The inclusivist view is that Jesus’ death was necessary for all, but people can benefit from the redemptive work of Christ even if they die never hearing about Christ—if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation God has given them. Prominent theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, John Wesley, and C. S. Lewis held this view.
For more on inclusivism, click here:
Those Who Have Never Heard: A Survey of the Major Positions
Several New Testament books mention miracles performed by disciples of Jesus and supernatural gifts possessed by early Christians, such as healing, prophesying, and speaking in tongues. And some early Christians obviously believed they should expect supernatural gifts based on Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:14-16):
After this I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your old men will have dreams, and your young men will see visions. I will even pour out My Spirit on the male and female slaves in those days. I will display wonders in the heavens and on the earth: blood, fire, and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the great and awe-inspiring Day of the LORD comes. Then everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved, for there will be an escape for those on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, as the LORD promised, among the survivors the LORD calls. (Joel 2:28-32)
While we have no way of knowing how widespread the distribution of supernatural gifts was in the first years of the Way (or how widespread the expectation was), supernatural manifestations appear to have been limited in distribution and seem not to have extended beyond the first generation of believers. In fact, I think all supernatural elements of this kind ceased to be a part of Christianity 20-30 years after the resurrection of Christ.
Here’s how I come up with this figure:
The earliest writings in the New Testament are Paul’s epistles, and in his early epistles—1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans—we read quite a bit about miracles and supernatural gifts, but in the later epistles we don’t.
Furthermore, in the book of Hebrews, the author, using past tense, writes that the truth was attested to him and others by those who heard and by God who “also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
Finally, we are told in Acts that Paul had the gift of healing early on—he healed a man in Lystra (~48 CE) and another on Malta (~59 CE)—but in later epistles, he only prays for and gives medical advice to three sick friends: Epaphroditus, Timothy, and Trophimus.
Why did the supernatural cease?
The writer of Hebrews said signs, wonders, and miracles were used by God to confirm the message of salvation, and Paul said his apostolic status was proven with signs, wonders, and miracles. Therefore, I suspect the signs, wonders, and miracles were no longer needed 20-30 years after Christ’s resurrection because the status of the apostles had been confirmed and they had been accepted as such by the early church, and the message of salvation was rapidly spreading.
_______________________________________
Notes:
1. Cessationism is the view that the supernatural and miraculous phenomena and spiritual gifts we see recorded in the Bible–and particularly the New Testament–did not extend beyond the apostolic age.
2. Although there are many charismatic Christians who claim to have miraculous spiritual gifts, there is no documented evidence to support these claims. On the contrary, “healers” such as Benny Hinn have been exposed as frauds, and the studies I’ve seen of tongues confirm it is nothing more than free vocalization, something that is easy for anyone to learn.
3. Identifying Joel’s prophecy of God’s spirit being poured out with the events beginning on the day of Pentecost is somewhat problematic since in Joel’s prophecy, God’s spirit is poured out after God’s people repent, are blessed with immense prosperity, and are told they will never again be put to shame. (Joel 2:19-28)
Related Posts:
Is God’s Spirit literally “in” me?
God’s Representational Indwelling
The good news (gospel) Paul preached to Gentiles was that they could become sons of Abraham and be justified before God if they turned from idols to worship Yahweh and accepted that Jesus died as a propitiation, was raised by God, appeared to many, and was seated at the right hand of God. And once justified, they would be spared from God’s coming wrath.
Paul believed Gentiles could not believe this gospel were it not for the working of God’s spirit upon them, but once they did believe, they would receive the promised Spirit, who would empower them to live holy lives.
Finally, Paul preached that the spirit of God who raised Jesus to eternal life would ensure that all those indwelled by the spirit would also receive immortality.
_______________________________________
Related Posts:
Is God’s Spirit literally “in” me?
Jesus’ gospel or Paul’s gospel
According to Anselm, God is the greatest being conceivable (aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit). Therefore, an adequate concept of God requires that God have a certain degree of various great-making properties (power, goodness, knowledge, etc.).
Furthermore, God must not only possess a certain degree of various great-making properties, but he must also have necessary existence because it’s greater to exist necessarily (in every possible world) than merely contingently.
While this is obviously a strong argument, I find it frustrating that apologists use this to define God based on their conceptions of what great-making properties God must possess and to what degree. For example, William Lane Craig argues God must comprise more than one person or he could not be perfectly loving before creation since he would not have had another person to give love to.
Craig’s argument assumes that if God were a single person and loved himself, his love would not be perfect since the greatest love must be given to another.
While loving self is obviously different from loving others, it’s not obvious to me that it is a lesser form of love. Finally, even if we were able to determine human love of self is less perfect love, it’s not obvious to me that the same would be most likely true for God.
Is there such a thing as moral progress?
We are familiar with the saying, “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice” made famous by Martin Luther King Jr. But is this true? Many argue history shows no clear evidence for moral progress. They say that human nature is the same as it has always been, so moral progress is impossible.
While I agree that it appears human nature is the same as it has always been, I disagree that there is no evidence for moral progress over the course of history. I would point to a greater emphasis on human rights, abolition of slavery in most of the world, greater equality for women, more humane treatment of prisoners, greater access to education, and greater respect and treatment for animals and nature as some markers of moral progress.
This is not to say moral progress happens on a constant or straight trajectory. History has shown that progress has been slow and interspersed with periods of stagnation and even regression.
Can we credit religion for moral progress?
Yes and no. While nearly every religion emphasizes the importance of doing good and avoiding evil, some religious doctrines perpetuate unjust treatment of women and “outsiders.”
On the other hand, it is hard to overemphasize the impact the Judeo-Christian tradition has had on the world. The teaching that humans are created in the image of God is the foundation of inalienable human rights (Natural Law).
Some who point to historical abuses committed in the name of a god argue all moral progress is the result of secular Enlightenment thinking; however, this ignores the progress made before the Enlightenment and the fact that the concept of natural rights and freedoms, which we associate with the Enlightenment, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In summary, I think it is right to speak of moral progress and to say religion is primarily responsible for this progress, but what about all of those throughout history who were treated unjustly (and who continue to be treated unjustly)? Is it just tough luck that the slow “[bend] toward justice” excluded so many?
In the Old Testament book of Job, we read Job’s lament in which he states that justice for the suffering and oppressed is only realized in the grave; in the New Testament, however, we are presented with a new gospel: One day graves will be opened and those who were righteous will be resurrected to eternal life. The gospel of Jesus Christ says the grave is no longer the best that the oppressed can hope for.
_______________________________________
Related Posts:
Paul’s Romans 1 & 2 Argument
Hard-Wired Conscience
Above all, members of church communities should love one another. (Hebrew 15:24; John 13:34, 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10, 13:8; 1 Thess. 3:12, 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11, 4:7, 11; 2 John 5)
In love, members of church communities should…
…encourage one another to avoid sin (Hebrew 3:13)
…consider how to promote love and good deeds amongst one another (Hebrew 10:24-25)
…encourage and build up one another. (1 Thess. 5:11)
…accept one another. (Romans 15:7)
…be patient with one another. (Ephesians 4:2)
…be kind and tenderhearted to one another. (Ephesians 4:32)
…bear with one another. (Colossians 3:13)
…forgive one another. (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13)
…seek good for one another. (1 Thess. 5:15)
…confess sins to one another. (James 5:16)
…serve one another. (Gal 5:13)
…prefer one another in honor. (Romans 12:10)
…regard one another as more important than yourselves. (Philippians 2:3)
…associate with one another regardless of social standing. (Romans 12:16)
…be subject to one another. (Ephesians 5:21)
…clothe [themselves] in humility toward one another. (1 Peter 5:5)
…bear one another’s burdens. (Galatians 6:2)
…speak truth to one another. (Ephesians 4:25)
…comfort one another. (1 Thess. 4:18)
…be hospitable to one another without complaining. (1 Peter 4:9)
As church communities strive to do this, they help form healthy individuals who form healthy families that transform communities.
______________________________________________
Note:
It’s hard for me to see how this type of community can develop when most American Christians only invest one hour per week, and that hour is spent singing a few songs and passively listening to a short sermon.
Jesus taught, and his disciples believed, God’s kingdom would be established on earth in the first century, and he would reign as king in this restored kingdom of Israel (https://muddlingthroughtheuniverse.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/1st-century-21st-century-expectations/).
It obviously didn’t happen, and now, almost two thousand years later, I think it’s worth pondering if God changed his mind, or if he knew all along it wasn’t going to happen.
Let’s consider the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to tell the inhabitants of Nineveh that their city would be overthrown in 40 days (Jonah 3:4); however, because they turned from their evil ways, God relented and did not do what he said he would.
If God knows all aspects of the future, it’s hard to see how he was not being dishonest and deceptive when he stated, unconditionally, that the city would be overthrown. It seems those who argue for unlimited omniscience would have to say that although God fibbed, the end justified the means.
On the other hand, those who believe God knows the future partly as possibilities would say God’s statement of destruction was completely truthful, but when the Ninevites unexpectedly repented, God changed his mind.
Fast forward to AD 29 or 30 when Jesus told his disciples that although he did not know the day or hour of his return, he would return while some of them were still living (Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:28, Mk. 9:1; Mk. 13:30, Lk. 9:27, Lk. 21:32).
Was Jesus wrong as C.S. Lewis posited, or was he saying exactly what God told him to say? If it was the latter, did God already know Jesus would not be returning in the first century, or did God change his mind and not send Jesus back to earth because the Israelites by and large refused to repent?
If it was the latter, when did the resurrected Jesus learn about the change of plans, and how did he take it? Presumably better than Jonah, right?
______________________________________________
Related Posts:
Jesus’ Return & Reign
Open Theism vs. Molinism
Was Jesus Resurrected?
The Bible says Jesus’ closest disciples believed he was raised from the dead because the grave was empty and because he appeared to them after he was raised from the dead.
In addition, two of the Gospels say an angel told the women who went to the tomb that Jesus had been resurrected, one says two angels told the women this, and one Gospel says Mary Magdalene, who was alone at the empty tomb, saw two angels and spoke briefly with them before seeing the risen Jesus and speaking briefly with him.
I think it’s possible one or more female followers of Jesus saw an angel (or angels), but the fact that all of the accounts are different does make it feel like a rumor that changes with each telling. On the other hand, the two factors supporting the angel visitation stories are (1) they appear in some form in all four Gospels (2) if you were going to invent a story involving the supernatural, choosing to have a woman (or women) be the only witness in ancient times was not the best way to make a story convincing (1 Tim 2:8-15).
I do believe Jesus’ disciples discovered an empty tomb, and while that could be evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, it could also be evidence that his body was stolen (https://muddlingthroughtheuniverse.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/stolen-body-hypothesis/).
Three of the Gospels say the resurrected Jesus met with his disciples, and one alludes to a meeting. Paul said the resurrected Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor 15:8); however, it appears Paul’s claim is that he saw Jesus in a vision.
Ancient Jews who believed in resurrection, such as the Pharisees, believed resurrection necessarily involved the reanimation of the corpse, so the idea that a soul could depart from a body would have seemed pagan. Furthermore, the fourth Gospel says that after being resurrected, Jesus’ body still had holes from the nails and spear, and the Gospel of Luke implies this as well. Nevertheless, if Jesus is now in a heavenly realm with spiritual beings, it’s hard to see how he could have a physical body. Perhaps he simply appeared in a body to his disciples in the same way we read in the Torah of angels, who are described as spirits, taking on human forms and even eating food (Gen 19:3). (https://muddlingthroughtheuniverse.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/becoming-like-angels/)
Is it possible a handful of guys in the first century made up the story about the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus?
I think it’s possible but unlikely. There have always been frauds, but you have to ask yourself “What did men like Peter and Paul stand to gain from preaching Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return?” They didn’t get rich. I suppose they upped their social status with some by taking on the title “apostle,” but this title also put a target on their backs. And after their deaths, they were viewed by the majority of their fellow Jews as foolish and misguided blasphemers. (Of course, the growing Gentile Christian church venerated them.)
I think you could make an argument that Peter and a few other close disciples made up the story of Jesus’ appearance(s) post resurrection because they honestly believed he’d been resurrected but felt their personal convictions wouldn’t be enough to convince their countrymen; however, I think that argument falls flat for someone like Paul. I can’t see a highly intelligent anti-Christian Pharisee like Paul becoming the staunchest advocate of the Way without miraculous intervention. It seems to me it would take something on the order of the Damascus road account.
In summary, while I suspect some of the details in the Gospels surrounding Jesus’ resurrection may have been embellished or fabricated, the words and actions of the Apostle Paul strongly suggest supernatural events took place after Jesus’ death convincing Paul beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was raised from the dead.
_________________________________
Related Posts:
Did Jesus have a pre-human existence?
Are the details surrounding Jesus’ birth historically accurate?
When Yahweh Shared His Title
1st-Century & 21st-Century Expectations
Evolutionary creationism posits that God created the universe and life through a design-reflecting evolutionary process.
Evolutionary creationism can be, and often is, embraced by Christians who argue that rather than being random, evolution was planned from the beginning to enable and ensure the forgiveness of sin and redemption through Jesus Christ; however, Christians of this persuasion have differing views regarding divine intervention: Some believe God intervenes regularly as he answers prayers and changes possible outcomes to ensure the fulfillment of his plan. Others believe God frontloaded creation so his desired outcomes would unfold naturally with only a few supernatural interventions, i.e. biblical miracles.
Not all evolutionary creationists, however, are Christians, some are deists. Deists believe in the frontloaded version and say humans can know nothing about God except what our innate intuition and our reasoning tell us. With the exception of God’s initial act of creation, they reject the supernatural. Nevertheless, they say humans have not been left in the dark because God ensured we would have a conscience (intuitions and emotions to discern right from wrong) and the ability to understand both creation and the creator by studying the natural world.
_________________________________
Notes:
1. The term “Evolutionary Creationism” has largely replaced the term “Theistic Evolution.”
2. Some evolutionary creationists believe God supernaturally initiated the beginning of the universe and then later supernaturally initiated the beginning of life.
3. The God envisioned by evolutionary creationists would have to be an uncaused, beginningless, spaceless, and timeless being.
Related Posts:
The Big Bang and Creation
Evolution Is Evolving
Atheists often accuse theists of employing “God of the gaps” argumentation when theists posit a supernatural explanation for phenomena that science cannot adequately explain, such as “why is there something rather than nothing?” or “how can materialism account for consciousness?” But if, given all available evidence, the existence of a supernatural being is the best explanation for something, then accepting this is both rational and reasonable.
We should certainly go where the science leads, and we should expect our knowledge of the universe to expand with technological advancements; however, we must also recognize that science can go no further than human intellect. We should also be open to the possibility that if the supernatural exists, it is by definition beyond the realm of observation and experimentation. Therefore, going where the evidence leads is more prudent than just going where the science leads.
Finally, intellectual honesty requires both the theist and the atheist to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In addition, humility requires us all to recognize that beliefs deemed most reasonable today could be rendered unreasonable by future discoveries, and it’s likely there are some things we will never know.
Muddling Through the Universe 