Posting #13
The Beginnings
of Protestant Inclusivism
DR.
DONALD H. NASH ON THE PREVALENCE OF INCLUSIVISM
Inclusivism is the
teaching that, although Jesus is the only Savior, nevertheless salvation
is possible through Him even among those who have never heard the
gospel during their lifetime on earth. Evangelical Inclusivism one
type of Inclusivism.
Dr. Ronald H. Nash estimates
that more than 50 percent of "professors at mainstream
evangelical colleges and seminaries" may hold to some form of
Inclusivism (Note #1, E, P. 107, below). This may account for some
of the lack of response to these Postings by many of those currently
teaching in bible colleges and seminaries. Perhaps more of these
teachers accept some form of Inclusivism than they are willing to
be publicly identified with it.
One would expect that such
a widespread presence of inclusivism would engender public critical
evaluations of Inclusivism as Nash anticipated it would. Nash
observes: "Until inclusivists like Pinnock and Sanders published
their books in the early 1990s, few evangelicals had any opportunity
to think through the significant biblical and theological issues at
stake. Now that the inclusivists have expressed their views publicly,
the critical evaluations of their thinking that are about to appear
may help to sharpen the debate and inform evangelicals who may be
attracted to inclusivism initially with their hearts rather than their
minds" (Note #1, E, P. 107).
CLARK'S
EXPOSURE TO BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM
The "early 1990s"
mentioned by Nash is interesting. In February of 1983, Dr. Robert
Schuller invited Dr. Clark Pinnock, myself, and nine others to a six-day
conference to dialogue openly with Schuller about a biblical basis
for his positive ministry of acceptance and affirmation. Before the
meeting background materials were exchanged. Each participant received
a copy of my book Unconditional Good News, Toward an Understanding
of Biblical Universalism (Eerdmans, 1980). At the
conference Pinnock defended "Biblical Universalism" over
against the "Absolute Universalism" of most of the other
participants. He did so because I, together with Pinnock, believe
that some persons will be finally lost (See Posting No. 3).
There is no doubt that Pinnock was well acquainted with Evangelical
Inclusivism as espoused in these Postings by early 1983.
I appreciate the fact that
Dr. John Sanders, who looked upon Pinnock as his mentor in espousing
his Inclusivism, formulated the clearest and most accurate one paragraph
summary of my views that I have seen anywhere. This is included in
the comprehensive "Historical Bibliography" of theologians
from the New Testament era through the twentieth century who have
espoused various forms of inclusivism (Note # 1, C, PP. 267 thru 280).
ROMAN
CATHOLIC INCLUSIVISM
Pinnock and Sanders have
written extensively about Roman Catholic Inclusivism as expressed
by Vatican II (1962). As intriguing as Roman Catholic Inclusivism
is, Vatican II continued to hold that the Catholic Church is The
Church founded by Jesus and is the only means of salvation for
all people of all nations throughout all the earth for all time. Vatican
II did not abrogate the dictum, "No salvation outside the Roman
Catholic Church." It simply extended the concept of the
Catholic Church to include all persons who will be saved, including
some Protestants as well as all "anonymous" Christians.
Therefore as Protestants, Pinnock and Sanderson, could not
endorse Roman Catholic Inclusivism without conceding that the Roman
Catholic Church is the one true church.
THE
SEED OF CLARK'S INCLUSIVISM
Although they had
written much about Inclusivism, there is no published evidence that
either Pinnock or Sanders advocated, endorsed or adopted any form
of inclusivism before 1987. In 1987 Pinnock wrote an article "Who
Can Become A Christian?" in which he says: "Because of Paul's
teaching elsewhere--as when he warns about God's wrath that is coming
(1 Thessalonians 1:10) -- we know there will be wicked who perish
and are banished from God's presence. But we should not lose the marvelous
scope of Scripture. God's intention is to save the human race, not
a pathetic little segment of it. 'Just as the result of one trespass
was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness
was justification that brings life for all men' (Romans 5:18)."
Pinnock continues: "According
to this kind of theology, we ought to think of being saved as the
normal outcome and being rejected as the exception, and not the other
way around. I think we have erred in thinking of condemnation as the
ordinary and salvation as the extraordinary outcome of the history
of divine redemption" (Note #2). This is the first occassion
in which Pinnock publicly advocates a form of "inclusivism,"
which came to full expression in his 1992 book (See Note 1, D below.).
"Being saved as the normal outcome and being rejected as the
exception" is the essence of the perspective used by Charles
Hodge on only one occassion (See Posting #2) and that was extensively
developed in my book Unconditional Good News (Note #1, A).
In this book I state: "Although the presupposition used by Hodge
is found in the reference cited, we must go on to note that there
is little evidence that he used this premise in the rest of his writings.
Even more perplexing is that in the history of the interpretation
of the 'all" and 'every' texts one finds neither this solution
developed nor any refutation of it" (Note #1, A, P. 7).
I know of no other
published work in which "being saved" is viewed "as
the normal outcome and being rejected as the exception" as the
"outcome of the history of divine redemption." This
was my conclusion in 1980 after 17 years of searching and asking hundreds
of others to search for this perspective in all theological traditions.
The search continues and scholars have indicated to me that the early
church fathers come the closest to such a perspective (See Posting
#1).
SUGGESTING
RELATIVISM
Pinnock was not able
to find any form of inclusivism with which he was comfortable. As
a Protestant he could not accept Roman Catholic Inclusivism.
As an Arminian he could not accept the Evangelical Inclusivism that
I proposed. He therefore came to this conclusion, "I think
that any theological tradition can find a way to entertain an optimism
of salvation on a scriptural basis."
Pinnock denies that this
is "a question of relativism, approving whatever theory yields
the desired practical result." This is, for Pinnock, a matter
of restoring in various traditions the early church's central biblical
theme about God's love for the whole world (Note # 1, D, P. 43).
Despite his denial, Pinnock's
conclusion is illegitimate relativism. It is, "...approving whatever
theory yields the desired practical result." To "find a
way to entertain an optimism of salvation" consistent with his
firmly held Arminianism Pinnock proposes an "Arminian Inclusivism"
based upon fragile theological constructs and having no definitive
biblical basis. We demonstrate the truth of this criticism in Posting
#15.
Calvinist ideologues, who
would also start "with their hearts rather than their minds"
in trying to "find a way to entertain an optimism of salvation"
consistent with traditional Calvinist exegesis(as Pinnock suggest
they can do) would be handicapped just as Arminian Inclusivism is.
In Posting # 15 we see how Biblical Universalism differsfrom
Arminian Inclusivism as well as any such fancied Calvinistic Inclusivism.
Copies
to:
John
Sanders
Clark Pinnock
Ronald
H. Nash
Note
#1) All page references are to the following books that are listed
in chronological order of dates of publication::
A.
Neal Punt Unconditional Good News, (Eerdmans, 1980)
B. Neal Punt What's Good About The Good News?, (Northland
Books, 1988)
C. Dr. John Sanders, No Other Name, (Eerdmans, 1991)
D. Dr. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy, (Zondervan,
1992)
E. Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Zondervan,
1994)
F.
Neal Punt So Also In Christ, (Northland Books, 2002)
These books by Sanders,
Pinnock and Nash (especially Pinnock's book) present compelling refutation
of "pluralism." The teaching that all religions are equally
paths of salvation.
Note
#2) Practical Christianity, Edited by LaVonne Neff et al, Tyndale
House, 1987, P. 22.
