Opinions on denying the exclusivity of Christ?

[earl40]

Do you think a person can be a Christian who says they believe in Jesus and that other people who do not can "make it to heaven" without believing in Him?

I have to admit I use this line of conversation to discern if the faith is real. Thoughts?

PS. Because of this I have a lot of people upset with me now.

 

[baron]

To me the short answer is no, but to many I know it would be yes..

1Cor: 15:1-28. In verse 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. How can one that does not believe that Christ died for their sin's be saved?

As I said I know a lot of christian's who do believe in many way's to God. How much does a person need to know to be saved?

 

[Weston Stoler]

I say the basics. A new believer can be hung up on the Trinity and stuff but eventually they will stand firm on basic doctrines. Virgin birth, exclusivity of Christ, ect....

 

[Matthew Tringali]

I would focus first on the Reformed doctrine of the "Marks of the Church". How do we know if a Church is truly a Church of Jesus Christ? Reformed teaching tells us to look for Sound Preaching / Doctrine, Sacraments and Church Discipline. If a Church is lacking in any of this then we have good reason to question if the Church has gone astray or if it is still in the fold of Christ. Personally, I think that if a Church does not believe in the exclusivity of Christ then they are missing mark number one in a big way and I would say they are no longer a true Church.

If a person is a member of a place that is not a true Church, then they should understand why they are going there and perhaps consider finding a true Church. That is not to say, of course, that membership at such a place automatically affects their own salvation. But, it is certainly "smoke" that should sound an alarm. Now, if someone does not believe in the exclusivity of Christ, but are members of a true Church, then this is certainly a discussion they should have with their elders to understand why they do not believe something that the Church does believe.

At least that would all seem a good starting place to me, in principle.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I don't think one is truly saved if they hold to a non-exclusive view. Now, to clarify that. I think a new believer that is trying to find out what they believe and is earnestly searching for truth should not be branded a heretic and kicked out.

 

[Jack K]

Do you think a person can be a Christian who says they believe in Jesus and that other people who do not can "make it to heaven" without believing in Him?

Let's see. The person believes in Jesus. Yet they think others who don't believe in Jesus can still be saved some other way. The question becomes: Can the supposed faith of a person who has such a weak appreciation for Christ be a true faith?

Saving faith is more than intellectual consent to certain facts about Jesus. One must be sold on the person of Jesus. He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). Such faith requires a realization that Jesus is uniquely worth following—that he is better than absolutely anything else. This is part of what the Spirit gives to those who are truly converted.

So when someone has such a weak view of Jesus that they think there are other perfectly good alternatives out there, I'm skeptical that they've had a true conversion experience. It's not so much a matter of them believing bad doctrine as it is that they don't seem to have been captured yet by the unsurpassed beauty of the one and only Savior.

 

[Reformation Monk]

I'm afraid I have made many people upset with me Earl. Here is one thing that any true disciple has to start to accepting; which is persecution. If we truly believe in the Gospel, then we won't be ashamed of it, for Paul tells us in Romans that "he isn't ashamed of the Gospel for it is salvation for anyone that believes."

Jesus tells us that if we follow after Him that we have to pick up our own cross and bare it. That if we do this, then the world will hate us.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I'm afraid that I have to take a narrow view here. Because for me, this is the difference between someone who knows the name of Jesus but doesn't know Jesus Christ as a personal Lord and Savior. Who doesn't understand the gospel.

I would witness to them and show them Who Christ is and Why He had to die for us. Share the Gospel with them and bring them to a right understanding and encourage them to repentance.

 

[earl40]

Share the Gospel with them and bring them to a right understanding and encourage them to repentance.

Sort of hard to do, when they think that they are a Christian and you believe they are not. This reminds me of what Walter Martin would say...."If you find a way to tell me how to say a person is on their way to hell......nicely, please tell me."

 

[au5t1n]

Regenerate people have been known to be confused about all manner of things before they are instructed, but a committed non-exclusivist is good cause for deep concern.

---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

Share the Gospel with them and bring them to a right understanding and encourage them to repentance.

Sort of hard to do, when they think that they are a Christian and you believe they are not.

Correcting someone on their understanding of the gospel does not require convincing them that they are unregenerate. You don't know whether they are or not (though we would expect a regenerate person to demonstrate faith in the basics of the gospel, certainly), and if they end up believing the truth and embracing a more thoroughly biblical understanding of salvation, pinpointing exactly when they were born again will not be important. The point will be that they understand better now.

 

[MarieP]

I don't think one is truly saved if they hold to a non-exclusive view. Now, to clarify that. I think a new believer that is trying to find out what they believe and is earnestly searching for truth should not be branded a heretic and kicked out.

Now, I have always believed that Christ is the only Savior, that there is no other way to be forgiven than by the blood of Christ and no other way to be accepted by God than through faith in Christ.

However, when I first encountered incluvisim in college, I struggled with that. Before then, I had not really heard about the "man on the island" I took Christian Education each year at an evangelical highschool, but, oddly enough, I don't remember hearing this scenario being brought up! I had not had time to think about that situation, since I was spending my efforts defending the exclusivity of Christ around pluralists.

Ron Nash's book Is Jesus the Only Savior? greatly helped me in this regard. He laid out the reality of the total depravity and inherent sinfulness of man. I already believed in those two things, and so I was easily led along by his exegesis. Another point brought up was that, whenever the final judgment is portrayed, it is according to the deeds we've done in the body, whether good or evil. The teaching about stricter judgment and the amount of light we're given isn't to make us breathe a sigh of relief! It is to make us take heed. If the righteous are scarcely saved, what will happen to the ungodly and the sinner, as Peter asks.

But the clinching argument for me came at the end of the book. He credits his wife for this insight! What about Paul? He said that he persecuted the church in ignorance and unbelief. He was living according to the light that he had, as a believing Pharisee who was zealous for God's law. And yet Paul needed to find his righteousness not in his pedigree and law-keeping but in Christ!

 

[buggy]

Hmm. What about those who say they do not know the fate of the unevangelized - as in, they say - "I don't know, God will decide"? Not a few evangelicals believe in that.
While that view is not correct, to say such people are hell-bound is very extreme for me to accept. Besides, who are we to judge other professing believers' destinies, when we are not God, and cannot know the motives of the heart unlike Him? (1 Cor. 4)

 

[au5t1n]

Bringing personal experience into the discussion, I am reasonably certain I was born again during childhood (I don't know how early), but I went through a stage in my teenage years where I believed a number of strange things, including inclusivism. I am about as positive as you can be on this earth that I was regenerate before then, though, because I remember having what I am confident was a true faith and a new heart when I was 13. So that is my (subjective) experience, for whatever it may be worth.

Now if you meet a person who holds this view, should you be very concerned for his soul? Absolutely. Instruct him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The main reason I would be concerned for an "inclusivist" person, is not because I think that such a person could not possibly be personally saved, because of his faith in (the true) Christ.

Firstly, it's because of Christ's own exclusive claims, which then calls into question "which Jesus?" the inclusivist is actually believing in.

Furthermore, if a person isn't convinced of the exclusivity of the Lord Jesus Christ, then how firm is their own commitment to the Jesus of Scripture? This is a person who (from the earthly standpoint) is susceptible to divergence onto some, spiritual "improvement" track over the Christian religion. In other words,, if Jesus isn't the only way, then how can one be truly certain that Christianity is the BEST way? His personal commitment to Christ is somewhat cultural, somewhat pragmatic. It is not based on the kind of conviction that without this receiving and resting he would be lost--but that there might be another refuge in a storm.

Finally, the inclusivist's commitment to evangelism is questionable, because who then needs saving from their false-objects of faith (idols)? As one of them has famously put it, rather than making Christian "followers of Jesus" out of them, just encourage them to be "better [insert false religion] followers of Jesus."

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Share the Gospel with them and bring them to a right understanding and encourage them to repentance.

Sort of hard to do, when they think that they are a Christian and you believe they are not. This reminds me of what Walter Martin would say...."If you find a way to tell me how to say a person is on their way to hell......nicely, please tell me."

Ultimately, someone might have a confused view and yet be trusting Christ for their salvation. But, in the case where they are given Biblical evidence of the truth and attempts at correction fail, then said professors hang a huge question mark over their "faith." If that faith did not apprehend the Christ of Scripture who made claims about His exclusivity (Jn. 14:6) and value His salvation as the alone fount of life and righteousness (Acts 4:12), then they almost definitely never trusted the true Christ to begin with. Certainly those who carry this view to the grave have no reason for assurance.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

The main reason I would be concerned for an "inclusivist" person, is not because I think that such a person could not possibly be personally saved, because of his faith in (the true) Christ.

So true. Jesus Himself said I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. We are told elsewhere that there is salvation found in no other name. To deny the exclusivty of Christ is to deny who Jesus said He is and who the rest of Scripture says he is.

 

[KevinInReno]

I think an inclusivist can make a slight argument on the grounds of General Revelation to lets say the Chinaman who never heard the Gospel - and because you can pull from Romans, Acts, etc minor support for that I don't think that's an outright view where you can question their own understanding of special revelation. Though even in those debates I would want to know the "terms" they think the Chinaman might be saved upon - to get a better grasp on their personal understanding. Did they root the argument in insufficiency of man or an idea that he was a "good person".

But often the argument is made in defense of those who have been presented with the Good News and denied it... or embraced another belief system but were quote on quote "Good People". Rob Bell's recent love affair with Ghandi comes to mind. That is where I think the cart removes itself entirely from the horse. In essence you are insulting God's Perfect Holiness - when you have the thoughts of "yeah he denied Christ, but he was a really good guy" and embracing Pelagian forms of thought.

 

[MarieP]

I think an inclusivist can make a slight argument on the grounds of General Revelation to lets say the Chinaman who never heard the Gospel - and because you can pull from Romans, Acts, etc minor support for that I don't think that's an outright view where you can question their own understanding of special revelation. Though even in those debates I would want to know the "terms" they think the Chinaman might be saved upon - to get a better grasp on their personal understanding. Did they root the argument in insufficiency of man or an idea that he was a "good person".

But often the argument is made in defense of those who have been presented with the Good News and denied it... or embraced another belief system but were quote on quote "Good People". Rob Bell's recent love affair with Ghandi comes to mind. That is where I think the cart removes itself entirely from the horse. In essence you are insulting God's Perfect Holiness - when you have the thoughts of "yeah he denied Christ, but he was a really good guy" and embracing Pelagian forms of thought.

James White made the argument that, if we have a problem with people dying without ever hearing the gospel today, what do we do with all the Gentiles in the OT who died without ever hearing about Israel's God (except at the end of a spear)?

 

[raekwon]

Some anonymous lurker on this board once sent my Session an email demanding I be disciplined because I said that I believed that inclusivists (while wrong) could be regenerate. Kinda funny.

 

[Rich Koster]

Austin wrote : "Regenerate people have been known to be confused about all manner of things before they are instructed, but a committed non-exclusivist is good cause for deep concern."

This is a concise statement that I think sums it up. If we have a newbie that is confused about the difference between Christianity and Islam, Buddhism or the like (where Jesus is misrepresented and lowered to a prophet or good teacher), they need instruction. If we have people like Robert Schuller denying the exclusivity of Christ, they are a heretic.

 

[KevinInReno]

I think an inclusivist can make a slight argument on the grounds of General Revelation to lets say the Chinaman who never heard the Gospel - and because you can pull from Romans, Acts, etc minor support for that I don't think that's an outright view where you can question their own understanding of special revelation. Though even in those debates I would want to know the "terms" they think the Chinaman might be saved upon - to get a better grasp on their personal understanding. Did they root the argument in insufficiency of man or an idea that he was a "good person".

But often the argument is made in defense of those who have been presented with the Good News and denied it... or embraced another belief system but were quote on quote "Good People". Rob Bell's recent love affair with Ghandi comes to mind. That is where I think the cart removes itself entirely from the horse. In essence you are insulting God's Perfect Holiness - when you have the thoughts of "yeah he denied Christ, but he was a really good guy" and embracing Pelagian forms of thought.

James White made the argument that, if we have a problem with people dying without ever hearing the gospel today, what do we do with all the Gentiles in the OT who died without ever hearing about Israel's God (except at the end of a spear)?

To be clear, I wasn't advocating for that view. I agree with James White larger point, basically you open a pandoras box with several scriptural passages not being in sync. My point is I think having the position of inclusivism doesn't immediately exclude someone as a brother. Though it without a doubt has the potential to be a weeds amongst the wheat situation.

 

[earl40]

But often the argument is made in defense of those who have been presented with the Good News and denied it... or embraced another belief system but were quote on quote "Good People". Rob Bell's recent love affair with Ghandi comes to mind. That is where I think the cart removes itself entirely from the horse. In essence you are insulting God's Perfect Holiness - when you have the thoughts of "yeah he denied Christ, but he was a really good guy" and embracing Pelagian forms of thought.

This is exactly how it all started. The person I was speaking with indeed spoke of himself as compared to "good people".

I clarified this by bring up "The son of Sam" and how he appears to have been converted in jail and if he thought he had "any chance" of making it to heaven...His responce was "that is crazy".