Biblical Universalism - Northland Books

Posting 15 PROTESTANT INCLUSIVISM AND CLARK PINNOCK

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. This perspective is called Evangelical Inclusivism because it is based directly upon the inspired, infallible, written Word of God, making its claims upon no other source (see Postings 1, 2, 3 and 4).

In his book Is Jesus the Only Savior?, Dr. Ronald H. Nash argues against Inclusivism as he understands it (*F, pp.103–175). He estimates that more than fifty percent of "professors at mainstream evangelical colleges and seminaries" may hold to some form of Inclusivism (*F, p. 107).

If Nash’s estimate is anywhere near correct, one would expect that there would be widespread public evaluations of Inclusivism, just as Nash anticipated there would be. 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" (*F, p. 107).

PINNOCK’S EXPOSURE TO EVANGELICAL (Protestant) INCLUSIVISM

The "early 1990s" reference by Nash is interesting. Other than my book Unconditional Good News (*A) there are no books that present an apologetic for Protestant inclusivism throughout the 1980s.

In February 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 (*A).

At that conference Pinnock defended "Biblical Universalism" (now called "Evangelical Inclusivism") against the "Absolute Universalism" advocated by most of the other participants. He did so because he believed some persons will be finally lost (as do I; see Posting 19). By 1983, Pinnock was well acquainted with the premise of"Evangelical Inclusivism" that I, at the time, referred to as "Biblical Universalism."

I appreciate the fact that Dr. John Sanders, who looks upon Pinnock as his mentor in espousing 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 (*D, pp. 267 thru 280).

ROMAN CATHOLIC INCLUSIVISM

Pinnock and Sanders had 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 Roman Catholic Church to include all persons who will be saved, including some Protestants as well as all "anonymous" Christians. Pinnock and Sanderson could not endorse Roman Catholic Inclusivism without conceding that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church

THE SEED OF PINNOCK’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 a very brief 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 Thess. 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' (Rom. 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" (*B, p. 22).

This is the first time Pinnock publicly advocated a form of "Inclusivism." This did not come to full expression until he expounded upon it in his 1992 book A Wideness in God's Mercy (*E).

“This kind of theology,” that Pinnock spoke of in his 1987 article, namely, “that we ought to think of being saved as the normal outcome and being rejected as the exception," is the essence of the perspective used only one time by Charles Hodge (see Posting 1). This was the “kind of theology” I developed extensively in my book Unconditional Good News. In this book I noted that "Although the presupposition used by Hodge is found in the reference cited, we must go on to note that there is no 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 this solution neither developed nor any refutation of it" (*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 sixteen years of searching and asking hundreds of others to search for “this kind of theology” in all theological traditions. The search continues and scholars indicate that it is only in the early church fathers that we find anything else that even comes close to “this kind of theology.” Pinnock found “this kind of theology” in my book, Unconditional Good News, with which he became acquainted in 1983.

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 he found in my book. 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” (*E, 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" that we must consider at this time.

In his book Nash argues against Arminian Inclusivism as developed by Drs. Clark Pinnock and John Sanders (*F).

FRAIL THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS

Pinnock and Sanderson are handicapped by the fact that their Arminianism requires that they must accept all the so-called “universalistic” texts as teaching nothing more than a “possible” or “potential” salvation for all persons without any exception (see Posting 1). Therefore they forfeit any direct appeal to the so-called “universalistic” passages as a basis for their view of Inclusivism. Nash correctly notes that consequently Arminians must provide some way by which this "possible/potential" salvation is made available to all persons: "Inclusivists insist that all people must have a chance to be saved" (*F, p. 104).

To provide "accessibility to all persons," Pinnock and Sanders resort to such frail theological constructs as a saving grace that can be mediated through: general revelation; pagan views of God that are similar to biblical revelation; subjective attitudes that are as important as the content of faith; ethical deeds that are equivalent to faith commitment; and even the possibility of a "post mortem" (after death) evangelism. Nash readily disposes of these frail theological constructs (*F, p. 104). I agree with his reason for doing so.

These imaginative possibilities suggested by Pinnock and Sanders are not derived from the teaching of the Scriptures. They are resorted to in order to maintain the Arminian principle that every sinner must in some way have the opportunity to say “Yes” to God’s offer of grace. Such a positive response is a condition or requirement for salvation, according to Arminianism. In order to be saved, sinners must have the opportunity to agree with God’s terms.

MORE SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENTS

Arminians also use the following arguments to substantiate 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 and Abimelech 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).
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." Some nations passed out of existence without ever being exposed to the gospel.

These arguments are consistent with Evangelical Inclusivism. However, in contrast to Arminian Inclusivism, Evangelical Inclusivism does not argue its validity on the basis of them. I refer to these types of arguments as "Biblical Indications" of salvation apart from gospel proclamation (*C, p. 81). Whether or not these arguments are valid need not concern us. Nash’s arguments against these cannot be lodged against Evangelical Inclusivisim as presented in this study because Evangelical Inclusivism is not dependent upon them.

Nash also presents three arguments against the Inclusivism of Pinnock and Sanderson that, if valid, would refute every form of Inclusivism including Evangelical Inclusivism. These are (1) the misuse of Romans 10; (2) the many biblical demands to “repent,” and “believe”; and (3) the so-called “universalistic” texts. We will now consider each of these.

THE COMMON MISUSE OF ROM. 10

Nash makes the following observation in referring to Rom. 10:9–17: "Even the most superficial reading of the context makes it clear that Paul is talking about the indispensability of special revelation for salvation and the urgency of human preachers to carry the gospel to the world" (*F, p. 121). Nash continues: “I believe it is reckless, dangerous, and unbiblical to lead people to think that the preaching of the gospel (which I insist must contain specifics about the person and work of Christ) and personal faith in Jesus are not necessary for salvation" (*F, p. 126).

If Nash’s assertions in the preceding paragraph are valid, they would undermine the biblical basis for all forms of Inclusivism, including Evangelical Inclusivism. Likewise, every one of the millions and millions of persons who never hear the gospel during their lifetime on earth will suffer eternal damnation. Such a teaching contradicts the fact that by his blood Christ "purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). What Nash calls the indispensable “special revelation” has not been proclaimed to "every tribe and language and people and nation."

Nash's treatment of Rom. 10:9–17 is faulty because he makes the very common error of failing to make the critical distinction between objective and subjective salvation (see Posting 4). It is of utmost importance to keep this distinction in mind whenever we speak of salvation theologically.

OBJECTIVE salvation is the work accomplished by Christ once for all some 2,000

years ago. This is the good news that can be proclaimed as an announcement OF

an accomplished factThe Bible speaks of this as "The gospel OF your salvation"

(Eph. 1:13).

SUBJECTIVE salvation is the application or realization of that work in the life of

those for whom Christ died. In this sense the gospel is declared to be the effectual

means used by the Holy Spirit FOR transforming the heart, soul, and mind of those

for whom Christ died. In this sense the Bible speaks of "the gospel" as "the power

of God FOR salvation" (Rom. 1:16).

What Nash should have said is that "Even the most superficial reading of the context [of Rom. 10:9–17] makes it clear that Paul is talking about the indispensability of special revelation for ‘subjective’ salvation and the urgency of human preachers to carry the gospel to the world." Such an observation is perfectly consistent with both Arminian and Evangelical Inclusivism. In Posting 4, “Objective and Subjective Salvation,” I make it abundantly clear that Rom. 10:9–17 is speaking of “subjective salvation” in which the human messenger has an indispensable role to play.

BIBLICAL DEMANDS TO ’REPENT,’ ’BELIEVE’ etc.

According to Nash, the urgent demands to "repent," "believe," "obey," "come to Christ," and "follow him" that are found in such passages as Rom. 10:9–10; John 1:12; John 3:16,18; 1 John 2:23 and 5:12, "speak for themselves" against all Inclusivism (*F, p. 148). If these demands are required of every sinner, then salvation beyond the sphere where these demands have been made known is impossible.

However, in the very nature of the case, each of these demands to repent, believe, and live in joyful obedience through Christ, which can be called “demands of the gospel,” are addressed only to accountable persons to whom the gospel has been proclaimed in a meaningful way. For these persons such responses are absolutely necessary and indifference or refusal to do so is damnable. This is not because these acts of obedience collectively abd the act of faith in particular, are a required prerequisite for salvation without which God either will not or can not save the sinner. However, for such persons to reject or remain indifferent to these gospel demands is to disobey the will of God as it has been made known to them. Such disobedience, if persisted in, sets in motion a hardening process that ends in damnation.

These demands to repent, believe, and live in joyful obedience through Christ, which can be called “demands of the gospel,” have never been made known to those who live their entire life beyond the reach of the gospel. It is simply unwarranted to conclude that these gospel demands are made of those who never hear the gospel during their lifetime on earth, as Nash insists (see Posting 5).

ALL ’KINDS‘ AND ’CLASSES‘ CANNOT SIN OR BE SAVED

As we noted earlier, neither Pinnock nor Sanders can make a direct appeal to the so-called "universalistic" passages of Scripture as their basis for Inclusivism. Their Arminian perspective allows these passages to speak of nothing more than a possible or potential salvation. Because Nash’s rejection of Inclusivism is directed primarily against Arminian Inclusivism, he makes only a cursory observation about what he calls the "supposed universalist texts." He is of the opinion that "all" and "all men" must refer either to all persons "without exception" or to all humans "without distinction."

Nash selects the traditional Calvinist view of accepting these texts as meaning all humans "without distinction," that is, "all classes” or “all kinds” of people. The so-called “universalistic” texts tell us nothing more than that, when speaking of salvation, the Bible makes “no distinctions between male and female; young and old; Jew and Gentile; educated and uneducated; etc.” (*F, p.143).

For a complete exposition of why the so-called “universalistic” texts simply cannot be speaking of “classes” or “kinds” of people, see Posting 14, Observation 4. For whatever reason, Nash seems to be unaware of any Protestant Inclusivism other than that proposed by Pinnock and Sanders. Neither does he appear to be aware of the “kind of theology” that Pinnock alluded to in his 1987 article that prompted him to construct his Arminian Inclusivism. Therefore Nash presents no arguments intended to refute Evangelical Inclusivism.

CONCLUSION

To affirm or to deny the possibility of Inclusivism is infinitely more than a matter of "who will be surprised by the number of the redeemed in heaven," as Nash flippantly suggests (F, p. 165). God does all things for his own name's sake, especially his saving of sinners. He is jealous of his name. God desires to have his name proclaimed throughout the entire world in this present age: "The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished" (Ex. 34:6, 7). Here we have a revelation of who God is and what he, the gracious and compassionate God, still reluctantly does. He reluctantly “does not leave the guilty unpunished.”

If there is "A Wideness in God's Mercy," as expressed by Pinnock, Sanders, and many others, then God’s world-embracing mercy is among "the revealed things that belong to us and our children forever" (Deut. 29:29b). It is God's goodness that will lead sinners to repentance (Rom. 2:4). We have biblical warrant for approaching every sinner with an attitude that says, "You are not a nobody, you are a child of God. Therefore you must live like one. Repent, believe this good news of what God in Christ has done for you and joyfully show works worthy of your repentance." Nash finds such an approach nowhere in the Scriptures (F, p. 148). We find it confirmed in every approach to sinners that is recorded in the book of Acts. It depends on the eyeglasses we choose to wear (see Introduction).

NOTE: The following books are listed in the order of dates of publication:

*A. Neal Punt, Unconditional Good News, (Eerdmans, 1980)

*B. LaVonne Neff et al (Editors), Practical Christianity, (Tyndale House, 1987)

*C. Neal Punt, What's Good About The Good News?, (Northland Books, 1988

)
*D. Dr. John Sanders, No Other Name, (Eerdmans, 1991)

*E. Dr. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy, (Zondervan, 1992)

*F. Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Zondervan, 1994)

G. Neal Punt, So Also In Christ, (Northland Books, 2002)

H. Neal Punt, A Theology of Inclusivism, (Northland Books, 2008)

Return to Postings