Four View Of Salvation
Before introducing evidential particularism, Four Views on Salvation in A Pluralistic World provides a forum for the worldview of Inclusivism and its worldview of salvation. Presented by the esteemed late Dr. Clark Pinnock, former Professor of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College, Dr. Pinnock advocated that salvation is universally available for the masses, but is importantly established by and leads to Christ. Dr. Pinnock explains his worldview by saying that because God is present in the whole world, his grace, therefore, must also be at work in some way amongst all the people in the world. Potentially, he claims, this might very well indicate that all religions may play a serious role in the salvation of mankind, thanks to God’s mercy and Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. Dr. Pinnock elaborates, saying that inclusivism’s premise is theologically and logically well founded. He writes, “God is present as the triune Creator and Redeemer everywhere-in the far reaches of space, in every culture, and in every human heart. Therefore, divine grace is also prevenient everywhere – since God has created the whole world, since Jesus Christ die for all humanity, and since the Spirit gives life to creation…We [proponents of
…show more content…
inclusivism] refuse to all the disjunction between nature and grace or between common and saving grace, on the supposition that, if the triune God is present, grace must be present too” (98). Essentially, Dr. Pinnock contends that Christians should take seriously the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. Therefore, Dr. Pinnock’s argument contends that God’s presence in the whole world must indicate that God’s grace is also at work “in some way” among all peoples and religions. For one to really understand this argument, one must first realize two principles are at play in inclusivism; they are the principles of particularity and universality. However, it must be understood that it would be wrong to equate inclusivism with pluralism. Dr. Pinnock’s argument showcases an important distinction. Unlike pluralism, which contends that all religions lead directly to salvation, Dr. Pinnock stresses that salvation is found only through the death, resurrection, and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ through God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, when dealing with the principle of universalism, inclusivism differs from the particulist philosophies by claiming that God grants his salvation to be available to all humans, of all lands, in all religions. As Dr. Pinnock writes, “Christ, then, is the Savior of all people, but they do not come to him at once…God’s people, exist everywhere in the world, not just the churches. Not all of those who will eventually come have yet found Jesus or entered into the communion of Christ’s church (105).” Thus, inclusivism fundamentally maintains that belief in Christianity, worship of Our Lord is necessary for salvation. The pantheists in the South American jungles, the pagans in wild Africa, and the Islamists of Mecca all can partake in the salvation earned by Jesus Christ without ever acknowledging the validity of Christianity or even believing in the divinity of our Lord. To some, Dr. Pinnock’s worldview may seem to be one of some balance, perhaps as what one might consider a moderate theological tradition. Indeed, one may very well see inclusivism as some centrist worldview.
Of course, just because a moderate belief, philosophy, or worldview bases itself from various aspects of opposite sides, it does not signify a truth, indicate a fact, or profess a proper pathway. Mr. John Hick, the representative pluralist in Mr. Ockham’s and Mr. Phillips’ book, disagrees strongly with Dr. Pinnock’s inclusivism worldview in a following critique. While acknowledging that he possessed some minor agreement with a few of Dr. Pinnock’s assertions, Mr. Hick is quick to point out a supposed failure of Inclusivism. He writes that inclusivism serious falls short as it fails to acknowledge or see the distinctive religious lives of Non-Christians. He writes, “[inclusivism] is a priori dogma that does not do justice to the actual religious life of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists now, in this life…If salvation consisted in being forgiven and accepted by God because of Jesus’s death on the cross, then it would be a tautology that only the church knows and teaches the possibility of salvation” (126-127). Thusly, Mr. Hick contends that Dr. Pinnock’s inclusivism is really disguised Christian exclusivity as it surmises that the only way to salvation is still, albeit less directly, through Christianity and Jesus Christ. Mr. Hicks draws light to the fact that while an inclusivism worldview preaches that any Jew, Gentile or Muslim can practice their religion as they see fit, ultimately Christianity is the only truth. Hence, Mr. Hicks rejects the inclusivist worldview.
On the other side of the aisle, the evidential particularist side, Mr. W. Gary Phillips and Mr. R. Douglas Geivett contend that Dr. Pinnock’s leading argument for inclusivism, God’s omnipresence, is flawed and does not follow true scripture. The two detail on how often the bible mentions the gravity of sin by those who break the Lord’s Commandants and fall to “idolatry”. They highlight this point, critiquing, “Idolatry is the term the Bible uses to label any system of ideas or practices that trades divine truth for a false alternative. To our minds, this is what each of the non-Christians religions does (134).” If any religion today can lead to salvation, why then did God forbid the Jews and early believers of falling away from their belief in Him? Furthermore, the two men next reference a passage in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans which says that even though followers of Judaism has a tremendous zeal for God, their zeal alone is not sufficient for salvation because, ultimately, they reject Christ. Inclusivism, theoretically suggests that a follower of Islam, Judaism, or similar may hate the teachings of Christ, but because they live what many in the world considers to be a good and ethical life by following a different religion, they will be granted salvation. Thus, Mr. Geivett and Mr. Phillips stress that God wants each and every sinner to repent and worship Him. They bring light to this New Testament passage in Acts 17:30-31, “He [God] commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Therefore, as the two evidential particularists suggest, inclusivism is flawed by a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s mercy and omnipresence.
As mentioned before, I was very much drawn to the worldview espoused by the evidential particularist theologians. While I may not fully support every detail, ideal and dogma proposed, the arguments Mr. Geivitter and Mr. Phillips made were valid, solid, and stood firm against every criticism levied in Four Views on Salvation in A Pluralistic World. I would have to admit that the evidential particularist worldview of salvation is as accurate to my worldview as any worldview might possibly be. With that in mind, I am nonetheless grateful in my newfound exposure and understanding of pluralism and the beliefs regarding salvation of those who consider themselves pluralists. Therefore, I realize that what I believe is something many pluralists would consider to be an extreme view. As I understand, it is through Christ alone that one may come to experience salvation. But for those in a pluralistic world, my worldview may likely seem radical and perhaps crazed. In my interactions with pluralists, especially when discussing religion or beliefs, I must effectively communicate that while I recognize salvation and worship as being inherently particular, I am not hateful, judgmental, or angry of those who see salvation, religion, or worship as a gift, path, or mere simple difference. In fact, as one who believes salvation as particular I should be the exact opposite! Because Jesus Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for me and all of mankind, I am to be filled with sorry and pity for those who have yet to accept that God is merciful and wanting to bestow us grace. Therefore, I must be compassionate when talking to those who have to yet to believe that accepting Jesus Christ into their beliefs is the key to salvation. Likewise, I must be careful when speaking and discussing my beliefs with pluralists. Too quickly, if not proper and coherent in my words, I can caste serious doubts about the power and purpose of Christianity. I can alienate those who may indeed be allies in taking back the secular and immoral world we live in today. Yes, I must interact with love and respect of opinion, as hard as it may seem. Yet, I must ensure that in my respecting of other’s opinion, I become ambivalent to the necessity of my faith. Also, tt will be of great importance for me to remember that there are a few fellow Christians, believers of the gospels, who have a pluralist worldview when it comes to salvation. Just because I recognize truth in the particularist worldview, it does not mean I recognize evil or malice in the pluralist worldview. The wanting to be full of love is powerful and can often lead many astray. Therefore, in my interactions with pluralists’ or when I live in a pluralistic world or setting, I must not let my particularist worldview be one of spite or anger, but understanding and hope. Furthermore, to those who aren’t so sure in their faith, those of different faiths, and those with no faith or religion to speak of, my evidential particularist worldview basically necessitates that I must be vocal about Christ. If I consider the passage and full context of Saint Peter’s preaching in Acts of the Apostle that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Geivett used to argue evidential particularism’s case, I must realize a call to action. While Saint Peter preaches that only through Christ and Christ alone can salvation be brought to a people, he isn’t preaching to a choir of disciples. No, he is preaching to a crowd comprised of non-believers, Jews, and pagans. Some have purposely gathered to hear his preaching, while likely many others listen after accidentally becoming part of the crowd or being curiously drawn into the commotion. And although surrounded by those with differing faith, Saint Peter boldly preaches, “for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind (Acts 4:12)”. Therefore, to follow Saint Peter’s instruction I must be the voice that spreads the name given to mankind. I must be a light in the darkness. I must practice what is preached in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, 10:13-15, which is also evidenced in Mr. Geivitt’s and Mr. Phillip’s treatise of the evidential particularist worldview, Here Saint Paul proclaims this powerful and important requirement “For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Yes, to be follower of the particularist worldview, I am called to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the love of my caring and intense God, to all those in the world.
Nonetheless, I must be tempered, I must realize that it will be hard, and I can come across as radical, crazy and rigorously fundamentalist.
And with thanks to the collection of philosophies of Mr. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis I. Okholm, as found in Four Views on Salvation in A Pluralistic World, I can realize that those who are pluralists may not see my importance or care for my message upon first glance. Now, I can better understand that those who adhere to inclusivism may not recognize the need to spread the news of Jesus Christ. But most importantly, I can better know and trust in my own faith, my own love of God and his almighty power so as to better understand my role as follower of Jesus Christ and be a light a world of
darkness.
inclusivism] refuse to all the disjunction between nature and grace or between common and saving grace, on the supposition that, if the triune God is present, grace must be present too” (98). Essentially, Dr. Pinnock contends that Christians should take seriously the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. Therefore, Dr. Pinnock’s argument contends that God’s presence in the whole world must indicate that God’s grace is also at work “in some way” among all peoples and religions. For one to really understand this argument, one must first realize two principles are at play in inclusivism; they are the principles of particularity and universality. However, it must be understood that it would be wrong to equate inclusivism with pluralism. Dr. Pinnock’s argument showcases an important distinction. Unlike pluralism, which contends that all religions lead directly to salvation, Dr. Pinnock stresses that salvation is found only through the death, resurrection, and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ through God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, when dealing with the principle of universalism, inclusivism differs from the particulist philosophies by claiming that God grants his salvation to be available to all humans, of all lands, in all religions. As Dr. Pinnock writes, “Christ, then, is the Savior of all people, but they do not come to him at once…God’s people, exist everywhere in the world, not just the churches. Not all of those who will eventually come have yet found Jesus or entered into the communion of Christ’s church (105).” Thus, inclusivism fundamentally maintains that belief in Christianity, worship of Our Lord is necessary for salvation. The pantheists in the South American jungles, the pagans in wild Africa, and the Islamists of Mecca all can partake in the salvation earned by Jesus Christ without ever acknowledging the validity of Christianity or even believing in the divinity of our Lord. To some, Dr. Pinnock’s worldview may seem to be one of some balance, perhaps as what one might consider a moderate theological tradition. Indeed, one may very well see inclusivism as some centrist worldview.
Of course, just because a moderate belief, philosophy, or worldview bases itself from various aspects of opposite sides, it does not signify a truth, indicate a fact, or profess a proper pathway. Mr. John Hick, the representative pluralist in Mr. Ockham’s and Mr. Phillips’ book, disagrees strongly with Dr. Pinnock’s inclusivism worldview in a following critique. While acknowledging that he possessed some minor agreement with a few of Dr. Pinnock’s assertions, Mr. Hick is quick to point out a supposed failure of Inclusivism. He writes that inclusivism serious falls short as it fails to acknowledge or see the distinctive religious lives of Non-Christians. He writes, “[inclusivism] is a priori dogma that does not do justice to the actual religious life of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists now, in this life…If salvation consisted in being forgiven and accepted by God because of Jesus’s death on the cross, then it would be a tautology that only the church knows and teaches the possibility of salvation” (126-127). Thusly, Mr. Hick contends that Dr. Pinnock’s inclusivism is really disguised Christian exclusivity as it surmises that the only way to salvation is still, albeit less directly, through Christianity and Jesus Christ. Mr. Hicks draws light to the fact that while an inclusivism worldview preaches that any Jew, Gentile or Muslim can practice their religion as they see fit, ultimately Christianity is the only truth. Hence, Mr. Hicks rejects the inclusivist worldview.
On the other side of the aisle, the evidential particularist side, Mr. W. Gary Phillips and Mr. R. Douglas Geivett contend that Dr. Pinnock’s leading argument for inclusivism, God’s omnipresence, is flawed and does not follow true scripture. The two detail on how often the bible mentions the gravity of sin by those who break the Lord’s Commandants and fall to “idolatry”. They highlight this point, critiquing, “Idolatry is the term the Bible uses to label any system of ideas or practices that trades divine truth for a false alternative. To our minds, this is what each of the non-Christians religions does (134).” If any religion today can lead to salvation, why then did God forbid the Jews and early believers of falling away from their belief in Him? Furthermore, the two men next reference a passage in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans which says that even though followers of Judaism has a tremendous zeal for God, their zeal alone is not sufficient for salvation because, ultimately, they reject Christ. Inclusivism, theoretically suggests that a follower of Islam, Judaism, or similar may hate the teachings of Christ, but because they live what many in the world considers to be a good and ethical life by following a different religion, they will be granted salvation. Thus, Mr. Geivett and Mr. Phillips stress that God wants each and every sinner to repent and worship Him. They bring light to this New Testament passage in Acts 17:30-31, “He [God] commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Therefore, as the two evidential particularists suggest, inclusivism is flawed by a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s mercy and omnipresence.
As mentioned before, I was very much drawn to the worldview espoused by the evidential particularist theologians. While I may not fully support every detail, ideal and dogma proposed, the arguments Mr. Geivitter and Mr. Phillips made were valid, solid, and stood firm against every criticism levied in Four Views on Salvation in A Pluralistic World. I would have to admit that the evidential particularist worldview of salvation is as accurate to my worldview as any worldview might possibly be. With that in mind, I am nonetheless grateful in my newfound exposure and understanding of pluralism and the beliefs regarding salvation of those who consider themselves pluralists. Therefore, I realize that what I believe is something many pluralists would consider to be an extreme view. As I understand, it is through Christ alone that one may come to experience salvation. But for those in a pluralistic world, my worldview may likely seem radical and perhaps crazed. In my interactions with pluralists, especially when discussing religion or beliefs, I must effectively communicate that while I recognize salvation and worship as being inherently particular, I am not hateful, judgmental, or angry of those who see salvation, religion, or worship as a gift, path, or mere simple difference. In fact, as one who believes salvation as particular I should be the exact opposite! Because Jesus Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice for me and all of mankind, I am to be filled with sorry and pity for those who have yet to accept that God is merciful and wanting to bestow us grace. Therefore, I must be compassionate when talking to those who have to yet to believe that accepting Jesus Christ into their beliefs is the key to salvation. Likewise, I must be careful when speaking and discussing my beliefs with pluralists. Too quickly, if not proper and coherent in my words, I can caste serious doubts about the power and purpose of Christianity. I can alienate those who may indeed be allies in taking back the secular and immoral world we live in today. Yes, I must interact with love and respect of opinion, as hard as it may seem. Yet, I must ensure that in my respecting of other’s opinion, I become ambivalent to the necessity of my faith. Also, tt will be of great importance for me to remember that there are a few fellow Christians, believers of the gospels, who have a pluralist worldview when it comes to salvation. Just because I recognize truth in the particularist worldview, it does not mean I recognize evil or malice in the pluralist worldview. The wanting to be full of love is powerful and can often lead many astray. Therefore, in my interactions with pluralists’ or when I live in a pluralistic world or setting, I must not let my particularist worldview be one of spite or anger, but understanding and hope. Furthermore, to those who aren’t so sure in their faith, those of different faiths, and those with no faith or religion to speak of, my evidential particularist worldview basically necessitates that I must be vocal about Christ. If I consider the passage and full context of Saint Peter’s preaching in Acts of the Apostle that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Geivett used to argue evidential particularism’s case, I must realize a call to action. While Saint Peter preaches that only through Christ and Christ alone can salvation be brought to a people, he isn’t preaching to a choir of disciples. No, he is preaching to a crowd comprised of non-believers, Jews, and pagans. Some have purposely gathered to hear his preaching, while likely many others listen after accidentally becoming part of the crowd or being curiously drawn into the commotion. And although surrounded by those with differing faith, Saint Peter boldly preaches, “for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind (Acts 4:12)”. Therefore, to follow Saint Peter’s instruction I must be the voice that spreads the name given to mankind. I must be a light in the darkness. I must practice what is preached in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, 10:13-15, which is also evidenced in Mr. Geivitt’s and Mr. Phillip’s treatise of the evidential particularist worldview, Here Saint Paul proclaims this powerful and important requirement “For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Yes, to be follower of the particularist worldview, I am called to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the love of my caring and intense God, to all those in the world.
Nonetheless, I must be tempered, I must realize that it will be hard, and I can come across as radical, crazy and rigorously fundamentalist.
And with thanks to the collection of philosophies of Mr. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis I. Okholm, as found in Four Views on Salvation in A Pluralistic World, I can realize that those who are pluralists may not see my importance or care for my message upon first glance. Now, I can better understand that those who adhere to inclusivism may not recognize the need to spread the news of Jesus Christ. But most importantly, I can better know and trust in my own faith, my own love of God and his almighty power so as to better understand my role as follower of Jesus Christ and be a light a world of
darkness.