| Posting
# 35
Robin
A. Brace Defends Evangelical Inclusivism
In 1980 I may have been the first person
who developed and published a protestant “Theology of Inclusivism.”
I called it Biblical Universalism (For the basis of this claim see
Postings #13 and 16 and FAQ #5 at this website.).
However, this essay is a better, more extensive,
comprehensive, philosophical, theological and biblical defense of
Evangelical Inclusivism than I have seen anywhere else. It can also
be found at: www.ukapologetics.net/evinc.htm
.
It is presented here with Copyright Permission.
AN
'EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVIST' DEFENDS EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM
by
Robin A. Brace
Reformed minister Neal Punt 's following
comment is undeniably accurate:
"The
leading early church fathers taught that the ‘good news' was that
all persons will be saved (Origin 185 – 254 AD) or that all persons
will be saved except those who reject the salvation that had already
been given to them (Athanasius (293 – 373 AD). The early church
accepted such inclusive views of the plan of salvation for a period
of more than 350 years immediately following the writing of the
New Testament....A change came in the later part of the fourth century
when Pelagius (about 350-418 AD) began to teach that all persons
will be finally lost except those who live in obedience to the law
of God following the example of Christ. Augustine (354-430 AD) taught
that all will be lost except those who were chosen (elected) to
salvation. Ever since then mainline theologians have followed their
example..." (From
A Brief Introduction to Biblical Universalism, Posting One, by Neal
Punt . Full source in Bibliography).
INTRODUCTION
Just what is 'Inclusivism'?
Theologians and Christian writers have
pointed out that there are really only three possible positions
to adopt on the spiritual salvation of the human race, as seen from
an eternal perspective. Here are the positions;
1. Pluralism
All the world religions lead
to God and can save.
2. Exclusivism
Only those who came to God
during the Old Testament era, such as Abraham, and all Elect Christians
since the time of Christ can be saved. Those who were believers
before the coming of Christ are included in the efficacy of His
sacrifice; there is salvation in no other name but that of Christ.
Outside of these groups, there is no salvation. All those who live
and die without accepting Christ will go to Hell whether or not
they ever had the opportunity to hear about Him.
3. Inclusivism
There is salvation in no other
name but that of Christ and those finally saved will only be saved
through Him. Yet, it must be true that - at the end of time - the
majority of the human race will finally be saved since the Scriptures
appear to speak of a final complete triumph of Christ; therefore
God will extend His grace and mercy to many who have a very imperfect
knowledge of Him (Exclusivists would say that God is not interested
in numbers, only in quality, and He only intends saving a minority
of the human race, the remainder being entirely cut off from His
grace). Inclusivists would say that Inclusivism is already clearly
demonstrated in the Old Testament since those saved in the Old Testament
had never heard of Christ. Also, upon the death of his little baby,
David clearly seemed to believe that the child was saved (2 Samuel
12:15-23). Some areas of Exclusivism (not all) would allow for the
salvation of small children and the mentally handicapped, but this
is increasingly being seen as an inconsistency in their position.
A
Defense of Inclusivism.
I propose to defend
the theological position of Inclusivism by making three points:
1. Has God told us everything? (The Danger of 'Systematic Theologies').
I have on my bookshelf
several Systematic Theologies and I would not be without them. They
are an invaluable help in their consideration of the great Bible
doctrines. I have the Calvin, Berkhof, Grenz and Grudem Systematics,
not to mention numerous other theological books. But there are dangers
in these great 'systematics'; I'm afraid such books all too frequently
appear to assume that God has told us everything in the
pages of the Bible - it's just a matter of us doing the necessary
detective work and pulling all of these extraneous 'strands' of
biblical teaching together!
While we can be grateful
that some great Bible-believing theologians have done this, the
danger of a purely human logic being applied to the sacred
Scriptures is often huge. We all tend to like things being neatly
arranged under various headings for ease of reference, and I think
we all dislike untidiness whether we see it in a room (why am I
reminded of our daughter's bedrooms?), or whether we witness it
in a reference work. The great Systematics tend to work by considering
a particular biblical topic, then finding everything within the
Bible on that topic, putting it all together, then coming to a theological
conclusion! Okay, I know I am greatly simplifying the process there,
but that's something of the basic approach. Unfortunately, however,
problems develop when one reaches biblical 'grey areas' - difficult
or unclear Scriptures! Does such and such a Scripture really fit
in here...or is it talking about something slightly different? I'm
afraid that even some of the greatest of these works often appear
to proceed on the assumption that God has told us everything - but
can we be smart enough to piece it all together correctly?
The great theologian
Karl Barth well recognized the danger; he said
"Systematization is always the enemy of true theology."
(From the Questions and Answers session held by Karl Barth
at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1962, some of which is available
here.
)
But I am quite
convinced that God has not - at this present time - revealed everything
to us, there are certain things which He has held back, while perhaps,
dropping a few hints here and there. But if we are proceeding on
an assumption that 'it's all there if we know how to use it' we
may well discover some of these 'hints' but pull them into our logical
doctrinal system. It can somehow just be so mentally satisfying
to do this, because of our innate dislike of randomness and untidiness!
However, ultimately
God transcends human comprehension! He does not operate according
to our standards of logic; compared to God, our processes of deduction
are undoubtedly pitiable at best. The transcendent God is ultimately
incomprehensible to us! Elsewhere on this website we have an article
called; 'Our Mysterious God' which shows that it is an ultimate
folly to think that we can domesticate God. The development
in understanding of the mature Christian after many years of Bible
study is - in truth - never enough for such a person to come to
know very much about God. If we think otherwise, we are really kidding
ourselves!!
Now this does not
mean that we can never understand anything about God of course.
God has graciously revealed many things to us: His righteous character,
His love, His work of Creation, His covenants, most of all the glorious
revelation of Jesus Christ. These are indeed glorious truths which
God has graciously shown to His people. But without question He
has not yet shown us everything, and probably cannot yet
show us everything! Let's keep in mind such Scriptures as Deuteronomy
29:29,
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those
things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever..."
I also think that
we Bible-believing evangelicals have often been the worst at adopting
an 'it's all there, if we can only reference it and organise it'
approach to the study of the Word of God. In this desire for theological
tidiness, one is going to be left with Scriptures which don't appear
to fit anywhere. When we find such Scriptures, I believe that we
should occasionally be prepared to say, 'Hey - this does not fit,
maybe this is something which the Lord simply has not clearly revealed
to us at the present time'. But I am afraid that the tendency to
bring in a 'control belief' from outside that Scripture's context
can be strong. Yes, we have (rightly) criticized the cults and sects
for doing this, but does this not happen in some of our greatest
'Systematics'?
But why is all
of this important to my defense of Inclusivism? Because there are
a few large groups of Scriptures which don't quite fit in with any
of our superbly tidy 'theologies' so they have either largely been
ignored (not good), or in some cases been pulled into areas where
they simply don't fit (even worse)!
As an example,
we are all familiar with the 'little flock' and 'narrow is the gate'
Scriptures as applied to the Church in this world, and so we should
be, but there are another group of Scriptures (and sometimes the
same Scriptures) which show Christ having saving efficacy even
beyond the Church per se, that we are comparatively ignorant
of. Why? This is largely because of the huge influence of Calvinism
upon most Bible-believing Christians of the last few hundred years!
Of course, the influence of Calvin the theologian has been mostly
very good but let us at least be aware that this has shaped our
doctrinal approach to some degree.
NEW
TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES WHICH REVEAL A BROADNESS OF SALVATION GOING
BEYOND "THE LITTLE FLOCK"
None of the following group
of Scriptures is new to neither us nor a surprise to us - we 'know'
all about them.... or, do we? Truthfully, we are so used
to using such Scriptures when we speak of our life in Christ and
the Church, we may well fail to notice that the work of Christ and
the efficacy of that, cannot be wholly restricted to the Church!
Matt 25: 31-46, Luke 15: 2-32, Luke 19:10, John 1: 9, 29, John 3:
16-17, John 4: 42, John 6: 33, 51, John 12: 31-32, Acts 10: 1-35,
Acts 14: 16-17, Acts 17: 23-28, Roms 2: 6-16, Roms 5: 6,15-20, Roms
11: 12, 15, 2 Cor 5: 14-15, 19, Eph 1:10, Phil 2:10-11, Col 1:20,
1 Tim 2: 4,6, 1 Tim 4: 10, Titus 2: 11, Hebs 2: 9, James 1: 27,
2 Peter 3: 9, 1 John 2: 2, 1 John 4: 14, Rev 20: 12, Rev 21: 24,
Rev 22: 2.
Now I am not able
- because of space considerations - to go through every single Scripture
listed and explain it, though I would love to. Perhaps one day I
will do that, but if the reader should now not read any further
until carefully considering the above Scriptures, that can only
be beneficial. The scope of the above Scriptures (Oh, by the way,
there are more of them but these are the most significant, perhaps)
goes beyond the Church. The overall impression is that
while the Church is obviously going to be small at the present time
(the 'little flock', 'narrow is the gate' type Scriptures), there
must come a time or there must be some way in which the saving work
of Jesus Christ is going to have a broader application! I'm afraid
that we Calvinists (I speak as a huge admirer of Calvin), have been
a little disingenuous with some of these Scriptures; we have (correctly)
applied them to the Church while refusing to acknowledge that they
also have a clear application beyond the Church!
In short, to refer
back to my earlier comments, some have noted such 'loose strands'
of biblical teaching and quickly pulled them into their nice, tidy
terms of reference by applying 'Calvinistic control beliefs' to
them. In the process of doing this, some incredibly confused statements
are made in some 'Systematics'! Some, for instance, will say, 'Yes,
Christ is the Savior of the world, rather than simply being the
Savior of the 'little flock' of the church, but that only means
that His truth is available to the world, even though they are cut
off from embracing it, and therefore reject it. Only the Church
are not cut off from embracing it'
Can we at least recognize that that statement (which I actually
read somewhere) is simply theological gobbledygook!
So let us recognize that
- according to the Scriptures - Christ is 'The Lamb of God who takes
away the sins of the world ' (John 1:29), that 'God did
not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved' (though some teach exactly
the opposite) (John 3:17), that Jesus Himself said that He gave
His flesh, 'for the life of the world' (John 6:51)(though
many say that Christ's sacrifice means that the world is now condemned),
that Jesus said that when He is 'lifted up from the earth', He would
'draw all peoples ' to Himself (John 12:32), Peter states
that '..God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears
Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him' (Acts 10:34-35),
Paul too consistently presents a picture of God's utter impartiality
in dealing with the people's of the world. For God will, 'render
to each one according to his deeds; eternal life to those who by
patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth...indignation
and wrath...for there is no partiality with God' (Romans 2:6-11).
Moreover, while some picture a Hell which will eventually contain
the overwhelming majority of humankind (one noted evangelical even
said that those in Hell might be at liberty to continue to sin for
eternity!) Paul clearly shows that the victory of Christ will be
a complete triumph; 'But the free gift is not like the offense.
For if by one man's offense many died, much more the grace
of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded
to many...where sin abounded, grace abounded much more '
(Romans 5:15-20). Paul also said that 'He died for all '
(2 Cor 5:15) and that 'God was in Christ reconciling the world
to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...' (2 Cor
5:19), writing to Timothy, Paul said that God 'desires all men
to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth' (1
Tim 2:4) and that Christ 'gave Himself a ransom for all
to be testified in due time' (1 Tim 2:6). Intriguingly, the apostle
John finally states a startling truth in quite clear terms, '...we
have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but also for the whole world' (1 John 2:1-2). Oh, the
trouble that some theologians have with this verse, and the lengths
to which they will go to twist John's clear words!! Yet honest exegesis
shows that the 'little children' and the 'our' of 1 John 2: 1-2,
refers to the Church, while the meaning of the 'whole world' should
be clear enough for all. Of course, Paul says the same thing to
Timothy in any case in 1 Tim 4:10 - so this clear delineation of
this truth is not confined to John.
Finally, the 'great
multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples,
and tongues' is NOT a description of those in Hell, but of
those finally saved! (Rev 7:9 19:1, 6).
Herman Bavinck, the Dutch reformed theologian, said this,
"...Many will come from east and west to sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 8:11). The
grace that appeared in Christ is much more abundant than the trespass
of Adam; it comes to all people for justification and life (Rom
5:12-20; 1 Cor.15:22). In this dispensation all things in heaven
and on earth will be gathered up under Christ (Eph 1:10). And one
day at the end every knee will bow before Christ and every tongue
will confess Him as Lord (Phil 2:10, 11). Then a great multitude
that no one can number will stand before the throne and the Lamb
(Rev 7:9; 19:1, 6). Nations will be saved and walk in the light
of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:24, 26; 22:2). And God will then be
all in all (1 Cor:15:28)." (Herman Bavinck, 'The Last
Things', trans., Vriend, p 164, Baker Books, 1996).
Bavinck was, perhaps, not fully Inclusivist but appeared
to stand right on the dividing line between Inclusivism and Exclusivism.
He appears to say enough to make clear his challenge to Calvinistic
Restrictivism/Exclusivism yet finally does not break with his received
Calvinist philosophy.
So to close this first
point, let us recognize that - at the present time - God has not
necessarily clearly revealed everything to us about His dealings
with humankind as a whole, but we do indeed find rather more than
occasional strong hints that the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice
will eventually extend to the majority of the human race.
Let us also recognize
that all too often theologians have been deficient in their handling
of those Scriptures which may well be looking beyond the theologian's
grand vision of 'The Church in the present world'.
2. Are We Sure That We Know What "Exclusivism" Is Saying?
I am not exactly
happy that in some places where the positions of 'Pluralism', 'Exclusivism'
and 'Inclusivism' are defined, some definitions are a little disingenuous.
It is sometimes claimed, for instance, that only Exclusivism fits
in with the traditional Christian view, but that 'liberals' are
more likely to support Pluralism or Inclusivism. While it is undoubtedly
true that the great majority of evangelical Christianity since the
Reformation has supported Exclusivism, there are actually many examples
of writers who are closer to Inclusivism, including the great C.S.
Lewis. Yet - as we shall see later - the 'church fathers', for example,
were often closer to Inclusivism that Restrictivism ('Restrictivism'
is the belief that few or very few will finally be saved and is
the same as 'Exclusivism').
But it is wrong to infer that only liberals are likely to support
Inclusivism, though that might be true of Pluralism (All religions
lead to God and have equal salvific efficacy). In fact an increasing
number of evangelicals are starting to identify themselves with
Inclusivism, including John Sanders and Neal Punt , who is a reformed
minister.
But the disingenuousness
of some who define these positions while strongly supporting Exclusivism
extends to the fact that such writers rarely state exactly how
much is involved in a fully consistent Exclusivist position!
For instance, Exclusivism must mean (if it is consistent) no
salvation for those who die in childhood, no salvation
for the millions of unevangelised who lived and died without
hearing the Gospel and no salvation for dearly loved relatives
who lived and died without embracing Christianity even while they
may have been loving, kind and gentle human beings. No salvation
too for those who lived miserably short and sad lives of suffering
and despair. (Even though the Bible suggests that many who have
suffered greatly in this life will be in the kingdom of God ! -
another 'strand of biblical teaching' - and quite a strong one -
which is ignored by Systematic theologians! The parable of Lazarus
and the rich man just one example which springs to mind).
Of course, some
Exclusivists (or, Restrictivists; it's the same essential meaning)
have quite often attempted to 'have their cake and also to eat it';
they have been unbending in their overall position, but then suddenly
claimed (surely correctly) that those dying in childhood, and the
mentally handicapped will be saved! Of course, the moment they
say this, they are supporting Inclusivism!! Exclusivism does not
allow for such exceptions if it is to be consistently upheld.
Exclusivism states that only those who have had an active relationship
with the true Eternal God in this life have hope of salvation, and
- since the time of Christ, of course, - only Christians. But Inclusivists
raise hard questions about the millions of unevangelized, about
those who led short lives of misery and squalor, about young children
who die, about those mentally handicapped through no fault of their
own and - yes; even about noble examples among false religions,
who are obedient and faithful to as much light as was available
in that religion.
We Inclusivists
are well aware that false religion can save no one, but we point
out the numerous biblical examples which depict God's concern for
the suffering, the deprived, the deceived, yes, and the lost too.
The biblical approach is to seek out and recover that which was
lost!
So if some exclusivists
allow that all small children who die are saved (and we agree),
what of those who have lived short, miserable and wretched lives
before being swept away in some monsoon flood? The Bible seems to
be optimistic about the eternal prospects of those who have suffered
unreasonably in this life. Psalm 126:6 says, "He who continually
goes forth weeping, Bearing seed for sowing, Shall doubtless come
again with rejoicing, Bringing his sheaves with him” A similar
teaching can be found in many other places, frequently with little
or no reference to the suffering person's relationship with God.
Similar Scriptures would be Psalm 37, Psalm 73 and Luke 16: 19-31.
We are sometimes concerned at the Restrictivist's apparent eagerness
to dispatch a huge majority of the human race to eternal damnation
without remedy! Romans 2:13 makes this comment about one's reaction
to the moral law, or spiritual law; "For it is not those
who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those
who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles,
who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the
law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written
on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their
thoughts now accusing, now even defending them). This will take
place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus
Christ, as my gospel declares"
(Romans 2:13-16 NIV)
So we have here
something of a picture of Gentiles (or, unbelievers) not necessarily
finding themselves in a hopeless position on the Day of Judgment,
but being judged according to their behavior as indeed Revelation
20:12 confirms. And Paul finishes by stating that this by no means
hopeless Day of Judgment position for those who do not know God,
is "..as my gospel declares" .
But in complete
contrast to Paul's gentleness, Exclusivists would say, 'These people
will all be condemned, it's just a question of the grading of their
eternal punishment!
So let us recognize that
Exclusivism supports the bleakest possible outlook for those who
have not had a relationship with God, even if they never ever even
heard that such a loving merciful God existed. Some definitions
of Exclusivism written by keen supporters of that position, gloss
over the very great theological difficulties of Exclusivism/Restrictivism.
'THOSE
WHO SUFFER NOW WILL BE REWARDED' TYPE SCRIPTURES IN BOTH TESTAMENTS;
(Exclusivism is disinterested in these Scriptures for which they
find little place. Inclusivism insists that these Scriptures cannot
be ignored).
Ps 12: 5, Ps 34: 6, Ps 35: 10, Ps 37: 14-17, Ps 72: 4, 12-14, Prov
17: 5, Prov 19: 1, 17, Ps 126:6, Prov 21: 13, Prov 22: 16, Prov
28: 6, 11, Matt 5: 3-12, Luke 6: 24-25, Luke 16: 19-31.
(There are many more than these; these are the ones which tend to
quickly come to mind).
3.
The Universal Nature of the Bible Covenants.
We sometimes forget the
wide-reaching scheme of the biblical covenants. It starts off in
Genesis 1: 26-28 with the Adamic Covenant. This did not just concern
one family or nation but the whole human race. Mankind was given
dominion and commanded to spread out and to multiply. After the
Fall, the 'seed' was promised who would eventually provide a deliverance
from the state of falleness, of course that 'seed' was Jesus Christ.
The promise applied to all the children of Adam (Gen 3:15). Then
when we come to the time of Noah, we find the Noahic Covenant. This
is the one we often love to teach small children about and of course
we can point to the rainbow as God's sign that He would never entirely
flood the earth again. You can read about this covenant in Genesis
9:8-17. Let us read verse 17:
"And God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant
which I have established between me and all flesh that
is on the earth'" (Genesis 9:17)
Again, the concern
is for 'all flesh'. When we come to the time of Abraham, we find
what some call the Abrahamic Covenant. This appears to be rather
a special one since the inspired text repeats it several times.
It can be found, in some form, in Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4
and 28:14. It is this;
'In your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed'
So, again, God
is concerned with ALL of His human Creation. That 'seed', of course,
was Christ. And God had the blessing of 'all the families of the
earth' in mind. This applies to Christ and it is not a picture
of Restrictivism!
Now when we come
to the Old Covenant which was ratified at Mount Sinai many believe
that God now only had Israel in mind and, without doubt, that covenant
was only between the Lord and Israel . But the point was that Israel
should become a model nation to show the other nations what a nation
walking with God could achieve! Of course, Israel was also to be
a type of the Church of God to come.
Some Calvinists have felt that that
was the end of God's dealing with all mankind, God was only now
concerned with Israel, first physical Israel, then spiritual Israel;
but that is just not so!! Through the promised 'seed' God had the
blessing of 'all the families of the earth' in mind as we have already
noted. Indeed, the Old Covenant was temporal and is now fulfilled
and set aside (Hebrews 8:13). In Galatians, Paul looks back to the
Abrahamic Covenant as being most meaningful for Christians today;
"...Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as
righteousness. Therefore know that only those who are of faith are
sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the nations by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand,
saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed'"
(Galatians 3:6-8)
The New Covenant requires
that the gospel of Jesus Christ be preached to the entire earth
and that those who come into contact with that will be largely judged
by their reaction to Jesus Christ. (Mark 16:15-16). We see from
such Scriptures that all who reject Jesus Christ while in full possession
of the details of the Gospel, are in real danger of damnation!
But the situation of the unevangelized is not directly addressed
but, as we have seen, we can surely count on God's mercy in many
such cases. But the surest way to 'lay hold on life' is to accept
and embrace Jesus and His Gospel! But we must realize that a very
large part of the world do not have this opportunity, but we can
safely leave such people to God's infinite mercy while doing all
we can to get the Gospel into all nations.
Those
Who Have Supported "Inclusivism"
It often comes as a real surprise
to modern evangelicals to learn that many of the early 'Church Fathers'
supported Inclusivism; and this is especially significant since
these people were so near to the time that Jesus walked this earth!
Again, I repeat: the profound influence of Calvinism from the 16th
century onwards is a major reason that some of these things now
sound a little strange! Justin Martyr, for instance, was Inclusivist
in approach. This is especially interesting since there is a link
from Justin, through Polycarp, right back to the apostle John! (It
appears as though - at some stage in his life - Polycarp personally
knew both John and Justin!). Some early writers combined Inclusivism
with Logos Christology; Justin, Clement of Rome , Irenaeus and others.
Clement of Alexandria used a different approach but was still clearly
Inclusivist in approach.
If we travel on
to the Reformation period, we should note that Zwingli, one of the
three great Reformers with Luther and Calvin, was very much for
Inclusivism. Needless to say, Calvin did not see 'eye to eye' with
him over this. Zwingli had little doubt that a great many unevangelized
would be in heaven (source: Plumptre, 'The Spirits in Prison' 1898).
Others apparently advocating this theological position were John
Milton (Christian Doctrine, 1.17 and 1.20), and even Matthew Henry
(Exposition of the Old and New Testament, 6 vols. 1829-29 reprint,
New York: Fleming H. Revell, n.d., 6:33). There are also strong
indications of Inclusivism rather than Exclusivism in William Cowper,
Richard Baxter and, of course, John Wesley. (I am indebted to Sanders'
No Other Name for some of this sourcing).
In more recent
times the great Baptist theologian, Augustus Strong was clearly
Inclusivist and others would include the great C.S. Lewis and, in
more recent times, such current writers as Bernard Ramm, Charles
Kraft, Dale Moody, Neal Punt and John Sanders. Surprisingly, even
the reformed Anglican, J.I. Packer seems to allow for Inclusivism
(God's Words: Studies in Key Biblical Themes, InterVarsity, 1981).
John R.W. Stott, perhaps the leading UK evangelist of the last 40
years, makes a statement of support for Inclusivism in a recent
book. He says, "I have never been able to conjure up (as some
great Evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the
millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish.
On the other hand…I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between
these extremes I cherish and hope that the majority of the human
race will be saved. And I have a solid biblical basis for this belief.”
(David Edwards and John R.W. Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical
Dialogue, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, p. 327; quoted
in Ibid., 145). Unquestionably, this statement makes Stott an Inclusivist!
CONCLUSION
I advocate Inclusivism as the
safest and most biblical position to adopt on the spiritual
salvation of the human race. The scope of the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ will ultimately extend beyond the 'little flock' of the Church
in this world, to embrace a great majority. The Word of God gives
us rather more than strong hints that this will happen, even though
we have frequently passed over many illuminating Scriptures, largely
due to the influence of Christian writers/theologians who have majored
on the subject of the Church in this present world. The Jesus
who especially considered the outcasts of the society of His day,
the publicans, sinners and Samaritans is also likely to seek after
other lost ones. Such perseverance is evident in the parables of
the coin and the lost sheep, to say nothing of the Prodigal Son.
With such a will to seek after the lost, is it credible that He
would have created billions of people while intending
that a large majority of them should go to an eternal Hell for the
'rejection' of a God most never even had any knowledge of?? Again,
we have to ask whether such a thing could ever be reconciled with
a God who forgave those who hated Him, persecuted Him and tortured
Him, before cruelly executing Him. I maintain that the Exclusivist
view is a view which is sadly and seriously distorted, even though
usually proposed by very sincere people. It is, in fact, often perilously
close to the Fatalism of the pagans and that form of Dualism
which seems to have emerged from Plutarch; that is, that good
and evil will always co-exist because neither God nor
Satan can challenge each others domains. If we say that - right
at the end of time - Hell has a huge 'population' (which some evangelicals
believe) can that really be a picture of every knee finally having
to bow to Christ?? (The scriptural position). I don't use this to
argue for Universalism (all will finally be saved), but
some of these things do seriously challenge Exclusivism!
WE BELIEVE THAT
THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT WILL LEAD TO A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE MAJORITY
OF THE HUMAN RACE. The 'Sheep and the Goats' Scripture of Matthew
25:31-46 is utterly intriguing here. We need to be a little careful
with this Scripture since it is a picture, or impression
of the judgment of the human race, rather than being literalistic.
The righteous are 'the sheep' and the unrighteous are 'the goats';
but the really intriguing thing is that one's relationship with
God is not mentioned, only how these people had treated others!
Moreover some of those saved appear to be surprised to be saved!
There is surprise in the statement,
"When did we see you a stranger and take you in, or naked
and clothe you?"
It appears as though
some will be surprised to find a positive outcome to their
judgment!! And are there not hints here that the surprise is when
certain ones will find themselves saved by a Christ they knew little
or nothing about? Some have made the comment that religion is absent
here, only the demonstration of the love of God will be
enough! Yet finally ONLY Christ is the door into Eternal Life, there
is no other entrance.
I should point
out that the providence and sovereignty of God is in no way compromised
by the Evangelical Inclusivism which we advocate. It remains the
case that God alone is our elector, just as Ephesians makes so abundantly
clear; rather, we say that the predestined elect of God cannot be
confined to the visible Church of God . Only God can evaluate just
who is genuinely walking with Him and worshipping Him 'in Spirit
and in truth'.
Finally, let me
make it clear that Inclusivism is not Universalism! Universalism
states that all will finally be saved. Inclusivists are
very aware of the awesome power and righteous judgment of God and
that His holy judgment cannot be compromised! We simply assert that
Exclusivism discounts too many Scriptures which obviously look beyond
God's dealing with the Church in the present world and at the present
time.
Without any doubt, there
will finally be a broadness in God's mercy.
Robin
A. Brace, 2002.
(Used
here with permission.)
© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace 2002. If you want
it on your own website please do the honorable thing and come to
us for permission first. It is forbidden to excerpt this article
without our permission. Thank you. We really regret having to use
copyright warnings but unfortunately a few unscrupulous people have
already stolen our material word for word and claimed it as their
own.
Bibliography
Anderson, JND. Christianity and Comparative Religion. Downers
Grove , Ill : Inter-Varsity Press, 1977.
Bavinck, Herman. The Last Days. Trans: Vriend. Grand Rapids
: Baker Books, 1996.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh : Banner
of Truth, 1988.
Calvin, Jean. The Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans:
Beveridge). Grand Rapids : Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.
Colwell, John (Editor). Called to One Hope. Carlisle :
Paternoster Press, 2000.
Edwards, David and Stott, John. Evangelical Essentials. Downers
Grove , Ill : Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
Lewis, CS. Mere Christianity. London : Fount, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Carlisle
: Paternoster Press, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester : Inter-Varsity
Press, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. Purswell, Jeff (Editor). Bible Doctrine. Grand
Rapids : Zondervan, 1999.
Moreland, JP. Craig, William Lane . Philosophical Foundations
for a Christian Worldview. Leicester : Inter-Varsity Press,
2003.
Packer, JI. God's Words: Studies in Key Biblical Themes. Leicester
: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom and Evil. Grand Rapids :
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford :
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Plumptre, EH. The Spirits in Prison. London : Isbister,
1898.
Punt, Neal. A Brief Introduction to Biblical Universalism,
Posting One. Click here.
Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts. Ventura (Ca.):
Regal Books, 1984.
Sanders, John. No Other Name. London : SPCK, 1994.
Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Oxford : Oxford
University Press, 1991.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London : Routledge, 2000.
Faith and Modernity (several writers). Oxford : Regnum
Books, 1997.
Here
are a few other articles not entirely unrelated to this one:
WHERE
ARE THE SCRIPTURES TO SHOW THE WIDENESS OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT?
OUR
MYSTERIOUS GOD
ARE
SMALL CHILDREN SAVED IF THEY DIE?
|
