Posting #15
Contra
Arminian Inclusivism
Dr. Ronald H. Nash poses many arguments
against Inclusivism as developed from an Arminian perspective by Drs.
Clark Pinnock and John Sanders (Note #1, below).
FRAGILE
THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS REQUIRED BY ARMINIAN INCLUSIVISM
Because
Arminianism limits the "universalistic" texts to only a
"possible" or "potential" salvation for all persons
(posting # 2), Nash correctly notes that there MUST BE some way in
which that this "possible/potential" salvation is made available
to all persons. "Inclusivists insist that all people must have
a chance to be saved" (Note #2, E, P. 104).
To provide "accessibility
to all persons" Pinnock and Sanders resort to such frail theological
constructs as: salvation can be mediated through general revelation
or through pagan religions; pagan views of God that are similar to
biblical revelation; subjective attitude is more important than the
content of faith; ethical deeds are equivalent to faith commitment
and even the possibility of "post mortem" (after death)
evangelism (Note # 2, E).
Nash disposes of these and similar
theological constructs. We agree with his reasons for doing so. Evangelical
Inclusivism (Note # 3) does not require such theological meanderings
because it is based on the so-called "universalistic" texts
as written (Posting # 2).
OTHER
ARGUMENTS THAT FAVOR INCLUSIVISM
Arminians also use the following
arguments as bases for their view of Inclusivism: Old Testament believers
had no explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ. The saved who die in infancy
were never confronted with the gospel. Believers such as Melchizedek,
Abimelech, etc. lived beyond the reach of Old Testament revelation.
The faith that Abraham had "before he was circumcised" was
neither an Old nor a New Testament faith. "In every nation anyone
who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" (Acts
10:34,35, Rom. 2:14,15, 26; 3:30 etc.). The men of Athens (Acts 17).
Some COME TO the light "that it may be clearly seen that [their]
works HAVE BEEN wrought in God" (John 3:19-21). The parable of
the last judgment (Matt. 25) implies that some persons from "all
the nations" are placed at his "right hand" etc.
Whether we accept or reject these
arguments as proof of Inclusivism depends in large measure upon the
assumption with which we approach the Scriptures (See Posting #1).
These arguments are consistent with Evangelical Inclusivism but, in
contrast to Arminian Inclusivism, Evangelical Inclusivism does not
argue its validity on the basis of them. Therefore I refer to these
arguments as "Biblical Indications" (What's Good About
The Good News? P. 81). Whether or not Nash successfully refutes
any of these arguments need not concern us. In either case he does
not, by such refutation, undermine the scriptural basis of Evangelical
Inclusivism.
Biblical
(or Evangelical) INCLUSIVISM
Jan Bonda's book The One
Purpose of God (Eerdmans, 1998) expounds the inclusivism that
is inherent in the Scriptures. Bonda's book is a scholarly exposition
of the so-called "universalistic" passages in conjunction
with the Old and New Testament vision of the world-embracing Kingdom
of God as anticipated by the Psalmists and the Prophets (See Postings
#5and 35). This glorious biblical vision necessarily
encompasses many who have not heard the gospel during their lifetime
on earth. Evangelical Inclusivism is compatible with this vision because
it recognizes that God will graciously and sovereignly bring all those,
who the Father has given to the Son, into the Kingdom of Righteousness
either with or without human means (Posting, # 6).
Nash can not be faulted for presenting
few arguments against Evangnelical Inclusivism. He did not have Evangelical
Inclusivismin mind when refuting the Inclusivism of Pinnock and Sanders.
In the next Posting (# 16) we will consider Nash's arguments that,
if valid, would refute every form of Inclusivism including that of
Biblical Universalism.
Note
# 1) INCLUSIVISM is the teaching that, although Jesus is the only
Savior, nevertheless there is salvation through Him even among those
who have never heard the gospel during their lifetime on earth. Nash's
arguments against inclusivism can be found on PP. 103 -175 of his
book (Note #2, E).
Note
# 2) The following books are listed in the chronological order of
the dates of their 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)
The 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.
