Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism

by Christopher W. Morgan (Editor)

What about those who have never heard? The debate swirls and feelings run deep. What is the fate of the unevangelized? The traditional position--that apart from an explicit faith in Jesus no one is saved--seems to have fallen out of favor with many evangelicals. Here is a passionate but irenic response to the arguments of those who believe that the unevangelized can (or might) be saved apart from knowledge of Jesus Christ. Building on the insights of others, nine scholars introduce readers, even those with little background, to the ongoing discussion. Key questions--Is general revelation sufficient? Are other religions salvific? Do holy pagans exist? Must faith be explicit? Is exclusivism unjust?--are probed and answered from a biblical, theological and historical perspective. The book's positive thrust is summed up by editors Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan : "God is passionately engaged in gathering people to know, love and worship him from every tribe, language, people and nation. And he has called us to join him on this mission."

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies

270 pages, Paperback

First published February 18, 2008

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ARGUING AGAINST THE SALVATION OF ‘THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD’

Co-editor Robert Peterson wrote in the Introduction to this 2008 book, “Are those who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the gospel of Jesus necessarily condemned to hell? Is there no possibility of salvation apart from explicitly responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ? These are deeply troublesome questions for all Christians who accept the uniqueness and normativity of Jesus Christ… There is a common perception among those outside the evangelical camp that evangelicals are agreed on all matters of doctrine, that in evangelical theology every question is definitively settled… This, of course, is hardly the case. It is becoming increasingly evident that one issue upon which there is considerable disagreement among evangelicals is the question of the fate of those who have never been exposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ… [M]ust one actually be confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ and explicitly respond in faith to Christ in order to be saved? Or is it possible for some who have never heard of Jesus Christ nevertheless to benefit from the work of Christ and be saved? A variety of answers have been suggested.” (Pg 11)

He explains, “It is important to define some key terms: pluralism, exclusivism, and inclusivism. ‘Pluralism’ is the view that all religions lead to God. It denies that Jesus Christ is the world’s only Savior. People may be saved, [for example] as adherents of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam … ‘Exclusivism’… is the view that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world and that one must believe God’s special revelation that culminates in the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. ‘Inclusivism’ if the view that, although Jesus is the only Savior of the world, one does not have to believe the gospel to be saved… inclusivism … maintains that unsaved persons can be saved by Jesus without hearing his name in this life.” (Pg. 12-13)

Co-editor Christopher Morgan asks, “what are the main responses to the question ‘Is there any basis for hope that those who do not hear of Christ in this lifetime will be saved?’… Here is the spectrum of responses that emerged to the above question: 1. CHURCH EXCLUSIVISM… ‘outside the church there is no salvation… 2: GOSPEL EXCLUSIVISM: … they must hear the gospel and trust Christ to be saved…. 3. SPECIAL REVELATION EXCLUSIVISM:… God chooses to send them special revelation in an extraordinary way… 4. AGNOSTICISM:… we cannot know for sure the answer to this question… 5. GENERAL REVELATION EXCLUSIVISM:… they can respond to God through seeing enough of who he is in general revelation… 6. WORLD RELIGION INCLUSIVISM: … they can respond to God through general revelation or their religion, since their religion contains truth… 7. POSTMORTEN EVANGELISM: … those who have never heard will have an opportunity to trust Christ after death… 8. UNIVERSALISM: … everyone will ultimately be saved… 9. PLURALISM:… those who have never heard may experience ‘salvation’ as they understand it… all major religions are equally valid.” (Pg. 26-36)

Daniel Strange states in his essay, “while general revelation serves a crucial role in the sovereign purposes of God, in and of itself it is insufficient to bring salvation… Before we proceed I should declare my own Reformed/Calvinistic presuppositions with regard to God’s sovereignty in salvation.” (Pg. 54) Later, he adds, “general revelation is a revelation of God’s works and … works by themselves are hermeneutically ambiguous needing further revelatory supplementation to make them clear.” (Pg. 66) He summarizes, “Within the framework of exhaustive foreordination and human responsibility… if there are people in the world who only have general revelation, then they evidence, in an extreme form, a divine judicial ABANDONMENT.” (Pg. 72)

William Edgar asks, “how can it be fair for God to give OPPORTUNITY to some, but not to all? Why did he not give everyone a chance to hear and decide? Even if we admit he did not have to save everyone, should he not have provided everyone the same opportunity to repent and believe?… The answer… involves a couple of steps: 1. It is crucial … to remember that condemnation is … based on … knowing God and REFUSING him… We should also remember the passion of God himself for reaching lost people… How does he call his people to himself? By seeking them and saving them… Who are God’s people?… the fact that not everyone has the opportunity to hear the gospel is not… unfairness, but the way the Lord carries out the realization of his sovereign, loving choice made in eternity.” (Pg. 93-95)

Eckhard J. Schnabel asserts that Paul in Romans 2:1-3:31… argues that the Jewish claim to superiority… is no longer valid… due to the reality of God’s new revelation ‘now’ in Jesus… salvation and righteousness are granted only through faith in Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 118)

Walter Kaiser Jr. addresses “‘holy pagans,’ or believing Gentiles, who are said to have come to a saving faith … without knowing or believing in … the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. Included in this list are such Old Testament worthies as Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, Balaam, Naaman, and .. the Roman centurion Cornelius.” (Pg. 123) Later, he asserts, “Don Richardson, in ‘Eternity In Their Hearts,’ used Melchizedek… to represent general revelation… And since Hebrews 7:1-7 argued that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, Richardson incorrectly judged God’s general revelation, which goes out to all people, to be greater than inscripturated special revelation, which only comes to a lesser number.” (Pg. 131) He summarizes, “the case for including holy pagans … among the believing on the basis of their adopting a theism or showing enormous respect and fear for God, appears to collapse. Critical to the whole argument is the OBJECT OF BELIEF… If Abraham is alluding to what God had just told him about the promised ‘Seed’ coming through him as the object of his faith… then Acts 4:12 is still normative.” (Pg. 140)

Stephen J. Wellum argues, “it is legitimate to ask [inclusivists] about the nature of this ‘saving faith.’ … Where in Scripture do we see this kind of ‘faith’ as saving faith?… Romans 1-3 explicitly says that no one has responded positively to general revelation, that no one is righteous, there is no one who seeks after God, and that the only hope for the unevangelized is the work of Jesus Christ and faith in him.” (Pg. 179-180) He contends, “Frankly, the way inclusivism handles Scripture, it seems impossible to refute it biblically. But this is not to commend inclusivism or to suggest that it really is based on scriptural teaching. Rather, the difficulty of refuting inclusivism biblically underscores its faulty treatment of scripture… Although it appeals to the Bible, its appeals do not represent sound exegesis, but ways to get around clear biblical teaching, ways summarized in the ... preceding paragraphs.” (Pg. 200)

Andreas J. Kostenberger asserts, “there seems no proper biblical foundation on which to argue for the salvation of anyone on a basis other than explicit faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture makes clear that humanity is universally sinful, and that God’s wrath remains on every individual who has not placed his or her trust in Jesus Christ… While there may be philosophical or larger theological objections to such a notion (such as the difficulty experienced by some of reconciling this notion with the love of God), and while there may be commonsense concerns on the basis of human conceptions of ‘fairness’ or other similar considerations, there can be little doubt that Scripture nowhere teaches, or easily allows the implication, that there is a way to salvation other than through explicit faith in Jesus Christ during a person’s lifetime (e.g., Heb 9:27-28).” (Pg. 218-219)

Morgan and Peterson answer common questions in the concluding chapter, such as: “Is it fair that God punishes the guilty in hell? Yes, of course. Is it fair that millions will never hear the gospel? No, it is not. But how God’s love for sinners and sovereignty in salvation converge has puzzled and will continue to puzzle the best Christian minds, just as the question of why some suffer more than others. There is a problem of fairness that concerns the extent of God’s mercy, but there is not a problem of justice that concerns God’s punishment of the guilty. In other words, the question of fairness is appropriate but misplaced by most inclusivists. That God punishes the guilty is fair; that God’s mercy is not shown universally does not SEEM fair, but that question centers on the doctrine of election, not exclusivism and inclusivism.” (Pg. 242)

They conclude, “Is there any hope for those who have not heard the gospel? Yes, but not in the way inclusivists suppose. The hope of those who have never heard is found in God who sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. And God has also sent us---we are participants in his mission of reconciliation. The best way to help the unevangelized is not to become more optimistic about their eternal destiny apart from the gospel. Rather, it is to allow our understanding of God and the Word to generate a greater burden for the unevangelized and to pray, give and go to make sure that they hear the gospel.” (Pg. 253-354)

This book will be of great interest to Christians (particularly of the ‘Reformed’ tradition) studying these issues.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is definitely the sort of book that needs half-stars. This is a 3.5 star book, but I rounded down. As the title implies, this book is a response to "inclusivism," the belief that although Jesus is the only means of salvation, you needn't necessarily believe in him explicitly to be saved. Don't confuse it with pluralism (there are multiple ways to God) or universalism (Jesus saves everyone). Inclusivists believe people who have never heard the gospel can be saved.

The problem with the book is that the worst two chapters were Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. So you had to struggle just to pick up steam. But once you did, the rest was quite good. Subsequent chapters answered things like, Is general revelation sufficient to provide saving knowledge? Is exclusivism compatible with God's character? Are there "holy pagans" in the OT who were saved without faith in the promised Seed/Messiah? Does the NT really require explicitly calling upon the name of Christ to be saved? How does inclusivism affect missions?

Even if you're not struggling or dealing with inclusivism, this is a good book to read, for it sharpens your understanding of how salvation works, how OT saints were saved, etc.

[Bob O'Bannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

“But what about those who have never heard the Gospel?” There it is — one of the most commonly asked questions about the Christian faith, and one that can be a stumbling block for some considering the claims of the Gospel. If we face the question honestly, the implications are indeed troubling — the fact is that there are millions of people who live and die without ever sitting under a clear declaration of salvation in Jesus Christ. Are they consigned to hell? Or maybe there is a way they can get to heaven apart from Christ?

That’s the question that “Faith Comes By Hearing” addresses. A number of authors contribute to the volume, edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson, one of my former professors at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. The book considers questions such as the sufficiency or insufficiency of general revelation (the knowledge of God humans gain from the created order); whether “holy pagans” such as Cornelius in Acts 10 were saved by faith in Christ or not; whether people can be saved through non-Christian “secular” religions; and what exactly is the nature of God’s redemptive zeal for the world.

The ongoing discussion throughout the book revolves around some key terms: pluralism, which is the view that all religions lead to God; exclusivism, which is the view that Jesus is the only Savior of the world and that one must believe in this Jesus as he is proclaimed in special revelation in order to be saved; and inclusivism, which is the view that Jesus is indeed the only savior of the world, but that one does not have to consciously believe in Jesus to be saved. It “maintains that unsaved persons can be saved by Jesus without hearing his name in this life.” (p.13).

Those raised in a traditional evangelical environment might be surprised to learn that the inclusivist view even exists, but they might also be surprised to hear inclusivist arguments that are more plausible than they imagined (after all, weren’t Old Testament saints like Abraham and Moses saved without hearing the name of Jesus?).

But just so you know, this book comes down firmly on the exclusivist position. Paul did write in Romans 10:14, “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching.” So the editors conclude, “The best way to help the unevangelized is not to become more optimistic about their eternal destiny apart from the Gospel. Rather, it is to allow our understanding of God and his word to generate a greater burden for the unevangelized and to pray, give and go to make sure that they hear the Gospel.” (p. 253). It is hard to read this book and not come away with an increased fervor for the importance of missions.

There are many arguments back and forth that should be considered before arriving at the exclusivist conviction, and this book covers them all in a careful, thorough and Biblical way.

[Dave · Rating 1 out of 5]

Looking for answers to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, I looked to this book. The relevant chapters were chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 3 begins by completely assuming that General Revelation, of some sort, exists. The author flat out states a few paragraphs in that he will assume this, and provide no evidence of it. This is not that useful if it assumes the conclusions that need proving.
He then asserts that God has revealed enough knowledge through General Revelation to damn everyone to hell, but not enough to save anyone to heaven. This is in stark contrast to the objections raised by the inclusivists, whose objections the author includes in this chapter. The objections raise questions about how God can be considered a just God if this were true.
Chapter 4 tries to answer these objections. To answer them, the author tries to address the Problem of Evil. His first point in defense is to ultimately say everyone deserves every bad thing that ever happened to them. Furthermore, this is also the justification for why God is a bystander to all evil acts. I hope it goes without saying that acting as a bystander to rape and genocide just because "they deserve it" because they're guilty of something trivial is wholly wrong and immoral. I stopped reading the book after that. This is a terrible book, and I hope you don't burden yourself by reading it.
TLDR; This book assumes the conclusion, and justifies it by saying rape victims deserve to be raped.

[Marc Sims · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

A collection of essays from an exclusivist view point (conscious faith in Jesus Christ required for salvation) responding to inclusivism (God can save people outside of hearing the gospel).

Well I’m provides the best chapter as far as putting forward a compelling theological and biblical argument for why explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. The essay on theodicy was also very good, as well as Schnabel’s on other religions in the first century.

[Michael DeBusk · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a series of essays responding to soteriological inclusivism. The essays are a mixed bag with quite a bit of repetition. Some excellent contributions (especially Strange and Schnabel) follow after a rough start.

[Joe Valenti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Could this have been shorter? Yes!

Was it helpful? Yes.

I specifically appreciated the focus on how exclusivity fuels Christian mission.

[Daniel Scheiderer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an absolute powerhouse in destroying the case for inclusivism