Get out your Bibles
Inclusivism.. Biblically Sound Or ‘User-Friendly’?
by D.J. Quinn
Please note that there are some doctrinal issues about how to become a christian. But the concept is still something to think about. Don't put your Bibles away as you read on.Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.
He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18
A question that obviously interests most of humanity is the afterlife. Christians in particular have long asked questions about heaven and hell etc.. .. . At the end of times how many people are really going to be there in heaven and how many are really going to hell? This is a question that has seen much debate in reputed and not so reputed Christian circles and has given rise to certain schools of thought and doctrine that are contrary to each other and contrary to the Scriptures. One such school is the belief in the all-inclusive final triumph of God where the majority of mankind, regardless of religious belief, who lead moral lives (but have no knowledge of the saving grace of Christ) are saved and find a place in paradise. While this is certainly an interesting concept and makes for a very happy ending, the question we are forced to ask ourselves is how Biblically sound is this doctrine.
Inclusivism has been around for centuries but one of the reasons I believe it has recently become so popular is the need to make Christianity a more “user friendly” religion. Many people have chosen to reject Christianity on the basis that a God who is willing to condemn millions to hell simply for not believing in Him is not a God they want to have anything to do with. Many Christians are uncomfortable with this theology. God’s absolute justice, the exclusivity of Christ, and the doctrine of eternal punishment are all hard pills to swallow. Inclusivists hope to rescue God from accusations of injustice by trying to soften the uncompromising message of the Gospel.
Hence more and more today we hear terms like universal brotherhood, one world religion, universalism and inclusivism. What is especially troubling is many Christians from traditionally Evangelical circles have adopted the popular credence that somehow, somewhere God will win (numerically), and all (or at least the majority of) mankind will enter into the heavenly kingdom. They argue that although salvation comes through Jesus Christ, it does not follow that there must be personal faith for salvation to take place. God in his grace may save some people by the merits of his Son, without their ever having heard of his Son.
What I find very interesting is the fact that Christianity is perhaps one of the most unambiguous religions when it comes to the question of access into heaven. While Islam believes that only the infidel will be severely punished and every one else goes to one of the seven heavens, Buddhism and Hinduism follow a constant cycle of rebirth and Judaism has no concept of the afterlife at all; Christianity very clearly defines that in order for one to find a place in heaven the mandatory requirement is belief in, and confession of, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. There are however those who debate the validity of this and, in essence, challenge beliefs that Christians have held true to for centuries. This essay focuses on the ‘Inclusivism’, which believes that regardless of religious belief or way of life, Jesus has atoned for the sins of all mankind and the vast majority of unbelievers will find their names in the book of life on the day of judgment. Only those, according to this doctrine, who utterly reject Jesus will be punished in hell.
However there are several common threads running through most arguments for Inclusivism.. One being too much reliance on the writings and thoughts of other men. Two.. When Scripture is referred to it is often out of context and Three .. Some of the basic rules of Bible reading is ignored... Obscure or hard to understand Scriptures are to be interpreted in the light of clear ones and no single verses can be used to form a doctrine.
In regard to the first problem there is little doubt that there is much we can learn from teachers, theologians, historians, etc. We CANNOT liberally quote the words of men, and not delve into what the Scripture itself declares. The answer to who is saved or unsaved does not lie in the validity of what Calvin or Augustine or anyone else believed. Getting people to shift their focus to what others think and believe, while skirting what the Bible itself says, often seems like a clever diversionary tactic. The answer to this question as with all questions pertaining to faith can be found clearly and explicitly defined in the Bible itself. So let us take our attention off humans for a minute and look at what the Scripture says with regards to unbelievers entering the kingdom of heaven.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
It is interesting to note that this is a direct quote of the Christ Himself. Even to the youngest and most inexperienced Christian the meaning of Jesus’ words here could not be clearer. He is not saying that we are saved through an understanding that there is a “god” or by our good works or through another faith system, rather He is clearly stating that ONLY those who believe (in Jesus) and are baptized (only Christianity believes in baptism) will be saved, everyone else is condemned. It would seem relatively obvious that Jesus Himself is showing us a distinctly exclusive route to heaven here. Some other examples of exclusivism in Jesus’ teachings are
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 3:36 could not be clearer when it says, “He who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE but the wrath of God abides on him” (emphasis added).
It is sad to see many Christian authors and leaders who have been so carried away with this need to see more people in heaven that they have become willing to circumvent and even challenge the basic dogma of the Christian faith. While this doctrine may be a great assuage to the conscience it is contrary to the words of Jesus Himself and indeed against the very fabric of the New Testament. Why? Because it accepts that there is redemption without repentance. An idea that is totally and completely unbiblical. Our job is not to make Biblical truths more palatable but to stay true to the message of the Messiah.
Based purely on the words of Christ the doctrine of “Inclusivism” should be totally rejected at this point. However those that believe in this doctrine do bring up several interesting points using scripture to back up their beliefs. The danger in reading the Bible with an agenda is you tend to find exactly what you are looking for. Single verses in the Bible, when taken out of context can be made to support most cultic beliefs and heretical doctrines. In order to accept single passage meanings one has to follow a dispensationalist method of reading the Bible; i.e. Dissecting the Bible and attaching unique meanings to each fragment in such a way that makes putting it all back together as a unified and coherent revelation impossible.
As said above.. one of the sound rules used when reading and studying the Word is that difficult passages must be explained in the light of simpler text. In other words use clear, unambiguous Scriptural passages to interpret what is obscure or less clear, not the other way around. With the ‘inclusivism’ view a preconceived theory is brought to the Scripture, difficult and isolated passages are used as proof and then an attempt is made to nullify the overwhelming evidence in simpler passages and force them to conform with the theory. The result is a violent division in the consistency of the Word and the redemptive work of God. Just as God is one so His Word is one and should be read as such.
Matthew 25:31-46 is oft quoted by inclusivists to support the claim that unbelievers will get into heaven. From a surface reading of this parable it is possible to draw the conclusion that some people are getting into heaven based on their good works (much to their surprise). However there are two points that need considering.. 1) Neither the sheep nor the goats express surprise at the place assigned them by Christ but rather at the reason given. i.e., that they are admitted or excluded on the basis of how they treated Jesus. 2) The surprise of the righteous makes it clear that they did not do good deeds in order to win salvation. The parable therefor presents a test eliminating the possibility of hypocrisy. True disciples will love one another and serve the least brother with compassion. On the other hand those who have ‘converted’ in name only will remain indifferent to the plight of the ‘least’ among us and are condemned for it. This is reiterated in the Book of James.
James 2:14-18 says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way faith by itself if not accompanied by action is dead. But someone will say ‘You have faith; I have deeds’. Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do” (emphasis added). And he adds in verse 20 “You foolish man, do you want proof that faith without deeds is useless?”
James tells us that faith without works is ‘dead’ and there is no place for a religion that is mere mental acceptance of truth. Faith that saves requires faith that proves itself by the deeds it produces. In the absence of good deeds James does not deny that the person has faith, rather indicates it is not the right kind of faith. Remember the demons also ‘have faith’ but their response will not save them. In Jesus’ parable the goat’s faith did not involve their inner beings, which resulted in an outward expression of a changed life.
Another Biblical verse used to support the theory of Inclusivism is
John 3:16-17. While John 3:16 does indeed say that “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that who so ever believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (emphasis added);
John 3:18 continues the thought by saying “Who ever believes in Him is not condemned, but who ever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son”.
Again selective and out of context reading would lead us to believe that God so loved the world that He sent His Son that all men might be saved, carefully leaving out the part that states “who so ever believe in Him” and ignoring the very next verse that clearly shows the distinction between the saved and the condemned. What the Bible does not say is “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that every man (or most men) should automatically be a part of heaven”.
Lets look at John 14:6 where Jesus said (to him), "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Pretty strong words from the Messiah, especially that last part where He claims that absolutely no one goes to the Father (and hence into the Kingdom of the Father) but through Jesus. But all men do not believe in Jesus and so inclusivists are left with little or no wind in the sails of their arguments unless of course they want to argue that what Christ actually meant here was that everyone will come to the Father through Jesus AFTER the judgment, which makes being a Christian in this life altogether pointless.
Salvation is a gift that may be accepted or rejected, not a tonic that mankind is forced to swallow. While supporters of the Inclusivism doctrine oppose Calvin’s belief in predestination, what strikes me as very interesting is that under the thinly disguised surface, the Inclusivists are in fact Calvinists based on the simple fact that they believe that one way or another the majority of mankind will find their way to heaven. That all mankind is “predestined” to go to heaven and a man, who chooses to ignore the sacrifice of the Son of God, is saved by that very sacrifice. Such a claim would render the Christian walk meaningless and demonstrates that our God shows favoritism to the “unsaved” by allowing them to live in sin (and still get into heaven) while strictly restricting the actions of the saved. This belief also completely demolishes the idea that God has given all mankind freedom of choice.
Lets look at this from a more human standpoint. We are yoked and related both biologically and spiritually to Adam (the first man) and hence as Adam’s direct descendants we inherit his legacy. In other words the consequences for Adam’s sin is in fact the inheritance of all generations until the end of time. Hence the sin of one man condemned his sons (All mankind) to death. Now lets look at Christ, the only begotten Son of God. We are not directly related to Christ biologically or spiritually. Christ was not the first man and didn’t even have children which rules out the entire world being biologically related to Him.
So here is the dilemma, Christ died for us to have an inheritance of life but we are not related to Him and hence technically and legally are not entitled to a dime (in this case a drop of redeeming blood). A technicality that Satan would be more than happy to wave in God’s face as a way to continue our bondage. To overcome this legalism, one is adopted into the household (kingdom) of God by agreeing to be an adopted child of God (i.e. accepting Christ as our Lord and savior). All those adopted children of God now have a share in the inheritance that is eternal life, through Jesus Christ. To state that those who choose to remain outside God’s house (and hence in Satan’s orphanage) have a share of that inheritance is an insult to the very blood Jesus spilled at Golgotha.
Please note that nowhere in the Bible does it directly say “All men are going to heaven”, it does however say that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that the wages of sin are death. (Romans 3:23 & 6:23) Emphasis added.
One of the major objections raised by Inclusivists is that Restrictivism undermines the victory of Christ over Adam and quote…
Romans 5:15 “But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the 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” as support for this theory.
And Romans 5:18-19 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment 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 Jesus Christ our Lord”
A superficial reading concedes that the point is well made. After all the Bible does use the words “all men” receiving the righteous gift of salvation through Christ and it also says, “Many will be made righteous”. It fits in perfectly with the theory that the majority of mankind will be saved and is a perfect example of selective reading at its best. All scriptural passages that speak of universal reconciliation include in their biblical context an exhortation for repentance and regeneration and draws definite divisions between believers and non-believers.
In 2 Corinthians 6:15-17 Paul is very clear “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?”
(And then Paul quotes Isaiah’s words from the Lord saying) “As God has said “I will live with them and walk among them and they will be my people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, Says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing and I will receive you”.
Even the most radical believer in Inclusivism would have a problem synchronizing their theory with what Paul is saying here. Paul is very clearly telling the believers that we are different, called out from among the unbelievers. Please note neither Paul nor Isaiah say “heretics, antichrists or false religionists”, they both use the word “unbeliever” meaning those who do not believe in Jesus. It would be highly unfair and extremely bizarre if the Lord first calls His people to be separate from the unbelievers, only to throw them all into the merry mix again in heaven.
1 John 5:12 He who has the son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Both Paul and John agree very strongly with this one concept, that those who embrace the Son of God have eternal life and those that do not are condemned to hell.
1 Cor 15:22-23 As death came by one man (Adam) upon all who descended from him, so resurrection to life is brought by one man (Christ) to all who belong to Him (Emphasis Added)
Acts 4:l2 “Salvation is to be found through (Jesus) alone; for there is no one else in all the world, whose name God has given to men, by whom we can be saved ” (Exclusivity is here affirmed)
1 John 4:2-3 is even stronger: “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” (Formally, this excludes those who do not acknowledge who Jesus is) (Emphasis added)
But doesn’t that contradict what Paul was saying when he said “all men” in Romans 5? Much to the contrary, when read in the light of the other scriptures, (in Romans 5) Paul is simply reaffirming that through Christ all men have the option of going to heaven.
The Bible clearly draws distinct lines between those who believe and those who don’t on the Day of Judgment. A classic example of this is found in 1 Peter 4:17-18 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now ‘If the righteous one is scarcely saved. Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?’” (Emphasis added). If the righteous ones (referring to Christians) are scarcely saved, how then can we conclude that the majority of humanity will be saved?
The same article I mentioned earlier referenced Revelation 21:2,9 & 24, claiming that according to these verses there will be other nations that walk in the light of the bride of Christ (i.e.: The Church, which is also the New Jerusalem); That there will be other “nations” in heaven besides the church. There is only one small problem in this assertion by the author, which I am sure can be accredited to misreading of the scriptures. Revelation 21:2 & 9 do indeed talk about the church and very clearly demonstrate that the Church is the New Jerusalem
“I saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (21:2) and “One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the lamb’. And he carried me away in the spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. (21:9).
What Revelation does not do however is tell us that the people who make up the church (and New Jerusalem) are different from the ones who make up the nations that walk in the light of the Lamb. Much to the contrary …
Revelation 21:22-24 says, “I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The City does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the Glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The Nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it”. Emphasis added.
Note the Lamb is the lamp by whose light the nations walk. A city, a church and a nation have one thing in common, they are all made up of people. In this case the same people that form the church, are also the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem (and the new earth) and are also the Nations that walk in the light of the Lamb.
Using Revelation 21 as a support for the theory of Inclusivism is a vain attempt to conjure up “nations” of people and claim that these people had to have come from the masses of unsaved humanity. To do this would be to blatantly ignore what Revelations 21 itself says in verse 8 which says, “ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice the magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (emphasis added). As very clearly pointed out in Revelation 22:15 the place of these will be outside of God’s nation, outside of His city in the burning lake of sulfur.
So why precisely does Revelation refer to the inhabitants of the New Earth as “Nations”? Could it possibly be that they in fact come from different regions of this world, from different tribes, speaking different languages? Revelation 4:9 “ …. Because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (emphasis added).
While it is important to point out that the death of Christ does pay the blood price for the entire world, it is equally important to understand that this gift can only be given to those who choose to be part of God’s family. It would be great to have millions more people become part of the family of Christ and share in the inheritance of eternal life. The sad truth is however that the Gospel is clear. It is not only those who outright reject Jesus as savior that are going to hell, rather it is also those who are unbelieving (atheists, agnostics and all those who do not believe that Jesus is the only way the only truth and the only path of life).
Another point brought up frequently by inclusivists is the question of the salvation of the great figures in the Bible who lived prior to Jesus times. They point out that if salvation is only for those who confess Christ, all those before the coming of the Messiah must be condemned to hell (unless you accept the inclusivist doctrine). Unfortunately this method of thinking ignores precisely what Christ was... a sacrifice of atonement. Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice so that all who believe in Him would no longer need to commit ritual animal sacrifice to atone for their sins. Does this then mean that all the sacrifices made to Yahweh prior to Jesus coming were no longer considered valid?
Definitely not! Rather the system of sacrificing animals was the foreshadowing of Jesus, who give his life as the death atonement for sins. Forgiveness was asked of God by sacrificing animals, and to say that God (who ordered these sacrifices) chose to reject them based on the death of Jesus thousands of years later is preposterous.
But what of people where were not Jews.. people like Jethro, Ruth and Rahab. Are they condemned to hell? There is a simple answer… people like Ruth and Rahab who were initially not ‘Jews’ did in fact accept the sovereignty of the God of Israel and hence in a sense made the same choice a new Christian makes today. This serves as an underlining point, that salvation from the very beginning of time is a choice made by man himself and sanctified by God. Incidentally God did not reveal himself to them through Baalism or some other ancient polytheistic religion. There is no indication that the Lord mediates salvation through any of the ancient religions known to the Old Testament writers. In fact, these religions are routinely denounced.
One of the grey areas in the inclusivism doctrine is the question of The Great Commission. Since, according to their doctrine, accepting Christ in this life has little or no consequence on the Day of Judgment, why preach the Gospel at all? Their answer is two fold;
1) By converting people to Christianity we can improve their quality of life, help them attain a higher status when we get to heaven, make their lives more meaningful or help them be part of the kingdom today instead of having to wait in sinful existence till the final judgment.
Theories which are not only pointless but extremely unintelligent in the light of the world today. Why would man, who is innately sinful in nature, give up a blissfully sinful (to his way of thinking) existence and follow the strict laws and lifestyles that are part of a Christian walk, when his/her place in heaven is guaranteed regardless? All they have to do to get into heaven is not actively reject Jesus Christ; everything else is irrelevant.
2) It is obedience to the commandment of Christ and the only reason we should follow it is because He told us to.
Good enough reason by itself but what is the underlying premise to such a belief. What this belief is telling us is that Jesus, with no true need, asked His disciples (and all who follow) to risk everything they owned (including their lives) to preach a message that is not essential to salvation.
Which would mean that the sacrifices made by the martyrs of Christendom were totally unnecessary. Why is it that Paul, a well-educated and influential man, quietly suffered years of imprisonment and then was tortured and beheaded by the Emperor Nero? Or Steven allowing himself to be stoned, when all he had to do to avoid such a cruel death was to stop speaking the good news? Or Peter who was crucified upside down rather than give up the great commission? Or Luke, the physician, whose ministry to the lost in Greece ultimately lead to him being hanged? What about James on trial for his life, continuing to preach to his accusers till they beheaded him and the officer in charge of him (who voluntarily knelt down beside James to give his own life as a Christian)?
These men were all the foundations of the Church, many of them living and walking with the Christ. If anyone had known the value of and desperate need to preach to the lost …they did, and accepted torture and death as human punishment for spreading the word. It is hard to imagine how these men and women would feel should they learn on reaching heaven that there really never was any need to tell the world about Christ other than to improve the quality of human life.
Jesus sent them out knowing what they would face. Are you trying to tell me that our Lord had so little regard and compassion that He would waste the lives of these precious followers for nothing of any consequence? The very same God who inclusivists claim is too loving to send anyone (except those who deliberately reject the cross) to hell, had little or no compunction in sending out missionaries to die, simply so that they could demonstrate their obedience?
Not only does inclusivism make the God we follow out to be unjust in His treatment of His own followers, it can be taken a step further.
According to inclusivism a person has to actively reject Jesus to be one of the few condemned to hell, the rest of humanity being saved by the sacrifice at Calvary. If this were true nothing would persuade me to preach the gospel to my non-Christian friend or neighbour, who in himself is a perfectly nice and reasonably moral human being, and who is on his way to Heaven (whether he knows it or not). However by telling this person the ‘good news’ I have jeopardized his eternal destiny.. there being a strong chance that this perfectly nice person will not accept or believe the gospel and condemn himself to hell for an eternity, whereas before he heard the gospel he was on his way to Heaven. Had I not spoken to this poor man (now condemned to hell for his rejection of the Christ) he would have found his way to heaven with the rest of mankind (since he was a halfway decent individual). This would be closely akin to playing Russian Roulette with someone’s eternal destiny and a risk I would be very unwilling to take.
I am afraid that people, who are good strong Christians, have out of the very goodness of their hearts allowed Satan to blindside them. The reason we preach the gospel is not to improve the quality of people’s lives, it is to ensure that they have a place in the “small flock”, that they know Christ and they are not cast into the lake of burning sulfur. It is a desperate battle to save as many as we can from the fiery pits of hell, and Jesus knowing this, asked us to willingly make any sacrifice it takes to bring another sheep into the fold. God is not a paradox of the loving Father who saves the majority of mankind while also being a cruel and uncompassionate tyrant who ordered His Son’s followers to give up their lives for nothing.
Conclusion: Inclusivism is another one of Satan’s diversionary tactics. It tells us that God is all-powerful and somehow He will find a way to get most people into the kingdom. It is a very user-friendly doctrine because every Christian would truly like to see millions in heaven. It is a doctrine based on “God triumphing over Satan” and those who do not subscribe to Inclusivism are demonstrated as undermining God’s victory. The subtly hidden and very real danger in today’s world is that Inclusivism, like the Calvinism it rebuts, sends the message that there is no need for people to hear the good news of Christ and regardless of how staunchly its defenders claim this is not the case, its ideology speaks for itself.
Even more disturbing is that this doctrine, if taken in its entirety, takes away from the very importance of the cross. To say that heaven will be full of people who did not know or care to know the Son of God is not only flawed and unbiblical, it is dangerous. It is hard to imagine inclusivists preaching the gospel with the same fervency as Exclusivists. Evangelism could be severely hampered should enough people believe in this doctrine.
