Posting
#16
Contra
Evangelical Inclusivism
SUMMARY
OF POSTING # 15
Their Arminian tradition compels
Dr. Clark Pinnock (Note # 2, F, below) and Dr. John Sanders (Note
# 2, D) to arbitrarily limit every so-called "universalistic"
passage to only a "potential" or "possible" salvation
or "God's salvific will" for all persons without any exceptions.
Thereby they forfeit any direct appeal to those passages as a basis
for their view of Inclusivism.
Because this is only a
potential or possible salvation for everyone, Arminian Inclusivism
also requires that this potential salvation must also be accessible
to everyone without any exceptions. Therefore Pinnock and Sanders
are obliged to present theories about many ways, in addition to hearing
the gospel, that are available to all persons throughout the entire
world so they can say "Yes" to God's offer of grace.
Such a positive response is a condition or requirement for salvation,
according to Arminianism. Dr. Ronald H. Nash readily disposes
of many of these speculations (See Posting No. 15).
Pinnock and Sanders also
point to biblical accounts of persons, living beyond the reach of
either Old or New Testament revelation, who worshipped the one true
God. Most of their straightforward citings of these instances of inclusivism
are more convincing than Nash's circuitous arguments to discredit
them (Note # 1).
However,
Biblical Universalism (Note # 4) it is not dependent upon either of
the above types of arguments for its biblical basis. Therefore we
need not be concerned whetheror not Nash successfully refutes them.
THE
COMMON MISUSE OF ROMAN 10
Nash works with an assumption
that can be discerned in his reference to Romans 10 — "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"
(Note #2, F, P. 121). "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"
(Note # 2, F, P. 126). If these assertions are valid they would
undermine the biblical basis for all forms of Inclusivism, including
Biblical Universalism.
Nash's treatment of Romans 10
is faulty because he fails to make the necessary distinction between
objective and subjective salvation. It is of utmost importance
to keep this distinction in mind whenever we speak of salvation theologically
(See Posting No. 7).
OBJECTIVE
salvation is the work accomplished by Christ once for all nearly 2000
years ago, "The gospel OF your salvation"
(Eph. 1:13). Here the gospel is an announcement OF an accomplished
fact. In this sense the gospel is good NEWS.
SUBJECTIVE
salvation is the application or realization of that work in the life
of those for whom Christ died. This is "the gospel"
as "the power of God FOR salvation" (Rom.
1:16). Here the gospel is declared to be the effectual means
often used by the Holy Spirit FOR transforming the heart, soul and
mind of those for whom Christ died. What ought to be said is
that "even the most superficial reading of [Romans 10] makes
it clear that Paul is talking about" subjective salvation.
FROM
EVERY NATION
If Nash's pronouncements (above)
based Romans 10 are valid then 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). The
gospel has not been brought to "every tribe and language and
people and nation."
BIBLICAL
DEMANDS TO "REPENT," "BELIEVE," etc.
The urgent demands to "repent,"
"believe," "obey," "come to Christ,"
"follow him" etc. 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" in favor of Exclusivism (Note #3) according to
Nash (Note #2, F, P. 148).
However, in the very nature of
the case, each of these demands to repent, believe and live in joyful
obedience through Christ 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 so not because these
acts of obedience collectively or the act of faith in particular is
a required condition, prerequisite or prescription for salvation,
but forsuch 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 persistent in, sets in motion a
hardening process that ends in damnation (See Posting # 6).
It is simply unwarranted to conclude
that these identical demands are made of those who never hear the
gospel during their lifetime on earth.
ALL
"KINDS" AND "CLASSES" CAN NOT SIN OR BE SAVED
The basis for Biblical Universalism
is found in the so-called "universalistic" passages of Scripture
(Posting # 2) . Because Arminian Inclusivism can not appeal to these
passages Nash pays little attention to them. He can not be faulted
for this.
He makes only a cursory observation
about the "supposed universalist texts" noting that "all"
and "all men" must refer either: to all persons "without
exceptions"; 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 of people"
making no distinctions between male and female; young and old; Jew
and Gentile; educated and uneducated; etc. (Note 2, F, P.143).
"All" "all men" and "every" expressions
are burrs under the saddle of traditional Calvinists. They cannot
accept them as written. Nash and other Calvinists make
the amazing claim that the "all", "all men" and
"every" phrases refer to "all kinds" or "all
classes of people." With what justification? None whatsoever!
No Bible translator ever has dared to insert "all kinds,"
or "all classes" of people when translating the so-called
"universalistic" texts. Kittel's Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament does not allow such a shift in the clear
meaning of these words and phrases.
More importantly "kinds
and classes of people" are abstractions that exist only in one's
mind. Such abstractions neither need nor are they capable of receiving
"salvation." To bring them back into reality it is said
that what they actually mean is "some people of all classes."
Neither in Greek nor in English can ""all" or "all
men" or "every" mean "some persons of all classes."
ONLY
THE BIBLE ITSELF MAY RESTRICT THE "UNIVERSALISTIC" TEXTS
In ordinary conversation we often
use the words "all," "all men" and "every"
with clear limitations in their immediate context. Dr. Thomas Talbott
notes that Loraine Boettner cites some fifty such uses in the narrative
sections of the New Testament. This is not surprising. We may not
conclude from this that "all" and "all men" are
never be used without such limitations in the immediate context.
Talbott states: "I have
been unable to find a single example, drawn from Paul's theological
writings in which Paul makes a universal statement and the scope of
its reference is unduly fuzzy or less than clear. Paul's writing may
be cumbersome at times, but he was not nearly as sloppy a writer (or
a thinker) as some of his commentators, in their zeal to interpret
him for us, would make him out to be" (Note # 2, H, P. 59).
The so-called "universalistic"
texts are not at all unclear or fuzzy. The fact is that our theological
traditions do not allow us to accept these passages as written because
we extract them from the Bible as a whole and view them in isolation.
In such isolation the so-called "universalistic" texts would
be teachings that all persons will be saved without any exceptions
(See Posting #4). However, Dr. Edward Fudge, and many others,
have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that both the Old and
New Testaments portray a final division of mankind, those who will
be finally saved and ththose who will be finally lost (Note # 2, B).
BOTH
ARE RIGHT, BOTH ARE WRONG
The following actual scene should
have been long gone — Here we find truly learned, evangelical,
Calvinist professors expounding on the so-called "universalistic"
texts, contending that they speak so clearly of a certain-to-be-realized
salvation that they can not possibly have reference to "all men."
Four miles down road equally learned, evangelical, professors in the
Arminian tradition are teaching the next generation that so clearly
do these same passages speak in terms of all persons, they can not
possibly have reference to a "certain-to-be- realized" salvation.
The so-called "universalistic"
texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinist have
consistently maintained and they do so in terms of all persons as
Arminians have always affirmed. Either we accept them as written without
any exceptions (Absolute Universalism); or, we accept them as written
with the exceptions that are necessarily imposed on them by the broader
context of the Scriptures as a whole (Biblical Universalism). We have
no right to change the Word of God as written in order to maintain
a theological tradition (See Posting #2).
There may be a third or fourth
possibility that accepts the so-called "universalistic"
passages as written. I am not aware of any such possibility.
GOD
WANTS HIS NAME (NATURE) KNOWN IN THE PRESENT AGE
Referring to Romans 5:18 Charles
Hodge says: "Not only, however, does the comparison, which the
Apostle makes between Adam and Christ, lead to the conclusion that
as all are condemned for the sin of the one, so all are saved by the
righteousness of the other, those only excepted whom the Scriptures
except; but the principle assumed throughout the whole discussion
teaches the same doctrine. That principle is that it is more congenial
with the nature of God to bless than to curse, to save than to destroy"
(Systematic Theology, Vol. I, P. 26).
To affirm or to deny the
possibility of Inclusivism is infinitely more important than merely
a matter of "who will be surprised by the number of the redeemed
in heaven" as Nash flippantly suggests (Note # 2, F, P. 165).
God does all things for his own name's sake including saving sinners.
He is jealous of his name. He has proclaimed his name and he desires
to have his name proclaimed throughout all the 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 reluctantly DOES.
If there is "A Wideness
in God's Mercy," as expressed by Pinnock and portrayed by Bonda
(Note #2, E and G) then his world embracing mercy is among "the
revealed things that belong to us and our children forever."
It is God's goodness that will lead sinners to repentance (Rom. 2:4).
We have biblical warrant for approaching every sinner with this attitude:
"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 show works worthy of your repentance."
Contrary to what Nash finds (Note #2, F, P. 148), we thereby confirm
every approach to sinners that is recorded for us in the book of Acts.
Copies
to:
Ronald H. Nash
Clark
Pinnock
John
Sanders
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) All page references are to one or other of these books:
