AN 'EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVIST' DEFENDS EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM
UN-LIMITED ATONEMENT
Reformed minister
Neil 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 the Earliest View of The Plan of Salvation,
Posting One, by Neal Punt. Full source in Bibliography. The above is a 2006 insert in my earlier article which follows).
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
Defence 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 recognised 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) criticised 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 defence 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
prejudices to some degree.
NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES WHICH REVEAL A BROADNESS OF SALVATION GOING BEYOND 'THE LITTLE FLOCK';
None of the following group
of Scriptures are new to 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, 1 Cor 15:24-28, 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 perhaps the most significant) goes beyond the
Church as a present day entity. 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, in many cases, they also appear to 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 Saviour of
the world, rather than simply being the Saviour 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 recognise that that statement (which I actually
read somewhere) is simply theological gobbledygook!
So let us recognise that - according to the Scripure - 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 many 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 recognise 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 recognise 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 Neil
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 unevangelised, 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 despatch 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 Judgement, but being judged according to
their behaviour as indeed Revelation 20:12 confirms. And Paul
finishes by stating that this by no means hopeless Day of
Judgement 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 recognise 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 refer to as the Abrahamic Covenant. This
appears to be rather a spacial 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 clearly 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 were also to be a type of the
Church of God to come.
And 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). This, by the way, is a vital point which became
undermined in the post-Calvin Covenant Theology.
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
willfully reject Jesus Christ while in full possession of the details of
the Gospel, are in real danger of damnation! But the
situation of the unevangelised 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 realise 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 somewhat different approach but was still
clearly Inclusivist in overall theology.
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 unevangelised 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, certainly in 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, Neil Punt and John
Sanders. 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! Moreover, F.F. Bruce (1910-1990), one of the leading New Testament scholars
of the 20th century and a primary mover in the intellectually-active 20th century British evangelical movement, made this comment to Inclusivist Neal Punt,
"I read your book 'What’s Good About the Good News?' with great interest. Your position is very much my own. The seven couplets in your book command my emphatic agreement.
Your exposition of the subject is thoroughly in line with the insight: 'Admittedly Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.'
I wish your work a wide circulation; it will stimulate much fresh thought on this important subject."
(this comment is a later insert into my 2002 article).
Two others who have made statements of at least loose support for Inclusivism during the last few years include evangelist Billy Graham and leading UK evangelical theologian Alister McGrath.
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 judgement 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 judgement, 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 judgement of God and that His holy judgement 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.
© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace
2002. If you want it on your own website please do the honourable
thing and come to us for permission first. It is forbidden to
excerpt this article without our permission. Thank you.
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.
Douty, Norman F. Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978.
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 the Earliest View of The
Plan of Salvation, Posting One. Which is here.
Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts. Ventura
(Calif): 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:
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST - AN INCLUSIVE MESSAGE
(This one is especially vital to read).
WHERE ARE
THE SCRIPTURES TO SHOW THE WIDENESS OF CHRIST'S
ATONEMENT?
OUR MYSTERIOUS
GOD
ARE
SMALL CHILDREN SAVED IF THEY DIE?
LIMITED ATONEMENT EXHAUSTIVELY REFUTED
WILL
MOST OF THE HUMAN RACE GO TO HELL?
Hit Counter
