The Takeaway

Gervais details two figures who have promoted a more inclusive view of Christian salvation—Joseph Smith and Henri de Lubac—suggesting that the former provides a more robust theology that aligns with the biblical requirements for both baptism and God’s universal love.

The Summary

In this article, Timothy Gervais examines Christian views on soteriology, the “study of who can be saved”, comparing “universalist” or “pluralist” theologies—those that maintain that all or nearly all of humanity will reconciled to God regardless of their faith—with “inclusivist” ones, which allow for the possibility of salvation for non-Christians while maintaining that salvation is ultimately mediated through Christ. After outlining the historical background of universalist ideas, Gervais details and contrasts two specific figures—Henri de Lubac and Joseph Smith—who are often accused of being universalist but who are better characterized as inclusivist.

Universalist theologies attempt to address the soteriological problem of evil—the uncertain fate of the vast majority of humanity who never heard of Christ. That salvation is exclusive to Christ is a thoroughly biblical proposition, and appears to have been less of a problem for early Christians, who saw great success in spreading the gospel to the known world. This changed when the discovery of the Americas placed renewed focus on the issue. The sixteenth century would see a proposal for the “middle-knowledge” of God, where God would know how people would have responded to the gospel had they received it, and either judged them accordingly or instead had created a world where only those who accepted the gospel would ever hear it. Since the 1800s, universalist-leaning ideas have become the assumed position of many theologians.

As a twentieth century example of this trend, Henri de Lubac argued that “the Son from the very beginning and in every part of the world, gives a more or less obscure revelation of the Father to every creature”. As a Catholic shaped by the horrors of the World Wars, de Lubac saw Christianity as a means of unifying humanity, emphasizing a special connection between Christians and Jews, as supported by early Christian texts, as well as a unity between nature and God as accomplished by an unlimited atonement and actualized by the personal choice to unite with God. His formulation implies that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but nevertheless maintains that the Church is the only banner under which that unity can be achieved.

What de Lubac seemed to lack was a concrete method through which the broad scope of humanity could have access to salvation. The revelations of Joseph Smith provide this concrete method, framed by Gervais as a middle road between universalism and the more exclusionary soteriology offered by Calvinism and Presbyterianism. With spirits capable of progression and growth outside of mortality, having made a pre-mortal choice to follow God, resurrection and some variety of eternal glory will be rewarded to all but a tiny minority of souls, and all have the capacity to be guided by the Light of Christ. Those revelations assert that Christ is the exclusive path through which salvation is offered, with baptism and a testimony of Jesus required for Celestial glory, whether obtained in this life or assisted vicariously while in the next.

As Gervais concludes:

“It is the incredible complexity of the issue that makes Joseph Smith’s soteriological vision so compelling. With no formal theological training, Smith was able to articulate a consistent and systematic soteriological framework that not only addressed this ancient controversy, but anticipated modern concerns that were yet to be explicitly articulated. Smith’s revelations provide clarity and coherence to a subject traditionally rife with paradox and obfuscation.”

The Reflection

I appreciate Gervais outlining a theological vision with which I wasn’t familiar, and one that appears to align well with the familiar outlines of Latter-day Saint thought. One wonders to what extent de Lubac had already become acquainted with the Book of Mormon and the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—he certainly wouldn’t have existed in a theological vacuum, cordoned off from the ideas of the Restoration. The parallels Gervais notes could potentially be explained by a bit of holy envy on the part of de Lubac, as he recognized the power of an inclusive soteriology without necessarily acknowledging the mechanisms that made Joseph Smith’s revelations so compelling. Regardless, that both Smith and De Lubac stand as independent witnesses of a universal—and yet Christ-exclusive—salvation can help us stand firm in the knowledge of those powerful truths, committed to the necessary value of church and ritual while looking forward to the love of God rolling forth across the human landscape.