quote:

---

Well, I dont think it is a coincidence that the two of the greater proponents for Inclusivism (Pinnock and Sanders) are also advocates of Open-theism. To me it would seem that if you have a god that is not able to with true definitiveness discern the future than this would lead to the notion that if he MUST accomodate salvation for all men (In the semi-pelagian notions of Open-theism)then this god ( I use small g because I believe openess advocates deity in a demi-god fashion) who MUSt save by the mission of the gospel than could not do so. He is inhibited by time, location, and deficiency within humanity.
This is why Inclusivists must state one does not need explicitness in their faith or concerning the content of the gospel. They must redefine or neologize the contents of faith and the gospel. So, If these individuals have a differing view of omniscience that is not a consumate omniscience logically it's views that stem from it's ontological disposition towards the biblical God must turn towards it's soteriological disposition of saving humanity.

---

quote:

---

Ronald Nash give the following definition for exclusivism and a formula for inclusivism.

(1)Jesus Christ is the only Savior.

(2) No one can be saved unless he or she knows the Gospel and unless he or she exercises explicit faith in Jesus Christ.

Nash continues, "Inclusivists accept (1) but reject
(2). And exclusivists affirm both (1) and (2)."

So an Inclusivist argues that Christ is the only avenue for salvation but one does not need to know of him or about him for salvation.

So, does Boyd advocate this view is what I was asking?

---

quote:

---

Winghead, what about the possible potentiality of someone knowing Christ, but not knowing his name.That is: for knowing by seeking and believing but not knowing any perticular datum, such as where, when, or even a concrete "if" of God loving that way.

I don't think that would let anyone 'off the hook' in any easy way. Actually, I think that it would be incredable faith!

---

quote:

---

Q. Is Doc an inclusivist or an exclusivist?

A. Neither, he's a universalist

---

Somehow I knew that was coming!

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

quote:

---

Exclusivism sees those saved prior to Calvary or pentecoste as saved by a more theocentric faith that is, by putting faith in Yahweh as God. Therefore, you had others who abandoned their gods to follow the hebrew God with the Israelites. Of course, Christ is stillimplicitly the object in OT faith since he was the pre-incarnate Yahweh.

---

quote:

---

Some open theists are inclusivists, some are restrictivists (statistically, I suspect the majority), some are universal opportunists, and some suspect there will be a post-mortem probationary period (sorry Seymour, no universalists I know of). I lean most to the post-mortem view.

---

Doc, could you define these other terms -- i.e., "restrictivist," "universal opportunists", and "post-mortem probationary"? From the sound of it, the post-mortem position might be one that says that everyone will be given a chance to respond to the truth, if they haven't had a chace already, after they die. Is this right?

Gus, regarding the your definition of "inclusivist/exclusivist", I have been thinking. It seems to me that these definitions setup a false dicotomoy. If premise 1 is accepted, and you admit inclusivist are evangelistic, it seems that the shortest distance to salvation is to present a Christ centric gospel message. The particulars of a Christian/Biblical world view along with the message of God's love for the world and His means of salvation seem more compelling than any alternative "message" I can think of. Pinnock's message is not so much to deny your premise 2, but rather, that we don't have to be anal-retentive in our gospel presentation in order to have salvivic results.

A key component, and one not taken into account by the definition you provided, is the Holy Spirit. Pinnock seems to argue that the Holy Spirit is more broadly active in redemptive ways than a more exclusivistic view would allow for.

That said, I am curious to hear Doc's definitions, to see if one of the other views fits my position better. It will also be interesting to hear how you respond to those positions.

In Christ,
Winghead


"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

quote:

---

What you call anal-rententive Paul called the only gospel which can avail to salvation. No what Pinnock suggests is that epsitemology concerning the gospel is not necessary for salvation nor is knowledge of Christ. You must read his book as well as the four views book.

---

Help me out. Please cite to where in Paul's writings you are referring. These types of discussions are much easier if we are both talking about the same texts. Even then, we may disagree how to interpret them, but it doesn't hurt to try to at least start on the "same page".

Talking about the "same page", which Four Views book are you referring to? I have not read the one on salvation.

quote:

---

Essentially, I am causing ones to lose salvation for the sheer fact that they may reject the gospel. They had a better chance at salvation by their ignorance since they were not availed the opportunity to reject the gospel.

---

This statement does not make sense. I assume that by "essentially" you are giving us you assessment or commentary on what Sanders is saying. This statement is like us saying we should sin so grace can abound. However, the fundamental flaw in that assumption is that salvation is not put at risk by giving a gospel presentation, but rather the gospel is "the power of God for savation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:16).

Salvation has always been received through faith and the object of faith has always been God. The gospel might reveal a lack of faith (Heb 4:12), but one cannot be accused of jepardizing faith by presenting the Gospel.

quote:

---

The god who cannot transcend location, environment, human fallacy and time must make acceptions for these flaws.

---

One of the things I have observed is that many opponents of the OV (or Arminianism, or most any other theology you can think of) like to extrapolate other people's views out beyond the point where they themselves take them. When discussing the "classical" vs. "open" views, we are not talking about the nature of "god" as if it is just one god of many, but rather the Creator God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In a similar way your above statement goes WAY beyond the claims of the OV. If you are going to engage a person's theology, you must engage it. You gain no converts by setting up strawmen. That said, I am anxious to get more definitions views mentioned by Greg.

Yours in Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

quote:

---

One of the things I have observed is that many opponents of ....(I say fill in the blank!)..... like to extrapolate other people's views out beyond the point where they themselves take them. When discussing . . . we are not talking about the nature of "god" as if it is just one god of many, but rather the Creator God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In a similar way your above statement goes WAY beyond the claims of the OV. If you are going to engage a person's theology, you must engage it.

---

quote:

---

Essentially, I am causing ones to lose salvation for the sheer fact that they may reject the gospel. They had a better chance at salvation by their ignorance since they were not availed the opportunity to reject the gospel.

---