The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate - Research Paper Example

Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Pluralism and Exclusivism 3 The Unevangelized Debate 4 Re-examining General Revelation 5 Conclusion 9 References 10 The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate Introduction The intention of this dissertation is to point out the reasons why restrictivism is the orthodox and best view and why inclusivism fails. This is revealed in quite a number of ways. It could be by indicating through the scripture how Christ himself and other authors, that his (Christs) name must be adhered to. Secondly, it is by arguing that inclusivism does not take into consideration the glory of Christs name nor the significance of his name. Thirdly, it is by arguing the case from philosophical point of view and pointing out that inclusivism comes up when we confuse what seems either pleasurable or painful or pleasurable to humans, with what is really good or evil in God’s eyes, and finally by commenting on how inclusivism undermines the great commission1. Pluralism and Exclusivism 2Pluralism can be termed as the belief that all religious ways point to one direction and to one God, even if the belief ways themselves are contradictory. Pluralism says that the agnostics, the unevangelized, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and the tribal religions all lead to the one God. In relation to pluralism, Christ is not wanted on both epistemological and ontological grounds. Exclusivism is the understanding or belief that Christ is the only way to get to God. In Exclusivism there are two considerations, Inclusivism and Restrictivism. Inclusivism would explain that Christ’s atonement is the best way that any human being can be saved, but that one does not essentially necessitate to have knowledge of Christ in order for the atonement to be applied to them. In inclusivism, Christ is required ontologically but not epistemologically. On the other hand, restrictivism is the belief that understanding of and trust in the Gospel is crucial for any human being to be saved. Majority of the evangelists embrace this view. In restrictivism Christ is required ontologically and epistemologically. The Unevangelized Debate 3One of the most challenging theological questions that are considered by the human mind is: what happens to individuals who have not at all had an opportunity to hear about the saving preaching or gospel of Jesus Christ? Are they condemned through without their fault, are they part of the elect without knowing it, or, should they be taken to be within the redemptive activity of our sovereign God? In approaching this argument, Boyd and Eddy, have become entrenched in one of three dissimilar camps4. “The pluralist holds onto the belief that a good number of ways usually lead to God. On the other hand, the inclusivist believes that many ways, primarily those in the global religions, lead to God, and finally, the particularist affirms that there is only one way to God that is through personal faith in Jesus Christ”5. Re-examining General Revelation When it comes to human know how, it is generally believed that Romans 2:14-16 (New Revised Standard Version) gives the basis for Gentiles potentially and most innately cultivating a relationship with God through “the Law that is written in their hearts.” However, there are two significant problems with this view. First, the notion that individuals come to know God by use the works of the Law is contrary to biblical believe (Rom. 3:20, New Revised Standard Version); and second, the witness of the Gentile ethics in this passage occurs not in the in the due course of this life but in the ultimate judgment (Rom. 2:16, New Revised Standard Version). The main idea that comes behind pure inclusivism is not that Christ, or Christ’s cross is not necessary, but that our understanding of that work of sacrifice is not necessary. That is to say, the way of Christ’s work is necessary in an ontological nature but not an epistemological way. One can argue that this is in clear contradiction to Christ’s statement in John 17:3, New Revised Standard Version. Christ openly  says that understanding or knowledge of not only the father, but also of Christ Jesus is what ensures us our eternal life and certainly the word of Christ, God in person, has a strong bearing on the approach of God6. It will moreover be crucial in the same context to talk about just what special and general revelation can do for the individual human estate. The idea behind this is that the paper argues the importance of restrictivism as much as it tears it down the vile ignorance of inclusivism. The importance of salvation in all ages is the death of Christ; the representation of faith in every age is God; the meaning of faith varies in the various dispensations.” “Inclusivism is a way of balancing two truths spoken in the scripture.”7 One of those truths is that Jesus is God’s example of making salvation to be possible; the second is that God has an urge to save all men. Therefore, though it is God’s wish for all men to come to know who He is through Jesus Christ and to understand the potential for a relationship with Him, He is still important to accomplish salvation from Hell for those who do not follow the gospel. Though Inclusivism is derived upon those two facts, one of which is a standard of Arminianism, it should be understood that there exists inclusivists on both sides of the who’s who of salvation arguemeny or debate, among Molinists, Calvinists, and Arminians8. Thinkers from these three camps span comprise of universalism and restrictivism. .     On the same note, it is well understood that Inclusivism, though not held by the many Christians, has all the same had a strong footing in the tradition. Inclusivism has existed as from the days of Justin Martyr and Alexandria held to the credence. Thomas Aquinas is the one of the most significant personalities from the middle Ages to have associated himself with inclusivism. In the reformation time, we have Zwingli, Calvin’s cohort9. Many people believe that the Gospel is universally available. This implies that the Gospel is the historical message that explicitly tells us of who Jesus is and what he did for us. There are many arguments for this position that arises from three dissimilar approaches. There are the Biblical arguments, an argument that concerns the specifics of other cultures and religions, and the other two argument arguments about philosophical consistency. The biblical argument becomes the most important argument of all because it is accompanied by evidence. In this paper the argument can be based on Pauls speech to the Athenians. It gives the most powerful evidences of incluvism. On the hand, the restrictivists use the conversion of the “first Christian Gentile, Cornelius to strengthen their claims”10. However, the argument below tends to prove that they have not been observant enough. In relation to the argument on other religions, I would like to say that the term Inclusivismis is used in two dissimilar positions from different debates, though there is a relation. This merely does with the possibility of salvation for individuals outside of religion. Inclusivism of religion is a position in the debate concerning the fact that there are various religions and it implies that all religions have some truth but there is one above all that comes closest to the reality or describes it perfectly. It can also be stated that there is a weak version of Inclusivism11.     The inclusivist may argue that the verses do not say that one must be condemned if he or she does not confess; it only gives or rather offers a certain way of salvation. Do you really think that if there was a different way God would have been so capricious as to have not talked about it? 12The truth is that God, in his word, has made a plan and the epistemological model by which human beings are saved. The terminology is explicit and clear, one does not have to dig deep to find the ways of salvation, one does not have to twist the meaning or interpretation out of the text due the reason that  it is clear and plain, the way God intends. Moreover, the inclusivists must make their arguments from silence. The inclusivists have to twist the gist out of the content. This is where the rule of “Occurs Razor” applies13. That is to say, it is risky to make if more hard or difficult than it really is. In addition, one must again use scripture to interpret scripture. In John 3:16 (New Revised Standard Version), Christ lays out the outcome of not believing and of believing. All bases are covered by Paul and Christ knows what those bases are. This is not in Christ’s silence arguing for the inclusivist model, but he is simply concentrating of the beneficial half of what Christ had already explained14.                       Conclusion The intention of this paper has been to comment on the pros and cons of the destiny of the evangelized Christ. To do so, the paper has re-examined the character of obvious revelation, among the unevangelized15. Moreover, various things have been clarified.  One is by “recognizing that God is not limited either by the spread of the bible or the activity of the church to accomplish his redemptive purposes in history”16. As God employed the modalities of necessary revelation all through the redemptive history as written in scripture, he is in a position to utilize them today in view of his wish to call   people unto himself (Rev. 5:9, New Revised Standard Version). Thus, no human being is important as he or she may sometimes like to think he or she is. References Baker David. The assurance of things to come (Minnesota: Baker Book House, 2001), 281-294. Boyd Gregory and Eddy Paul. Understanding issues in evangelical theology (Minnesota: Baker academic, 2002), 287. Baker William. Response to the Stone Cambell movement and open theism, 2nd ed. (Texas: Abilene Christian University Press, 2006). Cross Anthony and Porter Stanley. On reducing God to human proportions (New York: Eardmans press, 2003), 111-125. Grenz Stanley. Evangelical theology in a post-theological Era (Grand Rapid, Mich: Baka     Books, 2000), 159-162. Keller Roger and Millet Robert. The destiny of the unevangelized (New York: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 299-325. Sanders John. Theology of divine providence, 2ed. (Downers Grove, III: Intervasity Press, 2007), 12-13. Koop Doug. “Closing the door on open theists.” www.opentheism.info (accessed April 5, 2012). Fackere Gabriel, Nash Ronald and Sanders John. What about those who have never heard? (London: Intervasity press, 2005), 168. Little Christopher. “Toward Solving the Problem of the Unevangelized.” http://www.wmausa.org/Page.aspx?id=150135 (Accessed April 4, 2012). Read More