free web counter
WILL MOST OF THE HUMAN RACE GO TO HELL?
Will Most People Finally go to Hell? Will Most of the Human Race go to Hell?
Many of my fellow evangelicals would answer this question in the affirmative, but I have long maintained that, in adopting this position, they are only focussing on certain Scriptures whilst being quite prepared to ignore many others.
Here is
my article of 2000 which has stirred up such amazing interest
during the last few years! I may say that it remains the case
that very, very few have ever come to me and said things like,
"I hate to say it but you have got this massively wrong
because....." On the contrary, I have been surprised by the
admissions from reformed Calvinists that I make a very valid
point and that this really does highlight a weak and undiscussed
area of reformed and Augustinian-based theology. I could never have
suspected that so many reformed Calvinist evangelicals would
contact me with an admittance that I have highlighted a weak area
of their theology!
Since I am effectively re-releasing this article with this 2004 edition (the original article no longer appears on the 'net'), I am just making one or two slight alterations; and yet my article remains substantially the same.
Robin A. Brace.
2004.
We are going to take a look here at
Calvinistic Restrictivism, or, the belief that the majority of
the human race will finally go to hell. Yes, we are going to dare
to take this question on!
It is a logical conclusion of much Reformed theology that few are
going to be saved and, certainly, some Scriptures can be produced
which appear, at least initially, to back this up. On the other
hand, there are also quite a welter of Scriptures which appear to
show that this cannot be the case! These Scriptures are, we
believe, too often ignored. Your writer remains more Reformed
than anything else, and I certainly stand more with Calvin than
Arminius, but there are serious and fair questions here which
many have put to me and I really feel that one should address
them! It saddens me that a few Reformed friends may distance
themselves from me after this feature, but I really think that we
need to boldly face up to weaknesses in certain areas of Reformed
theology, just as we are happy to praise its strengths. It is a
very long article, largely written in 1998.
IS it only the few who will finally be saved? Calvin, following
Augustine, certainly thought so and this approach has spread to
affect most of what is loosely known as conservative evangelical
theology. This Calvinistic approach is known by such names as
'the fewness doctrine', 'Restrictivism' and 'Exclusivism'. It is
the teaching of 'Limited Atonement', the third of the 5 points of
Calvinism. Let us, here and now, give away a strong clue to one
of our final conclusions; We say that Limited Atonement is
correct, but only during this age of the Church, not correct as
an eternal reality! If one is only able to see 'Limited
Atonement' as an eternal reality (probably the position of most
strict Calvinists), then it is incorrect, since it fails to take
account of too many Scriptures! Fascinated? Then read
on!
Limited Atonement, as conceived by the
strict Calvinist has, of course, Scriptures which would appear to
bear it out. It is a concentration on the 'little flock' and the
'Remnant of Israel' who are alone to be delivered. However, I
have long noticed that in order for this Restrictivism to be
maintained, other Scriptures have to be either ignored or have
Calvinist 'control beliefs' brought to them. This can amount to
things being imposed upon the Scriptures which might be foreign
to them, and is the practise of eisegesis (putting things into
the Scriptures rather than exegesis;drawing things out!) The
truth is, there are also quite a welter of Scriptures which I
shall call 'universalistic scope' Scriptures. No, one does not
feel that they amount to a universalist message (all will be
saved) but they certainly appear to point beyond Restrictivism.
(Few, or. very few will finally be saved).
Yet it cannot be denied that Restrictivism has a certain
consistency to it and it has certainly been the basis of much
missionary endeavour. The approach has often been, 'the majority
of mankind are certainly bound for hell unless one can reach them
with the gospel before they die.' Actually, of course, this is
not a strictly Calvinist line since that line of thought would
say that the majority of mankind are bound for hell no matter
what the missionary might do!
The Protestant Reformers, as is well known, identified strongly
with Augustine whom they saw as perhaps the last to strongly
uphold the Pauline conception of grace. They thus revisited the
bishop of Hippo, but Augustine had also embraced certain errors,
including a very legalistic approach to baptism. Indeed, the
sacramentalist view of the church was also developed by Augustine
and so the Reformers knew that they could not take all of
Augustine.
In his earlier life, the great
theologian had embraced Manichaeism, the dualistic and fatalistic
cult with strong eastern elements and he finally emerged from it
only through a Neoplatonist route! Indeed, many feel that he did
not escape entirely unscathed, for there would, thereafter, be a
strongly fatalistic streak to his theology. Again, whether or not
we agree, it has been suggested that Calvin also took some of
this. Predestination of the Elect is biblical as long as it does
not become divorced from the veracity of our decision whether to
believe. To arrive at a truly biblical approach, we have to hold
these two aspects of election in an exact tension. We believe,
and then joyfully discover that our decision is backed up and,
indeed, eternally written in heaven! However, we must always
avoid the Arminian error of saying that God only chose us because
He knew we would believe - this is obviously in conflict with the
teaching which we discover in Ephesians. This puts us in control
and has God awaiting our decision, which must be wrong! No, God
alone is the elector and yet our human choice remains a
meaningful choice. This is the only way to faithfully describe
the biblical position. Thats the Predestination of the Elect -
however, Double Predestination is plainly unbiblical and goes
beyond what the Scriptures clearly reveal! This 'dreadful decree'
states that just as some are ordained for salvation, others (the
majority) are ordained for hell; but this teaching is only
reached by taking a leap of logic; but it is human logic. The
Bible never finally crosses its 't's nor dots its 'i's on this
matter. Hell is held up as a continual deterrent, but sometimes
it is only those who explicitly reject Christ who appear to be
going there, while, at other times, it is the wicked in general
who are apparently in real danger of its peril. The issue of what
happens to the unevangelized is never specifically raised nor is
the fate of those who die in chilhood, and yet - as those who
have received the Holy Spirit - we can surely see the principles
which will come into play.
Now, to return to the teaching of Restrictivism, it is true that
some Reformed people, like A.A. Hodge, had a very optimistic view
of the numbers who would finally be saved, but this was because
of their postmillenialism (the Church will finally convert the
whole world before Christ returns.) Few hold to postmillenialism
today and we have to proceed here in the light of current
realities.
It is time to state some specific objections to Restrictivism; If
this teaching is correct, and if indeed - at the end of time -
hell has countless millions of inhabitants, while comparatively
few will have been saved, this calls the final victory and
triumph of Christ into question! And yet, we are told in the
Scriptures that 'of the increase of His government there shall be
no end'! Would this also not stand Romans 5:18-20 on its
head?
"Therefore, as through one man's offence judgement came to all
men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's
righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in
justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made
righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might
abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that
as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through
righteousness to eternal life through JesusChrist our Lord"
Time and again, I have observed the extreme Calvinist's
discomfiture with this and similar Scriptures; lamentably, one
has also witnessed the immediate attempt to bring 'control
beliefs' from outside the context of this Scripture into play!
May we request the reader to read those three verses again -
carefully - and to ask whether this can possibly fit in with
Restrictivism in which only the few are finally saved? We see in
these verses a picture of the complete victory of Jesus Christ,
but could that be a complete victory if the great kidnapper,
Satan, had succeeded in closing the door to salvation to most of
this world's population? Really, this is Plutarchian dualism;
That is, that God and Satan cannot overcome each other and will
continue to have their domains since neither is strong enough to
finally defeat the other! But we are bound to reject this as
being wholly unbiblical.
Yes, the Scriptures regularly reveal a hell but the approach is
to continually warn of its danger rather than to pontificate on a
so-called anti-elect, or the reprobated masses, who are certainly
going there! Now that some of us are well-seasoned in the faith,
we should be prepared to think about some of these things rather
than rush to Calvin (though usually a hyper-Calvin) for answers.
After all, today we are aware of things which the great Reformer
could not have been. He, looking ahead from the 16th century, may
well have believed that within a few years of the Protestant
victory, the whole world would have been successfully
evangelized, with every soul becoming aware of the name of
Christ! Today, we know differently; we now have little doubt that
most of those who have lived of all time, lived and died without
even hearing the name of Christ!!
Again, we tend to look on the Church and the Elect as exactly the
same thing, but we should perhaps occasionally pause to remind
ourselves that this is never biblically spelled out! Sometimes
one grows a little weary with the eagerness of some hard-lined
Reformed people to despatch almost everybody to hell! I seem to
find rather more than the odd scriptural hint that the Elect of
God and the Church are not absolute parralels!
I also happen to believe that if Calvin were alive today and
knew what we know, he might well reconsider one or two things
which he stated. Let no one doubt that, despite saying this, I
remain a firm admirer of the great man.
Also, surely the New Testament shows God to be ever willing to go
after the 'lost sheep'? And we are encouraged to consider God's
care for us to be superior to a human parent's care for their
children, but what human parent would ever eternally exclude
his/her children from their presence? Some would say that these
are just emotional factors, but where did such emotions as love,
joy, concern and forgiveness come from?
Now, as we know, the Bible reveals some sort of grading not only
in heaven but in hell too. Not all will suffer the greatest
punishment, neither will all receive the greatest reward, this
might be relevant when we consider the Elect as the Church who
are probably more or less synonymous with 'the little flock'.
Obviously, the Church is never going to be numerically huge at
the present time, so any consideration of 'universalistic scope'
Scriptures would appear to be extra to the specific Church.
Revelation 21 is intriguing here; If the New Jerusalem is a
symbol of the Church which it certainly appears to be (Rev 21:
2,9) then just who are the nations who will thereafter walk in
the light of it? (Rev 21: 24!) We see these nations again in Rev
22: 2. Now, they obviously appear to be 'saved' since they appear
here in the last chapter of the Bible when the New Heavens and
New Earth have become a reality! Yet there are indications here
that they are not the Church. This is speculative, but could
these be those not deemed wicked enough to be sent to hell, or
the unevangelized, or children? Or maybe a combination of all
such groups. Maybe these are those who responded positively to
that light which they received during this life. John Sanders
calls these people 'believers' rather than Christians. Surely
Revelation 20: 12-15 would include these people who - to their
joy - are found to be entered into the Lamb's Book of Life. Why,
we ask, are so many willing to include the many who are not
particularly wicked, and the unevangelized in the number bound
for hell? Why should it not be possible for a large number
finally to be saved who never made a personal committment to
Christ, when the Old Testament tells us of those who will be
saved before Jesus walked this earth? Yes, they would be included
within the efficacy of His sacrifice, but the grading point is
important here, they will not, perhaps, amount to being the Bride
of Christ. The opportunity for these people, then, might commence
from Judgement Day when it appears as though some are going to be
surprised to be saved!! Would the Church be surprised to be
saved? Carefully consult Matthew 25: 31-46. It would appear,
then, that these people never went to heaven at death to be
comforted, else why would they be surprised at the positive
outcome of their judgement? Indeed nothing in this Scripture
would necessarily suggest that they had committed themselves to
Christ yet, but they are praised for how they handled that light
which they possessed, they had behaved in a Christly way, and
they go, somewhat to their surprise, into God's kingdom!
Of course, many reformed evangelicals will have a problem when I
speak of those "not particularly wicked" because of the very
black and white picture which we evangelicals tend to have
between the recipients of God's grace and the unredeemed. We
evangelicals arrive at this picture because of our insistence of
having neat, tidy, 'all questions answered' theologies, but can
we always say that the Holy Bible is always as clear-cut and
sharply defined on this issue as our systematic theologies?
Apart from such Scriptures as John 3: 16-17 and 1 John 2: 2
which suggest Christ's saving efficiency goes beyond the
parameters of the Church per se, there are another group of
Scriptures which suggest that those who have suffered
unreasonably during this life will be saved, indeed we tend to
forget the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is such a
Scripture! We have such statements as this,
"Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who
laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep"
(Luke 6: 24-25)
Some such New Testament statements appear to be surprisingly
unconnected to Christ, and yet we know that such people will only
be saved through Him. There is no other entry into heaven; this
is the position of Inclusivism, rather than Exclusivism (only
those who clearly commit themselves to Christ during this life
can be saved)- the third possible position, Pluralism, states
that all religions lead to God and have their own salvific
efficacy - we are bound, as Christians, to reject this position.
But to briefly return to Revalation 22, we may note verse 15 with
its reference to those who will never enter the city;
"...dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral..." etc etc., but
this would appear to be a back-projection to all of us in this
age of the Church as a serious warning and as a deterrent, for it
would appear that that such people will have gone out of
existence by that future point. But we cannot help but be
intrigued by this chapter which, even allowing for obvious
symbolism, seems to reveal the presence of 'nations' still in
apparent need of further healing after the New Heavens and New
Earth have become a reality! This tends to be an uncomfortable
area for many evangelicals, since we have this sharp dichotomy
between those who have received the grace of Christ, whom we say
have no further need of healing, and those outside of that, whom
we see only destruction for. But let us just honestly ask the
question as to whether the biblical revelation is quite as
sharply and clearly drawn as our neat little theological
patterns?
Now that we have returned to Revelation 22, let us note verse
17, for this amounts to one of the strongest 'universalistic
scope' Scriptures in the whole Bible! Why? Because it pictures
the 'Spirit and the Bride' offering salvation to all! Let us
never forget that the Bride is symbolic of the Church;
"...whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely"
Where is Restrictivism now? it has gone.
Of course, it could be said that this too is back-projected and
applies to our present Church age, but this does not appear to be
the case because of those limited scope salvific Scriptures such
as John 6: 44, 65 which certainly DO apply to our Church age. At
present, only those 'whom the Father draws' can come to Jesus,
whereas here we see that the door is open to 'whoever
desires.'!!
So maybe we should just occasionally consider that our neat
little theological packages may not contain the complete
revelation of God. Certainly we see here indications of, perhaps,
a lower class of non-Church saved people who will need further
healing from the Tree of Life with its fruits and leaves. It is
very hard not to think of Isaiah 9: 7 here;
"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no
end..."
As John Sanders says in 'No Other Name', page 218,
"...is it credible that He would have created millions of people
without any hope of salvation? The One who prayed, 'Father,
forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing' - Luke
23: 34 - would not leave the unevangelized without hope..."
It is very hard to disagree with this.
Of course, one of Calvin's original devices for preaching Limited
Atonement was through the Church's great similarity with Israel.
Without doubt, Israel were a very clear type of the Church to
come (this is not the time or place to go into this in detail).
Calvin's point was that that nation was small and despised and
only made great because of the election of God - and we can agree
with this. But Calvin developed his argument by saying that those
outside of Israel had no knowledge of God and were therefore
doomed, this being a clear picture of no salvation outside of the
Church! But is this wholly correct? In fact, throughout the Old
Testament we see people coming into a relationship with God
despite not being Israelites. These people with a more deficient
knowledge of God in most cases, were saved by faith in that
revelation which came to them! People like Rahab, Jethro, Naomi
and Ruth will be saved, since they identified with Israel and her
God, but were really outsiders! So it is very seriously
questionable whether Calvin's argument stands up.
Inclusivists point out other biblical texts too which showed God
showing favour to non-Israelites at times. Several such occasions
are mentioned, even though only in passing, in Deuteronomy 2.
(See verses 5,9,19,21-22.)
Again, indicative - that even under the Old Covenant -
non-Israelites were not entirely cut off from God. Yes, without
question, Israel had been elected to a particular task by God and
this formed a major biblical focus, but this did not preclude His
ever showing favour to any outside of Israel. And this is a good
place to remind ourselves of the all-encompassing breadth of some
of the other biblical covenants.
Sanders picks this point up well in his book;
"The first covenant mentioned in the Bible is one made between
God and the human race, not God and Israel. God created human
beings in His own image and gave them responsibilities - Genesis
1: 26-28.. After the Fall, God promised Eve a 'seed' who would
provide deliverance from the curse - Genesis 3: 15. This promise,
which is fulfilled in the work of Christ, is destined for the
benefit of all people. Noah's sons are considered the fathers of
all nations, and the Noahic covenant is made with 'all flesh' -
Genesis 9: 8-19. When God selected Abraham for a special work, he
still had the blessing of 'all the families of the earth' in mind
- Genesis 12: 3...all the covenants that God made after these
were intended not to abrogate but rather to bring to fruition his
universal blessing"
('No Other Name', p,218-219.)
It could be said, perhaps, that following the influence of
Augustine, Calvin had tended to 'close down' this wider scope of
salvation. Indeed, it is very interesting how this primarily
affected the western Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition
has always remained more 'open' on the matter of salvation.
There are several further associated questions which I now need
to tackle, and I propose to tackle them in the form of question
and answer. I have thought of some of the objections to the
viewpoint which one has outlined and so we will continue in a
question and answer format. The reader too can contribute to this
by E Mailing questions though it might be wise to see if I have
covered any particular question first.
QUESTION; BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN PREACHING HELL, ALL OF
THOSE MISSIONARIES HAVE GOT IT WRONG?
ANSWER;
Absolutely not and I would not want this point to be
misunderstood! The preaching about hell has biblical authority!
The problem has been in theologians being unafraid to go a little
beyond what the Scriptures clearly say and sometimes preaching a
message which has an incorrect balance. But hell has to be
preached for it has strong deterrent value. Let us be clear; the
Bible warns that some - perhaps many - are in real danger of
hell. Where we go wrong is in drawing conclusions according to
human logic and not according to plain biblical teaching. To say
that most of the human race is going to hell is flawed because it
casts serious doubt on the ultimate victory and triumph of
Christ.
QUESTION; IS INCLUSIVISM, RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVISM, PART OF THE
GOSPEL TO BE PREACHED?
ANSWER;
No! We can be quite sure about this. If it were part of the very
gospel message, it would have been made much clearer. The gospel
concerns what happened upon the cross and the redemption which
that has made available. The Trinity too is not part of the
gospel, but we find it revealed and it adds to our undestanding
of God. Inclusivism says that many are finally going to be saved,
not a few, and it is inevitable that some - or many - of these
did not personally accept Christ during their lifetimes, yet they
will only be saved through Him. This should not sound so
incredible since this applies to those saved during Old Testament
times. Let us be clear about this; the moment one agrees that the
Old Testament men and women of God will be saved, yet only
through a Christ they had not heard about, they are upholding
Inclusivism! We can go this far but must be wary of Pluralism;
that is that all religions lead to God. We must reject this. John
Sanders has expressed this well. He said in one of his books that
'Christ is ontologically necessary for our salvation but not
necessarily epistemologically necessary.' In other words, one
will not always have to know all the details, yet without Him
there is no salvation.
But Exclusivism is bound to uphold the belief that the majority
of the human race will not be saved.
QUESTION; WILL GOD REACH THE UNEVANGELIZED DECEASED THROUGH
'POST MORTEM EVANGELIZATION'?
ANSWER;
I have a problem with this concept although I know that it has
gained some prominence during the last few years. I cannot say
that it is definitely wrong that converts will be made after they
have died since we do not have all knowledge and God will surely
have some surprises for us! Having said that, there are problems
with the idea. The people that I am talking about are already
saved, already included within the scope of Christ's sacrifice,
although they will need further instruction on the work of
Christ. They are saved now through a positive response to that
light which they did receive in this life; Romans 2: 11-16 seems
to show that this will be enough for their evaluation. These
people would have accepted Christ, so no further evaluation on
that score would appear to be required. Post-Mortem
evangelization, as proposed by such theologians as Clark Pinnock,
would seem to be totally inconsistent with the following
Scriptures; Eccles 9: 4-6, 10, Isaiah 38: 18, Luke 16: 19-31, 2
Cor 6: 2 and Hebrews 9: 27.
QUESTION; BUT JUST WHO ARE THESE 'BELIEVERS'? - AND IF GOD
WILL ACCEPT THEM WHILE NOT HAVING BEEN CHRISTIANS, DOES THIS NOT
SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T NEED TO BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CULTS,
SECTS & FALSE RELIGIONS?
ANSWER;
This would be absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw!
The Bible regularly shows that correct doctrine is important and
that we should always strive for 'the faith once delivered' - and
we are not even to wish 'God speed' to those who preach a
perverted gospel! This would include those cults and sects which
talk about Jesus but have changed the definition of the
gospel!
Of course, some confusion could arise if Inclusivism were part of
the gospel but, as already pointed out, it is not. But we
maintain that Inclusivism should ideally be part of the
understanding of all those who have matured in the knowledge of
the faith. It will enable us to reach out to those who reject the
Christian message since they cannot accept a God who will consign
millions to hell who, in many cases, have already suffered enough
in this life. We say that the Bible, while saying less than we
would like about this problem, nevertheless infers in many cases
that many such people still have hope. Again, even many strict
Reformed people believe that God will save every child who dies
before the age of accountability, as well as the mentally
handicapped; we agree! But here they are actually backing up
Inclusivism! And if God will apply the sacrifice of Christ to
such individuals who never knew the name of Jesus, why should He
not also apply it to countless thousands of others who also never
knew the name of Jesus and have led miserably short lives in
abject poverty and ignorance through no fault of their own?? We
believe that a huge number of such people will be found to be
entered in the Book of Life, and will be invited to partake of
the leaves and fruit of the Tree of Life. Yes, some of these may
have subcribed to what we know are false religions, those
religions could not save them, but they will have been faithful
to as much light as was available within that religion. While
avoiding all dangers of lapsing into Pluralism, we might do well
to consider what C.S. Lewis said of the three great principles
which tend to be present in all religion, in his book 'The
Problem of Pain';
a. The experience of the 'numinous' - a fear and dread of
something beyond the natural world and which is more powerful
than it. Both fear and joy somehow being part of this.
b. The principle of what Kant called 'oughtness'; a sense of
right and wrong and guilt when we fail to do the right which is
never far from us.
c. The principle of ultimate accountability and a judgement to
come. This is said to pervade all religions.
Even from ones reaction to some of these principles -
insufficient though they are - God can start to evaluate ones
response to Christ!
But what does all this tell us of cults etc.,? They are not
entirely cut off from God, but have an imperfect knowledge of Him
- yes, a seriously imperfect knowledge, yet they will have far
more light than those following animistic religion in Africa. God
can evaluate certain things from this. Yes, they remain in a
state of Falleness but far less acutely than the atheist. I was
once the member of such a sect, yet God was still prepared to
answer my prayers on a regular basis, being prepared to tolerate
my ignorance at that time. Yes, there is little question that God
answers prayers among many groups with woefully inadequate
knowledge of the work of Christ! Some Eastern Orthodox and Roman
Catholic people - faithful to as much as they understand - have
experienced some of the most stunning answers to prayer!
Having said all of that, we should strive for as much
understanding as we can and should oppose the entry of error into
the Body of Christ - none of that is altered one iota!
QUESTION; BUT AREN'T LIBERALS INCLUSIVIST? ARE MUSELTOF
LIBERAL?
ANSWER;
To answer the second part of this question first; We are
definitely NOT theological liberals! In fact, I have spent a
great deal of time personally going into churches and chapels
which have been much affected by liberal theology, striving and
encouraging those present to cast aside liberalism and to take a
personal walk with Jesus Christ! At Museltof, we accept that
famous comment that liberal Christianity is really a different
religion - can't recall who said it - was it J. Gresham Machen?
We see it as one of our main roles to warn nominal Christians
that just a loose notion of Christ as a 'Great Teacher' and
little more than that has no power to save! No, I am not
contradicting myself in saying that, while also saying that we
believe that on the Day of Judgement many will be saved who never
heard the name of Jesus; After all, liberal Christians have heard
the name of Jesus!
Now some liberals might accept Inclusivism, yet many others
accept universalism (all will be saved)- but our objections to
Exclusivism are unconnected to liberal theology, we say why are
such a large group of 'universalistic scope' Scriptures not taken
account of? (Again, in saying 'universalistic' in this context we
mean looking beyond Exclusivism, we do not refer to
universalism.)
QUESTION; SO ARE WE SAYING THAT 'LIMITED ATONEMENT' IS
WRONG?
ANSWER;
As regards this age of the Church, it is certainly correct; few
are becoming Christians and those that do are 'the little flock'.
But we say that the error is to see that as an eternal truth.
There are certainly another group of Scriptures which have a
universal breadth (I am going to list just a few of these at the
end of this treatise.)
Again, the point could be raised that I am saying that General
Revelation can save (General Revelation describes what we can
know of God purely from nature and from ourselves, but lacking
any information about Christ, which is 'Special Revelation')but I
am not really saying that, only Christ can save.
QUESTION; IF INCLUSIVISM IS CORRECT, WHY PREACH THE
GOSPEL?
ANSWER;
It is the Great Commission to preach the gospel because God wants
the message of what Christ has done to be broadcasted. As
Christians we have no right to say, 'For my part, I don't think
that I will preach it' That is just disobedience. But why preach
it if we believe that some will be saved without this knowledge?
Well, that is in God's capable hands, not ours. To be sure, as a
loving God, He will have a method of dealing with the
unevangelized which is going to be rather more loving than just
shoving them all into hell! But that is not an area of our
concern, except that we should note that there is hope - yes,
real hope - for those people. But people are going to be blessed
by becoming Christians right now in this life and almost
certainly will have a higher position in the kingdom. By learning
about Jesus right now people can start to avoid sin and to make
their lives much more meaningful, yes, Christians, in a real
sense, enter God's kingdom even now. They then join in the
endeavour of preaching the gospel.
No, missionary activity and zeal should be in no way impaired by
Inclusivism!
QUESTION; SO WHERE DOES PREDESTINATION COME INTO ALL OF
THIS?
ANSWER;
What (comparatively little) the New Testament says about
predestination is in no way affected by any of this. The term
applies to the Elect of God and to their eternal calling, it is
simply that we cannot confine this group to the visible Church.
Double Predestination is not biblical as even an increasing
number of Reformed people are starting to allow. And even with
the predestination of the Elect we have to be cautious in order
not to get out of 'sync' with the biblical approach. As mentioned
earlier, we must hold the concept of eternal election together
with the full validity of our decision and choice. After all, the
Bible says only a tiny bit about eternal election and
predestination, but countless Scriptures tell us to choose! But
as regards eternal election, God obviously knows His own Elect
and, indeed, as Calvin pointed out, He (God) ordained them to
life from the foundation of the world. The problem develops when
we start to approach Election entirely from God's point of view;
we really cannot do so since we are not God! Before long, an
unbiblical fatalism can rear its head - but this was never a
biblical approach but, rather, a pagan one!
It is a distortion to say, as some do, that if God chose us, He
forced us to become Christians, so where is our choice? Then they
say, He has forced the rest to go to hell and not to know Him.
This is a massive distortion - I hope that all of our readers can
see that!
At some point we are going to have to discuss Romans 9-11, since
it is now quite widely accepted that Calvin misunderstood Paul
here; an example of an essentially honest man getting a little
carried away with his enthusiasm to find a favourite doctrine
upheld in a text which is essentially unconcerned with it. Paul
is discussing in those chapters the fact that God's choice in the
kingdom of mankind has nothing to do with the merit of man. He
rules as He wills upon the earth, but there is always a purpose
to it. Paul talks about God's 'hardening' of Israel, it is God
who decides where and when He will raise up specific people and
nations to fulfil His purpose, and He may raise some to glory and
some to ignomony. But the focus in these chapters is on THIS
WORLD all the time. Paul is simply not discussing Eternity or
Eternal Life here, He is not saying that either Esau or the
Pharaoh of Exodus are going to go to hell and that they are
ordained for that; he is discussing this present life. We are
assured that God is in control of all things which happen upon
this earth and He raises up the right people at the right time to
fulfil His grand purposes, He is well able to 'soften' the heart
of some or to 'harden' the heart of others. Although this is now
well understood, it is disappointing that many Reformed writers
will still go straight to the Calvinist explanation of these
verses.
So, Evangelical Inclusivism (we really must separate
ourselves from forms of Inclusivism, and especially Universalism
which do not come from an evangelical foundation) is very
encouraging, it shows that Christ's triumph really will be a
complete triumph! Only a few will probably finally go to hell,
and we can proclaim Christ's complete victory - according to
Romans 5: 18-21 - without any fear of contradiction.
'THOSE WHO SUFFER NOW WILL BE REWARDED' TYPE SCRIPTURES IN
BOTH TESTAMENTS;
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 more than this; these are the ones which tend to
quickly come to mind).
NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES WHICH REVEAL A BROADNESS OF SALVATION
GOING BEYOND 'THE LITTLE FLOCK';
Matt 25: 31-46, Luke 15: 2-32, John 1: 9, 29, John 3: 16-17, 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: 15-20, Roms 11: 12, 15, 2 Cor 5:
14, 19, 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, Rev 20: 12, Rev 21: 24, Rev 22: 2.
Robin A. Brace, 2000 (Somewhat updated 2004)
© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace
2000, 2004. 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.
The reader may also wish to read two related articles:
AN EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVIST DEFENDS EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM
TO EVANGELIZE THE LOST - WHY WE SHOULD DO IT