Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/15/2002 8:26 AM (GMT -6)

As a missionary, I’m wondering if these are not basic claims that we can all agree upon:

1. All human beings are separated from God and are lost.

2. God wants every human being (OK, exclude Calvinists from this) to be set free from sin and experience his infinite love.

3. Jesus Christ is the only means by which salvation comes to a person.

4. God does everything God can do in every person’s life to bring that person to an experience of salvation.

5. God has chosen those who have experienced the life and forgiveness of Christ to be the means by which that love and forgiveness are made known to the world.

Now, I know inclusivists and non-inclusivists (for want of a better term; I’m discovering that there are different definitions of the name tags out there and don’t wanna get into that now) take several of these points in different directions. I’m just trying to find the lowest common denominators. These are usually thought to be 2) and 3) above: the particularity of the saving work of Jesus Christ and God’s will that every person without exception is saved. It’s putting these two together that gives rise to differences of opinion. I only put in 1) to account for humanity’s need for salvation. Then 4) and 5) are my own thoughts. Wouldn’t 4) follow from 2) and 3)? In my mind the question of the fate of the unevangelized lies in understanding the relationship between 4) and 5), that is, between the belief that (since God wants everyone saved and since God’s love gave us Jesus) God does all God can do to bring people to salvation and the belief that believers are commissioned by God to be the means by which that salvation is made available to the lost.

Comments? I don’t want to run off to quickly into proofs for this or that view. I want to ask the right questions first. What ARE the questions?

When I joined this site over two years ago I promised myself I would research the open view for at least one year before making up my mind. A year later I settled into the view. Then I took a second year to arrange the furniture, hone in on related issues, and try to put an argument for the open view into a form that I could share with people. I’ve done that. I kind of sense that the whole inclusivist/exclusivist/restrictivist debate, including the arguments for postmortem evangelism (Fackrre’s “Perseverance of God”) is what I’ll be setting my sights on next. So, I want to give myself plenty of time, say, a year (like I did with the open view) to survey the landscape and research the questions and issues before settling into a view. I hope I settle into a view!

From time to time I’ll bug you all with questions. Will you mind?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 10/15/2002 1:52:09 PM

Edited by - TGB on 10/15/2002 1:53:18 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/15/2002 1:02 PM (GMT -6)

Nice job laying out the issues, Tom.

I think that looks good so far. Of course, I might quibble about wording here or there a bit, but I will wait until you move further into the development of these five statements before offering some suggestions.

I will anticipate some of the conversation by offering a definitional proposal. Most consider "exclusivism" as that view which states that only those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord by name with historical reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" are saved.

This strikes me as strange. I think "exclusivism" should be a purely soteriological statement. We should be able to claim that "exclusivism" means that only those who are reconciled to God through Christ are saved. That is pretty exclusive! Why predicate salvation on intellectional propositions adhered to by individuals with some particular historical knowledge? Isn't it exclusive enough that only Jesus saves? This is what inclusivists mean, but it strikes me as rediculous to call a person who thinks only Jesus saves an inclusivist! What on earth justifies this title? Universalists qualify as inclusive to me, but not self-proclaimed "inclusivists" within Evangelicalism.

This engages some of your statements, but it may not be where you want this thread to go. Just ignore me if you have something else in mind to talk about.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/15/2002 3:15 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,

I have no problem with your outline save one issue.
If we're going to talk about people being "lost", we have to define what that means beyond just this life's timeline; one is lost into eternity. What does that mean if it doesn't mean one is permanently lost from ever having relationship with God if one dies in this lost state. Whether you want to develop this into a hell, with fire and brimstone, or anihilation is negotiable, but being lost in one of these manners is not!

You mentioned ". . . I kind of sense that the whole inclusivist/exclusivist/restrictivist debate . . ."

Unfortunately for me I'm not familiar with the concepts of the three. However, I believe that all 5 of the items you mentioned are in fact Scriptural, necessary, and accurate doctrine. No one is more important than the other. (As I say, no sense in talking about any of this if there isn't first, as you noted in item #1, an understanding of why salvation is even an issue with God; man is lost, hence the necessity of your item #1.)

Simple, plain, and probably pretty theologically empty, but I felt it was worth mentioning. Otherwise, I myself have nothing more to add to it, Tom.

For salvation,

Starkman

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 10/15/2002 3:19 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for initiating this topic, TJB. I'll be following it closely. Although I'm not a theologian, I did read Sanders' "No Other Name" (and I stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night).

I have a question about basic claim #5:

quote:
5. God has chosen those who have experienced the life and forgiveness of Christ to be the means by which that love and forgiveness are made known to the world.

Do you mean the only means or simply a means or something else?

Thanks,
JET

Edited by - JET on 10/15/2002 10:45:50 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/16/2002 3:58 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks all-

Modes: I will anticipate some of the conversation by offering a definitional proposal. Most consider "exclusivism" as that view which states that only those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord by name with historical reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" are saved. This strikes me as strange. I think "exclusivism" should be a purely soteriological statement.

Tom: Yeah, it also becomes a bit frustrating when the definitions change. It’s hard to keep track of them. And I think you have a point too about “exclusivism.” Sanders, for example, though an “inclusivist” is exclusivist in that he maintains particularity in his soteriology. Only Jesus saves. But methodologically he’s an inclusivist because he denies that a person has to hear about Jesus, the person, in order to benefit from the exclusive salvation which is in Jesus.

Sanders edits a paperback where he, Fackre, and Nash discuss, respectively, Inclusivism, Divine Perseverance (postmortem evangelism), and Restrictivism. In this volume Restrictivism is defined as that view which believes God elects certain people to save. Salvation is restricted to those God chooses. Wow! So in this volume Restrictivism is synonymous with Calvinism. Sanders doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of Arminians who believe a person must place their faith in the Jesus of the proclaimed gospel to be saved. So what are these? According to this volume they don’t fit into any category.

We’ll get around to this eventually, but I think limiting the definitions of these terms soteriologically to the work of Jesus kinda begs the question (a bit). I agree that some of this debate centers on purely soteriological questions. For sure. But some of it concerns the role proclamation/information has.

Modes: Why predicate salvation on intellectual propositions adhered to by individuals with some particular historical knowledge?

Tom: Is there NO knowledge required for the “faith principle” to work? Even an Inclusivist like Sanders insists upon “some” informational minimum—the person has to have knowledge of some sort of personal God, has to have knowledge of her own need, sinfulness, or hopelessness, has to have knowledge of their own total inability to fix their sin problem (however they define it), etc.. This was Fackre’s criticism of Sanders, and I thought it had some bite. For the faith principle to work in situations where Christ is not know, the person has to know “something.” Sanders insists that this critical mass is available to all persons through general revelation (Rom 1). OK, but in the end he is still somewhat exclusivist even in methodology (viz, in “how” the salvation-information thing works) in that he insists on that knowledge (about God, humankind, etc.) made available to all through general revelation. I didn’t get the feeling from Sanders that he believe ANY possible information system/worldview can be used redemptively by God to bring people to faith.

JET: (Regarding #5) Do you mean the only means or simply a means or something else?

Tom: I knew somebody would see that! I didn’t know how to work it without choosing sides, but I didn’t want to choose sides. I’m still trying to find a way to word it that everyone would agree on and that would also be the basis for moving the discussion forward. If it’s “only means” then we believe that a person can be saved ONLY by hearing the gospel story (told to them by the Church) about Jesus and putting faith in HIM, in Jesus, the first century Jew of Palestine who was crucified by the Romans, etc.. If it’s “a means” then I suppose we’re arguing that while many, probably the vast majority, of people find salvation through the proclamation of Christians, there are some who find salvation through other means. These don’t hear the gospel and they’ve never heard of Jesus, but they recognize their disconnectedness from their Creator, abandon all self-reliance, and trust that Creator to save/accept them. That’s the faith principle.

Starkman: If we're going to talk about people being "lost", we have to define what that means…

Tom: Right. So how should we reword 1)? Do we all agree that our understanding humanity’s problem is important to our theology of missions?

Starkman: Unfortunately for me I'm not familiar with the concepts of the three…

Tom: It’s just the tags you’re unfamiliar with, but I’m sure you know what’s going on behind the tags. Here are the terms: Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Restrictivism, and Divine Perseverance. We can through Religious Pluralism in there as well.

There’s still some disagreement over precisely what these terms ought to stand for. Let me try to back into it without using the terms at all and just mention the options:

* Some believe that salvation is found only in Jesus. In order for a person to experience this salvation, they must hear the gospel and place faith in Jesus. That is, salvation is for everyone, but it’s only available in the proclamation of the gospel. You’ve got to know Jesus by name (along with a few other details about his life; the cross and resurrection for example).

* Some believe that salvation is found only in Jesus. In order for a person to experience this salvation, they must abandon all self-reliance and trust (have faith) in God. Knowledge of Jesus is not required. Knowledge of the “Triune” God is not required, though some knowledge of a Creator is required. It’s simply the “principle” of faith that brings salvation and this is available through general revelation and in all faith traditions. This is not to say these faith traditions are equally valid (that’s the next view), but simply that whatever truth might reside in such traditions, whatever true longings of the human heart are therein expressed, God is there working to find a way into the hearts of people. Though people who fulfill these simpler requirements do not know Jesus by name, they are in fact encountering him, for it is his life and salvation which saves them when the abandon self-reliance and repentantly embrace God (whatever their understanding of God may be) in trust.

* Some believe that salvation is found only in Jesus but that this salvation is available in all faith traditions. Most of the immediately preceding view is repeated here, except non-Christian faiths are believed to be equally valid revelations of God and equally valid means for communicating God’s salvation. Some here may be universalists. In the end the salvation secured by Jesus alone wins everybody. Some may not be universalists.

* Some believe that salvation is found in all faith traditions. All faiths are equally valid and in the end all are saved.

I’m just tossing out the views as I’ve come in contact with them. I don’t know how categorically accurate I am. Starkman, you can see the continuum. On the front end you have views that insist on “soteriological exclusivism” (salvation is found only in Jesus) and what I call “methodological exclusivism” (salvation is only available in the proclamation of the historical gospel of Jesus). Here you find Calvinist (limited atonement) AND Arminians who believe that unless you hear the gospel and believe in Jesus (by name) you can’t be saved.

Then you move on to folks who agree with “soteriological exclusivism” but are what I call “methodological inclusivists.” Salvation is only in Jesus but that salvation may be experienced by people who have never heard of Jesus IF the same faith (= awareness of sinfulness, repentance, abandonment of all self-reliance, and trust in God [whatever they might understand God to be]) is present.

Then you move on to folks who are soteriologically and methodologically inclusive; i.e., religious pluralism and Universalism (though universalists are found further up the continuum too I think).

Along the continuum there is also another important issue: Does death seal one’s fate? That is, do the unevangelized get an opportunity to hear the gospel after death? And then of course you have the Hell question. What about annihilationism? Hell has less baring I think on this question, but it is claimed by some to play a big part in understanding what facts motivate us to missions. Does anything of eternal consequence rest on our proclaiming or not proclaiming Christ? If so, what?

Oh well.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/16/2002 7:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Thanks all-

Modes: Why predicate salvation on intellectual propositions adhered to by individuals with some particular historical knowledge?

Tom: Is there NO knowledge required for the “faith principle” to work? Even an Inclusivist like Sanders insists upon “some” informational minimum—the person has to have knowledge of some sort of personal God, has to have knowledge of her own need, sinfulness, or hopelessness, has to have knowledge of their own total inability to fix their sin problem (however they define it), etc.. This was Fackre’s criticism of Sanders, and I thought it had some bite. For the faith principle to work in situations where Christ is not know, the person has to know “something.” Sanders insists that this critical mass is available to all persons through general revelation (Rom 1). OK, but in the end he is still somewhat exclusivist even in methodology (viz, in “how” the salvation-information thing works) in that he insists on that knowledge (about God, humankind, etc.) made available to all through general revelation. I didn’t get the feeling from Sanders that he believe ANY possible information system/worldview can be used redemptively by God to bring people to faith.

The easy response here is to suggest that it is unity with God that entails salvation, not knowledge, per se. I drive this wedge because I believe that God sides with and unites with the radical victims that are intellectually destroyed or underdeveloped. This would include people who live under inhumane circumstances, infants, mentally handicapped persons, etc. In my view, a person's IQ has literally nothing to do with their salvation. In fact, the brighter they are, the more of a challenge faith tends to be.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/16/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6)

I'll "quibble".

These are my tweaks of Tom's good ideas for a possible ABSOLUTE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR as far as a Christian theology of missions.

1. At some time in history, human beings have been separated from God. The PERCEPTION of this historical separation produces the existential feeling of "lostness" in EACH human being, at some level and at some time in each human life. In short, there is a real occurance and perception of separation from God grounded in human history.

2. God wants every human being possible, given all revelent constraints bearing upon the divine interaction with Creation, to experience reconciliation of the breach between God and humanity, and all the possible effects of said reconciliation.

3. Jesus Christ is the only true PROVISION of reconciliation with God.

4. God does everything God can do, both cosmically and individually, to bring every human being possible to an experience of divine reconcilation, given all revelant constraints bearing upon the divine interaction with Creation.

5. In congruency with the "revelent contraints" mentioned above, God has chosen those who have

--experienced the provided divine reconciliation

and

--understood the historical particularity by which the aforementioned reconcilation was provided (ie the Cross of Christ)

...AS BEING PARTICULAR MEANS by which divine reconciliation is made known to the world.

********************************************

Why these changes? It's like this...

1) I agree with Modes that a for a specifically CHRISTIAN view, there exists "soteriological exclusivism. This would occur regardless of the type of "methodological exclusivism" This soteriological exclusivism is the last bastion of a possible reason that any missionary could base any type of real URGENCY upon the proclamation of the Christian worldview, IMO.

2) Some Christians believe that, after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, humanity HAS BEEN reconciled to God. Everyone born AFTER this is ALREADY reconciled to God, and the separation between God and humans existentially felt by these people is mainly existential, not grounded in actual fact. This would be the "they are saved. They just don't know it" type people. Any Christian theology of mission has to encompass this view...right?

3) Because of #2, it seems necessary to, at least theoretically, posit a separation between actual separation from God and existentially felt separation from God. The latter is ubiquitous to all human beings who have existed beyond the "Adamic couple", whereas it is POSSIBLE that the former is not.

3) We NEED to include Calvinist and other "theological determinists" in here! Thus, I feel it necessary to add in the "given all revelent constraints bearing upon the divine interaction with Creation" This would be an intentionally loaded statement that could apply to Arminians and Calvinists equally. [Hint: think glorification idea

]

4) There are different views of what "divine reconciliation of God" will ultimately be like. Thus, I think it best that we include "freedom from sin" and "experience of divine love" in the realm of POSSIBLE EFFECTS that can be experienced from participation in the reconciliation.

********************************************

With these tweaks, I think that these 5 premises could be integrously held by the most RESTRICTIVE OF the restrictivists and the UNIVERSALISTS of the inclusivists. Where the fundamental differences will lie would be:

--the amount of distinction between the actual and existentially felt separation from God...and how the divine reconciliation bears upon each

--the "given constraints" bearing upon the God/Creation interaction

--the "A means" vs "THE means" discussion

Just some ideas to possibly help...

Holla,

Edited by - Mephi2K on 10/16/2002 2:51:46 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/16/2002 10:11 AM (GMT -6)

If we're talking about a missionary field reached by individuals, the concept of how someone is saved apart from hearing the gospel wouldn't seem to be relevant to your issue. Mode's words--"The easy response here is to suggest that it is unity with God that entails salvation, not knowledge, per se. I drive this wedge because I believe that God sides with and unites with the radical victims that are intellectually destroyed or underdeveloped. This would include people who live under inhumane circumstances, infants, mentally handicapped persons, etc."-- are appropriate, however, where he said "In my view, a person's IQ has literally nothing to do with their salvation. In fact, the brighter they are, the more of a challenge faith tends to be," I wonder if a person's IQ does matter, if by IQ we mean one's capacity for intellect in general; one's intellect, if it's working without sever handicaps to impeed it, would seem to be necessary to simply digest the gospel as imformation; processed intelligently and used by God to help the person decide for or against Him. Do you agree, Modes, or did I move outside of your intention by the statement?

Regarding exclusivism, adherence to the historicity of the Christ event is absolutely necessary if any sense at all is to be made of the work Christ accomplished. (As I said, though, it's mote if one isn't going to hear the gospel at all during one's lifetime.)

Religious pluralism can only mean something if we understand the concept of One. Since we do, and A cannot equal non-A, pluralism is out the door! Either one, the other, or none at all is correct, but they both can't be correct. Whatever value/truths from these religious views that can be salvaged in the human heart and used by God to drive one to a need for Him is only a concern to the missionary, I would think, both before the proclamation of the gospel (it'd help to understand the views) and during the proclamation of the gospel (you'd have an idea how to relate to the unsaved.)

The salvation after death? Well, I don't think the NT teaches that. That Jesus may have set captives free after he dies (those in Hades) is only to say that they were already "saved" but had to wait for the Christ to die. Otherwise, "It is appointed unto man once to die (okay, so a few folk came and went more than once--ala Lazareth) and then the judgment" seems contextually pretty straight forward.

Finally, as far as addressing humanity's problem as either important or not important to this discussion, it's pretty much a no-brainer. However, Tom, I understand why you asked the question. I'm just trenching in on the fact as concrete.

My thoughts on this for the discussion,

Starkman

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 4/24/2003 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

TGB (from October, '02):

quote:
I kind of sense that the whole inclusivist/exclusivist/restrictivist debate . . . is what I’ll be setting my sights on next. So, I want to give myself plenty of time, say, a year (like I did with the open view) to survey the landscape and research the questions and issues before settling into a view. I hope I settle into a view!

Hey TGB, I was reminded of this thread while reading the "Am I really a Christian?" thread. Are you still surveying the landscape? I know it hasn't been a year yet, but any tentative conclusions?

(Just thought you might want to talk about something besides openness.

Seriously, though, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.)

Thanks,

JET

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 4/24/2003 6:53 PM (GMT -6)

I wasn't around for this topic the first time around....

Could someone explain #4 to me. It doesn't make sense to me in terms of an omnipotent God. Why would we not all experience salvation? or do we? Maybe I'm not reading it in the right context....

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/24/2003 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

JET-

Amazing that you'd pull this thread up. I pulled it up last night in relation to Leila's thread also!

I'm also looking for a thread where I made some comments about Rom. 1 and I can't find it anywhere. Still looking.

Fyodor, a really quick answer to your question would be: The "all which God can do" to bring people to salvation is conditioned upon the rules God set up at creation, rules which define the paramenters of our free will, how far God "let's" himself go, given his goals, to save people. If we understand God's abilities absolutely, God is certainly "capable" of riding across the night sky in a chariot of fire with a loud speaker, or of granting every single human being a vision, or dream. Why doesn't he? I think it's because

a) this sort of "overwhelming" approach is something God agreed with himself would not become his standard way of getting people to choose him (God seems to prefer to give us enough evidence to believe in by faith if we are 'willing,' which is also enough to reject should we be 'unwilling'); and...

b) sometimes God may want to take a particular action regarding the salvation of others but not be able to because the required cooperation on the part of his people is not there. God has limited himself in some ways to the willingness of others to partner with him. Open theists like to champion this aspect of the open view with regard to a lot of things, but it seems they don't like to, or have yet to, work out it's implications for missiology. We don't want to believe people's going to heaven or hell might depend upon other people partnering with God.

Ezekiel 22 is an example of God not executing a particular course of action he DESIRED to and was CAPABLE OF executing because he could find no one to partner with him. The action wasn't installing a king or finding a lost donkey, it was saving a nation. In a soteriological/missiological context, God was willing and prepared to spare the guilty but could not because others who were in a place to partner with God in actualizing God's desires and plan were absent from the picture.

I'm still working through this too.

(Now, where are those comments on Rom. 1?...)

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 04/25/2003 2:04:22 PM

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 4/25/2003 8:08 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Fyodor, a really quick answer to your question would be: The "all which God can do" to bring people to salvation is conditioned upon the rules God set up at creation, rules which define the paramenters of our free will, how far God "let's" himself go, given his goals, to save people.

Thanks Tom,

That was exactly my hang-up.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:35 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual