×

A second way in which inclusivism capitulates to the current culture is in the position’s unbiblical descriptions of “saving faith.” Today’s world tends to see “faith” as a purely subjective emotion, divorced from objective content and made efficacious by the intensity with which a person exercises belief. Inclusivists tend to see “faith” in the same way as the culture, preferring subjectivity and thereby implicitly denying the importance of faith’s objective content.

Pinnock affirms that “God really cares about faith and not theology, trust and not orthodoxy.” He also upholds what he calls the “faith principle.” The “faith principle” teaches that salvation comes from satisfying the conditions of Hebrews 11:6. Faith as trust saves, not knowledge. Pinnock says, “According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology,” and then adds, “The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.” The inclusivist downplaying of doctrine and theology virtually empties “faith” of all its objective content. What is important is trust in whatever god or whatever light has been given, not a correct understanding of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Pinnock’s proposal runs into problems once one grapples with the fact that historical Christianity affirms a very clear understanding of the identity of “God.” Pinnock naively celebrates the similarities between Christianity and other religions without noting that the very nature of “God” is radically different in the religions he gushes over.

Alister McGrath agrees with Pinnock that cognitive knowledge alone is not regarded as salvific. But McGrath helpfully points out that Christianity’s understanding of God is particular and cannot be harmonized with the notions of “divinity” in other religions.

McGrath affirms that even the notion of “salvation” itself differs considerably from one religion to another. He also exposes the naïve way in which Pinnock uses terms that mean quite different things to different people. The object of faith is indeed important, not just the presence of a generic faith that expresses itself in sincerity alone.

Ronald Nash holds in balance the two necessary aspects of saving faith. First, saving faith must be directed to the right object. Faith that is defined exclusively in subjective terms of generic “trust” and vague “dependence” will lead future generations to the doorstep of Schleiermacher and introduce us to a rerun of classical liberalism.

Secondly, Nash claims that “the proper object of faith must be approached with… sincerity and genuine commitment.” Evangelicals do not affirm a mere “mental assent” to certain key doctrines as salvific. Biblical faith finds its expression in both the objective content of the Christian gospel (the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and the subjective feelings that indicate true heart transformation (trust and sincerity).

Missiologist David Hesselgrave wisely warns against pitting the subjective and objective aspects of faith against each other. “Like hydrogen and oxygen in water, they go together.” The downplaying of creedal faith is one of the characteristics of the current culture. Inclusivism too quickly adopts the cultural definition of “faith” as sincerity and then promotes a “saving faith” that is a generic trust in whatever spiritual light may be available.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

LOAD MORE
Loading