The "Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions" is a book authored by Boston College professor Peter Kreeft (Krayfth) and co-authored by R. Tacelli.
As I looked at the webpage for Tim Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian Church today, I saw this book under the recommended resources tab for Apologetics.
This book being recommended by Keller surprised me. I have this book at home, I bought it shortly after my regeneration 5 years ago (a time when I was deeply into evidentiary apologetics). Much of the book is useful, unfortunately there is a large theological problem expounded upon in the book which is very serious.
The issue which I believe is heterodox and which is advocated in "HofCA" is Christian Inclusivism. Inclusivism is the theory that why Christ is the only way to salvation, one does not need to know of him to be saved. This translates into the idea that salvation is possible for those of different religions, if they are sincere and good devotees that seek truth (as they have access to it) and strive to live a moral life, they can make it into eternal life. This indirect and unknowing way to heaven is said to still hinge on what Jesus did, even if the one saved never hears the gospel, thus the Christian moniker.
I guess I should not be terribly surprised by the fact that Kreeft holds this view. He is a Roman Catholic and this view was offically dictated at Vatican II. He does go into much further detail on this in his book "Ecumenical Jihad," which describes his belief that he will enter heaven one day to be greeted by people like Buddha, Mohammed, and Confucius. See this LINK for a review of that book. Its a sharp and thought-provoking review, be warned.
The weird thing for me is that Tim Keller is endorsing a book with Inclusivistic claims. As a PCA pastor, I know that Keller is a conservative, Reformed, exclusivist at heart. Whay he would recommend a Kreeft book is beyond me.
Of course, lots of pastors quote another inclusivists on a regular basis and they may not even know it. C.S. Lewis was also a proponent in the idea that we can see Jesus as the underlying means for salvation, if not the understood method. Another famous inclusivist is evangelist Billy Graham. See THIS interview with R. Schuller for his take on the subject.
I can't stand behind inclusivism because the Bible does not teach it. I consider inclusivism a severe misinterpretation of John 14:6 (Jesus says he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life) in light of the rest of the redemptive narrative. If hearing the gospel is unnecessary for salvation, why does Jesus command the Great Commission? Why did so many early saints die for the sake of gospel proclamation? Whats the point of making such a big deal about Jesus if people don't need to know about him to be saved?
I feel that inclusivism is a unbiblical belief that was created to justify the Amrinian view of salvation. It stems from questions like that of the tribesman in the jungle.
"What about the guy who lives in the rainforest and who never hears about Jesus - but, who worships his god(s) sincerely and who tries to live a good life?"
The traditional reformed (that is biblical) answer is that persons who do not hear and trust in the gospel message of Christ's death and resurrection as payment for their sin have not been elected into God's family. They justly perish as a result of their own rebellion, since God is obligated to save none and his grace is his to grant thru Christ alone. See the WCF 8.8 This is why the role of missions and evangelism is so important, regeneration and new birth do not take place except thru faith in the gospel. Without knowledge of Jesus it is impossible to be saved.
Since the libertarian free-will advocates could not abide by the biblical doctrines of sovereign grace and election, they interjected themselves into the equation and made salvation a choice given to us by God that we make effectual by our own decision. This presented a problem for their "tribesmen in the jungle" scenario. If salvation is no longer the sole choice of God, but rather the ultimate decision of man - then, a God who never gives tribesmen the choice of Jesus or not Jesus is unfairly damning that individual (so they would say). Therefore, they skirt the issue by saying that all men have a choice - some have knowledge of Jesus, others only have the knowledge provided to them by general revelation - in either case they can pick the right choice and be saved.
Unfortunately, this last Arminian inclusivistic idea is nowhere in the Scriptures. Putting national Israel aside for a moment (thats a different topic), no one in the NT appears to have been saved without knowing the gospel message of Christ. In fact the Word appears to be pretty clear in the opposite direction. That means that we have no good reason to believe that inclusivism is true. It may seem "nicer" to the fallen side of our nature, but its simply not truth.
At the end of the day I know that we will all eventually reference inclusivists in our messages, blogs, and the like - I just implore us to be careful about which people we quote, the quotes we use, and how deeply we endorse those individuals.
Kreeft is pretty well quoted for a lot of reasons. As you point out, Keller is likely to recommend HoCA for reasons other than Kreeft's inclusivism, much as Keller's recommendation of C.S. Lewis would bear in mind that Lewis wrote both Mere Christianity and The Last Battle. I wouldn't make too much of this.
ReplyDeleteAs for your recent critiques of Arminianism, I have a few thoughts I think would be best processed over some beer. I say we get some guys together for a beer/theology/smoke night.
Very good. I just write what goes on in my head and I am always open to refinement.
ReplyDeleteTake the leadn good sir and gather the kings men, propose a few possible dates, suggest some good brew and we can make that happen.