What do you think?
Rate this book
Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism
What about those who have never heard? The debate swirls and feelings run deep. What is the fate of the unevangelized? The traditional position--that apart from an explicit faith in Jesus no one is saved--seems to have fallen out of favor with many evangelicals. Here is a passionate but irenic response to the arguments of those who believe that the unevangelized can (or might) be saved apart from knowledge of Jesus Christ. Building on the insights of others, nine scholars introduce readers, even those with little background, to the ongoing discussion. Key questions--Is general revelation sufficient? Are other religions salvific? Do holy pagans exist? Must faith be explicit? Is exclusivism unjust?--are probed and answered from a biblical, theological and historical perspective. The book's positive thrust is summed up by editors Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan : "God is passionately engaged in gathering people to know, love and worship him from every tribe, language, people and nation. And he has called us to join him on this mission."
- GenresTheologyBiblical Studies
270 pages, Paperback
First published February 18, 2008
6 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 28, 2014
This is definitely the sort of book that needs half-stars. This is a 3.5 star book, but I rounded down. As the title implies, this book is a response to "inclusivism," the belief that although Jesus is the only means of salvation, you needn't necessarily believe in him explicitly to be saved. Don't confuse it with pluralism (there are multiple ways to God) or universalism (Jesus saves everyone). Inclusivists believe people who have never heard the gospel can be saved.
The problem with the book is that the worst two chapters were Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. So you had to struggle just to pick up steam. But once you did, the rest was quite good. Subsequent chapters answered things like, Is general revelation sufficient to provide saving knowledge? Is exclusivism compatible with God's character? Are there "holy pagans" in the OT who were saved without faith in the promised Seed/Messiah? Does the NT really require explicitly calling upon the name of Christ to be saved? How does inclusivism affect missions?
Even if you're not struggling or dealing with inclusivism, this is a good book to read, for it sharpens your understanding of how salvation works, how OT saints were saved, etc.
The problem with the book is that the worst two chapters were Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. So you had to struggle just to pick up steam. But once you did, the rest was quite good. Subsequent chapters answered things like, Is general revelation sufficient to provide saving knowledge? Is exclusivism compatible with God's character? Are there "holy pagans" in the OT who were saved without faith in the promised Seed/Messiah? Does the NT really require explicitly calling upon the name of Christ to be saved? How does inclusivism affect missions?
Even if you're not struggling or dealing with inclusivism, this is a good book to read, for it sharpens your understanding of how salvation works, how OT saints were saved, etc.
March 18, 2020
Looking for answers to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, I looked to this book. The relevant chapters were chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 3 begins by completely assuming that General Revelation, of some sort, exists. The author flat out states a few paragraphs in that he will assume this, and provide no evidence of it. This is not that useful if it assumes the conclusions that need proving.
He then asserts that God has revealed enough knowledge through General Revelation to damn everyone to hell, but not enough to save anyone to heaven. This is in stark contrast to the objections raised by the inclusivists, whose objections the author includes in this chapter. The objections raise questions about how God can be considered a just God if this were true.
Chapter 4 tries to answer these objections. To answer them, the author tries to address the Problem of Evil. His first point in defense is to ultimately say everyone deserves every bad thing that ever happened to them. Furthermore, this is also the justification for why God is a bystander to all evil acts. I hope it goes without saying that acting as a bystander to rape and genocide just because "they deserve it" because they're guilty of something trivial is wholly wrong and immoral. I stopped reading the book after that. This is a terrible book, and I hope you don't burden yourself by reading it.
TLDR; This book assumes the conclusion, and justifies it by saying rape victims deserve to be raped.
Chapter 3 begins by completely assuming that General Revelation, of some sort, exists. The author flat out states a few paragraphs in that he will assume this, and provide no evidence of it. This is not that useful if it assumes the conclusions that need proving.
He then asserts that God has revealed enough knowledge through General Revelation to damn everyone to hell, but not enough to save anyone to heaven. This is in stark contrast to the objections raised by the inclusivists, whose objections the author includes in this chapter. The objections raise questions about how God can be considered a just God if this were true.
Chapter 4 tries to answer these objections. To answer them, the author tries to address the Problem of Evil. His first point in defense is to ultimately say everyone deserves every bad thing that ever happened to them. Furthermore, this is also the justification for why God is a bystander to all evil acts. I hope it goes without saying that acting as a bystander to rape and genocide just because "they deserve it" because they're guilty of something trivial is wholly wrong and immoral. I stopped reading the book after that. This is a terrible book, and I hope you don't burden yourself by reading it.
TLDR; This book assumes the conclusion, and justifies it by saying rape victims deserve to be raped.
July 26, 2019
3.5 stars
A collection of essays from an exclusivist view point (conscious faith in Jesus Christ required for salvation) responding to inclusivism (God can save people outside of hearing the gospel).
Well I’m provides the best chapter as far as putting forward a compelling theological and biblical argument for why explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. The essay on theodicy was also very good, as well as Schnabel’s on other religions in the first century.
A collection of essays from an exclusivist view point (conscious faith in Jesus Christ required for salvation) responding to inclusivism (God can save people outside of hearing the gospel).
Well I’m provides the best chapter as far as putting forward a compelling theological and biblical argument for why explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. The essay on theodicy was also very good, as well as Schnabel’s on other religions in the first century.
July 26, 2017
This is a series of essays responding to soteriological inclusivism. The essays are a mixed bag with quite a bit of repetition. Some excellent contributions (especially Strange and Schnabel) follow after a rough start.
March 24, 2020
Could this have been shorter? Yes!
Was it helpful? Yes.
I specifically appreciated the focus on how exclusivity fuels Christian mission.
Was it helpful? Yes.
I specifically appreciated the focus on how exclusivity fuels Christian mission.
September 16, 2016
This book is an absolute powerhouse in destroying the case for inclusivism
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews