Piper was excommunicating Rob Bell with his tweet, in as much as this is possible for an Evangelical pastor who lacks ecclesiastical centralization. There are days, I bet, when John Piper wishes he had the authority of the pope.
You express a preference to hear "an evangelical view on this subject," which assumes that inclusivism is not a live option for Evangelicals. It may not live for you but it is for others, and I resist how you're trying to frame the debate, as if the embrace of inclusivism makes one a de facto Mainline Protestant. On the contrary, Evangelicals – who turn to Athanasius, John Wesley, Karl Barth, C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, and others – are beginning to embrace different varieties of inclusivism. See Alister McGrath's particularist argument and Clark Pinnock's inclusivist argument in FOUR VIEWS ON SALVATION IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD. See the "wider mercy" views in John Sanders' NO OTHER NAME. See the inclusivist argument in Terrance Tiessen's WHO CAN BE SAVED?
3.22.2011 | 1:39pm
Robert Moody says:
Joe, as with many things, Father Neuhaus illuminates this issue very nicely in the August/September 2001 edition.
3.22.2011 | 1:54pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Mike N: Thanks for the compliment. I was hoping that some readers would perceive my attempt to be "a voice of moderation to the current internet uproar." You're right to note that "the inclusivism of Barth is very different from that of Billy Graham." A short article like this doesn't permit me to develop a nuanced taxonomy. As a dialectical theologian, Barth tries to keep the tension between exclusivism and universalism. On the exclusivist side, he maintains that "belonging the home religion is necessary for salvation" (to use Griffiths' definition). On the universalist side, he hopes that all will be saved – and what Christian shouldn't? As Richard John Neuhaus pointed out in the pages of First Things, there's a vital but often neglected distinction between universal salvation as HOPE versus universal salvation as DOCTRINE. Barth's "reverent agnosticism" expresses universal salvation as hope.
3.22.2011 | 1:56pm
JDD says:
"The problem with Barth's view is that he seems to create a pseudo-purgatory to allow someone to continually hear the gospel message when they die. It's as if when you die you are whisked away to a courtroom, and left there to hear the best arguments possible until you make the right decision."
A point of clarification that I think most regular readers of these pages will be aware of this, but the occasional reader may not: Just to keep this important conversation from following down an erroneous path - this view isn't even a pseudo-purgatory. The Catholic understanding of purgatory has nothing whatsoever to do with a chance to make a decision after one's death.
A point of clarification that I think most regular readers of these pages will be aware of this, but the occasional reader may not: Just to keep this important conversation from following down an erroneous path - this view isn't even a pseudo-purgatory. The Catholic understanding of purgatory has nothing whatsoever to do with a chance to make a decision after one's death.
3.22.2011 | 1:58pm
Joe Carter says:
@Chris ***There are days, I bet, when John Piper wishes he had the authority of the pope.***
Translation: I really don't like John Piper and feel no need to be charitable toward him.
***You express a preference to hear "an evangelical view on this subject," which assumes that inclusivism is not a live option for Evangelicals.***
I'm not saying that an inclusivist case cannot be made from an evangelical perspective. I'm saying that you haven't made one.
To be perfectly honest, I was opposed to publishing this piece because I don’t believe you understand the theological nuances of this issue well enough to fairly present either the inclusivist or the exclusivist perspectives. The fact that you try to claim there is an "inclusivist’s message" in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon should have been a clue to everyone that you are in over your head.
Additionally, as Mike N. has pointed out, you talk about the views of Billy Graham and Karl Barth as if they were similar when they are hardly compatible. Then in your last comment you mention Clark Pinnock, a man who believes in inclusivism because he embraces the heretical "openness theology." I'm quite sure you do not subscribe to that view yourself so I fail to understand why you would even mention it.
You seem to treat these theological concepts as if they were Lego pieces that could be swapped and popped together seamlessly. But it doesn't work that way. You can't merely do a Google search for "inclusivism" and then list out the name of people who hold some is tangentially related to that perspective.
@Robert Moody ***Father Neuhaus illuminates this issue very nicely in the August/September 2001 edition.***
I agree, but Fr. Neuhaus never tried to present his "hope" as a doctrinally sound position.
Translation: I really don't like John Piper and feel no need to be charitable toward him.
***You express a preference to hear "an evangelical view on this subject," which assumes that inclusivism is not a live option for Evangelicals.***
I'm not saying that an inclusivist case cannot be made from an evangelical perspective. I'm saying that you haven't made one.
To be perfectly honest, I was opposed to publishing this piece because I don’t believe you understand the theological nuances of this issue well enough to fairly present either the inclusivist or the exclusivist perspectives. The fact that you try to claim there is an "inclusivist’s message" in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon should have been a clue to everyone that you are in over your head.
Additionally, as Mike N. has pointed out, you talk about the views of Billy Graham and Karl Barth as if they were similar when they are hardly compatible. Then in your last comment you mention Clark Pinnock, a man who believes in inclusivism because he embraces the heretical "openness theology." I'm quite sure you do not subscribe to that view yourself so I fail to understand why you would even mention it.
You seem to treat these theological concepts as if they were Lego pieces that could be swapped and popped together seamlessly. But it doesn't work that way. You can't merely do a Google search for "inclusivism" and then list out the name of people who hold some is tangentially related to that perspective.
@Robert Moody ***Father Neuhaus illuminates this issue very nicely in the August/September 2001 edition.***
I agree, but Fr. Neuhaus never tried to present his "hope" as a doctrinally sound position.
3.22.2011 | 2:07pm
Michael says:
Joe,
“As for the rest of the article, there is much I disagree and I would have preferred to have heard an evangelical view on this subject. But I suppose that this mainline Protestant perspective is deserving of a hearing”
What an ugly thing to say. If you disagree with something, explain why. If you want an evangelical view, write one, contract one, or read the evangelical posts that have been made on the several recent columns that have been created on the subject on First Things. And if you’re going to begrudge hearing a mainline perspective, then think about the comments you’ve read on First Things that ask questions like “Do evangelicals have a theology?” as one regular poster recently did.
“As for the rest of the article, there is much I disagree and I would have preferred to have heard an evangelical view on this subject. But I suppose that this mainline Protestant perspective is deserving of a hearing”
What an ugly thing to say. If you disagree with something, explain why. If you want an evangelical view, write one, contract one, or read the evangelical posts that have been made on the several recent columns that have been created on the subject on First Things. And if you’re going to begrudge hearing a mainline perspective, then think about the comments you’ve read on First Things that ask questions like “Do evangelicals have a theology?” as one regular poster recently did.
3.22.2011 | 2:09pm
Craig L. Adams says:
There is also a very fine argument for Inclusivism in the latter chapters of Dallas Willard's fairly recent book Knowing Christ Today. Inclusivism is also the classical Methodist / Wesleyan view since both John Wesley and John Fletcher were Inclusivists.
3.22.2011 | 2:12pm
sd says:
Well, us Catholics would presume to know a bit about the demographics of Hell:
1) The Catholic Church teaches that certain people are certainly NOT in Hell. First, there are the canonized Saints, who the Church teaches are certainly in Heaven. Second, the clear implication of Catholic teaching is that Baptized infants who die before they reach the age of reason are certainly not in Hell and will eventually be in Heaven if they are not there now.
2) There are those who argue that the Church teaches that Judas, at the very least, is in Hell. The reason being, how could it possibly be better for him to have never been born if he would one day be in Heaven?
Between those two (remarkably wide) guard rails - nobody knows.
1) The Catholic Church teaches that certain people are certainly NOT in Hell. First, there are the canonized Saints, who the Church teaches are certainly in Heaven. Second, the clear implication of Catholic teaching is that Baptized infants who die before they reach the age of reason are certainly not in Hell and will eventually be in Heaven if they are not there now.
2) There are those who argue that the Church teaches that Judas, at the very least, is in Hell. The reason being, how could it possibly be better for him to have never been born if he would one day be in Heaven?
Between those two (remarkably wide) guard rails - nobody knows.
3.22.2011 | 2:15pm
Anonymous 3 says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Prayers
'O my Jesus , forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven , esp. those most in need of thy mercy ' - simple prayers that the Fatima visionaries had been taught ...
and leaving the rest with trusting yearning hope , in His hands ...that , even in a sin stained , chaotic world where God's goodness is still evident , persons would not choose evil persistently ..that in His mercy , an instant or many years of loving repentance would wipe away built up hatreds ..to accept power of forgiveness which He extended to each and all from The Cross !
'O my Jesus , forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven , esp. those most in need of thy mercy ' - simple prayers that the Fatima visionaries had been taught ...
and leaving the rest with trusting yearning hope , in His hands ...that , even in a sin stained , chaotic world where God's goodness is still evident , persons would not choose evil persistently ..that in His mercy , an instant or many years of loving repentance would wipe away built up hatreds ..to accept power of forgiveness which He extended to each and all from The Cross !
3.22.2011 | 2:29pm
Joe Carter says:
@Michael I think you've misunderstood my point. Benson's article is *supposed* to be an evangelical perspective, yet he presents a view that is (at best) a mainline Protestant perspective. I don't "begrudge hearing a mainline perspective" but I think it should come from (a) someone who identifies themselves as a mainline Protestant and (b) someone who knows what they are talking about.
I encourage you to read Benson's piece again. It is not only not compatible with evangelical theology, I'm not even sure that it is compatible with logic. For example, he says:
"Barth rejects the false alternative between “all are saved” (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa) and “not all are saved” (Augustine, Calvin). All are saved insofar as the Christ event is efficacious for humanity, but how that gets worked out among individuals is entrusted to the perfect mercy and justice of God."
In logic, the principle of the excluded middle states that for any statement P, P or not-P must be true. In this case either P (All are saved) or not-P (not all are saved) must be true. Saying that all are saved but we're not sure how God works that out is a universalist claim—it's not even inclusivism!
@Craig ***Inclusivism is also the classical Methodist / Wesleyan view since both John Wesley and John Fletcher were Inclusivists. ***
Let's be clear that Wesley was in no way the type of inclusivist that Benson is talking about. Wesley believed that all people had the potential to be saved. He would not have agreed with Benson's contention that all people ***are*** saved. Wesleyans and Methodists should be aghast at Benson's lumping their founder in with this view.
I encourage you to read Benson's piece again. It is not only not compatible with evangelical theology, I'm not even sure that it is compatible with logic. For example, he says:
"Barth rejects the false alternative between “all are saved” (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa) and “not all are saved” (Augustine, Calvin). All are saved insofar as the Christ event is efficacious for humanity, but how that gets worked out among individuals is entrusted to the perfect mercy and justice of God."
In logic, the principle of the excluded middle states that for any statement P, P or not-P must be true. In this case either P (All are saved) or not-P (not all are saved) must be true. Saying that all are saved but we're not sure how God works that out is a universalist claim—it's not even inclusivism!
@Craig ***Inclusivism is also the classical Methodist / Wesleyan view since both John Wesley and John Fletcher were Inclusivists. ***
Let's be clear that Wesley was in no way the type of inclusivist that Benson is talking about. Wesley believed that all people had the potential to be saved. He would not have agreed with Benson's contention that all people ***are*** saved. Wesleyans and Methodists should be aghast at Benson's lumping their founder in with this view.
3.22.2011 | 2:33pm
Christopher - thank you for this wonderful essay on a difficult topic! Joe Carter's uncharitable and unfortunately typical comments notwithstanding, the fact that First Things can post something of this caliber on its website is why I have kept coming back (and subscribing) all this time; it is truly the home of the evangelical catholic. I particularly appreciated your "reading list": off to Amazon I go! I guess if Joe C wants the evangelical perspective so badly, and the terrabytes of already published effort are not enough, he should write it himself.
Bill
Bill
3.22.2011 | 2:39pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Joe Carter: To begin, my name is Christopher – not Chris.
While I have respected his Gospel-centered preaching and writing, my enthusiasm for Piper has cooled over the years because of his "holier than thou" attitude. His decision to enter the fray with a tweet speaks poorly of him, as North Park University professor Scot McKnight observed: "Frankly, John Piper's flippant dismissal of Rob Bell is unworthy of someone of Piper's stature. The way to disagree with someone of Rob Bell's influence is not a tweet of dismissal but a private letter or a phone call. Flippancy should have no part in judging a Christian leader's theology, character or status."
What's your criteria for making an inclusivist case from an evangelical perspective? Are you the arbiter of all things evangelical? Most of my article draws on Barth, who is friend to some evangelicals and foe to others.
Where did I claim that "there is an 'inclusivist’s message' in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon"? You need to read more carefully because I never made such a ridiculous claim.
I've already responded to Mike N.'s observation (see above). Nowhere in my article did I say Billy Graham's inclusivism is identical to Karl Barth's inclusivism. There is a family resemblance between their views, however, because they both uphold the core claim of exclusivism ("belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation") while expressing universal salvation as hope – not doctrine.
While I have respected his Gospel-centered preaching and writing, my enthusiasm for Piper has cooled over the years because of his "holier than thou" attitude. His decision to enter the fray with a tweet speaks poorly of him, as North Park University professor Scot McKnight observed: "Frankly, John Piper's flippant dismissal of Rob Bell is unworthy of someone of Piper's stature. The way to disagree with someone of Rob Bell's influence is not a tweet of dismissal but a private letter or a phone call. Flippancy should have no part in judging a Christian leader's theology, character or status."
What's your criteria for making an inclusivist case from an evangelical perspective? Are you the arbiter of all things evangelical? Most of my article draws on Barth, who is friend to some evangelicals and foe to others.
Where did I claim that "there is an 'inclusivist’s message' in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon"? You need to read more carefully because I never made such a ridiculous claim.
I've already responded to Mike N.'s observation (see above). Nowhere in my article did I say Billy Graham's inclusivism is identical to Karl Barth's inclusivism. There is a family resemblance between their views, however, because they both uphold the core claim of exclusivism ("belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation") while expressing universal salvation as hope – not doctrine.
3.22.2011 | 2:40pm
Joe Carter says:
@Bill ***I guess if Joe C wants the evangelical perspective so badly, and the terrabytes of already published effort are not enough, he should write it himself.***
The fact that so many people have missed the point that Benson's article was supposed to be an "evangelical perspective" vindicates my claim.
The fact that so many people have missed the point that Benson's article was supposed to be an "evangelical perspective" vindicates my claim.
3.22.2011 | 2:58pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Joe Carter: I belong to an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), but nowhere did I present my argument as an official evangelical perspective. That's an inference you've made. I'm a Christ-follower who is trying to work out his view on the perennial question, "Who can be saved?"
You contend that my view is "not compatible with evangelical theology." Let's be honest. It's not compatible with your evangelical theology, but it's compatible with "wider mercy" views such as John Sanders, Alister McGrath, Terrance Tiessen, Donald Bloesch, and John Stackhouse. Because you're a Reformed Evangelical, I urge you to read Tiessen's WHO CAN BE SAVED. It's been called "one of the most satisfactory comprehensive treatments of salvation ever attempted by an evangelical in the Reformed tradition." He takes the reader "beyond the inadequate language of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism."
Next, you contend that my view is not compatible with logic. Like most people who work hard to misunderstand Barth, the rules of logic don't apply neatly to dialectical or paradoxical tension. First Things contributor Matthew Milliner clarifies at his blog Millinerd.com:
"God, according to Barth, did not select certain individuals to perish before the world was made, but willed, in perfect freedom, to save them. Is this universalism? No. That's what Calvinists tell you about Barth so you don't have to read him. Barth just means that someone's choosing to continue to resist their election involves the impossible possibility of resisting who they actually are. As Bruce McCormack so helpfully explained in his 2007 Barth conference lecture, Barth preserves the Pauline tension between limited atonement and universalism, neither of which should be taught as official church doctrine; it is a tension the Bible does not permit us to collapse."
You contend that my view is "not compatible with evangelical theology." Let's be honest. It's not compatible with your evangelical theology, but it's compatible with "wider mercy" views such as John Sanders, Alister McGrath, Terrance Tiessen, Donald Bloesch, and John Stackhouse. Because you're a Reformed Evangelical, I urge you to read Tiessen's WHO CAN BE SAVED. It's been called "one of the most satisfactory comprehensive treatments of salvation ever attempted by an evangelical in the Reformed tradition." He takes the reader "beyond the inadequate language of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism."
Next, you contend that my view is not compatible with logic. Like most people who work hard to misunderstand Barth, the rules of logic don't apply neatly to dialectical or paradoxical tension. First Things contributor Matthew Milliner clarifies at his blog Millinerd.com:
"God, according to Barth, did not select certain individuals to perish before the world was made, but willed, in perfect freedom, to save them. Is this universalism? No. That's what Calvinists tell you about Barth so you don't have to read him. Barth just means that someone's choosing to continue to resist their election involves the impossible possibility of resisting who they actually are. As Bruce McCormack so helpfully explained in his 2007 Barth conference lecture, Barth preserves the Pauline tension between limited atonement and universalism, neither of which should be taught as official church doctrine; it is a tension the Bible does not permit us to collapse."
3.22.2011 | 3:07pm
Santiago Ramos says:
It is very odd for an editor to attack his own writer in this public and aggressive way. My sympathy goes out for Christopher Benson -- I am not following the theological debate (I'm a Catholic anyway) but it must be tough to be hounded at by the guy who just published your piece!
3.22.2011 | 3:24pm
Charlie Collier says:
"If forced to choose, I would sit at the hearth of exclusivists any day of the week, as their message does a better job of cohering with the scandal of the gospel."
I'm intrigued by this claim, especially in light of the typology that gets developed in the rest of the piece—universalists, inclusivists, and exclusivists. The strong preference in what follows is for inclusivism as the excluded middle between false alternatives.
When it comes to theologies of religious pluralism, it's precisely "inclusivism" that looks to be at odds with the scandal of the gospel, at least when that scandal is parsed as the scandal of particularity—God electing not humanity or all "religions" in general but the humanity/"religion" of Israel and its Messiah Jesus as the way to redeem our fallen world. The "all roads lead to the same God" approach is why certain theologies of world religions are labeled inclusivist, and in my reading of such approaches, they are indeed at odds with the scandal of the gospel, denying an irreplaceable role in God's salvation to any religious figure at all, let alone Israel and Jesus.
But in the debate being addressed here, universalists like Rob Bell (and possibly the late Richard John Neuhaus) are thinking in and through the scandal of the gospel, in and through God's election of Jesus Christ, in and through the particularity of the Christian story. And they are saying, NOT as you implied above that they know hell is empty, but that the scandal of the gospel gives us reason to hope that it might be.
Hence my puzzle with this opening remark. If I'm forced to choose between those who hope hell is empty and those who hope hell is populated—and if I'm forced to make my choice on the basis of the scandal of God's radical humiliation at the hands of sinners in the cross of Christ—I would come to the exact opposite conclusion and side with universalist evangelicals like Bell. They take the scandal with utmost seriousness. Exclusivists, on the other hand, appear to be (as Joe Carter unfortunately displays in this comment thread) mad as hell about it.
I'm intrigued by this claim, especially in light of the typology that gets developed in the rest of the piece—universalists, inclusivists, and exclusivists. The strong preference in what follows is for inclusivism as the excluded middle between false alternatives.
When it comes to theologies of religious pluralism, it's precisely "inclusivism" that looks to be at odds with the scandal of the gospel, at least when that scandal is parsed as the scandal of particularity—God electing not humanity or all "religions" in general but the humanity/"religion" of Israel and its Messiah Jesus as the way to redeem our fallen world. The "all roads lead to the same God" approach is why certain theologies of world religions are labeled inclusivist, and in my reading of such approaches, they are indeed at odds with the scandal of the gospel, denying an irreplaceable role in God's salvation to any religious figure at all, let alone Israel and Jesus.
But in the debate being addressed here, universalists like Rob Bell (and possibly the late Richard John Neuhaus) are thinking in and through the scandal of the gospel, in and through God's election of Jesus Christ, in and through the particularity of the Christian story. And they are saying, NOT as you implied above that they know hell is empty, but that the scandal of the gospel gives us reason to hope that it might be.
Hence my puzzle with this opening remark. If I'm forced to choose between those who hope hell is empty and those who hope hell is populated—and if I'm forced to make my choice on the basis of the scandal of God's radical humiliation at the hands of sinners in the cross of Christ—I would come to the exact opposite conclusion and side with universalist evangelicals like Bell. They take the scandal with utmost seriousness. Exclusivists, on the other hand, appear to be (as Joe Carter unfortunately displays in this comment thread) mad as hell about it.
3.22.2011 | 3:26pm
GlennB says:
Jesus did speak of a "narrow" gate and the few that find it. The issue it seems to me is that we should take care not to make the gate narrower than Jesus has on the one hand, but also not wider as well. If previous generations erred one way, I think ours errs in making the gate almost nonexistent. Jesus warns more than anyone else about Hell. Jesus also speaks of surprises....some will be in heaven whom we would not have imagined and others will not be whom we thought were well on their way. Jesus is sometimes harsher than we would be and sometimes softer (more merciful) than we would be. We are to leave the final judgment in God's hands as we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
3.22.2011 | 3:26pm
GlennB says:
Jesus did speak of a "narrow" gate and the few that find it. The issue it seems to me is that we should take care not to make the gate narrower than Jesus has on the one hand, but also not wider as well. If previous generations erred one way, I think ours errs in making the gate almost nonexistent. Jesus warns more than anyone else about Hell. Jesus also speaks of surprises....some will be in heaven whom we would not have imagined and others will not be whom we thought were well on their way. Jesus is sometimes harsher than we would be and sometimes softer (more merciful) than we would be. We are to leave the final judgment in God's hands as we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
3.22.2011 | 3:26pm
GlennB says:
Jesus did speak of a "narrow" gate and the few that find it. The issue it seems to me is that we should take care not to make the gate narrower than Jesus has on the one hand, but also not wider as well. If previous generations erred one way, I think ours errs in making the gate almost nonexistent. Jesus warns more than anyone else about Hell. Jesus also speaks of surprises....some will be in heaven whom we would not have imagined and others will not be whom we thought were well on their way. Jesus is sometimes harsher than we would be and sometimes softer (more merciful) than we would be. We are to leave the final judgment in God's hands as we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
The abundance of God's love should cause a hope that all might be saved. But God's love is not sentimental. As Luther put it, God saves real sinners, not imaginary ones. And often, like the Pharisees, it's the religious who merely imagine themselves to be sinners. Those who don't think they are sick won't go to the doctor. Jesus had harsh words for those who deny they are sick.
Bottom-line ....I leave it to God to decide who will be excluded. But Jesus himself gives me reason to believe that there will be exclusion. More exclusive than some think and more inclusive than others coldly hope for.
3.22.2011 | 3:40pm
"To be perfectly honest, I was opposed to publishing this piece because I don’t believe you understand the theological nuances of this issue well enough to fairly present either the inclusivist or the exclusivist perspectives. The fact that you try to claim there is an "inclusivist’s message" in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon should have been a clue to everyone that you are in over your head."
I greatly appreciate Joe Carter's honesty in dialoguing and conversing with Christopher Benson.
Furthermore, I heartily agree with the substance of Joe Carter's critique and evaluation of Christopher Benson's post above and beyond the honesty and tone of his style.
I greatly appreciate Joe Carter's honesty in dialoguing and conversing with Christopher Benson.
Furthermore, I heartily agree with the substance of Joe Carter's critique and evaluation of Christopher Benson's post above and beyond the honesty and tone of his style.
3.22.2011 | 3:44pm
arty says:
I think GlennB gets it about right. If memory serves, Neuhaus once said that we are certainly permitted to hope that all will be saved, and beyond that, I don't see much profit in the discussion. I can 1. believe in Hell, 2. hope that it will be empty, 3. recognize that given the space humans have to exercise their free will, it probably won't be, and 4. leave the rest to God. I see no reason why parsing the issue beyond that has to be a defined point of dogma.
The above position makes one neither a raging exclusivist nor a mushy-headed universalist, and seems to me to be most in line with the message of the New Testament
The above position makes one neither a raging exclusivist nor a mushy-headed universalist, and seems to me to be most in line with the message of the New Testament
3.22.2011 | 3:50pm
Ethan C. says:
Joe Carter, I very much want to know what specific parts of Mr. Benson's argument makes it "mainline Protestant" rather than "Evangelical". What would have had to have been different for it to qualify as the latter?
3.22.2011 | 4:09pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
Thank you for setting out the quandary so well. Reconciling God's justice and mercy with the simple fact of the limited reach of Christian evangelism in both space and time is a fundamental issue that Christians must be ready to wrestle with as they attempt to take Christ's message to the billion people of China and the billion people of Islam.
The statement in the Apostle's Creed about Christ's descent into hell between his atoning death and his resurrction is based on the simple message of 1 Peter, the testimony of the apostle that Christ preached to the spirits of the dead. Surely Christ did not do that if it were a useless enterprise. Clearly there is a period of time between death and the universal resurrection of mankind. Why wouldn't Christ use that time to initiate the taking of his message of salvation to all the billions of people who never heard the gospel in their mortal lives? If the spirits of the dead are individuals who are accountable for their choices and actions in life, why can't they also be individuals who can respond to the message of the gospel? When Christ promised Peter that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against his church, did he not mean that hell could not keep in its confines those spirits who accepted Christ's atonement, regardless of when they accepted him?
While honorable men and women hold out the hope of salvation for the unevangelized dead, as a reconcilation of the grace of God and the justice of God, they should not be ignorant that one denomination specifically affirms a doctrine of the opportunity for post-mortal salvation through Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the extensive information they have gathered on the ancestors of all mankind, accessible for no charge on familysearch.org, is because of their belief that every person who has lived on earth will be given an opportunity--but not compelled--to choose faith in Christ.
If Christ wins the souls of billions whom others would abandon to hell, is that not a victory for Christ?
The statement in the Apostle's Creed about Christ's descent into hell between his atoning death and his resurrction is based on the simple message of 1 Peter, the testimony of the apostle that Christ preached to the spirits of the dead. Surely Christ did not do that if it were a useless enterprise. Clearly there is a period of time between death and the universal resurrection of mankind. Why wouldn't Christ use that time to initiate the taking of his message of salvation to all the billions of people who never heard the gospel in their mortal lives? If the spirits of the dead are individuals who are accountable for their choices and actions in life, why can't they also be individuals who can respond to the message of the gospel? When Christ promised Peter that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against his church, did he not mean that hell could not keep in its confines those spirits who accepted Christ's atonement, regardless of when they accepted him?
While honorable men and women hold out the hope of salvation for the unevangelized dead, as a reconcilation of the grace of God and the justice of God, they should not be ignorant that one denomination specifically affirms a doctrine of the opportunity for post-mortal salvation through Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the extensive information they have gathered on the ancestors of all mankind, accessible for no charge on familysearch.org, is because of their belief that every person who has lived on earth will be given an opportunity--but not compelled--to choose faith in Christ.
If Christ wins the souls of billions whom others would abandon to hell, is that not a victory for Christ?
3.22.2011 | 4:31pm
Michael says:
Joe,
Thanks for clarifying your point. It sounds like the distinctions you’re making between evangelical and mainline perspectives are idiosyncratic rather than widely accepted. Benson, after all, seems to feel no tension between his stated views and evangelicalism.
Thanks for clarifying your point. It sounds like the distinctions you’re making between evangelical and mainline perspectives are idiosyncratic rather than widely accepted. Benson, after all, seems to feel no tension between his stated views and evangelicalism.
3.22.2011 | 4:37pm
Joe Carter says:
@Christopher ***His decision to enter the fray with a tweet speaks poorly of him, as North Park University professor Scot McKnight observed***
While I can appreciate the irony of McKnight criticizing Piper in a blog post for criticizing Bell in a tweet, I think it’s a bit overheated. The idea that Christian leaders must privately contact another Christian leader for a statement that they made it public is a bit odd.
***What's your criteria for making an inclusivist case from an evangelical perspective? ***
Well, for starters, using the Bible (rather than Barth) to present the case. For example, the idea that doors of hell lock from the inside is cute but it is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that whoever is in hell (including Satan and the demons) are there because he sent them there. Revelation 20:15 says, "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Do people lock the doors behind them after God throws them into the lack of fire? Mark 9:47 and Matthew 13:42 and 25:30 also make it clear that God "casts" and "throws" people into hell. They don't enter of their own volition.
And what about the "Rich Man" in Luke 16? He clearly wants to get out of hell but cannot because "a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us."
If you wanted to present an evangelical perspective you might have started with explaining why we should ignore these passages.
***Most of my article draws on Barth, who is friend to some evangelicals and foe to others.***
You quote Barth approvingly as saying that the existence of hell is a self-chosen place of separation from God. That view is clearly contradicted by the Bible. Whether Barth is a friend or foe of evangelicals matters not a whit. What matters is what God has to say about the matter.
***Where did I claim that "there is an 'inclusivist’s message' in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon"? You need to read more carefully because I never made such a ridiculous claim.***
You're right. My apologies. I misread your twisting of Edwards sermon title.
***Nowhere in my article did I say Billy Graham's inclusivism is identical to Karl Barth's inclusivism. ***
You should read your piece again. You make no distinctions between varieties of inclusivism but rather lump a variety of divergent views under the single heading of "inclusivism." For example, in paragraph nine you begin "According to inclusivists. . . " and then in the next paragraph you say, " There may yet be opportunities, either in temporal life or postmortem life . . ." implying that this si a view that all inclusivists agree on. You also imply that Barth's position is shared by people like Billy Graham.
***There is a family resemblance between their views, however, because they both uphold the core claim of exclusivism ("belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation") while expressing universal salvation as hope – not doctrine.***
No, that's the Neuhausian version of inclusivism, but it is definitely not the common understanding of the term. I certainly hold out hope (despite all evidence pointing that the hope is futile) that there care be a universal salvation. That does not make me an inclusivist.
Inclusivism is the belief that God’s salvation must not be and cannot be restricted to only those who hear the gospel and consciously put their faith in Christ.
***I belong to an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), but nowhere did I present my argument as an official evangelical perspective.***
You're article was commissioned (unbeknownst to me) because it was presenting an evangelical perspective. If you had said in your article, "Although I am evangelical, very few of my fellow evangelicals will agree with the position I am defending. . . " then there would be no quarrel.
*** You contend that my view is "not compatible with evangelical theology." Let's be honest. It's not compatible with your evangelical theology, but it's compatible with "wider mercy" views such as John Sanders, Alister McGrath, Terrance Tiessen, Donald Bloesch, and John Stackhouse.***
Once again you are mixing various views as if they were all the same when they are not even necessarily compatible.
In the history of the church the " postmortem evangelism" view has been condemned. Bloesch's view may not be heretical, but it is outside the norm and has no warrant in scripture. That seems to be the view that you are defending as a possibility.
Tiessen views is that Christ is God’s sole means of salvation and that salvation is “accessible” through general revelation to people who do not receive the gospel. There is also no scriptural warrant for this position. The Bible makes it clear that general revelation has provided us with enough knowledge about God that we are without excuse, but it does not even hint that general revelation can be salvific.
I don't know what the other guys believe but since you didn't present their views it doesn't really matter. If you wanted to defend an evangelical view then why didn’t quote from some evangelical scholarship?
***Like most people who work hard to misunderstand Barth, the rules of logic don't apply neatly to dialectical or paradoxical tension.***
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Yes, the rules of logic can be applied quite neatly. There is no "paradoxical tension", only an attempt to gain an exemption from the strictures of logic in order to make a claim that really makes no sense at all.
@Santiago Ramos ***It is very odd for an editor to attack his own writer in this public and aggressive way. My sympathy goes out for Christopher Benson***
Imagine that a Catholic writer were to present a case denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is not an opinion that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy so it would be legitimate for FT to publish it. But if we were to do so and one of our Catholic editors was to dispute it, would you think they were in error for doing so?
@Ethan C. ***Joe Carter, I very much want to know what specific parts of Mr. Benson's argument makes it "mainline Protestant" rather than "Evangelical". What would have had to have been different for it to qualify as the latter?***
The standard by which an evangelical theological argument must be judged is Scripture. If the argument's premises and conclusion cannot be backed up with Biblical warrant, then it's not really an evangelical argument at all.
In contrast, mainline Protestantism has developed a tolerance for theological novelty and authority outside of Scripture. For example, a mainline Protestant could fruitfully argue that based on Theologian X (say, Barth) the proposition is defensible. Such an argument may, if they are in conversation with other mainliners, carry the day and be sufficient even if it is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible.
While I can appreciate the irony of McKnight criticizing Piper in a blog post for criticizing Bell in a tweet, I think it’s a bit overheated. The idea that Christian leaders must privately contact another Christian leader for a statement that they made it public is a bit odd.
***What's your criteria for making an inclusivist case from an evangelical perspective? ***
Well, for starters, using the Bible (rather than Barth) to present the case. For example, the idea that doors of hell lock from the inside is cute but it is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that whoever is in hell (including Satan and the demons) are there because he sent them there. Revelation 20:15 says, "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Do people lock the doors behind them after God throws them into the lack of fire? Mark 9:47 and Matthew 13:42 and 25:30 also make it clear that God "casts" and "throws" people into hell. They don't enter of their own volition.
And what about the "Rich Man" in Luke 16? He clearly wants to get out of hell but cannot because "a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us."
If you wanted to present an evangelical perspective you might have started with explaining why we should ignore these passages.
***Most of my article draws on Barth, who is friend to some evangelicals and foe to others.***
You quote Barth approvingly as saying that the existence of hell is a self-chosen place of separation from God. That view is clearly contradicted by the Bible. Whether Barth is a friend or foe of evangelicals matters not a whit. What matters is what God has to say about the matter.
***Where did I claim that "there is an 'inclusivist’s message' in Jonathan Edwards most famous sermon"? You need to read more carefully because I never made such a ridiculous claim.***
You're right. My apologies. I misread your twisting of Edwards sermon title.
***Nowhere in my article did I say Billy Graham's inclusivism is identical to Karl Barth's inclusivism. ***
You should read your piece again. You make no distinctions between varieties of inclusivism but rather lump a variety of divergent views under the single heading of "inclusivism." For example, in paragraph nine you begin "According to inclusivists. . . " and then in the next paragraph you say, " There may yet be opportunities, either in temporal life or postmortem life . . ." implying that this si a view that all inclusivists agree on. You also imply that Barth's position is shared by people like Billy Graham.
***There is a family resemblance between their views, however, because they both uphold the core claim of exclusivism ("belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation") while expressing universal salvation as hope – not doctrine.***
No, that's the Neuhausian version of inclusivism, but it is definitely not the common understanding of the term. I certainly hold out hope (despite all evidence pointing that the hope is futile) that there care be a universal salvation. That does not make me an inclusivist.
Inclusivism is the belief that God’s salvation must not be and cannot be restricted to only those who hear the gospel and consciously put their faith in Christ.
***I belong to an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), but nowhere did I present my argument as an official evangelical perspective.***
You're article was commissioned (unbeknownst to me) because it was presenting an evangelical perspective. If you had said in your article, "Although I am evangelical, very few of my fellow evangelicals will agree with the position I am defending. . . " then there would be no quarrel.
*** You contend that my view is "not compatible with evangelical theology." Let's be honest. It's not compatible with your evangelical theology, but it's compatible with "wider mercy" views such as John Sanders, Alister McGrath, Terrance Tiessen, Donald Bloesch, and John Stackhouse.***
Once again you are mixing various views as if they were all the same when they are not even necessarily compatible.
In the history of the church the " postmortem evangelism" view has been condemned. Bloesch's view may not be heretical, but it is outside the norm and has no warrant in scripture. That seems to be the view that you are defending as a possibility.
Tiessen views is that Christ is God’s sole means of salvation and that salvation is “accessible” through general revelation to people who do not receive the gospel. There is also no scriptural warrant for this position. The Bible makes it clear that general revelation has provided us with enough knowledge about God that we are without excuse, but it does not even hint that general revelation can be salvific.
I don't know what the other guys believe but since you didn't present their views it doesn't really matter. If you wanted to defend an evangelical view then why didn’t quote from some evangelical scholarship?
***Like most people who work hard to misunderstand Barth, the rules of logic don't apply neatly to dialectical or paradoxical tension.***
With all due respect, this is nonsense. Yes, the rules of logic can be applied quite neatly. There is no "paradoxical tension", only an attempt to gain an exemption from the strictures of logic in order to make a claim that really makes no sense at all.
@Santiago Ramos ***It is very odd for an editor to attack his own writer in this public and aggressive way. My sympathy goes out for Christopher Benson***
Imagine that a Catholic writer were to present a case denying the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is not an opinion that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy so it would be legitimate for FT to publish it. But if we were to do so and one of our Catholic editors was to dispute it, would you think they were in error for doing so?
@Ethan C. ***Joe Carter, I very much want to know what specific parts of Mr. Benson's argument makes it "mainline Protestant" rather than "Evangelical". What would have had to have been different for it to qualify as the latter?***
The standard by which an evangelical theological argument must be judged is Scripture. If the argument's premises and conclusion cannot be backed up with Biblical warrant, then it's not really an evangelical argument at all.
In contrast, mainline Protestantism has developed a tolerance for theological novelty and authority outside of Scripture. For example, a mainline Protestant could fruitfully argue that based on Theologian X (say, Barth) the proposition is defensible. Such an argument may, if they are in conversation with other mainliners, carry the day and be sufficient even if it is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible.
3.22.2011 | 4:54pm
Joe Carter says:
@Michael ***Benson, after all, seems to feel no tension between his stated views and evangelicalism. ***
Yes, and that is precisely the problem.
It is all too infrequent that FT addresses a theological issue from an evangelical perspective, so when we do so I believe it is imperative that we present a view that is consonant with the majority of mainstream evangelicals. It is not just that he is defending inclusivism, but that he is championing a type is held by only a small minority of believers.
Benson appears to be defending the position of postmortem evangelism. Very, very, very few evangelicals hold this view. Yet many readers will leave with the impression that is a relatively orthodox belief among evangelicals (after all, why else would FT present it?).
Let me clarify that I like Benson. He is capable of producing informed writing on a number of topics. But I think he is out of his depth here. There are no shortage of theologians that FT could have found to write on this subject. In my opinion, it would have been more fruitful to have one of them write on this subject.
Yes, and that is precisely the problem.
It is all too infrequent that FT addresses a theological issue from an evangelical perspective, so when we do so I believe it is imperative that we present a view that is consonant with the majority of mainstream evangelicals. It is not just that he is defending inclusivism, but that he is championing a type is held by only a small minority of believers.
Benson appears to be defending the position of postmortem evangelism. Very, very, very few evangelicals hold this view. Yet many readers will leave with the impression that is a relatively orthodox belief among evangelicals (after all, why else would FT present it?).
Let me clarify that I like Benson. He is capable of producing informed writing on a number of topics. But I think he is out of his depth here. There are no shortage of theologians that FT could have found to write on this subject. In my opinion, it would have been more fruitful to have one of them write on this subject.
3.22.2011 | 4:56pm
Matt Cochran says:
There is a sleight of hand going on in this piece. Supposedly, inclusivism is characterized over and against exclusivism by an agnosticism about the fate of individual souls. However, this agnosticism can easily be accepted by an exclusivist as well. Most exclusivists recognize that "maybes" exist. After all, most of the proverbial tribesmen who have never heard of Christ have never been observed closely by Christians either--if they were, they probably would have heard about Christ at some point. Maybe some of these tribesmen received some kind of unusual direct revelation. Maybe some unbelieving children who died so very young heard the Gospel and had a childlike faith unbeknownst to her parents. Who knows? The list of exceptions could go on and on, and we couldn't know for sure whether any of them applied to anyone. However, nothing on such a list is theologically normal--they are, after all, exceptions. On the other hand, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" is very straightforward, and is consistently taught in Scripture. That is what is normal because that is what has been promised to us. God has promised us none of the exceptions.
The actual difference between exlusivists and inclusivists is whether normalcy is preached forthrightly or buried under a pile of maybes for the sake of making people more comfortable. But maybes are a poor comfort compared to the certain promises of grace through faith in Christ proclaimed in Scripture.
The actual difference between exlusivists and inclusivists is whether normalcy is preached forthrightly or buried under a pile of maybes for the sake of making people more comfortable. But maybes are a poor comfort compared to the certain promises of grace through faith in Christ proclaimed in Scripture.
3.22.2011 | 5:12pm
Santiago Ramos says:
@Joe To be more precise, according to the Catholic view, the rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a heterodox position. But I understand what you're saying. What you're saying, however, is beside the point. If an editor at FTs wants to challenge an article which FTs publishes, he or she should write another article. At least that would accord the original writer a modicum of respect. What I can't quite stomach is the idea of commissioning a piece from a young writer and then shooting him down (questioning not only his arguments, but also his intelligence) in the comments section of the very same article article. It just seems odd. Or rude.
3.22.2011 | 5:16pm
MrMandias says:
The article is loopy (but also not loopy! Embrace the paradox, man), but J. Carter's attack on his magazine's own article is something unprecedented and a little creepy.
3.22.2011 | 5:43pm
Joe Carter says:
@Santiago Ramos ***At least that would accord the original writer a modicum of respect. ***
Why would it be disrespectful to criticize his article in the comment sections but not disrespectful to use another entire article to criticize it?
***(questioning not only his arguments, but also his intelligence)***
I never questioned his intelligence. The fact that I don’t think he is sufficiently knowlegeable on the subject is not a remark on Benson's intellect.
@MrMandias ***J. Carter's attack on his magazine's own article is something unprecedented and a little creepy.***
Is it creepy because I disagree with the article on creepy because I am expressing that disagreement.
And if you think it is "unprecedented" then I can only assume that you've never read our "Letters" sections. Writers of FT publicly criticize writers of FT all the time.
Why would it be disrespectful to criticize his article in the comment sections but not disrespectful to use another entire article to criticize it?
***(questioning not only his arguments, but also his intelligence)***
I never questioned his intelligence. The fact that I don’t think he is sufficiently knowlegeable on the subject is not a remark on Benson's intellect.
@MrMandias ***J. Carter's attack on his magazine's own article is something unprecedented and a little creepy.***
Is it creepy because I disagree with the article on creepy because I am expressing that disagreement.
And if you think it is "unprecedented" then I can only assume that you've never read our "Letters" sections. Writers of FT publicly criticize writers of FT all the time.
3.22.2011 | 6:12pm
Please note that Christopher Benson has also criticized Joe Carter's arguments and comments too.
It's a two-way street. And isnt' that what conversation and dialogue is supposed to do?
It's a two-way street. And isnt' that what conversation and dialogue is supposed to do?
3.22.2011 | 6:39pm
Ethan C.: "Joe Carter, I very much want to know what specific parts of Mr. Benson's argument makes it "mainline Protestant" rather than "Evangelical". What would have had to have been different for it to qualify as the latter?"
Hi Ethan,
Did you know that Christopher Benson attended and graduated from Wheaton just like you?
BTW, did you ever take any classes from Professor Gilbert B.? Have you ever seen any fellow Wheaties influenced by his egalitarian agenda?
Hi Ethan,
Did you know that Christopher Benson attended and graduated from Wheaton just like you?
BTW, did you ever take any classes from Professor Gilbert B.? Have you ever seen any fellow Wheaties influenced by his egalitarian agenda?
3.22.2011 | 7:19pm
Dale says:
Was really hoping for a an intelligent category for Bell in this piece, but at least got some more names to study.
@Joe: you reference Luke 16 that the Rich Man wanted out of hell. I do not see that in the text. He rather wanted Lazarus out of heaven (hence, the fixed gulf). The Rich Man merely wanted pain alleviation (water for thirst). This is actually one of the passages that drew me to think those in helll may not want to leave (ie: if they could lock it from the inside, they would).
@Joe: you reference Luke 16 that the Rich Man wanted out of hell. I do not see that in the text. He rather wanted Lazarus out of heaven (hence, the fixed gulf). The Rich Man merely wanted pain alleviation (water for thirst). This is actually one of the passages that drew me to think those in helll may not want to leave (ie: if they could lock it from the inside, they would).
3.22.2011 | 7:38pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Santiago Ramos:
Apparently you're aren't the only one who perceives it as "odd" and disrespectful for an editor of First Things to shoot down a contributor. I appreciate your sympathy and support. The exchange with Mr. Carter reinforces my Jamesian belief about temperament and intellectual life, as Sarah Bakewell writes in the New York Times: "How we tackle intellectual problems depends critically on who we are as individuals, and is as much a function of temperament as cognition." We don't just understand a conceptual problem, we feel the problem. Clearly, Mr. Carter and I feel the problem differently. He will, no doubt, object to this subjective language, but temperament influences him regardless of whether he acknowledges it. The "tough-minded" restrictivist wants everything black and white. The "tender-minded" universalist wants everything white. The inclusivist stands in the middle; his whose outlook is maddeningly polychromatic to those on either side of him.
@Joe Carter:
First, in the space of a short article I can't present an exhaustive treatment of the biblical passages on hell and salvation. I did engage some passages that were relevant to my argument. You can't hold it against because I didn't address the passages you wanted. Of the specific passages you mentioned, I would say you and I interpret them differently. C. S. Lewis admirably reckoned with the scriptural language on "hell as external punishment" versus "hell as self-incurred punishment." Viewed rightly, he contends, it means the same thing:
"Though our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgment consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His “word,” judges men. We are therefore at liberty – since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing – to think of this bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is “their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves" (The Problem of Pain).
Second, the view of hell as "a self-chosen place of separation from God" it "clearly contradicted" by your interpretation of Scripture, but not of other legitimate interpretations. Lewis' interpretation strikes me as biblically faithful.
Third, in the space of a short article I can't present a complex taxonomy of positions, such as the nine views presented by Baptist theologian Christopher Morgan: (1) Church Exclusivism, (2) Gospel Exclusivism, (3) Special Revelation Exclusivisim, (4) Agnosticism, (5) General Revelation Inclusivism, (6) World Religion Inclusivism, (7) Postmortem Evangelism, (8) Universalism, and (9) Pluralism.
The OTS editor and I decided that it was best to work with a simple taxonomy (exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism) in order to express my thesis that inclusivism is a welcome via media between restrctivism and universalism. While there are different formulations of inclusivism, I'm most sympathetic to the one defined by Griffiths because it upholds the core claim of exclusivism by denying "salvific effiency to any alien religion." In other words, all that are saved are saved by Jesus Christ, but they might be saved as "anonymous Christians" in their alien religions or saved after death. The taxonomy I used risks oversimplification, but Griffiths' formulation of inclusivism, which he calls the relaxed version of exclusivism, is capacious enough to describe John Wesley, Karl Barth, C. S. Lewis, and Billy Graham.
Fourth, I was not commissioned to write an evangelical perspective on inclusivism. I submitted my piece and it was accepted by other editors.
Fifth, where the Barthian dialectic between exclusivism and universalism is a minority position among evangelicals, inclusivism is a live option for many evangelicals, especially if it's understood as Griffiths explains in his book:
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it. Both positions answer the question of how humans realize their proper end by claiming that belonging to the home religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation, that belonging to an alien religion may suffice, and that this is so because the sincere and faithful practitioner of an alien religion is in fact participating in the home religion – though implicitly and anonymously, without knowing it. The core idea here is that of anonymous participation."
Sixth and finally, your application of logic does violence to the dialectical (or paradoxical) tension in Barth's theology. Your commitment to limited atonement, which lacks scriptural warrant according to some biblical scholars and theologians, precludes you from seeing, as Milliner writes, that "Barth preserves the Pauline tension between limited atonement and universalism, neither of which should be taught as official church doctrine; it is a tension the Bible does not permit us to collapse."
Apparently you're aren't the only one who perceives it as "odd" and disrespectful for an editor of First Things to shoot down a contributor. I appreciate your sympathy and support. The exchange with Mr. Carter reinforces my Jamesian belief about temperament and intellectual life, as Sarah Bakewell writes in the New York Times: "How we tackle intellectual problems depends critically on who we are as individuals, and is as much a function of temperament as cognition." We don't just understand a conceptual problem, we feel the problem. Clearly, Mr. Carter and I feel the problem differently. He will, no doubt, object to this subjective language, but temperament influences him regardless of whether he acknowledges it. The "tough-minded" restrictivist wants everything black and white. The "tender-minded" universalist wants everything white. The inclusivist stands in the middle; his whose outlook is maddeningly polychromatic to those on either side of him.
@Joe Carter:
First, in the space of a short article I can't present an exhaustive treatment of the biblical passages on hell and salvation. I did engage some passages that were relevant to my argument. You can't hold it against because I didn't address the passages you wanted. Of the specific passages you mentioned, I would say you and I interpret them differently. C. S. Lewis admirably reckoned with the scriptural language on "hell as external punishment" versus "hell as self-incurred punishment." Viewed rightly, he contends, it means the same thing:
"Though our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgment consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His “word,” judges men. We are therefore at liberty – since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing – to think of this bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is “their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves" (The Problem of Pain).
Second, the view of hell as "a self-chosen place of separation from God" it "clearly contradicted" by your interpretation of Scripture, but not of other legitimate interpretations. Lewis' interpretation strikes me as biblically faithful.
Third, in the space of a short article I can't present a complex taxonomy of positions, such as the nine views presented by Baptist theologian Christopher Morgan: (1) Church Exclusivism, (2) Gospel Exclusivism, (3) Special Revelation Exclusivisim, (4) Agnosticism, (5) General Revelation Inclusivism, (6) World Religion Inclusivism, (7) Postmortem Evangelism, (8) Universalism, and (9) Pluralism.
The OTS editor and I decided that it was best to work with a simple taxonomy (exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism) in order to express my thesis that inclusivism is a welcome via media between restrctivism and universalism. While there are different formulations of inclusivism, I'm most sympathetic to the one defined by Griffiths because it upholds the core claim of exclusivism by denying "salvific effiency to any alien religion." In other words, all that are saved are saved by Jesus Christ, but they might be saved as "anonymous Christians" in their alien religions or saved after death. The taxonomy I used risks oversimplification, but Griffiths' formulation of inclusivism, which he calls the relaxed version of exclusivism, is capacious enough to describe John Wesley, Karl Barth, C. S. Lewis, and Billy Graham.
Fourth, I was not commissioned to write an evangelical perspective on inclusivism. I submitted my piece and it was accepted by other editors.
Fifth, where the Barthian dialectic between exclusivism and universalism is a minority position among evangelicals, inclusivism is a live option for many evangelicals, especially if it's understood as Griffiths explains in his book:
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it. Both positions answer the question of how humans realize their proper end by claiming that belonging to the home religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation, that belonging to an alien religion may suffice, and that this is so because the sincere and faithful practitioner of an alien religion is in fact participating in the home religion – though implicitly and anonymously, without knowing it. The core idea here is that of anonymous participation."
Sixth and finally, your application of logic does violence to the dialectical (or paradoxical) tension in Barth's theology. Your commitment to limited atonement, which lacks scriptural warrant according to some biblical scholars and theologians, precludes you from seeing, as Milliner writes, that "Barth preserves the Pauline tension between limited atonement and universalism, neither of which should be taught as official church doctrine; it is a tension the Bible does not permit us to collapse."
3.22.2011 | 8:09pm
Ethan C. says:
TUAD, I had thought that Benson's name rang a bell. As to this Gilbert B. person, I confess I don't know who you're talking about.
Joe, thanks for the clarification regarding what you see as the difference between an Evangelical and a Mainline type of position (or, I might say, style of argumentation). I wish you had been so clear in your earlier posts, so that you would not have given the impression that you were simply engaging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Indeed, I wish you had saved up all of your commentary for a single substantive response. I think many of the points you raise are quite important, but I don't think you've expressed them very well at all.
Joe, thanks for the clarification regarding what you see as the difference between an Evangelical and a Mainline type of position (or, I might say, style of argumentation). I wish you had been so clear in your earlier posts, so that you would not have given the impression that you were simply engaging in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Indeed, I wish you had saved up all of your commentary for a single substantive response. I think many of the points you raise are quite important, but I don't think you've expressed them very well at all.
3.22.2011 | 8:18pm
Micah Mattix says:
Christopher—
I do appreciate your effort to be moderate here. I think it's important, but you also have to get the facts straight for it to be valuable. Too often taking a middle ground is assumed to be the right position simply because it's the middle. I don't think you hold this view, and this is an important theological discussion, which has important consequences for how we as evangelicals communicate or fail to communicate the Gospel, so with that:
My main concern, though I have others, is your use of Griffiths and his terminology. You state: ***Catholic theologian Paul Griffiths differentiates matters further, identifying two kinds of exclusivism. Under the restricted version, “belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation.” He calls this restrictivism. Under the relaxed version, “belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation." This sometimes goes by the name of inclusivism, but it upholds the core claim of exclusivism by denying "salvific efficiency to any alien religion." I greet inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism***
This is inaccurate. According to Griffiths, the first view, which is more restricted, is composed of those that believe that "belonging to the home religion is *necessary*," and the second, more relaxed view, is composed of those that believe "belonging to the home religion is *sufficient*." Here's the whole paragraph from Griffiths:
"Some religious people think that inhabiting the home community is *necessary* for salvation, which is to say that if you don't inhabit the home religion you won't be able to get saved. On this view, inhabiting the home religion won't guarantee salvation; it's just indispensible for salvation, rather as having your eighteenth birthdays won't guarantee having your twenty-first but is certainly indispensable for it. Others think that inhabiting the home religion is *sufficient* for salvation. On this view, inhabiting the home religion assures you of salvation—though there may be other ways to get saved as well. On this view, inhabiting the home religion is related to salvation much as being born on US soil is related to being a US citizen: the one entails the other. And the analogy will go further: being born on US soil isn't the only way to become a US citizen."
It seems clear here that "necessary" is the restrictive and "sufficient" is the relaxed exclusive, right? And I am not sure why you call the second "inclusive"? Is this Griffiths' term? An inclusive exclusive? This doesn't make sense.
Also, it's important to note that Griffiths actually provides three categories, not two, of the exclusivist position. The third is composed of those who believe that being a member of the home religion is both necessary and sufficient. This is the most restricted view, according to Griffiths—he says it's like "being a member of the NBA's championship team in a particular year and receiving a championship ring for that year"—but you don't mention this one.
In the next paragraphs, you set up a contrast between that those who have written against Bell's book, who are "exclusivists" and Bell, who is a universalist, but the inaccurate and inconsistent use of terms muddles this dichotomy. For example, you say: ***Exclusivists and universalists are presumptive demographers: The former claims hell is crowded and the latter that hell is empty. By contrast, inclusivists are agnostic about the population in hell, refusing to name and number the individuals who inhabit the place of torment. God alone keeps the statistics. There’s a family resemblance between exclusivists and inclusivists insofar as they both affirm the existence of hell and believe “there is salvation in no one else [Jesus Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The feud relates to how this salvation gets worked out.***
By "exclusivists" do you mean "restrictivists" above, or all "exclusivists"—restrictive, relaxed (what you call "inclusivists") and Griffiths' third, dare we call them hyper-exclusivists? If it is the former, this is not true. Certainly in the restrictive view, hell will be more populated than heaven, but it is the third view—those that believe being a member of the home religion is both necessary and sufficient—that, according to Griffiths, would claim hell to be crowded indeed. Also, "exclusivists" don’t claim to know exactly who or how many are in hell, again if you mean those that believe membership to be "necessary." In fact, it's the opposite. This is what is meant by the term "necessary"
Another false distinction is here: ***Exclusivists require a public and explicit confession of faith in Jesus Christ and a life marked by good fruit. Inclusivists acknowledge that faith and good fruit are hallmarks of Christ-followers, but are reluctant to make judgments about the destiny of ignorant or impossible souls, emphasizing that “with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26) and that “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).***
Again, I don't find this to square with the way you use the terms above.
There are other things, but to confuse matters more, Griffiths actually refers to Barth as an "exclusivist," but you include him as an "inclusivist," by which you mean the more relaxed "restrictive"?
Anyway, given this problem of terminology, I think the piece unfortunately does not throw much light on this disagreement. In fact, it functions to set up a lot of false dichotomies, which are unhelpful.
Related to this, I would have appreciated a more balanced, accurate engagement with those who disagreed with Bell. You seem to present them as being shrill, or extremist, but excluding the initial reaction, I have not found this to be the case at all. Did you read Kevin DeYoung's response? Here it is in case you missed it: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/. I found it unfortunate you didn't engage him. Also the video discussion of the book at Southern was measured, though strong, critique. What of that?
I do appreciate your effort to be moderate here. I think it's important, but you also have to get the facts straight for it to be valuable. Too often taking a middle ground is assumed to be the right position simply because it's the middle. I don't think you hold this view, and this is an important theological discussion, which has important consequences for how we as evangelicals communicate or fail to communicate the Gospel, so with that:
My main concern, though I have others, is your use of Griffiths and his terminology. You state: ***Catholic theologian Paul Griffiths differentiates matters further, identifying two kinds of exclusivism. Under the restricted version, “belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation.” He calls this restrictivism. Under the relaxed version, “belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation." This sometimes goes by the name of inclusivism, but it upholds the core claim of exclusivism by denying "salvific efficiency to any alien religion." I greet inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism***
This is inaccurate. According to Griffiths, the first view, which is more restricted, is composed of those that believe that "belonging to the home religion is *necessary*," and the second, more relaxed view, is composed of those that believe "belonging to the home religion is *sufficient*." Here's the whole paragraph from Griffiths:
"Some religious people think that inhabiting the home community is *necessary* for salvation, which is to say that if you don't inhabit the home religion you won't be able to get saved. On this view, inhabiting the home religion won't guarantee salvation; it's just indispensible for salvation, rather as having your eighteenth birthdays won't guarantee having your twenty-first but is certainly indispensable for it. Others think that inhabiting the home religion is *sufficient* for salvation. On this view, inhabiting the home religion assures you of salvation—though there may be other ways to get saved as well. On this view, inhabiting the home religion is related to salvation much as being born on US soil is related to being a US citizen: the one entails the other. And the analogy will go further: being born on US soil isn't the only way to become a US citizen."
It seems clear here that "necessary" is the restrictive and "sufficient" is the relaxed exclusive, right? And I am not sure why you call the second "inclusive"? Is this Griffiths' term? An inclusive exclusive? This doesn't make sense.
Also, it's important to note that Griffiths actually provides three categories, not two, of the exclusivist position. The third is composed of those who believe that being a member of the home religion is both necessary and sufficient. This is the most restricted view, according to Griffiths—he says it's like "being a member of the NBA's championship team in a particular year and receiving a championship ring for that year"—but you don't mention this one.
In the next paragraphs, you set up a contrast between that those who have written against Bell's book, who are "exclusivists" and Bell, who is a universalist, but the inaccurate and inconsistent use of terms muddles this dichotomy. For example, you say: ***Exclusivists and universalists are presumptive demographers: The former claims hell is crowded and the latter that hell is empty. By contrast, inclusivists are agnostic about the population in hell, refusing to name and number the individuals who inhabit the place of torment. God alone keeps the statistics. There’s a family resemblance between exclusivists and inclusivists insofar as they both affirm the existence of hell and believe “there is salvation in no one else [Jesus Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The feud relates to how this salvation gets worked out.***
By "exclusivists" do you mean "restrictivists" above, or all "exclusivists"—restrictive, relaxed (what you call "inclusivists") and Griffiths' third, dare we call them hyper-exclusivists? If it is the former, this is not true. Certainly in the restrictive view, hell will be more populated than heaven, but it is the third view—those that believe being a member of the home religion is both necessary and sufficient—that, according to Griffiths, would claim hell to be crowded indeed. Also, "exclusivists" don’t claim to know exactly who or how many are in hell, again if you mean those that believe membership to be "necessary." In fact, it's the opposite. This is what is meant by the term "necessary"
Another false distinction is here: ***Exclusivists require a public and explicit confession of faith in Jesus Christ and a life marked by good fruit. Inclusivists acknowledge that faith and good fruit are hallmarks of Christ-followers, but are reluctant to make judgments about the destiny of ignorant or impossible souls, emphasizing that “with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26) and that “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).***
Again, I don't find this to square with the way you use the terms above.
There are other things, but to confuse matters more, Griffiths actually refers to Barth as an "exclusivist," but you include him as an "inclusivist," by which you mean the more relaxed "restrictive"?
Anyway, given this problem of terminology, I think the piece unfortunately does not throw much light on this disagreement. In fact, it functions to set up a lot of false dichotomies, which are unhelpful.
Related to this, I would have appreciated a more balanced, accurate engagement with those who disagreed with Bell. You seem to present them as being shrill, or extremist, but excluding the initial reaction, I have not found this to be the case at all. Did you read Kevin DeYoung's response? Here it is in case you missed it: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/. I found it unfortunate you didn't engage him. Also the video discussion of the book at Southern was measured, though strong, critique. What of that?
3.22.2011 | 8:39pm
Michael S says:
Living here in the south for the past 22 years and in a state that barely has 120,000 Catholics, when a Baptist dies, he/she is in Jesus' arms before dark. I warn my christian compatriots that there is not absolute salvation just because they are baptized christians. Unfortunately, by black catholic pastor preaches the same theory--I guess I'm going to heaven.
3.22.2011 | 9:00pm
ianthis says:
"In contrast, mainline Protestantism has developed a tolerance for theological novelty and authority outside of Scripture. For example, a mainline Protestant could fruitfully argue that based on Theologian X (say, Barth) the proposition is defensible. Such an argument may, if they are in conversation with other mainliners, carry the day and be sufficient even if it is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible. "
It is presumptious of Carter to imply that Scripture is clear on this point. While the article above does not use Biblical quotes to defend the position, many of the theologians he quotes DO in fact take the time to wrestle with some of the more difficult (yes, DIFFICULT!) passages of Scripture. It would take a book-length treatment and careful discussion to thoroughly outline the argument with Scripture interpretation. The reason many theologians hesitate to base their short essays on scripture alone is that the Bible takes very careful handling and brings up its own issues of proper interpretation, etc. By using references to other theologians who have done a great deal of difficult work themselves in reading through the Scripture the author of a short essay may draw on a rich tradition and direct readers to works that will address their questions if they are interested. Surely this essay was commissioned as a way to start people thinking, not to solve the problem!
"Well, for starters, using the Bible (rather than Barth) to present the case. For example, the idea that doors of hell lock from the inside is cute but it is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that whoever is in hell (including Satan and the demons) are there because he sent them there."
Othe nature of Hell itself, it seems that the author is attempting to draw conclusions from the complex teachings in Scripture, similar to the way that we may draw conclusions about abortion, the Trinity, or the inspired state of the New Testament itself.
While on the one hand there are passages telling us that God casts sinners into a lake of fire, there are also passages that tell us that whoever knocks will be answered, whoever seeks will find. If this is truly a promise of God, then it follows that those who are not answered are those who did not knock.
One could argue about many different reasons why they failed to do so, but it isn't irrational to assume that this was because while they were presented with the chance, they did not wish to.
In this sense, then, they have hardened their hearts towards God, closed their own door. God's acting and man's choice could be coexistent. Is it not within the very nature of sin to hate God and reject him, while, like the rich man, hating the result of your actions?
In fact, some have argued that such a view is necessary to fully make sense of God's unbounding love and man's free will as coexistent with a just Hell.
There isn't enough space to thoroughly lay out this counter-opinion, but it is unfair to the argument, and unmindful of the way theology truly works--i.e. by Scripture and prayerful interpretation hand in hand with the discussion within a community--to claim that this argument is so un-Biblical it must be relegated to the realm of mainline Protestantism.
It is presumptious of Carter to imply that Scripture is clear on this point. While the article above does not use Biblical quotes to defend the position, many of the theologians he quotes DO in fact take the time to wrestle with some of the more difficult (yes, DIFFICULT!) passages of Scripture. It would take a book-length treatment and careful discussion to thoroughly outline the argument with Scripture interpretation. The reason many theologians hesitate to base their short essays on scripture alone is that the Bible takes very careful handling and brings up its own issues of proper interpretation, etc. By using references to other theologians who have done a great deal of difficult work themselves in reading through the Scripture the author of a short essay may draw on a rich tradition and direct readers to works that will address their questions if they are interested. Surely this essay was commissioned as a way to start people thinking, not to solve the problem!
"Well, for starters, using the Bible (rather than Barth) to present the case. For example, the idea that doors of hell lock from the inside is cute but it is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that whoever is in hell (including Satan and the demons) are there because he sent them there."
Othe nature of Hell itself, it seems that the author is attempting to draw conclusions from the complex teachings in Scripture, similar to the way that we may draw conclusions about abortion, the Trinity, or the inspired state of the New Testament itself.
While on the one hand there are passages telling us that God casts sinners into a lake of fire, there are also passages that tell us that whoever knocks will be answered, whoever seeks will find. If this is truly a promise of God, then it follows that those who are not answered are those who did not knock.
One could argue about many different reasons why they failed to do so, but it isn't irrational to assume that this was because while they were presented with the chance, they did not wish to.
In this sense, then, they have hardened their hearts towards God, closed their own door. God's acting and man's choice could be coexistent. Is it not within the very nature of sin to hate God and reject him, while, like the rich man, hating the result of your actions?
In fact, some have argued that such a view is necessary to fully make sense of God's unbounding love and man's free will as coexistent with a just Hell.
There isn't enough space to thoroughly lay out this counter-opinion, but it is unfair to the argument, and unmindful of the way theology truly works--i.e. by Scripture and prayerful interpretation hand in hand with the discussion within a community--to claim that this argument is so un-Biblical it must be relegated to the realm of mainline Protestantism.
3.22.2011 | 9:57pm
Mike Linton says:
Lots of “ists” here. I’m not sure of the pigeonholes but I am sure of this: John 15:17. It’s a commandment, not a hope or suggestion. There are things in the discussions above that, at least in my reading, wouldn’t look very loving to folks outside of the faith, or in it. I think that’s a problem. Like Hell.
And “Truth Unites…and Divides”? Golly gosh I wish you’d get a name. I can’t love a sound bite. I’m trying. It’s not working.
And “Truth Unites…and Divides”? Golly gosh I wish you’d get a name. I can’t love a sound bite. I’m trying. It’s not working.
3.22.2011 | 10:30pm
dave says:
Most people's Christianity is too complex. Remember you need to be "childlike" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ has redeemed all mankind. Do you really think an African Muslim woman, raped, repressed, and starved her whole life is condemned to eternal hell in the afterlife? She's already lived hell. Focus on feeding the poor, encouraging the week, sharing about Christ's wonderful love, and leave the theology bs. to the so called intellectual elite. "Love thy neighbor" and improve this life. The afterlife will come soon enough.
3.22.2011 | 10:33pm
Christopher Benson says:
@Micah Mattix:
We seem to be quoting from different sources by Paul Griffiths. What are you quoting from? I'm quoting from PROBLEMS OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY. Here's the full context:
"Exclusivism, as a response to the question of how humans realize their proper end, is more likely than pluralism to be acceptable and interesting to religious people. Exclusivists on this matter assert at least the following core claim: belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation. This, as we’ve seen, is to deny salvific efficacy to any alien religion. But it is not to assert salvific sufficiency to the home religion; exclusivists may or may not add to the core claim the view that belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation" (pp. 150-151).
If I'm not mistaken in my reading of Griffiths, those who add to the core claim are restrictivists. Those who keep to the core claim but relax their understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion are sometimes called inclusivists.
I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism. Being a mammal is necessary but not sufficient to being human; other conditions must be satisfied. So too, being a Christian is necessary but not sufficient to being saved. Of course, everything hinges upon what it means to be(come) Christian.
Griffiths says elsewhere in the say book:
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it. Both positions answer the question of how humans realize their proper end by claiming that belonging to the home religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation, that belonging to an alien religion may suffice, and that this is so because the sincere and faithful practitioner of an alien religion is in fact participating in the home religion – though implicitly and anonymously, without knowing it. The core idea here is that of anonymous participation" (p. 159-160).
To summarize Griffiths' terminology:
Exclusivism (core claim): belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation.
Restrictivism: belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation.
Exclusivism (relaxed version, sometimes called inclusivism when it's made explicit or public): belonging to the home religion might include the witness of nature, testimony of conscience, anonymous participation in Christianity, and opportunity for postmortem reception of the gospel.
As I told Joe Carter, the OTS editor and I discussed whether I should use a simple taxonomy (exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism) or more complex taxonomy, as Griffiths uses. At the beginning I nodded to Griffiths' taxonomy, but throughout the article I used the simplified taxonomy. If that choice resulted in confusion, I apologize.
We seem to be quoting from different sources by Paul Griffiths. What are you quoting from? I'm quoting from PROBLEMS OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY. Here's the full context:
"Exclusivism, as a response to the question of how humans realize their proper end, is more likely than pluralism to be acceptable and interesting to religious people. Exclusivists on this matter assert at least the following core claim: belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation. This, as we’ve seen, is to deny salvific efficacy to any alien religion. But it is not to assert salvific sufficiency to the home religion; exclusivists may or may not add to the core claim the view that belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation" (pp. 150-151).
If I'm not mistaken in my reading of Griffiths, those who add to the core claim are restrictivists. Those who keep to the core claim but relax their understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion are sometimes called inclusivists.
I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism. Being a mammal is necessary but not sufficient to being human; other conditions must be satisfied. So too, being a Christian is necessary but not sufficient to being saved. Of course, everything hinges upon what it means to be(come) Christian.
Griffiths says elsewhere in the say book:
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it. Both positions answer the question of how humans realize their proper end by claiming that belonging to the home religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation, that belonging to an alien religion may suffice, and that this is so because the sincere and faithful practitioner of an alien religion is in fact participating in the home religion – though implicitly and anonymously, without knowing it. The core idea here is that of anonymous participation" (p. 159-160).
To summarize Griffiths' terminology:
Exclusivism (core claim): belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation.
Restrictivism: belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation.
Exclusivism (relaxed version, sometimes called inclusivism when it's made explicit or public): belonging to the home religion might include the witness of nature, testimony of conscience, anonymous participation in Christianity, and opportunity for postmortem reception of the gospel.
As I told Joe Carter, the OTS editor and I discussed whether I should use a simple taxonomy (exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism) or more complex taxonomy, as Griffiths uses. At the beginning I nodded to Griffiths' taxonomy, but throughout the article I used the simplified taxonomy. If that choice resulted in confusion, I apologize.
3.22.2011 | 10:36pm
Ron Krumpos says:
In his new book "Love Wins" Rob Bell seems to say that loving and compassionate people, regardless of their faith, will not be condemned to eternal hell just because they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Concepts of an afterlife vary between religions and among divisions of each faith. Here are three quotes from "the greatest achievement in life," my ebook on comparative mysticism:
(46) Few people have been so good that they have earned eternal paradise; fewer want to go to a place where they must receive punishments for their sins. Those who do believe in resurrection of their body hope that it will be not be in its final form. Few people really want to continue to be born again and live more human lives; fewer want to be reborn in a non-human form. If you are not quite certain you want to seek divine union, consider the alternatives.
(59) Mysticism is the great quest for the ultimate ground of existence, the absolute nature of being itself. True mystics transcend apparent manifestations of the theatrical production called “this life.” Theirs is not simply a search for meaning, but discovery of what is, i.e. the Real underlying the seeming realities. Their objective is not heaven, gardens, paradise, or other celestial places. It is not being where the divine lives, but to be what the divine essence is here and now.
(80) [referring to many non-mystics] Depending on their religious convictions, or personal beliefs, they may be born again to seek elusive perfection, go to a purgatory to work out their sins or, perhaps, pass on into oblivion. Lives are different; why not afterlives? Beliefs might become true.
Rob Bell asks us to reexamine the Christian Gospel. People of all faiths should look beyond the letter of their sacred scriptures to their spiritual message. As one of my mentors wrote "In God we all meet."
Concepts of an afterlife vary between religions and among divisions of each faith. Here are three quotes from "the greatest achievement in life," my ebook on comparative mysticism:
(46) Few people have been so good that they have earned eternal paradise; fewer want to go to a place where they must receive punishments for their sins. Those who do believe in resurrection of their body hope that it will be not be in its final form. Few people really want to continue to be born again and live more human lives; fewer want to be reborn in a non-human form. If you are not quite certain you want to seek divine union, consider the alternatives.
(59) Mysticism is the great quest for the ultimate ground of existence, the absolute nature of being itself. True mystics transcend apparent manifestations of the theatrical production called “this life.” Theirs is not simply a search for meaning, but discovery of what is, i.e. the Real underlying the seeming realities. Their objective is not heaven, gardens, paradise, or other celestial places. It is not being where the divine lives, but to be what the divine essence is here and now.
(80) [referring to many non-mystics] Depending on their religious convictions, or personal beliefs, they may be born again to seek elusive perfection, go to a purgatory to work out their sins or, perhaps, pass on into oblivion. Lives are different; why not afterlives? Beliefs might become true.
Rob Bell asks us to reexamine the Christian Gospel. People of all faiths should look beyond the letter of their sacred scriptures to their spiritual message. As one of my mentors wrote "In God we all meet."
3.22.2011 | 11:20pm
pentamom says:
ianthis, I think you're misreading Joe. I don't think he's insisting that this issue is necessarily that clear, but that the methodology of mainline argument allows them to reach conclusions that might contradict that which is clear. And Benson is following that methodology here, in Joe's reckoning. Joe may think that it's clear from scripture, but that's not the force of the paragraph you quoted.
The point isn't so much that Christoper's approach is so clearly against scripture, it's that he doesn't use scripture. Using theologians who can only be presumed to have wrestled with scripture, but not citing their interaction with scripture, only their conclusions, is not evangelical methodology. Evangelical methodology necessarily includes, though is not limited to, direct interaction of scripture in order to demonstrate doctrinal points.
The point isn't so much that Christoper's approach is so clearly against scripture, it's that he doesn't use scripture. Using theologians who can only be presumed to have wrestled with scripture, but not citing their interaction with scripture, only their conclusions, is not evangelical methodology. Evangelical methodology necessarily includes, though is not limited to, direct interaction of scripture in order to demonstrate doctrinal points.
3.22.2011 | 11:58pm
PaulE says:
Christopher -
I think what is confusing to me is not your taxonomy, but your usage of the words "necessary" and "sufficient". At least in the original article you wrote something like "Exclusivists hold that being part of the home religion is sufficient for salvation, while inclusivists hold that being part of the home religion is necessary for salvation." I re-read that sentence several times because I expected the exact opposite.
I see now that you have amended the article and taken that out, but now making the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" seems pointless since both the exclusivist and the inclusivist (according to your article) insist that being part of the home religion is "necessary" and that they just haggle over what "home religion" means. Nothing of your argument hinges on these terms anymore.
In my understanding of the terms, however, the inclusivist says that while being part of the home religion is sufficient for salvation, it is (perhaps?) not necessary.
I think what is confusing to me is not your taxonomy, but your usage of the words "necessary" and "sufficient". At least in the original article you wrote something like "Exclusivists hold that being part of the home religion is sufficient for salvation, while inclusivists hold that being part of the home religion is necessary for salvation." I re-read that sentence several times because I expected the exact opposite.
I see now that you have amended the article and taken that out, but now making the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" seems pointless since both the exclusivist and the inclusivist (according to your article) insist that being part of the home religion is "necessary" and that they just haggle over what "home religion" means. Nothing of your argument hinges on these terms anymore.
In my understanding of the terms, however, the inclusivist says that while being part of the home religion is sufficient for salvation, it is (perhaps?) not necessary.
3.23.2011 | 12:19am
Stuart says:
I'm in "dave's" boat as well. It's just intuitively obvious to me that something resembling inclusivism must be true, so I thus don't bother with the nuances of the debate. Why should I when there are more important things to do around here?
3.23.2011 | 1:18am
Christopher Benson says:
@PaulE and Micah Mattix:
DISCLAIMER: I've been sick for the last two days. During the editing process my mind was tired and not alert. I take ownership for the confusion in my article. Thanks to both of you I now realize that my use of the words "necessary" and "sufficient" was mistaken. Tonight I asked my editor to correct the misunderstanding. Here is what I should have said in the first place:
What is the core claim of exclusivism? Catholic theologian Paul Griffiths answers: "belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation. This . . . is to deny salvific efficacy to any alien religion. But it is not to assert salvific sufficiency to the home religion; exclusivists may or may not add to the core claim the view that belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation." Those who add to the core claim are restrictivists. Those who relax their understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion are usually called inclusivists.
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it," says Griffiths. " Both positions answer the question of how religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation." I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism.
Does that help?
DISCLAIMER: I've been sick for the last two days. During the editing process my mind was tired and not alert. I take ownership for the confusion in my article. Thanks to both of you I now realize that my use of the words "necessary" and "sufficient" was mistaken. Tonight I asked my editor to correct the misunderstanding. Here is what I should have said in the first place:
What is the core claim of exclusivism? Catholic theologian Paul Griffiths answers: "belonging to the home religion is necessary for salvation. This . . . is to deny salvific efficacy to any alien religion. But it is not to assert salvific sufficiency to the home religion; exclusivists may or may not add to the core claim the view that belonging to the home religion is sufficient for salvation." Those who add to the core claim are restrictivists. Those who relax their understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion are usually called inclusivists.
"Inclusivism is, in its deep logical structure, either simply a form of exclusivism or a position closely derived from it," says Griffiths. " Both positions answer the question of how religion provides an advantage to be had in no other way. Exclusivism . . . makes belonging to the home religion essential for salvation, but it also, in some of its variants, offers a relaxed understanding of what it might mean to belong to the home religion. Inclusivism in its most common form simply makes this relaxed understanding explicit by saying that consciously (publicly, explicitly) belonging to the home religion is not necessary for salvation." I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism.
Does that help?
3.23.2011 | 8:56am
Micah Mattix says:
Christopher--
I am quoting from the same book by Griffiths. If you amended the article to correct the factual error, the main page should state that the article has been changed. It's rare to change an argument (as opposed to mere typos) after an article has been published, and so a tag should be added for transparency.
The factual error was but one problem. Throughout you make false distinctions, mostly by mis-characterizing what you call "exclusivists," making them out to be "presumptive demographers," no different in their extremism than universalists, in order to claim the middle ground for yourself. Joe pointed out some of these. I noted others. I found this to be unfair to the evangelical leaders to which you allude.
The further quotes from Griffiths actually help to highlight this problem. According to the second quote above, exclusivists believe that belonging to the home religion is necessary, but not all that do are in fact saved. Further, some exclusivists have a broader, more "relaxed" definition of what beloning to the home religion means. And inclusivists are simply exclusivists of the second sort that make this relaxed definition explicit. Sounds like the two are what we call kissing cousins. This is not what was expressed in the article.
At the end of this second quote you say: "I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism." But "restrictivism is *not* the same as "exclusivism" from that quote! In the first paragraph you define restrictivism as the belief that belonging to the home religion is both *necessary* and *sufficient*.
So are Mohler, Piper, DeYoung, et al. restrictivists, exclusivists of the middle sort or even inclusivists? Who knows? And no real effort is made to make any sort of distinction or show any nuance. They're all just lumped together, sometimes under the term "restrictivist," sometimes under the term "exclusivist," as you make off with the prize of occupying the middle ground.
I am quoting from the same book by Griffiths. If you amended the article to correct the factual error, the main page should state that the article has been changed. It's rare to change an argument (as opposed to mere typos) after an article has been published, and so a tag should be added for transparency.
The factual error was but one problem. Throughout you make false distinctions, mostly by mis-characterizing what you call "exclusivists," making them out to be "presumptive demographers," no different in their extremism than universalists, in order to claim the middle ground for yourself. Joe pointed out some of these. I noted others. I found this to be unfair to the evangelical leaders to which you allude.
The further quotes from Griffiths actually help to highlight this problem. According to the second quote above, exclusivists believe that belonging to the home religion is necessary, but not all that do are in fact saved. Further, some exclusivists have a broader, more "relaxed" definition of what beloning to the home religion means. And inclusivists are simply exclusivists of the second sort that make this relaxed definition explicit. Sounds like the two are what we call kissing cousins. This is not what was expressed in the article.
At the end of this second quote you say: "I welcome inclusivism as a happy alternative to restrictivism and universalism." But "restrictivism is *not* the same as "exclusivism" from that quote! In the first paragraph you define restrictivism as the belief that belonging to the home religion is both *necessary* and *sufficient*.
So are Mohler, Piper, DeYoung, et al. restrictivists, exclusivists of the middle sort or even inclusivists? Who knows? And no real effort is made to make any sort of distinction or show any nuance. They're all just lumped together, sometimes under the term "restrictivist," sometimes under the term "exclusivist," as you make off with the prize of occupying the middle ground.
3.23.2011 | 9:40am
Alex says:
I totally agree with everybody who has denounced Mr. Carter's lack of professionalism and respect for one of his writers. There's no doubt to me that Mr. Carter is the worst editor in this journal's history. I read First Things basically everyday and I can say that I have lost all interest since he arrived. His posts are unsofisticated and unintellectual pieces of theological reasoning.
3.23.2011 | 9:55am
Joe Carter says:
@Alex ***There's no doubt to me that Mr. Carter is the worst editor in this journal's history.***
Really? I'm worse than Damon Linker? http://www.amazon.com/Theocons-Secular-America-Under-Siege
Really? I'm worse than Damon Linker? http://www.amazon.com/Theocons-Secular-America-Under-Siege
3.23.2011 | 10:51am
Paul says:
Joe,
Without entering the troubled waters, though admitting my sympathies for Neuhaus an Balthasar here, I think there's a nuance missing in one of your replies to Chris. Either the Balthasar/Neuhaus position is sound or unsound--there's no middle way. But it's soundness doesn't entail it's correctness, given the position's own terms. The Balthasar position is that possibly all are saved. That position may well be sound, even if all are not. I do think Neuhaus (as Balthasar) thought his position sound. He distinguished universalism, which he thought unsound, from universal hope, which he thought sound, and universal hope as a possible position, which he thought sound, from universal hope as required dogma, which he thought unsound.
For our general discussion, it might be useful distinguish between the easy going universalism of mid modernity down to the present and the very different variety offered by George MacDonald and Gregory of Nyssa. For MacDonald, express faith in Christ was essential to salvation. And, for MacDonald there was very much such a place as hell, which was quite awful (it resulted from experiencing the divine love well in a state of rebellion). But MacDonald thought that one day every knee would bow and every tongue confess the Lordship of Christ. That is, he thought everyone, even if they had to be chased through eternal punishment, would at some point repent, leading to salvation. Now even if MacDonald is wrong, his views cannot be considered "universalism" of the sort so frequently criticized (and perhaps advanced) in our current discussions. Moreover, when it came to universal salvation (or hope) and orthodoxy, even St. Augustine distinguished between the sort of universalism at odds with the Christian faith and that sort of universal hope, which he rejected as wrong but nevertheless to which he thought one might subscribe while remaining a Christian. The difference for Augustine, in De civitate dei, had to do with the anathema doctrine of Origen, which taught even the devil would be redeemed (it's less than clear that Origen actually taught this) and that of other "tender hearted brothers" who hoped for the salvation of all humanity. As for me, I am sympathetic towards Balthasar's position and hope that he is right. If it were clear from Scripture or tradition or reason that the Balthasar-Neuhaus position were wrong, then I would let it go.
Let me also add this--I'm not sure I see any necessary connection between open theism and inclusivism. To be sure, I think open theism is wrong--I think open theism and Piperian Calvinism are based on the same set of logical mistakes. Having put some of the same conditionals in place, one groups modus ponens becomes another groups modus tollens. But the conditionals in question are all wrong. For instance, one mistake here has to do in the attempt to infer a certain view of providence from a certain view of foreknowledge. The open theist and thoroughgoing Calvinist alike hold that necessarily whatever God foreknows comes to past (which is true--and tautologically so) and infer (wrongly) that whatever God foreknows comes to pass of necessity (or happens of necessity). But the latter is neither entailed nor correlative to the former. As William Lane Craig points out, it's like saying necessarily all bachelors are unmarried men (which is true and a tautology) means (implies/entails/is correlative to) that all bachelors are unmarried of necessity (which is wildly false). So the open theist and the Calvinist make similar inferential mistakes. I'm not much of a fan of either position. One comes at the expense of the divine perfection of wisdom and the other at any meaningful predication of goodness to or identification of goodness with God. That said, there are better and worse arguments against open theism and against Piper. Maintaining that open theism is essentially inclusivist (even if turned out all open theists happened to be inclusivists) seems not to be a strong critique. The relation seems accidental rather than essential. Just like one can imagine a universalist who thinks salvation only comes by faith in Christ but that all, eventually will have such faith (George MacDonald) (even if the position turns out to be wrong), one can imagine an exclusivist who also happened to be an open theist. I believe Gregory Boyd at least holds the two positions to be logically compatible (I happen to think him wrong about open theism; but then I think Piper and Edwards wrong about divine determinism as well).
All this to say, I think in orthodox Christian circles we tend to critique caricatures and straw men. I submit that the critics of so-called Christian universalism and of open theism usually caricature their opponents. But then they aren't actually refuting the position. I have long thought Piper's treatment of open theism falls into this category.
We can do better. We can refuse to engage anything but the very best version of those arguments with which we disagree.
Without entering the troubled waters, though admitting my sympathies for Neuhaus an Balthasar here, I think there's a nuance missing in one of your replies to Chris. Either the Balthasar/Neuhaus position is sound or unsound--there's no middle way. But it's soundness doesn't entail it's correctness, given the position's own terms. The Balthasar position is that possibly all are saved. That position may well be sound, even if all are not. I do think Neuhaus (as Balthasar) thought his position sound. He distinguished universalism, which he thought unsound, from universal hope, which he thought sound, and universal hope as a possible position, which he thought sound, from universal hope as required dogma, which he thought unsound.
For our general discussion, it might be useful distinguish between the easy going universalism of mid modernity down to the present and the very different variety offered by George MacDonald and Gregory of Nyssa. For MacDonald, express faith in Christ was essential to salvation. And, for MacDonald there was very much such a place as hell, which was quite awful (it resulted from experiencing the divine love well in a state of rebellion). But MacDonald thought that one day every knee would bow and every tongue confess the Lordship of Christ. That is, he thought everyone, even if they had to be chased through eternal punishment, would at some point repent, leading to salvation. Now even if MacDonald is wrong, his views cannot be considered "universalism" of the sort so frequently criticized (and perhaps advanced) in our current discussions. Moreover, when it came to universal salvation (or hope) and orthodoxy, even St. Augustine distinguished between the sort of universalism at odds with the Christian faith and that sort of universal hope, which he rejected as wrong but nevertheless to which he thought one might subscribe while remaining a Christian. The difference for Augustine, in De civitate dei, had to do with the anathema doctrine of Origen, which taught even the devil would be redeemed (it's less than clear that Origen actually taught this) and that of other "tender hearted brothers" who hoped for the salvation of all humanity. As for me, I am sympathetic towards Balthasar's position and hope that he is right. If it were clear from Scripture or tradition or reason that the Balthasar-Neuhaus position were wrong, then I would let it go.
Let me also add this--I'm not sure I see any necessary connection between open theism and inclusivism. To be sure, I think open theism is wrong--I think open theism and Piperian Calvinism are based on the same set of logical mistakes. Having put some of the same conditionals in place, one groups modus ponens becomes another groups modus tollens. But the conditionals in question are all wrong. For instance, one mistake here has to do in the attempt to infer a certain view of providence from a certain view of foreknowledge. The open theist and thoroughgoing Calvinist alike hold that necessarily whatever God foreknows comes to past (which is true--and tautologically so) and infer (wrongly) that whatever God foreknows comes to pass of necessity (or happens of necessity). But the latter is neither entailed nor correlative to the former. As William Lane Craig points out, it's like saying necessarily all bachelors are unmarried men (which is true and a tautology) means (implies/entails/is correlative to) that all bachelors are unmarried of necessity (which is wildly false). So the open theist and the Calvinist make similar inferential mistakes. I'm not much of a fan of either position. One comes at the expense of the divine perfection of wisdom and the other at any meaningful predication of goodness to or identification of goodness with God. That said, there are better and worse arguments against open theism and against Piper. Maintaining that open theism is essentially inclusivist (even if turned out all open theists happened to be inclusivists) seems not to be a strong critique. The relation seems accidental rather than essential. Just like one can imagine a universalist who thinks salvation only comes by faith in Christ but that all, eventually will have such faith (George MacDonald) (even if the position turns out to be wrong), one can imagine an exclusivist who also happened to be an open theist. I believe Gregory Boyd at least holds the two positions to be logically compatible (I happen to think him wrong about open theism; but then I think Piper and Edwards wrong about divine determinism as well).
All this to say, I think in orthodox Christian circles we tend to critique caricatures and straw men. I submit that the critics of so-called Christian universalism and of open theism usually caricature their opponents. But then they aren't actually refuting the position. I have long thought Piper's treatment of open theism falls into this category.
We can do better. We can refuse to engage anything but the very best version of those arguments with which we disagree.
3.23.2011 | 11:23am
Christopher Benson says:
@Micah:
Apparently we were quoting from different parts of the same book from Paul Griffiths. This morning I asked the OTS editor to add a disclaimer indicating that the article has been updated.
I do think restrictivists and exclusivists tend to be "presumptive demographers" because they're confident about "who's in" and "who's out." They narrowly define what it means to belong to the home religion: "Everyone must hear and believe the gospel to be saved" (James Borland). As a result, their view entails a crowded hell because most human beings have not satisfied that definition. By contrast, inclusivists have a relaxed understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion while still denying salvific efficacy to alien religions: "Inclusivists affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ but deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation. That is to say, they hold that the work of Jesus is ontologically necessary for salvation (no one would be saved without it) but not epistemologically necessary (one not need be aware of the work in order to benefit from it). Or in other words, people can receive the gift of salvation without knowing the giver or the precise nature of the gift" (John Sanders).
Apparently we were quoting from different parts of the same book from Paul Griffiths. This morning I asked the OTS editor to add a disclaimer indicating that the article has been updated.
I do think restrictivists and exclusivists tend to be "presumptive demographers" because they're confident about "who's in" and "who's out." They narrowly define what it means to belong to the home religion: "Everyone must hear and believe the gospel to be saved" (James Borland). As a result, their view entails a crowded hell because most human beings have not satisfied that definition. By contrast, inclusivists have a relaxed understanding of what it means to belong to the home religion while still denying salvific efficacy to alien religions: "Inclusivists affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ but deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation. That is to say, they hold that the work of Jesus is ontologically necessary for salvation (no one would be saved without it) but not epistemologically necessary (one not need be aware of the work in order to benefit from it). Or in other words, people can receive the gift of salvation without knowing the giver or the precise nature of the gift" (John Sanders).
3.23.2011 | 12:18pm
MrMandias says:
Is it creepy because I disagree with the article o[r] creepy because [of how] I am expressing that disagreement.
The latter. It doesn't sound like adult intellectual disagreement, it sounds like flamewar disagreement. Too much petulance from both of you, too much whine.
I'm not too taken with Benson's article--it doesn't even offer a coherent definition of inclusivism, that I can see. And I'm pretty sure, from what I read in scripture, that if you reject Christ you're in bad shape, period. But I don't have my feelings hurt that the article was published.
The latter. It doesn't sound like adult intellectual disagreement, it sounds like flamewar disagreement. Too much petulance from both of you, too much whine.
I'm not too taken with Benson's article--it doesn't even offer a coherent definition of inclusivism, that I can see. And I'm pretty sure, from what I read in scripture, that if you reject Christ you're in bad shape, period. But I don't have my feelings hurt that the article was published.
3.23.2011 | 3:00pm
Alex: "I totally agree with everybody who has denounced Mr. Carter's lack of professionalism and respect for one of his writers. There's no doubt to me that Mr. Carter is the worst editor in this journal's history. I read First Things basically everyday and I can say that I have lost all interest since he arrived. His posts are unsofisticated and unintellectual pieces of theological reasoning."
FYI, the correct spelling for "unsofisticated" is unsophisticated.
FYI, the correct spelling for "unsofisticated" is unsophisticated.
3.24.2011 | 10:42am
MWT says:
@dave Most people's Christianity is too complex. Remember you need to be "childlike" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ has redeemed all mankind. Do you really think an African Muslim woman, raped, repressed, and starved her whole life is condemned to eternal hell in the afterlife? She's already lived hell. Focus on feeding the poor, encouraging the week, sharing about Christ's wonderful love, and leave the theology bs. to the so called intellectual elite. "Love thy neighbor" and improve this life. The afterlife will come soon enough.
Dave "gets it."
Dave "gets it."
3.24.2011 | 5:20pm
Paul says:
@MWT,
I found Dave's comments condescending and so hubristic--which is to say, they instantiated the vice of pride rather than virtue of charity. Those comments constitute an act--and they don't seem to constitute the sort of action he deems Christ-like. So his very act of commenting, given the content and tone of his comments, seems self-refuting. Moreover, how does he know most Christians Christianity is too complex. Has he some special power by which he can penetrate all these hearts and mind? The claim is really an unsubstantiated broadside, which is to say, it's a put down. Does he maintain that Christ is in the business of put downs?
I found Dave's comments condescending and so hubristic--which is to say, they instantiated the vice of pride rather than virtue of charity. Those comments constitute an act--and they don't seem to constitute the sort of action he deems Christ-like. So his very act of commenting, given the content and tone of his comments, seems self-refuting. Moreover, how does he know most Christians Christianity is too complex. Has he some special power by which he can penetrate all these hearts and mind? The claim is really an unsubstantiated broadside, which is to say, it's a put down. Does he maintain that Christ is in the business of put downs?
3.24.2011 | 9:56pm
joshua d says:
The inclusivism defined in this article is not all that different from Rob Bell's position (frequently mischaracterized as universalism by those who have not listened to or read what he has to say). Why someone would think that it should not be acceptable for that position to be considered in FT is not something I understand.
3.25.2011 | 5:45am
edmond says:
How well read the discussants here are, well who read Matt. 25:31-46? Or is that not
worth mentioning here? I am sure if this is read as it should be the exclusivists,
inclusivists and all the other "ists", will see that the goats and the sheep are theonly classifications left worth mentioning....
worth mentioning here? I am sure if this is read as it should be the exclusivists,
inclusivists and all the other "ists", will see that the goats and the sheep are theonly classifications left worth mentioning....
3.25.2011 | 9:07pm
Bob says:
Excellent article on the definitions and history...however, please read Love Wins. In the chapter on Hell, Bell believes that there is a Hell, both in this life and the next, and that although people may get more chances than the exclusivists believe, some people will still ultimately choose Hell. He seems to align closely with C.S. Lewis, who says that Hell's doors may be locked from the inside.
3.28.2011 | 2:34pm
Seth says:
A bit late to the party here, but it's never too late for a little jab.
Joe Carter thinks Christopher Benson is in over his head on this topic; I am not in a position to agree or disagree. But if you really want to punish yourself by reading adolescent musings on Christianity and culture, go check out Patrol Magazine. Talk about out of their league! Their knee-jerk posts and attempts at serious theological engagement are embarrassing as a fellow believing twentysomething.
Joe Carter thinks Christopher Benson is in over his head on this topic; I am not in a position to agree or disagree. But if you really want to punish yourself by reading adolescent musings on Christianity and culture, go check out Patrol Magazine. Talk about out of their league! Their knee-jerk posts and attempts at serious theological engagement are embarrassing as a fellow believing twentysomething.
3.29.2011 | 11:05pm
PaulE says:
Thanks for your clarification and for updating your argument. I finally got a chance to go back and read it again. While I find myself an exclusivist in light of passages like Romans 10:12-15 and possibly a restrictivist in light of Matthew 7:21-23 and 13:24-30, 37-43 and how you interpret the phrase "part of the home religion", I can appreciate the argument you offer here. Hope you're feeling better.
8.26.2011 | 2:38am
Domenica Rothlisberger says:
1. The problem with Barth's view is that he seems to create a pseudo-purgatory to allow someone to continually hear the gospel message when they die. It's as if when you die you are whisked away to a courtroom, and left there to hear the best arguments possible until you make the right decision. Of course, such a location is nowhere to be found in scripture. It also diminishes the seriousness of life on earth--there's an infinite number of second chances waiting. What's the point of preaching the Gospel if God has a better presentation waiting when we die? (46) Few people have been so good that they have earned eternal paradise; fewer want to go to a place where they must receive punishments for their sins. Those who do believe in resurrection of their body hope that it will be not be in its final form. Few people really want to continue to be born again and live more human lives; fewer want to be reborn in a non-human form. If you are not quite certain you want to seek divine union, consider the alternatives.
