Inclusivism Vs. Exclusivism

My husband and I have really enjoyed your teachings and they have caused us to grow and seek God more than ever. I am writing with a question regarding the view of “inclusivism” or “universalism”. Do you know anything about it?

Q. My husband and I have really enjoyed your teachings and they have caused us to grow and seek God more than ever. I am writing with a question regarding the view of “inclusivism” or “universalism”. Do you know anything about it? Is it biblically sound? Our understanding of it is that Christ died for all and therefore all are saved, regardless of religion or belief system. Is this true? Will we be seeing Hindus and Muslims in heaven? Any info you have would be greatly appreciated.

A. I think you’ve defined inclusivism pretty well. The general idea is that although salvation is only available to man because of the death of Jesus, as long as a person sincerely petitions his or her deity for forgiveness, the Lord’s gift of grace would apply. At the beginning, this was liberal theology’s answer to the question about the disposition of people who never hear the gospel. But I think that inclusivism has lately been broadened to include all those who sincerely believe in some divine being, whether they’ve heard the gospel or not.

It’s true that with His death, Jesus took away the sins of the world, (John 1:29) so in effect everyone’s debt of sin has been paid. Exclusivists say that each of us has to petition the Lord personally in order to receive the pardon His death purchased for us, and that if we don’t ask for it we won’t receive it. Belief that His death was sufficient for us is a requirement for salvation, (John 3:16) and asking Him to save us demonstrates that belief. A literal reading of Scripture supports this view.

As with many things Scriptural, we get into trouble applying our logic to God’s ways. We don’t see how the native in the jungle could hear the gospel so we say he doesn’t have to, that as long as he prays to his god, he’s met the requirement.

Here’s how I see it. God is just and fair. He doesn’t hold people responsible for things they couldn’t possibly know. But Romans 1:18-20 says that we’re all responsible to recognize that there’s a Creator. (I’m excluding children too young to understand and the mentally incompetent, who are already under His protection.)

Once someone fulfills that responsibility, God does two things. 1) He places in their heart an undeniable desire to know Him, and 2) He brings someone into their lives to tell them about Him. Just because we don’t see how He could do that, doesn’t mean that He can’t.

If it’s true that that God is Just, that He doesn’t want anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and that belief in Jesus is the requirement for salvation, then everyone has to have the opportunity to make an informed decision about Him. Those who are denied access to Heaven have to know that it’s because they refused his pardon, or else they could legitimately cry “Foul” at the final judgment.

Inclusivism is a dangerous doctrine because it removes the one condition for salvation, the belief that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

By the way, the inclusivist argument that all the Old Testament figures would by excluded by this view is ludicrous. The gospel story appears in numerous places beginning in Genesis, the sacrificial system taught it, and the name of Jesus is splattered all over its pages.