W. Gary Phillips
Phillips does not embrace the implicit concepts, but he has caught the essence of the implicit faith concept exceptionally well.

This solution [implicit faith] offers a form of inclusivism which reasons that the redemption of the Untold takes place in this life (not in the future or in other possible present worlds), even though there is no explicit choice for Christ. . . . Since God redeemed those who had not heard (who were ignorant of Jesus through no fault of their own), would not God be consistent to extend his mercy also to the Untold . . . ?14

Later, he further describes the theologians of the implicit concept:

. . . they believe that the weight of evidence plus inferences from the character of God (as both just and loving) favor "lenient" inclusivism. In the face of their Judge, some Untold will see their Savior.15

The question which immediately surfaces: Since these concepts bear little resemblance to the New Testament, where did these ideas come from?

Pelagius
The long answer is Pelagius, though there are traces of this in Justin Martyr and the Eastern Church.

In early Britain Pelagius began to postulate a form of salvation by works that roused the ire of Augustine. In a twenty-year polemic against Pelagius, Augustine followed the apostolic pattern set by Paul in his assault on Galatianism in the New Testament. Pelagius advocated "the idea that man can achieve salvation by cooperation with the divine will through his own efforts."16 The word commonly used to describe Pelagianism is heresy.17 As late as 1907, Augustus H. Strong, contaminated with residual Pelegianism is found advocating implicit faith.17a

But, more directly, and more recently, where did these inclusivistic ideas now come from? The short answer is Vatican II.

Vatican II and Universalistic Inclusivism
What theologian Millard Erickson calls "universalistic inclusivism"18 is clearly spelled out in the Vatican II documents. Though the documents fall decidedly short "of the pope's unqualified soteriological universalism,"19 they still have had immense impact.

Those [who have not yet received the gospel] also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds [emphasis added] to do His will as it is known unto them through the dictates of conscience.20

It will be significant later in this paper to remember here that implicit ideas as part of what Erickson calls "universalistic inclusivism" and Hunter refers to as "universalism in a sharply modified form" and Phillips calls "lenient inclusivism" contain latent Galatianism, a propensity toward salvation by works.

Karl Rahner
Rahner is the Roman Catholic theologian who took some of the missiological ideas advocated in Vatican II and formulated a theology to accompany them.21 His concepts of "anonymous Christians" and "baptism by desire"22 became the forerunners of what is now being called implicit faith and implicit Christianity. Rahner's role is pivotal in that he took the latent universalism of Vatican II and popularized it.

Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry

The implicit roots in Vatican II actually reach back several centuries. In the middle 1600s commentators Matthew Poole (1624-1679) and Matthew Henry (1602-1714) both connect implicit faith to the Roman Catholic church. Poole discusses "disputes with the papists against their doctrine of infallibility and implicit faith,"22a

As for Matthew Henry, also with Roman Catholicism in his sights, he advised, "Note, the doctrines of human infallibility, implicit faith, and blind obedience, are not the doctrine of the Bible."22b

Writing in the 1600s as they did, both authors attest to the age of the implicit ideas. Implicitism, like the larger univeralism is not new at all. Rahner was dredging up old mud.

Harold Netland
Netland supplies an interesting bit of background to this discussion when he observes that implicit ideas first gained some kind of evangelical credence when the Lausanne conference failed to repudiate inclusivism. According to Netland, "the Lausanne Covenant was framed in such a manner as to allow for some diversity of opinion on this point."23

The modern emergence of universalistic inclusivism among evangelicals has run an interesting route. Rooted in the Galatianism of the first century and the Pelagianism of the fourth, it was conceived anew in Vatican II. It was advanced by Rahner. It apparently escaped repudiation at Lausanne.

In recent times it has been embraced and advocated by Clark Pinnock and John Sanders.

David Hesselgrave
Describing inclusivism, though not by name, among "current trends and ideas" that Hudson Taylor and A.B. Simpson would find amazing, David Hesselgrave, the missiologist from Trinity Divinity School, in a recent issue of Alliance Life offers a definition of implicit Christianity as follows:

The idea that all people who humbly and sincerely seek God [usually understood to be just a few] will be saved irrespective of whether or not they hear and believe in Jesus Christ.24

Millard Erickson
Erickson, for his part, specifically labels "implicit faith" as one kind of universalistic inclusivism.25 Phillips' term "lenient inclusivism"26 is a little weaker than Erickson's and fails to catch the universalistic nuances emerging from Vatican II and latent within the implicit ideas.

Clark Pinnock
Clark Pinnock is the best known of the implicit theologians. His recent book, A Wideness in God's Mercy, argues against the biblical orthodoxy of past generations and for a much more relaxed view of the lostness of mankind.

We have now refuted the restrictivist view that says that only those who actually confess Jesus in this life can be saved. . . . On the contrary, the Bible teaches that many varieties of unevangelized persons will attain salvation.27

In an article supportive of implicit faith concepts, Pinnock argues, almost tongue-in-cheek, against the commonly held evangelical view of Acts 4:12, i.e., that there is no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.28

His solution: the text refers to physical healing as well as salvation (and salvation does include healing), but he remains silent on the must of the text.

There is a glaring omission in his [Pinnock's] treatment of this verse. Heresies are usually not so wrong in their admissions as they are in their omissions. Dr. Pinnock nowhere deals with the Greek word dei or "must" in this verse. Billy Graham says that many want to leave this same word "must" dei out of John 3:7, where our Lord says, "You must dei be born again."29

Perhaps because of his admitted bias30 Pinnock adopts inclusivist hermeneutics and turns the words of Peter upside down. As Tozer observed on the subject of such zig-zag hermeneutics, "Casuistry is not the possession of Roman Catholic theologians alone."31

John Sanders
As a student of Pinnock, Sanders has written one of the key books on the wider hope. We find him exulting that "inclusivism has representatives from a broader cross-section of the church than any other wider-hope view."32

next