Theological Term of the Week

exclusivism
The teaching that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and faith in him is necessary for salvation.

• From scripture:

  That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:9-14 ESV)

• From the Westminster Larger Catechism:

  Question 60: Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?

  Answer: They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the church.

• From Christian Exclusivism Explained and Defended by Matt Perman:

  Sometimes the question is phrased like this: “What happens to the innocent native in deepest Africa who never hears the gospel?” If one puts it this way, the answer is easy: the innocent person has nothing to worry about! As R.C. Sproul has said, “The innocent native who never hears of Christ is in excellent shape, and we need not be anxious about his redemption. The innocent person doesn’t need to hear of Christ. He has no need of redemption. God never punishes innocent people. The innocent person needs no Savior; he can save himself by his innocence” (Sproul, p. 49).
  
  The problem, however, is that there is no such thing as the innocent native in Africa, or anywhere! The Bible teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23) and “there is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). In fact, the Scriptures go so far as to say that left to ourselves, “there is none who seeks for God” (Romans 3:11).
  
  This leads us to an important principle: the person who has never heard of Christ is already condemned—not because they haven’t accepted a Savior they’ve never heard about, but because they have sinned against what they do know about God. But one may ask, “What has this native known about God that He could reject?” The answer is in the distinction the Bible makes between general revelation and special revelation. Special revelation is the message that Christ died and rose again for sins, and that salvation comes through trusting in Him. This message is only revealed in the Bible, and therefore the only people who get special revelation are those who either hear it from others or read it for themselves. General revelation is “the mute non-verbal witness of the creation that points men to the existence of God” (Robert Morey, Studies in the Atonement, p. 246). Since general revelation is given through nature, all humans are aware of it. The Bible teaches that everyone, through the general revelation of nature, knows that God the Father exists and is holy (Romans 1:18-21) and that they are sinful (Romans 1:32; 2:14-15) and thus are deserving of death (Romans 1:32). Therefore, all humans to ever live, whether they have heard of Christ or not, are guilty and without excuse before God for rejecting what they do know about God (Romans 1:20, 21; 3:23).
  
  This should clear up a huge misunderstanding. Often we think that humanity is in the neutral zone, and that “the only damnable offense against God is the rejection of Christ” (Sproul, p. 50). Thus, it would seem unfair for God to condemn those who have never heard, because they never had the chance to respond to the gospel and commit the “damnable offense” of rejecting Christ. However, we have seen that the Scriptures are clear that we are not neutral, and even those who do not have the Bible are willingly and knowingly guilty of sin and rejecting God. We are sinners by nature (Eph 2:3) and by choice (Romans 6:23) even if we have never heard of Christ (Romans 1:18-32), and thus we are all deserving of condemnation. That is why we need Christ. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:17). So the gospel is sent to save those who are already condemned for reasons independent of the message, not to condemn those who are neutral in the sight of God but are in danger of perishing if they are never exposed to special revelation.
  
  Therefore, “We can rest assured that no one is ever punished for rejecting Christ if they’ve never heard of Him” (Sproul, p. 50). Those who never hear are condemned because they have rejected the general revelation of God the Father in nature that all people without exception receive, not because they have never heard of Christ. Those who never hear are not under condemnation for not knowing about special revelation that they never received, but for rejecting general revelation that they did receive.

Learn more:

1. GotQuestions.org: Inclusivism vs. exclusivism - what does the Bible say?
2. GotQuestions.org: Can a person be saved through general revelation?
3. W. Gary Crampton: Christian Exclusivism
4. J. I. Packer: Salvation sans Jesus
5. John Hendryx: Is Jesus Really the Only Way?
6. Matt Perman: Christian Exclusivism Explained and Defended 
7. Curt Daniel: The Destiny of the Unevangelized (mp3)
8. Kevin DeYoung: Clarifying Inclusivism and Exclusivism

Related terms:

• general revelation
• inclusivism
• universalism
• pluralism
  

Filed under Isms.

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it.

I’m also interested in any suggestions you have for tweaking my definitions or for additional (or better) articles or sermons/lectures for linking. I’ll give you credit and a link back to your blog if I use your suggestion.

Clicking on the Theological Term graphic at the top of this post will take you to a list of all the previous theological terms organized in alphabetical order or by topic.

Book Review: Always Ready

Directions for Defending the Faith, by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Robert R. Booth.

In real life and on the blog, I enjoy discussing and defending my faith. I’ve been told, during these discussions, that I argue like a presuppositionalist. If that’s true, it’s been more by accident than plan, because until recently, I had only a vague idea what the presuppositional method of apologetics was.

But over the past few month, I’ve been educating myself about presuppositional apologetics. Lesson number one was that there is a whole lot of confusion, both in print and on the internet, about  it. I blame part—but not all—of that confusion on some of what’s been written by presuppositionalists explaining and defending a presuppostional approach.  Some of it, frankly, seems unnecessarily unclear.

Click to read more ...

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 24

What do Christians mean when they say the Bible is inerrant? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy tells us what leading inerrantist mean by inerrancy. I’ll be posting a section of this statement each week until I’ve posted the whole thing.

After a preface and a short statement, the Chicago Statement contains the Articles of Affirmation and Denial. (You can read previously posted sections of this statement in by clicking here.) The last section is the Exposition, which “gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.” I think the expostion section, which continues here, is the most interesting—and maybe the best—section of this historic church document.

---

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer’s mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.