Overview of My Christocentric Theory of Inclusivism

This is an overview of my series of blog posts where I attempt to build a case for a Christocentric theory of soteriological inclusivism.

Or in other words, this is a summary of my attempt to explain how I believe that all people will have a fair opportunity to hear the gospel and experience eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth. However, all who are saved in the end will have clearly put their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior who died for their sins.

Hopefully this series will be able to reassure Christians who worry about God's justice regarding people who never had a chance to hear the gospel. I also aim to give hope to Christians who worry about people they know who died without ever having personally put their faith in Jesus. This is my best understanding of how it might be possible for these people to still be saved, backed up by Scripture and philosophical reasoning.

These posts will make the most sense if they are read in the order listed below, as together, they explore and refute the other alternatives to inclusivism in order to build up to my own theory of Christian inclusivism. Then in the last two posts I deal with a few potential objections to my theory.

Below are links to each post:

The rest of this post includes shorter summaries of these posts, to show the overall flow and logic of my theory of Christian inclusivism. This summary is mostly for people who have read my previous posts and want a refresher of my overall argument, or for people who don't care to see the detailed arguments, evidence, citations, and Bible verses I include in my longer posts.

Post 1: Does God Really Want To Save Everyone?

I begin by laying out the four main perspectives on the question of who will end up being eternally saved. These are:

Exclusivism: only people who believed in Jesus and/or the only true God during their earthly lives will be eternally saved.
Inclusivism: Christianity is the only true faith, but non-Christians can still be saved even if they didn't know about Jesus or believe in him during their earthly lives.
Pluralism: all religions lead people to the same God and teach the same core values, so any religious person can be saved.
Universalism: everyone will be saved, eventually.

Then the rest of first post focuses on refuting exclusivism, by arguing that Scripture says God really does want to save everyone, contra certain theologians who argue that God only wants to save some people.

So we can say that if God really does want everyone to be saved, then we can be sure that everyone will have an opportunity to be eternally saved, somehow.

Post 2: Will God Save Everyone?

In contrast to exclusivism, my second post refutes universalism, because I believe the Bible is also clear that not everyone will be saved.

The most significant problem with universalism is that it denies people the freedom to reject God. This problem appears in the theology of Karl Barth, which I analyze to show that he believed that because Jesus died for everyone, no one can reject God forever. It has already been decided for them that they will love God.

But if they can't say no, then it's not really love, as love must be freely chosen. There would also be severely negative implications for God's character.

At this point we must say that the Bible reveals that although Jesus' death was theoretically enough to redeem every person who has ever lived, and that everyone who ever lived has had or will have a genuine opportunity to be eternally saved (contra exclusivism), not everyone will actually end up being eternally saved (contra universalism).

So it seems we've narrowed down our initial four options to just two: religious pluralism, or inclusivism.

Post 3: But Don't All Religions Lead to Heaven?

In this post, I examine whether religious pluralism is a potential solution to how it might be possible for people who never heard the gospel during their lives to still be eternally saved.

The idea that all religions worship the same God appears to be quite attractive, but there are two main issues with it.

First, even though it seems like religious pluralism is tolerant of people's varying religious beliefs, it is actually intolerant of anyone who holds tightly to their faith's most particular beliefs which, if true, would exclude other religions from also being true. Thus, religious pluralism cannot tolerate the claim that religions actually are different from each other, or admit that different religions teach different things about God.

Second, the Bible is also extremely clear that there is no way for anyone to be saved unless they personally believe in Jesus (e.g., John 14:6, 3:16-18, 3:36, Acts 4:12, Romans 3:22-25, Philippians 2:6-11). Belief in Mohammed, or Moses, or even just believing in one God isn't enough (James 2:19).

So from a Christian perspective, religious pluralism should be ruled out. That means some sort of Christian theory of soteriological inclusivism is necessary to explain all the Bible says about who will be saved. Now the challenge is to figure out how such a theory would work.

Post 4: Can People Choose To Believe In Jesus After Death?

There are three main approaches to inclusivism I've heard, which are:

Each person has an encounter with God/Jesus after death, giving individuals who have not previously had a chance to accept or reject the gospel the opportunity to make their final decision regarding God's offer of salvation then.
God judges people based on what their earthly actions revealed about their hearts being oriented either toward God or away from God.
God judges people based on how they responded to the truths about God that they did have access to during their lives, perhaps through nature, or maybe through otherwise false religions.

This post focuses on the first option.

It does seem logical that if a personal choice to believe in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation, then if that choice can't be made in this life, it must be made after death.

This would be true even for infants and children who died before they could reach an age where they could make that choice for themselves, in order to avoid certain theological and ethical problems. Such a claim may be less comforting to grieving parents, however, I argue that most people who die young will probably not choose to reject Jesus.

Yet the main problem with the idea that people can choose to believe in Jesus after their deaths is that there is no clear biblical evidence for it, even if it seems to be a logical necessity.

Some critics might also cite the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:19-31 to attempt to disprove such a theory. However, I show that it is possible to read this parable in alternative ways which do not require us to reject the possibility that people may be able to be saved by believing in Jesus after they have died.

Christians might also be concerned that this theory could discourage Christians from evangelizing.

A good theory of inclusivism should never say that evangelism is unnecessary. It also shouldn't let people think they are safe when they intentionally put off the decision to believe in Jesus after they do hear the gospel. But I believe we can still say that God must offer everyone a free chance to believe in him either in this life or the next, and that God will do so, if he truly wants everyone to be eternally saved.

However, before we become too attached to this theory of inclusivism, it is worth examining the two other theories mentioned above.

In contrast to the possibility of people believing in Jesus after death, these two theories teach that there are ways that people could still make an equivalent choice in this life, even if they never heard about Jesus or the gospel.

Post 5: Will 'Good' People Be Eternally Saved?

This is probably the most 'common' version of inclusivism, and studies show it is believed by a surprisingly large number of Christians.

However, this theory has major problems, because many Bible verses clearly say that no one will be eternally saved due to their good works, and no one meets God's standard of perfect righteousness, so everyone is worthy of experiencing eternal death.

The Bible is 100% clear that there is absolutely no way for anyone to be saved except by having faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior (John 14:6, John 3:16-18, Acts 4:12). This is the only 'work' we must do (John 6:28-29). This is proven by how the repentant criminal on the cross had no chance to do good works before he died, yet Jesus said the criminal would be with him in paradise (Luke 23:43).

Yet there are also verses that talk about God judging people's works after they die, and these works having some relation to people's eternal salvation (e.g., Romans 2:6-11, Acts 10:34-35, John 5:28-29, Revelation 20:11-13).

So we need to somehow reconcile all these verses, since all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16), and God never lies (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).

In the book of Revelation, it does say that at the final judgment, people's works will be judged (Revelation 20:11-13). Yet what truly matters is whether these people's names are written into the Book of Life (Revelation 20:14-15).

So there are a few possible ways this could all be explained:

The verses talking about righteous people being eternally rewarded are only theoretical, since no one actually meets God's perfect criteria of sinlessness except for Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, Luke 18:19). Then all that matters is whether people believe in Jesus as their Savior, or not.
People's works will reveal whether they had faith in Jesus or not, even if they never heard about him during their lives (e.g., Matthew 25:31-40).

But option number 2 raises a question: just how many good works are necessary to demonstrate that someone had some sort of unconscious or implicit faith in Jesus Christ? The Bible doesn't say.

There is also that one verse which warns that some people who did apparently 'good' works (even in Jesus' name!) will be rejected by Jesus, because he will say he never knew them (Matthew 7:22-23).

The Bible's ambiguity on this topic means that no one can have assurance of salvation by looking at their good works.

Practically, Christians only cause ourselves stress and fear when we attempt to discern whether we have done enough good works to prove that we truly believe in Jesus. This is also true if we think we have to keep on doing good works to prove we are truly saved. I call this idea 'treadmill theology'.

The antidote to 'treadmill theology' is given in Ephesians 1:13-14. This verse is clear that the moment we believe in Jesus, we are guaranteed to have eternal life. So there is no reason to tell Christians that we have to keep doing good works in order to prove our faith is genuine, or keep our salvation.

Now I can propose a basic outline of my theory of inclusivism which I believe can address all the categories of verses mentioned thus far.

A Working Theory of Inclusivism

One possible way to reconcile all of these verses raised so far would be to say that if someone loves Love, as demonstrated at least sometimes during their lives by how they acted, that might be a way for people who never knew about Jesus to still be eternally saved.

This argument is based on the connection between how the Bible says God is love (1 John 4:8, 4:16), all the Old Testament law being summed up as loving God and loving others (Matthew 22:37-40), and Jesus' comments about how if we love him, we will obey his commandments (John 14:15).

However, for completeness, we should examine the third possibility for Christian inclusivism, which is that people may be able to learn enough about God to put their faith in him during this life, even if they never heard the Christian gospel.

Post 6: Are There Divine Truths in Nature or Other Religions?

There are Bible verses which talk about how people can know something about God from observing nature. Paul specifically mentions that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" should be known to everyone from nature (Romans 1:19-20).

From an apologetic perspective, there are good scientific arguments that support the idea that the universe and life on Earth were intelligently designed by a creative God.

But the Bible is not optimistic about the possibility that people can be saved based only what they see of God in nature. Instead, the Bible seems to say that divine revelation through nature simply means that people have no excuse for not believing in God (Romans 1:18-23).

Furthermore, it is obvious that nature does not reveal the details of the gospel message, such as that Jesus was God's divine Son who came to live as a human being and die for humanity's sins, so that anyone who believes in him can have eternal life (John 3:16).

So if nature isn't a great way for people to learn about God, then what about other religions? Might there be enough truths about God in otherwise 'false' religions that someone could still come to know enough about God to be eternally saved?

I look at some Christian theologians who have suggested this as a possibility, and critique their arguments. The main issue is there are no clear examples in the Bible of someone who was actually worshipping a false god, but who was saved because of the 'truth' that was still found in this false religion, without that person giving up their false religion and turning to put their faith in the true God.

I also argue that even if some divine 'truths' may have been passed down through the generations in otherwise 'false' religions, these truths are likely only useful for preparing people to hear the gospel, rather than being a substitute for the gospel.

In conclusion, I do not believe that there is enough divine truth in nature or in otherwise false religions for people to be eternally saved.

In the next post I'll give a summary of my detailed theory of Christian inclusivism.

Post 7: My Theory of Christian Inclusivism

This post is where I lay out my detailed theory of Christian inclusivism by building an argument from the basic statement that God is Love (1 John 4:8, 4:16). From this foundation, and with support from other relevant Bible verses, I believe we can logically derive the following points:

God created humanity in order for him to enjoy participating in loving relationships with people.
People are designed to be happiest when we love God and love others, and are loved by God and by others.
Because God is perfect love, God also requires perfect justice to be upheld against people who sin by acting in unloving ways.
God must give people the free will to either love him or reject him.
For those who love him, God will allow this loving relationship to continue forever by giving them eternal life.
The most appropriate and loving fate for those who reject God is eternal annihilation.

Then, based on the gospel message in the Bible, we can say that:

All people are sinners, and humanity as a whole has rejected God back when Adam and Eve sinned.
God loves sinners and wants to forgive them, even if it comes at a cost to himself.
God sent Jesus to die in the place of sinners, so that all sinners can be forgiven if they accept this payment on their personal behalves, by putting their faith in Jesus Christ.
The only way for anyone to be saved is by believing in Jesus as their Savior.
God truly wants to save everyone, and so he will ensure that believing in Jesus is a genuine possibility for all people at some point in their lives, or else, after death, such as at the final judgment.
Those people whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be eternally destroyed.
Those people who do believe in Jesus will live with God forever in the New Heaven and New Earth.

If we compare the above two sets of points, it is clear that the ultimate choice which matters in each case regarding eternal life is either:

to love God, or reject him.
to believe in Jesus as one's personal Savior, or not.

Because God is perfect love, God is also perfectly just, and so these two choices must be, in some way, the same choice. God's justice would ensure there are not different standards regarding eternal salvation for those who hear about Jesus and those who do not.

I argue that if people have loved Love in their hearts during their lives, at the final judgment, they will feel sorry about the times when they sinned (i.e., when they did not act in a loving manner), and they will agree with God that they are unworthy of experiencing eternal life as a result of these sins.

Yet God will then present the gospel one last time to everyone. Those people who love Love will respond to God's demonstration of love in the gospel, and will believe in Jesus as their Savior, and so they will be eternally saved.

Those who do not love Love will not respond to God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. At this point, they will have hardened themselves beyond anyone's ability to persuade them to believe the gospel. They will only be fit for eternal destruction.

So in the end, it will be true that everyone who is eternally saved will be saved only because Jesus died for their sins, and because they had faith in Jesus as their Savior. No one will be saved because of their good works, or because of their faith in other religions, or because of what hints of divine truth they may have seen in nature or in otherwise false religions. There truly is no other name besides Jesus by which people will be eternally saved (Acts 4:12, John 14:6).

In this way, I believe that all these different Bible verses about the final judgment, good works, sin, salvation, and faith in Jesus that sometimes appear to conflict can actually all be true at the same time. My theory of soteriological inclusivism upholds the gospel as absolutely central, while ensuring that God's love, goodness, justice, and mercy are also maximized because everyone gets a fair and equal opportunity to be eternally saved.

Against critics who would argue that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man disproves my theory, I argue that all this parable may indicate is that those who reject what they know about God in this life will be unlikely to change their minds in the afterlife, even at the final judgment.

Another criticism of my theory might be that there is no reason to be a Christian now, if people can wait until the final judgment to believe in Jesus. In response, I point out many blessings that people gain in this life by becoming Christians now, and how it is a privilege to be God's ambassadors to the rest of the world by sharing the gospel with others (2 Corinthians 5:19-20, NLT).

However, if my theory is true, we can evangelize without being afraid of what might happen if people don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime, and without threatening them that they must believe in Jesus during this lifetime, or else...

The next two blog posts in this series address two major questions that might be raised by my theory:

Why would a loving God let anyone reject him, if God knows that doing so is not in their best interest?
Why would anyone choose to reject God at the very end, if they know it will lead to their eternal destruction?

Post 8: Why God Lets People Reject Him

In this post, I answer the question of why a loving God would let people finally reject him, when it is clear that doing so is not in their eternal best interest.

I explain why the idea of human free will is so important theologically, in order to uphold the idea of God's perfect goodness, and ensure that God is not responsible for human sin, although he had to ensure that sin was a possibility.

These critical points are illustrated by looking at the example of Adam and Eve and the first sin, and why God couldn't prevent them from sinning if he gave them free will. I also show how their sin was at its core, a choice to doubt God's goodness and reject him as their God.

Thus, as I have claimed several times throughout this series, the reason why God gives people free will is so that their love of him would be genuine. I illustrate this point with several analogies from human relationships that can help us understand why God had to give all people the ability to reject him, if they so choose.

Post 9: Why Would Anyone Reject God?

Some critics might say that as soon as anyone comes face to face with God, such as at the final judgment, no one could possibly choose to reject him. Yet if this were true, then we no longer have free will. Without genuine free will, we are back to all of the issues I discussed in my previous post.

So this post will attempt to understand how and why some people will still choose to reject God, even at the final judgment.

I believe insight can be found once again by returning to the story of Adam and Eve, and examining what it was that motivated them to sin. The reason they sinned is ultimately the same reason why people will choose to reject God, even if it leads them to face eternal destruction in the Lake of Fire.

In order to sin, we must tell ourselves that we know better than God does what is ultimately best for us. Simultaneously, we also slander God's character by saying to ourselves that God is not perfectly wise, good, or loving, because he is trying to keep us from experiencing the happiness that we could gain from sinning.

Critics would say that people should learn from experience that sin only leads to misery, such that eventually, everyone should realize that choosing God is the right path. Yet I refute this argument by examining the story of Pharaoh and the ten plagues of Egypt.

In the end, I propose that the major difference between people who are saved and people who will be eternally destroyed comes down to pride.

It is only people who insist that they are right and that God is wrong who will reject God's final offer of salvation. They will effectively reject God's assessment of their situation and call him a liar. They will refuse to humbly admit that they are sinners in need of a Savior, and that their good works could never earn eternal life.

Yet such a choice to reject God is ultimately irrational, considering that eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth will be better than anything anyone can imagine, and it only requires us to believe that Jesus died for our sins. To learn more about this, see my post about how you can have eternal life for free, right now!

Conclusion to My Series on Inclusivism

However it works out, the Bible is clear that God truly does want to save everyone, and so somehow, we can trust that God will ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to be eternally saved. Yet everyone who is saved will be saved only on the basis of putting their faith in Jesus.

I believe I have offered a theory of Christian inclusivism which can withstand the major objections that critics might raise against it, as well as account for all the relevant Bible verses I'm aware of.

I also believe this theory does not discourage evangelism or downplay the great commission (Matthew 28:19-20), as there are many blessings that Christians gain in this life right now.

For example, one main blessing is that Christians no longer have to fear death. Christians can also gain eternal rewards by serving God with our lives now.

So if Christians love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39), we should want as many people to also gain all of these benefits by believing in Jesus right now.

That way, they will also go with us to heaven when the Rapture happens, along with all other Christians.

In this way, we will be blessed to avoid being on Earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10), which Jesus said will be the worst time in the entire history of the world (Matthew 24:21-22). And the signs of the end times are showing that the Tribulation could begin very soon, even though it appears that on the surface, everything is going along just like normal.

Yet even if our loved ones do not accept Jesus right now, they will still have a chance to, provided that they do not take the Mark of the Beast or worship the Antichrist during the Tribulation. As soon as anyone takes the Mark of the Beast, they will have no opportunity to be saved at the final judgment, and are instead doomed to face eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 14:9-11).

Of course, no one's theology is perfect in this life (1 Corinthians 13:12), and so I am always open to hearing other potential criticisms of my theory. I would also love to hear if there are any Bible verses that readers believe I have overlooked, or which have not been sufficiently addressed by my theory. My email can be found on the 'About Me' page.

Continually Sharpening

A theological blog by Dr. Janelle Zeeb