4 Irenaeus in the Hands of Soteriological Inclusivists

Irenaeus in the Hands of Soteriological Inclusivists: Validation or Tendentious Historiography? Todd L. Miles Todd L. Miles is Assistant Professor of Introduction which must be rooted in faithful exegesis Theology at Western Seminary in Port- Defending orthodox Christian doc- of God’s inspired word, Holy Scripture. land, Oregon. Miles received his Ph.D. trines does not allow for much creativity. Admittedly, these are broad boundaries, from The Southern Baptist Theological After all, the church has been commanded but they are boundaries nonetheless and Seminary. He has published articles in to contend for, not amend or alter, “the the gospel-defender is faced with the theological journals and is the author of faith once for all delivered to the saints” reality that there are only so many ways Son and Spirit: A Christian Theology of (Jude 3). Faithful contending certainly of saying the same thing. Of course, those Religions (Nashville: Broadman & Hol- demands discernment, wisdom, and who choose to ignore the boundaries do man, forthcoming). knowledge, an ability to listen and detect not face this dilemma. When historical a challenge to the gospel that is often and systematic theology are ignored, all concealed in a pastiche of modern sensi- bets are off, as it were, and the theologian bilities and fallen philosophies. Faithful is limited only by conscience and imagi- contending also requires a Christ-like nation (a troubling thought given the character united with a commitment to fallen nature of humanity). Further, new the Lord; a Spirit-enabled co-mingling of ideas sell well. Sadly, there is not as much grace and truth that is so beautifully and interest in saying the same thing as there remarkably exemplified and personified is in saying something new. What is the in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful defend- faithful contender to do? A critical tool in ing may require creativity in articulation; the gospel-defender’s arsenal is appeal to the ability to present a defense of the gos- church history. If it can be demonstrated pel that communicates to those governed that an idea runs contrary to the histori- by differing worldviews. But because the cal doctrines of the church, then one has faith was “once for all delivered,” that gone a long way towards demonstrating “creativity in articulation” is limited to that the idea does not belong in the “faith expressing truths that have been previ- once for all delivered to the saints.” On ously revealed. Though often difficult the other hand, marshalling the support to discern, creating new ways to say the of church history is an invaluable way of same thing is altogether different than validating a proposal as orthodox. creating new things to say. Making appeals to church tradition has The faithful defense of the gospel always been and is rightfully a powerful comes with boundaries that have histori- technique in demonstrating the validity of cally been governed by systematic theol- a position. One need look no further than ogy, developed throughout the history of the Magisterial Reformers to find appeals the church. Faithful systematic theology to the church fathers used with great must be built upon solid biblical theology, persuasiveness. For example, John Calvin 4 quoted from, among others, Ambrose, Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Augustine, Athanasius, Clement of Rome, Religious Pluralism Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, The emergence of the postmodern age, and Tertullian. His references to Augus- the rise of relativism as the prevailing epis- tine and Athanasius are most insightful, temological standard, and the shrinking because it is through appeal to these men of the world due to rapid advancements in that Calvin sought to make his case that transportation and communications tech- the Roman church had departed from the nology have caused a radical alteration in orthodox faith.1 But the writing of history the theological landscape. The changes (historiography) is by its very nature sub- that have occurred in culture and the jective. Interestingly, Peter Enns explains, academy with regard to the perception of historiography is not the objective restate- the nature and accessibility of truth have ment of facts, but involves a “shaping of occasioned a subsequent call for the revi- these facts for a particular purpose.”2 sioning of evangelical theological method As such, historical appeals can often be and the reformulation of Christian doc- tendentious, distorting historical reality trine. This is perhaps best exemplified for the purpose of garnering support for in Christian theology’s interaction with contemporary proposals. The subjective world religions. “Religious pluralism” no nature of historiography demands that longer simply reflects the recognition that historical appeals be scrutinized for accu- there are a multiplicity of worldviews or racy and legitimacy. that Christianity has to confront the major One area in which the church is strug- religions of the world. Rather, there is a gling to hang on to its doctrinal moor- call for a renewed Christian theology of ings is soteriology and the fate of the religions—an investigation into the bibli- unevangelized. Some are suggesting that cal understanding of world religions and gospel proclamation and conscious faith how the major religions of the world fit in Christ are not necessary for salvation into the redemptive purposes of God.3 because the Holy Spirit is applying the The typical taxonomy for discussing work of Christ to those who do not believe the relationships between salvation, the in Christ (usually through no fault of claims of Jesus Christ, and world religions their own), even in the context of other employs the categories of exclusivism (or religions. In an attempt to validate this particularism), inclusivism, and plural- proposal as orthodox, appeals are made ism. Exclusivism is the historic orthodox to the great Patristic theologian, Irenaeus. Christian position and maintains that If it can be demonstrated that the proposal salvation is possible only through con- is not materially different than what was scious faith in Jesus Christ. Inclusivism being taught by one such as Irenaeus, then argues that one can only be saved by the it can be argued that the proposal is really life, death, and resurrection of Christ, but not a “new proposal” at all, but is part and that conscious faith in the work of Christ parcel of what the church had taught and is not necessary. In other words, inclu- ought to teach today. sivists defend the ontological necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ, but deny the epistemological necessity of conscious faith in Christ for salvation. 5 Religious pluralism rejects the claims of theological hermeneutics in particular) both exclusivists and inclusivists, believ- opens up toward a trinitarianism that is ing that one can find salvation through much more robust than that which has various religious traditions, belief sys- emerged to date from a christological tems, and ethics.4 starting point.”7 Many recent attempts by inclusivists to It is my firm conviction that contrary answer the question of how Christianity to those who assert either an independent and world religions relate center on the work of the Holy Spirit apart from the Son possibility that the Holy Spirit is at work or a work of the Son that is subordinate to in a salvific sense in other religions. These the Spirit in world religions, the roles of proposals are motivated by a struggle Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are inex- over the seemingly irreconcilable axi- tricably linked, and they are linked in this oms that (1) God has a universal salvific way: the Holy Spirit always seeks to glo- will and (2) salvation is based upon the rify the Son. When Jesus said of the Holy historical work of Jesus Christ.5 While Spirit, “He will glorify Me, because He maintaining the work of Christ as the will take from what is Mine and declare it basis for redemption, some inclusivists to you” (John 16:14), Christ was not merely posit that the Spirit could be applying that defining one aspect of the work of the work to individuals apart from conscious Holy Spirit. Rather, he was declaring the faith in Christ. That is, the Holy Spirit is nature of the relationship between him- at work in the world, perhaps even in and self and the Holy Spirit within the broad through world religions, drawing people scope of trinitarian life and redemptive into a reconciled relationship with their history. Therefore, those who posit an Creator apart from the gospel. independent salvific work of the Holy Of course, to make such an asser- Spirit in world religions are denying the tion will require that one engage in a essential relationship of the Son and the fair amount of theological revisionism Spirit in the economic Trinity. That is, I at the Christological, pneumatological, believe that the pneumatological inclusiv- ecclesiological, and soteriological lev- ism posited by some current evangelicals els, just to name a few. Specifically, one fails on the grounds of proper theological must create a hypostatic independence method, historical theology, biblical theol- between the Son and the Spirit in order ogy, and systematic theology. to posit a relative autonomy of the Spirit A full-scale critique of pneumatologi- in his global operations. But evangelicals cal inclusivism at all of those levels lies such as Clark Pinnock and Amos Yong outside the scope of this article but my are not intimidated by the prospects. attempts can be found elsewhere.8 The Indeed, Pinnock suggests, “Let us see purpose of this article is to examine the what results from viewing Christ as an appeals by inclusivists to the theology aspect of the Spirit’s mission, instead of . and writings of Irenaeus to support their viewing Spirit as a function of Christ’s.”6 claims.

Load more