Lots of good stuff in this lecture. Sort of something you'd think would be rare, but again, like pluralism, I think a lot of people have this sort of liberal view. Another thing- you'll notice a lot of reference to scripture. That's because Pluralists don't consider the Bible to be truth. With them we had to go the logic route. When it comes to Inclusivists- they're claiming to be Christians, and therefore also claim to believe scripture to be true. Nash's entire case is pretty much using scripture to break down their argument. Granted- if they ever give up, and resort to believing that scripture is untrue- then you'll need to go a different route. For now though, here's what Nash has:
A. Inclusivism: No one can be saved apart from Christ, but- you don't have to know about it or believe in him to be saved.
B. "General Revelation"- A general idea of God's existence or our own mortality (things like that) that can be taken from nature. You could almost call them presuppositions. Sometimes they are things we instinctively know. But they're not specific. Hence the "general".
"Specific Revelation"- The biggest example would be the Bible- God's inspired word. It's not a general inkling of God's existence- it's his specific story. It's not limited to this though- miracles, the work of the holy spirit, visions, charismatic gifts, etc. are also examples.
Further reading: http://carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-general-and-special-revelation
1. Is there anything in scripture, at all, to support General Revelation?
Absolutely not. Romans 1 explains that the only real reason for General Revelation is to give man-kind a fair chance at discovering God- and Special Revelation. That way- no one can blame God for not being saved. He's practically handing us his existence on a platter- but it's our choice what to do with that.
2. Claim: The content of the Christian Gospel is culturally relative.
False. Paul- in just about every one of his letters- says over and over again- a relationship with Jesus is the only way to Salvation. Some try to claim that this Gospel works for certain people, or can be "applied" to certain cultural groups (such as the Corinthians or Philippians etc.). The implication in that would be that regardless of who believes it, the truth can be preserved. This is heresy. People who claim this are not only slaves to a paradigm- they cannot be Christians. Yes, the death of Christ saved sinners- but we've got to enter those gates. He's not forcing us in.
3. Isn't faith what matters? Regardless of what it's in?
No. Jesus matters. Faith is important- but Jesus precedes that. If you put your faith in anything but Christ- you are putting your faith into nothing. This completely tears out the heart of the Gospel.
Note: Here Nash goes on a rant about the Vatican, and the Pope, talking about their shift to Inclusivist views. This lecture was recorded in 2001, so I did a little research to check the accuracy. I trust Nash to make this claim, because I'm guessing he's researched the crud out of it. As for the claim holding true today, I have no clue. I tried to do some research, and found a whole bunch of random stuff. My head is spinning. Feel free to comment though, if you know anything about the Vatican's current stance on this.
C: What about Old Testament believers, they were saved without Christ right?
Yes, but now that Christ has come, things have changed a bit. We're considered a part of the New Testament set of believers, so we need Jesus. Period.
D. Here Nash talks about Holy Pagans. I have notes on it- but I'm not even going to type them out. People who are nice enough to read this thing don't want a 10 minute rant on this topic. It's not that interesting. Really. If you want to hear about it, here's the link: http://www.biblicaltraining.org/inclusivism/christian-apologetics
E. Infant Salvation: What about babies that die? Since they don't believe, are they condemned?
(I find it interesting that Nash includes this in here. It is applicable, but considering he wrote an entire book on the topic, I'm just surprised he doesn't take more time on it. Here's his short and condensed version...)
No. Infants are the elect of God- they are his personal creation- his work of art. At this point- they haven't sinned. (This doesn't exclude natural sin- the kind we're born with. I'll get to that in a second). Because infants are the elect of God, if they pass away as infants, they go to heaven. Salvation is totally the work of God- nothing we do saves us. In the same way that God saves us, he chooses to save these infants- who cannot choose to accept or decline his salvation. He gives them the faith to be saved.
I'm splitting this into two parts because this was all I could get typed today. More tomorrow on Inclusivism.
I think the phrase "Holds scripture to be true" needs a bit more specification. We tend to use that phrase a lot, but what do we mean by it?
ReplyDeleteDo we mean that every single verse can be interpreted literally?
Do we mean that we have to understand Hebrew and Greek metaphors, and thus the bible isn't straight 'literal', but its meaning must be interpreted?
Do we mean that the bible gives some historical facts, some of which are true and some aren't?
Do we mean that the bible is an entire lie, and the entirety of it is made up?
Do we mean that the history isn't true, but the morality of the bible is good?
I think the question of "This group holds scripture to be true or not true" needs a bit more specification because this will influence their answers to theological questions in a very significant way.
Hmmm. That's an interesting thought. Nash sort of insinuates that Inclusivists claim to be on the same page as Christians (including our beleifs about scriputre). The question for Inclusivists then becomes, so what do Christians beleive? Well, that it's all truth. Not necessarily that it can be literally interpreted- just that it's God's own word. There could be a lot of semantics that go into that definition, but I think for the purpose of defeating their argument, it's sufficient.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Pluralists go though, I really don't know. I suppose it wouldn't influence the approach of the argument much. It might influence their views on theological questions, but as far as the big idea- there being more than one God, changing that definition doesn't sway that particular point. Our defense then would stay the same- Logical approach versus a Biblical one.
I suppose if you had a Pluralist who claimed to think the morality of the Bible was good, or perhaps thought some things were true and some weren't, then you could tailor your argument to their beliefs. (Maybe by asking which specific parts they didn't beleive in, or which ideas they thought were good, etc.)