The"VeryPerniciousandDetestable"

DoctrineofInclusivism

byRobertL.Reymond

TableofContents

Introduction

TheologicalLiberalism’sDoctrineofReligiousPluralism

Rome’sDoctrineofInclusivism

Evangelicalism’sDoctrineofInclusivism

GeneralRevelationCondemns,notSaves

TheNewTestamentRepudiatesInclusivism

RebuttalofEvangelicalInclusivism

Conclusion

Introduction

....men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved inany otherwaywhatsoever, be theynever so diligent to frame theirlives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religiontheydoprofess.And, toassertandmaintain that theymay, isverypernicious, and to be detested [Westminster Confession of Faith,10.4]

There was a time in the not too distant past when evangelical leaderswere in agreement regarding the eternal destiny of the unevangelizedmassesofmankind.Their commonly-heldviewwas thatpeople, absent

personal faith in JesusChrist, are lost. This beliefwas one of the chiefmotives that drove the entire evangelical missionary enterprise. It wasnot at all uncommon to hear these leaders speak of a “lost and dyingworld”oran“unsavedworld.”Todaythisviewiscalled“exclusivism”inthesense that it restricts salvationexclusively to thosewhoconsciouslytrust Christ. But increasing numbers of spokesmen for evangelicalismtoday are stating either that such exclusivism simply is not Biblicallydefensible, or that the Bible is not clear about the eternal state of theadherents of other religions. They are opting for what they call“inclusivism,” the teaching thatGod’smercy is sowide that it can anddoesembracemany, ifnotall,non-Christian religionistson theglobe-adoctrine, aswe have just read, that the seventeenth-century framers oftheWestminsterConfessionofFaithdescribedas“verypernicious”and“tobedetested,”ajudgmentthattheConfession isnot inclinedoftentomake, particularly with the adverb “very.” Before we look at this“downgrade”trendwithinEvangelicalism,IwanttosaysomethingaboutthisteachingwithinTheologicalLiberalismandRomanCatholicism.

TheologicalLiberalism’sDoctrineofReligiousPluralism

Theological liberalism’s doctrine of religious pluralism is bestrepresented by John Hick, who first offers a too-facile, almost glib,explanationregardinghowitcameaboutthatJesus,thoughonlyaman,cametoberegardedasGod:

Itwasnatural and intelligibleboth that Jesus, throughwhommenhadfound a decisive encounterwithGod and a new and better life, shouldcome to be hailed as son of God, and later this poetry should havehardened intoproseandescalated fromametaphoricalsonofGodtoametaphysicalGodtheSon.(1)

Hick thenargues that the “evolved”belief of theChristian church thatJesusisbothGodtheSonincarnateandtheonlySaviorofmankind

didlittlepositiveharmsolongasChristendomwasalargelyautonomouscivilization with only relatively marginal interaction with the rest ofmankind. Butwith the clash between the Christian andMuslimworld,and then on an ever broadening front with European colonization

throughout the earth, the literal understanding of the mythologicallanguage of Christian discipleship has had a diverse effect upon therelations between that minority of human beings who live within theborders of the Christian tradition and thatmajoritywho live outside itandwithinotherstreamsofreligiouslife.....

If Jesuswas literallyGod incarnate, and if it is byhis death alone thatmen can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they canappropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life isChristian faith. Itwould follow from this that the largemajority of thehumanracesofarhasnotbeensaved.....Isnotsuchanideaexcessivelyparochial, presenting God in effect as the tribal deity of thepredominantlyChristianWest?....

It seemsclear thatwearebeingcalled today toattainaglobal religiousvisionwhich isawareof theunityofallmankindbeforeGod....wemustaffirm God’s equal love for all men and not only for Christians..... If,selecting fromourChristian language,we callGod-acting-towards-mantheLogos,thenwemustsaythatallsalvation,withinallreligionsistheworkoftheLogos.....ButwhatwecannotsayisthatallwhoaresavedaresavedbyJesusofNazareth.ThelifeofJesuswasonepointatwhichtheLogos....hasacted.....Fromnowonwards....wehavetopresentJesus....inaway compatiblewith our new recognition of the validity of the othergreatworldfaithsasbeingalso,attheirbest,waysofsalvation.Wemusttherefore not insist upon Jesus being always portrayed within theinterpretative framework built around him by centuries of Westernthought.(2)

Christians, of course, should normally support legal tolerance towardotherworldreligions,thatistosay,theyshouldactivelysupportlawsthatadequately protect the rights of the individual to profess, practice, andpropagate his religious views, with due allowance, of course, for theprotection of the citizenry from excesses of religious fanaticism thatwouldinflictbodilyharmuponothers.Christiansshouldalsocultivateinthemselvesandencourage inotherssocial tolerancetowardotherfaithsof theworld, that is to say, they should respect otherworld faiths andseektounderstandthemandtoencouragethesameinotherstowardtheChristian faith. Butwhen it comes to intellectual tolerance, that is, the

cultivationofamindsobroadthatitcantolerateeveryreligiousviewasof equal truthwithout everdetectinganything in anyof them to reject,this “isnota virtue; it is theviceof the feeble-minded.” (3)It begs theentire question of truth. For if Jesus is in truth both God incarnate(Acts20:28;Romans9:5;Titus2:13;Hebrews1:8;2Peter1:1;John1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20) and the only Savior of mankind, as the Bibleteachesushe is,and if theChurchwouldbegovernedby truth, itmustcontinuetoinsistthatJesusisuniquelyGod.Historically,hisuniquenessresidesinhisbirth,hissinless lifeandsacrificialdeath,hisresurrectionand ascension, his present session at the Father’s right hand, and hisreturnastheeschatologicalJudgeandSaviorofmankind.Theologically,hisuniquenessresides inhisdeity, the incarnation, theatonement,andtheseveralaspectsofhisexaltation.Therefore,theChurchmustcontinueto proclaim Jesus as the only saving way to the Father, as he said(John 14:6), his the only saving name among men, as Peter said(Acts4:12),andhistheonlysavingmediationbetweenGodandman,asPaulsaid(1Timothy2:5).Furthermore,theChurchmustdeclarethatthegoal the religious pluralist so devoutly seeks-a universal religiousbrotherhoodbindingallmeneverywherejoyouslytogetherinoneworldofcommonhumanity-is,onhisgrounds,unobtainable,notonlybecausesuch pluralism does not transform the human heart, but alsobecause only the truth deserves to be universally proclaimed anduniversally received. Without truth, which by its nature is exclusive,unique,andfinal,therecanbenouniversalsignificanceorpowerinthepluralist’sappeal,andhisappealisboundtofail.Andanyreligiousunity,if it is achieved,willhave tobe finally imposeduponmenagainst theirwill(seeRevelation13:11-17).

To abandon Biblical Christological teaching in favor of a religiouspluralism, ifChrist is indeeduniquelyGod incar-nate, is tantamount tothegravestbreachoftheFirstCommandment,anditwillinvolveoneinunspeakableinfidelitytoJesusChristtheLordofGlorywho,accordingtoHoly Scripture, wears a diadem out-rivaling all the diadems of all theworld’s great religiousandpolitical leaders.Todo so, inaword,wouldmean that the Church has simply ceased to be Christian at all! TheChristian Church can afford to follow the modern call for intellectualreligiouspluralismonlyat thegreatestcost to itselfandto theworld to

which Christ, the King and Lord of the Church, commissioned it to go(Matthew28:18-20;Luke24:47;Acts 1:8).Moreover, to follow thiscallwouldbetosettheChurchonacoursethatcanonlyleadittoreligiousfrustrationandfailure,andintheendtodivinejudgment.

Rome’sDoctrineofInclusivism

The Church of Rome has long endorsed the inclusivist position. KarlRahner(1904-1984),aleadingRomanCatholic“inclusivist,”whocoinedthephrase, “anonymousChristian,”bywhichhemeantanon-Christianwhogainssalvationthroughfaith,hope,and lovebythegraceofChristthatismediatedimperfectlythroughhisnon-Christianreligion,wroteinhisTheologicalInvestigations:

Christianitydoesnot simplyconfront thememberofanextra-Christianreligion as a mere non-Christian but as someone who can and mustalreadyberegardedinthisorthatrespectasananonymousChristian.....TheproclamationofthegospeldoesnotsimplyturnsomeoneabsolutelyabandonedbyGodandChristintoaChristian,butturnsananonymousChristianintosomeonewhonowalsoknowsabouthisChristianbeliefinthedepthsofhisgrace-endowedbeingbyobjectivereflectionandintheprofessionwhichisgivenasocialformintheChurch.(4)

IfRahnerwerecorrect,theworldwouldbeseeinglargenumbersoftheseGospel-enlightened“anonymousChristians”movingoutoftheirreligionsandintoChristianitybecauseofthespreadoftheGospelthroughouttheworldbymeansofthemassmedia.Butthereisnoevidencethatthis ishappening. Indeed, according to John, far from being “already saved”whentheGospelcomestothem,non-Christiansare“condemnedalready”becausetheydonothavefaithinChrist(John3:18).

Theninparagraph836ofits1994CatechismoftheCatholicChurch,theRoman Catholic Church declares: “....to [the Catholic Church], indifferentways, belong or are ordered: theCatholic faithful, otherswhobelieve in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace tosalvation” (emphasis supplied). By this pronouncement the RomanCatholicChurchhasirremediablydefined(“deconstructed”wouldbethemore appropriate term) its catholicity for modern and future times in

suchawaythatitalreadyultimatelyincludeseveryone.Bywhatonemayregard as an ever-enlarging series of concentric circles Rome hasredefinedthechurchinordertojustifythiscatecheticalaffirmation.Notonly,saystheCatechism,arethoseinthechurchwhoare“joinedinthevisible structure...[and who are ruled] by the Roman Pontiff and thebishops”(?837),butalso thoseare in thechurchwho“believe inChristandhavebeenproperlybaptized”even though they stand “ina certain,althoughimperfect,communionwiththeCatholicChurch”(?838).HeretheCatechismreferstoallthebaptized“separatedbrethren”throughouttheworld,includingboththebaptizedmembersoftheGreekandRussianOrthodox Churches and the baptized members of all the Protestantchurches (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, etc.). In a word, then, theRomanCatholicChurchclaimsthatallbaptizedpeoplewithinprofessingChristendombelongtoitscommunion.Nevermindthatmost,atleast,ofthese non-Catholic communions repudiate this declared association.Nevermindthatmany, ifnotmost,of thesebaptizedpeoplearesimplynominalmembersofstatechurches.Nevermindthatmany,ifnotmost,ofthesebaptizedpeoplenevergotochurch.Nevermindthatmany,ifnotmost, of themnever give a penny to the spread of the trueGospel andnever pray a moment for the church’s health. They are, according toRome, still related salvifically to the People of God and may go toHeaven!

TheCatechism goeson to state that even “thosewhohavenot receivedthe gospel are related to the People of God in several ways” (?839).BecausethefaithoftheJewishPeople-catecheticallydescribedasthe“thefirst to hear theWord ofGod”-”unlike other non-Christian religions, isalreadya response toGod’s revelation in theOldCovenant” (?839), (5)becausetotheJewsbelongalltheprivilegesoutlinedinRomans9:4-5(?839),andbecausewithChristiansthey“awaitthecomingoftheMessiah”(?840),thePeopleofGodencompasstheJewishpeople.Nevermindthatthe Jewishpeople for themost part deny the deity of JesusChrist andthusthedoctrineof theTrinity.Nevermindthat they for themostpartrejected their Messiah, Jesus Christ, the first time he came, as amisguided prophet at best and a blasphemer atworst, and accordinglybelievetodaythatChristiansareidolatersbecauseweworshiphimwhomthey contendwas simply aman.Nevermind that they see no need for

Christ’s substitutionary atonement. According to Rome’s teaching theyarestill relatedsalvifically to thePeopleofGodandmaygo toHeaven!(6)

The Catechism then declares that because Muslims “acknowledge theCreator,...profess to hold the faith of Abraham [they do not holdAbraham’s faith,of course; theyare spiritual Ishmaelites],and togetherwith[Christians]...

adoretheonemercifulGod[MuslimsandChristiansdonot“adore”thesame “one merciful God”],” they too are included within the plan ofsalvation (?841).Nevermind that theMuslims’Allah isneither the tri-personal Yahweh of theOld Testament nor the triuneGod of theNewTestament,but ratherwasoriginallya tribaldeity-one inapantheonofsomethreehundred-fiftyfalsegodsworshipedatMecca-thatMuhammadworshiped and “universalized” by force. Never mind that they thinkChristians believe their Trinity is composed of Allah, Mary, and theirhuman offspring, Jesus. Never mind that they make Jesus’ place inrevelational history penultimate toMuhammad’s ultimate place. NevermindthattheydenyboththatJesusChrististhedivineSonofGodandthat he died on the cross and rose again.Nevermind that they believethatChristiansareidolatersbecauseweworshipChristwhotheycontendwasonlyahumanprophet.NevermindthattheyseenoneedforChrist’ssubstitutionary atonement. According toRome’s teaching, they are stillsalvificallyrelatedtothePeopleofGodandmaygotoHeaven!

TheCatechism goes on to state, in fact, about all the adherents to theworld’s non-Christian religions, “because all stem from the one stockwhich God created..., and also because all share a common destiny,namely God,” that God’s “providence, evident goodness, and savingdesigns extend” to them as well (?842). Moreover, “all goodness andtruthfoundinthesereligions”are“apreparationforthegospelandgivenbyhimwhoenlightensallmenthattheymayatlengthhavelife”(?843).Accordingly,PeterKreeft,aconvertfromtheChristianReformedChurchtoRomanCatholicism, in his book,EcumenicalJihad (Ignatius, 1996),withoutfearofanyecclesiasticalreprisal,doesnothesitatetodescribeanout-of-bodyexperience thatheallegeshehad,duringwhichhemetnotonly Orthodox Christians, Evangelical Christians, and Jews inHeaven,

butalsoMuhammad,Buddha,andConfucius.NevermindthatGodisnotthe“commondestiny”ofallmankind,giventhefact,astheBibleteaches,thateverymanhasoneoftwodestinies,eitherHeavenwithGodorHellwith the devil and his angels. Never mind that all the religions of theworld with the exception of Biblical Christianity are demonic ormanmade,allofthembeingtheproductsoffallenmankind’sperversionand suppression of the truth revealed in general revelation. And nevermindthattheseworldreligionsrunthegamutfromthecrudestformsofanimism, voodooism, and paganism, in which cannibalism and humansacrifice are practiced, through the multitude of world cults, to theEasternreligionsofdesirednon-existenceasinthecaseofHinayanaandMahayanaBuddhism.AccordingtoRome’steaching,theiradherentsarestillrelatedsalvificallytothePeopleofGodandmaygotoHeaven.Whatis this but just ecclesiastical expansionwith a vengeance, accomplishedsimplybyredefiningtheboundariesofthechurchinordertoincludeallmankind!WhatisthisreallybutwholesalecapitulationonRome’sparttotheworld’sstridentclamorfortheChristianchurchtogiveupitsalleged“triumphalist”claimtotheuniquenessandfinalityofJesusChristastheonly saving way to God and to acknowledge other religions as alsoacceptable ways to God!(7) By diminishing Christ, the Roman Churchexaltsitself.

Apart from its completelyun-Biblical stance,what is the implicationofRome’s catechetical teaching that the peoples of the world have noabsoluteneedtohearaboutChristinordertobesaved,andthataslongas they sincerely follow the dictates of their conscience they may besaved? Well, this teaching implies, since non-Catholics, indeed, non-Christians, according to Rome’s dogmatic declarations and catecheticalinstruction,maygo toHeavenwithoutbecomingChristian inanyof itsmyriad forms, that for their salvation theRomanCatholic Church as aChrist-professing institution does not need to exist. By its ownstatements, therefore, the Roman communion has declared its owntheologicalobsolescenceanditselfamodernirrelevancytomostof thepeoplesoftheworld.

Thesecatecheticaldeliverancesarebut justonemoreexpressionamongmanyothersofthedetestableapostasythatnowgripsthelargestcult-the

Marian cult-within professing Christendom. And what is so tragicallyironic about this “very pernicious and detestable” teaching of Rome’s1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it reasserts on the onehand the Council of Trent’s medieval doctrine of justification throughfaith andworks and on the othermakes the entire Tridentine doctrineirrelevant by teaching that all sincere people may be saved, whatevertheirfaithorlackofit.SobyitscatecheticaldeliveranceseverythingthatmodernRometeachesaboutthewayofsalvationthroughChristisshort-circuited. Frankly, who should care what Rome teaches about Christ ifeveryone may be saved simply by sincerely following the good as heconscientiously understands and does the good? Apparently, even thesincereprofessingatheistwhohasnotarrivedatanexplicitknowledgeofGodmaybesavedaslongashefollowsthedictatesofhisconsciencewithsincerity, for by responding to the light of conscience he is responding(withoutknowingit,Romewouldsay)inasalvificwaytoChrist’sChurch.Icanonlysaythatthemodernframersofthesedocumentshadbetterbeglad that they were not born in the sixteenth century. The Romanistauthorities living then would have burned them-including the presentpope-atthestakeforteachingsuchrankheresy!

Evangelicalism’sDoctrineofInclusivism

ClarkH.Pinnock,aleadingadvocateofinclusivism,whileheinsiststhatChristisindeedtheonlySaviorofmen,writes:“Wedonotneedtothinkofthechurchasthearkofsalvation,leavingeveryoneelseinhell;wecanrather thinkof it as the chosenwitness to the fullnessof salvation thathas come into the world through Jesus.”(8) In his article, “Toward anEvangelical Theology of Religions,”(9) urging what he calls the“particularity axiom” thatGod’s savinggrace comesonly throughJesusChrist; and the “universality axiom” that God’s saving grace is for theentire race because he desires the salvation of all mankind, PinnockembracesthenotionthatpeopleoffaithfromotherreligionswillbesavedbyChristeventhoughtheydonotknowhimorbelieveinhim.

Others, along with Pinnock, while they acknowledge that Christ is andalways will be mankind’s only Savior, also argue that Christ will savemany who have never heard of him through the revelation of God innature.JohnSanders,aWesleyanthinker,supportsthisinclusivisthope

thatpeoplewhoneverhearaboutChristcanbesavedbyexercisingtrustin God as he has revealed himself in general revelation.(10) MillardEricksoneven laysoutwhathe thinksare the fiveessentialelementsofthis“gospelmessage”innature:

1)ThebeliefinonegoodpowerfulGod.2)Thebeliefthathe(man)owesthisGodperfectobediencetohislaw.3)Theconsciousnessthathedoesnotmeet this standard, and therefore is guilty and condemned. 4) TherealizationthatnothinghecanofferGodcancompensatehim(oratone)forthissinandguilt.5)ThebeliefthatGodismerciful,andwillforgiveandacceptthosewhocastthemselvesonhismercy.(11)

”Mayitnotbe,”Ericksonqueries,“thatifamanbelievesandactsonthissetoftenetsheisredemptivelyrelatedtoGodandreceivesthebenefitsofChrist’sdeath,whetherheconsciouslyknowsandunderstandsthedetailsofthatprovisionornot?”(12)

JohnStott isaspokesmanfortheagnosticposition.HebelievesthatallmenoutsideofChristarelost,butwithregardtothequestionofthefinalannihilation (Stott’s view of “eternal punishment”) of those who haveneverheardofChristhewrites:“IbelievethemostChristianstanceistoremain agnostic on this question..... The fact is thatGod, alongside themostsolemnwarningsaboutourresponsibilitytorespondtotheGospel,hasnot revealedhowhewill dealwith thosewhohaveneverheard it.”(13) Timothy Philips, AidaBesançon Spencer, andTite Tienou likewiseassume an agnostic stance here, stating that they “prefer to leave thematterinthehandsofGod.”(14)

These are representative speakers for this growing downgrade trendwithinEvangelicalism,citedhereforthepurposeofprovidingasamplingoftheinclusivistsentimentsbeingurgedbymanyatthehighestlevelsofacademic Evangelicalism. But now we must ask: Can people be savedthrough general revelation? Will any man, on the basis of generalrevelation,arriveatthesetoftenetsEricksonlaysout?AretheScripturessilent, as the agnostic inclusivists imply, about the eternal destiny ofthose who do not hear about and put their trust in Christ? I wouldrespond in the negative to all three questions and will now give myreasonsforthisconviction.

GeneralRevelationCondemns,notSaves

AccordingtoHolyScripture,allmen-JewsandGentiles,“good”menand“bad” men, the pagans in the Far East as well as the pagans in theindustrialized West-sinned in Adam and are by their own acts ofsinfulness continually falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).Thewagesofthissinisdeath(Romans6:23).Andinspiteofthefactthatall peoples and cultures have received general revelation and hencepossess an innate awareness of God’s eternal power and divine nature(Romans1:19-20),hismorallaw(Romans2:14-15),andthedesertsofsin(Romans1:32),theyneitherglorifyGodasGodnoraretheythankfultohim(Romans 1:21),butpervert theirknowledgeofGod inunspeakableformsofidolatry(Romans1:23).FarfromlovingGodandhisChrist,thepeoplesofthisworldlovedarknessandhatethelightofChrist’sGospelbecause their deeds are evil (John 3:19-20). Consequently, God hasabandoned(paredoken)theworldtosexualimpurity,shamefullusts,andadepravedmind(Romans1:24,26,28).Farthenfromsavingtheworld,generalrevelationservesasthegroundofGod’sjustcondemnationoftheworld. God views the entire world as “under sin.” “There is no onerighteous,notevenone”(Romans3:9-10).Allaredeadintrespassesandsins(Ephesians2:1).Allarebynaturechildrenofwrath(Ephesians2:3).All are “already” under condemnation (Romans 3:19-20). All arealienatedfromthe lifeofGod(Ephesians4:18), ignorantof thetruthofGod(Romans1:25),hostiletothelawofGod(Romans8:7),disobedienttothewillofGod(Titus3:3),fallshortoftherighteousdemandsofGod(Romans3:23),andsubjecttothewrathofGod(John3:19).

Thesestatementsdescribethepeoplesoftheworldwhohaveneverheardthe Gospel and who have never had a chance to accept or reject theGospel of Christ. From theBiblical perspective, then, there is really nosuchthingasthe“noblesavage,”Rahner’s“anonymousChristian,”orthe“holypagan.”Suchconceptsexistonlyintheimaginationsofunbelievinganthropologists and socio-logists and certain Roman Catholic andevangelical inclu-sivists. In short, men are lost and under God’sjudgment,notonlybecausetheymayhaveheardaboutandthenrejectedChristatsomepoint intheir lives,butalsoandmoreprimarilybecausethey are sinners by nature and by practice, who have failed to live in

accordancewiththelightofthelawofGodwhichtheyallpossess.Theyhave sinned against God’s revelation without, the demands of his lawwritten on their hearts within, and their own accusing consciences(Romans2:14-15).

So much for any unregenerate person ever responding to MillardErickson’sfivetenetsofgeneralrevelationashesetthemforth.TheBibleisclearthat,apartfromGod’sspecialwooing,thenaturalmanisunabletodiscern,tolove,tochoosethethingsthatarepleasingtoGod,ortoloveGod (Jeremiah 13:23; John 6:44, 65; 15:4-5; Romans 8:7-8; 1Corinthians2:14;12:3;James3:8;Revelation14:3).

TheNewTestamentRepudiatesInclusivism

TheNewTestamentteachesthenecessityofconscioustrustinChristforsalvation.JesusChristdeclared:“Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife.NoonecomestotheFatherexceptthroughme”(John14:6).Healsotaughtthatrepentanceandforgivenessofsinsshouldbepreachedinhisnametoallnations(Luke24:46-47).Peteremphaticallystates:“Salvationisfoundinnooneelse[notBuddha,notMuhammad,notevenMoses]bywhichwe must be saved” (Acts 4:12). John not only declares: “No one whodenies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has theFatheralso”(1John2:23);buthealsoempha-ticallystates:“HewhohastheSonhaslife;hewhodoesnothavetheSonofGoddoesnothavelife”(1John5:12).AndPauldeclareswithequalclarity:“....there isoneGodand one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1Timothy2:5).HealsowritesinRomans10:13-15:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [in the context, the LordJesusChrist]willbesaved.How,then,cantheycallontheonetheyhavenotbelievedin?Andhowcantheybelieveintheoneofwhomtheyhavenotheard?Andhowcantheyhearwithoutsomeonepreachingtothem?Andhowcantheypreachunlesstheyaresent?

Notehere theunbreakableconnection thatPaulmakesby this seriesofquestions between “calling on,” “believing in,” “hearing about,”“preachingto,”and“beingsent.”Apreachermustbesenttotheunsaved,and he must preach about Christ to them if they are to hear about

him,believe inhim,andcallonhimforsalvation.TheclearimplicationoftheserhetoricalquestionsisthatifmissionariesarenotsenttopreachtheGospelofChristtothosewhohavenotheardabouthiminorderthattheymay hear about him, believe in him, and call upon his name forsalvation,theseunevangelized,whoarecondemnedalready,willremainunsavedandcannotandwillnotbesavedbyanyothermeans.

While themissionary isnothing inhimself insofaras the successofhismissionlaborsareconcerned,accordingto1Corinthians3:5-7,hisworkistheprovidentiallynecessarylinkbetweenChrist’ssavingworkandthesalvationofmen.Thatistosay,whilethemissionaryinhimselfisofnoimportance,hismissionworkisofthegreatest importance, forwhathedoes,inandbyGod’sanimatingandenabling,becomesamightyweapon“to demolish the strongholds” of argumentation and every pretensionthat sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and “to take captive”everythoughttomakeitobedienttoChrist(2Corinthians10:3-4).

PaulalsoexpresslydeclaredwithregardtothedestinyofmenwhodonottrustChrist:“Allwhosinapart fromthe lawwillalsoperishapart fromthe law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law”(Romans2:12). InPaul’smindall ofmankindmaybedivided into twogroups: thosewhosinapartfrom the lawand thosewhosinunder thelaw. That is to say, some human beings sin apart from the speciallyrevealedlawofGod;otherssinlivingunderthespeciallyrevealedlawofGod; but all in both groups sin and thus bring upon themselves theliability of divine condemnation. About these two groups JohnMurraycommented:

The contrast is....between those who were outside the pale of specialrevelationandthosewhowerewithin[thatpale].

With reference to the former the apostle’s teaching is to the followingeffect:(1)Speciallyrevealed lawisnotthepreconditionofsin-”asmanyashave sinnedwithout the law”. (2)Because suchare sinners theywillperish.Theperishingreferredtocanbenoneotherthanthatdefinedinthe previous verses as consisting in the infliction of God’s wrath andindignationandenduranceoftribulationandanguishincontrastwiththeglory,honor,incorruption,andpeacebestowedupontheheirsofeternal

life.(3)Insufferingthisperditiontheywillnotbejudgedaccordingtoalawwhich theydidnot have, namely, specially revealed law-they “shallalsoperishwithoutthelaw.”Thereis,therefore,anexactcorrespondencebetween the character of their sin as “without the law” and the finaldestructionvisiteduponthemasalso“withoutthelaw.”(15)

But take note:Paul unequivocally declares that thosewho have nevercomewithinthepaleofspecialrevelation,particularlytheproclamationoftheGospel-willstillperish!SotheBibleisnotsilentaboutthedestinyofthosewhohaveneverheardtheGospel.

We should finally notice in this connection that the fourteen-pointindictmentandconvictionthatPaulbringsagainsttheentirehumanraceinRomans3:9-20establishesthatallpeople-bothJewsandGentiles-areunderthepowerofsinand,unlesssomethingalterstheircondition,theywill be speechless somedaybefore the judgment bar ofGod.Therefore,inRomans3:21-28Paulsets forth faith inChrist’satoningdeathas theonly solution to the universal problem of divine condemnation for sin.Faith in Christ’s atoning death is not simply a way that God forgiveshumansin.ItistheonlybasisonwhichGod,accordingtoPaul,justifiesanysinner(Romans3:28).

In sum, the atoningwork ofChrist’s doing anddying is notmerely forJewsormerely foronenationor tribeor language family. It is theoneandonlywayforanyonetocomeintofellowshipwithGod.Christ’sdeath,burial,andresurrectionstandonthecuttingedgeofthemissionmessagein the book ofActs, and conscious personal faith in him is everywheredeclaredasessentialtoaperson’sjustificationbeforeGod.

RebuttalofEvangelicalInclusivism

Evangelical inclusivists deny that conscious faith in Jesus Christ isabsolutelyessentialtosalvationprimarilyforthefollowingthreereasons:

First,theycontendthatJewsintheOldTestamentweresavedapartfromconsciousfaithinJesusChrist,thatistosay,theyhadonlythe“form”oftheChristianGospelwithoutitsNewTestament“content.”Buttheirsisafalsepremisebasedupondispensationalthinking.Whileitistruethatthe

elect Jews of theOld Testamentwould not have knownmyriad detailsabouttheChristoftheNewTestament,suchasthenameofhismotherand step-father or evenhis humanname, theydid understand that theMessiahwhowastocomewoulddieintheirsteadastheirsubstituteandthat theyhad toplace their trust inhisanticipateddoinganddying forthem for their salvation. TheWestminster Confession of Faith quitecorrectlydeclaresthattheCovenantofGracewasadministeredintheOldTestament

....by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb,andother types andordinancesdelivered to thepeopleof theJews,allforesignifyingChrist to come;whichwere, for that time, sufficient andefficacious, throughtheoperationof theSpirit,to instructandbuildupthe elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had fullremissionofsins,andeternalsalvation[7.5;seealso8.6].

Idonothavetimeheretodevelopthisparticularrebuttal further,butIcan refer you to my A New Systematic Theology of the ChristianFaithforthefullerargument.(16)

Second, they relyuponwhat theyviewas theBiblical traditionof “holypagans”whoweresavedeven though theyheld to religious faithsotherthantheYahwismandMessianismoftheOldTestament.Theyreferherespecifically toMelchizedek,Job,Jethro theMidianitepriestandMoses’father-in-law, Naaman the Syrian, the eastern Magi, and the Romancenturion Cornelius. But a careful reading of the Biblical accountsregarding these men will demonstrate that they were hardly “holypagans” who were saved even though they worshiped false gods. KingMelchizedekwasbothapriestof “themosthighGod,ownerofHeavenand Earth,” whom Abraham identifies as Yahweh (Genesis 14:22),and the Old Testament type of the New Testament Messiah’s kinglypriesthood(Psalm110:4;Hebrews7-10).Hewascertainlyaworshiperofthe one living and true God, and he doubtless trusted in God’s savingprovision for him. Job too was a worshiper of Yahweh (Job 1:21) whotrustedinGod’sRedeemer(Job19:25).Jethro,whilehewasquitelikelyatonetimeaworshiperofpagangods,throughhisrelationshiptoMoseswasbroughttofaithinYahweh(Exodus18:8-12),aswasNaamanaswell(2 Kings 5:15-18). And while the eastern Magi were probably pagan

astrologersbeforetheirobservanceintheEastofMessiah’sspecialstar,fromthatpointontheygavethemselvestothetaskoffindingthe“kingoftheJews”andworshipinghim(Matthew2:2,10-12).WemaybesurethattheHolySpiritinstructedanddirectedallthesepeopletoplacetheirfaithinthefutureatoningworkoftheMessiahintheirbehalf.

Cornelius theRomancenturion isaspecialshowcase for the inclusivist.Pinnock describes him as “the pagan saint par excellence of the NewTestament,”(17)andhailshimas theprimeexampleofamanwhowassavedapartfromfaithinChrist,towhomPeterwassentonlytoinformhimthathewasforgivenandsaved.InclusivistsunderscorethefactthatCornelius was a “devout and God-fearing man” (eusebes kaiphoboumenostontheon)who“gavegenerouslytothoseinneedandwhoprayed to God regularly” (Acts 10:2) and that hewas a “righteous andGod-fearing man [aner dikaios kai phoboumenos ton theon] who isrespected by all the Jewish people” (Acts 10:22), about whom GoddeclaredtoPeterthathewas“clean”(ekatharisen;Acts10:15).AndtheyunderscorethatPeterplainlydeclaresthat“Goddoesnotshowfavoritismbut accepts men in every nation who fear him and do what is right”(Acts10:34-35).

NowitistruethatLukesaysallthesethingsaboutCornelius.ButLuke’sstatementsdonotmeanthatCorneliuswasasavedmanpriortoPeter’svisit, for in facthewasnot! I say this for the following tworeasons: (1)Peterexpresslydeclaredlaterthatitwasbythemessage(rhemata) thathebroughttoCorneliusthat“everyonewhobelievesin[Christ]receivesforgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43) that Cornelius wassaved(seePeter’s“shallbesaved,”sothese,thefutureindicativepassive)(Acts11:14).(2)TheJewishChristiansofJerusalemrespondedtoPeter’sexplanation by saying: “Then God has even granted the Gentilesrepentanceunto life” (Acts 11:18), clearlymeaning that true repentanceleadstoeternallifeandthatuntilGodgrantssuchtopeopletheydonothaveeternallife.Clearly,then,beforePetercameandpreachedChristtohim,Corneliuswasnot saved,and justasclearly itwas throughPeter’spreachingthatCorneliuscametofaithinChrist.

Butwhile this is true, it needs to be said that,prior to Peter’s coming,Corneliuswas “clean” in the sense that Peter was not to view him any

longer as ceremonially “taboo” but as a legitimate candidate forevangelization!(18)ThisisplainlyPeter’sowninterpretationofthe“greatsheet”visioninActs 10:28-29whereweread:“Petersaidto them: ‘Youare well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with aGentileorvisithim.ButGodhasshownme[bythe“cleansheet”vision]thatIshouldnotcallanyman[ceremonially]impureorunclean[thatis,an “untouchable”]. So when I was sent for, I came without raising anobjection.’” It is also true that God had “accepted” (dektos) CorneliusbeforePeterspoketohim.Butwhatdoesthismean?This“acceptance”byGodisnotthesamethingastheearlier“clean”forthe“clean”areallmeneverywhere whereas the “accepted” are said to be in every nation. The“accepted”ineverynation,then,arethey,inGod’sprovidence,whoseekGod sincerely and genuinely, as did Cornelius the “God-fearer” as helistened to the readingof theOldTestament in the Jewish synagogues,and for whom God arranges, as he did for Cornelius, that the Gospelshouldbebroughttothem.Whichis justtosay,the“accepted”ineverynation are simply God’s elect. Cornelius is representative, then, not ofpeoplewhocanandaresavedapartfromfaithinChrist(thereisnone!),butoftheunsavedelectineverynationthroughouttheworldwhobytheSpirit’spromptingsaredrawn,byGod’selectingloveandbywhateverbitofspecialrevelationtheymighthavereceived, torealize(1) thattheyasneedysinnersmustmeettheone livingandtrueGodsomeday;(2)thatthey are unable to answer him once in a thousand times satisfactorily;and(3)whopraydayandnightthatGodinhismercywillsomehowmakeit possible for them to be acceptable in his sight. These, the Corneliusincident teaches us, God will save through the mission enterprise bygettingthegoodnewsoftheGospeltothemjustashearrangedforPetertotaketheGospeltoCornelius.

Third (and the inclusivist’sprevious two reasons growoutof thismorefundamentalerror),evangelicalinclusivistsbelievethat“peoplearesavedby faith, not by the content of their theology.” (19) Pinnock declares:“FaithinGodiswhatsaves,notpossessingcertainminimuminformation[aboutChrist].....Apersonissavedbyfaith,evenifthecontentoffaithisdeficient.....TheissueGodcaresaboutisthedirectionoftheheart,notthecontentoftheology.”(20)Insum,accordingtoPinnockandinclusivistsingeneral,itisnotwhatonebelievesaboutGodthatcounts;whatcounts

isthathebelievesinGod.Saidanotherway,peoplearesaved,notbytheobjectoftheirfaith,butbytheirmentalactoffaithinGod.

Herewehavereachedthenadirofinclusivistthinking.ButsurelysavingfaithmustbedirectednottoanidolatrousandpagansubstituteforGodbut to theone livingand trueGodwho is theTriuneGodandwhohasdeclaredthatnoonecanapproachhimexceptthroughthesavingworthof his Son’s saving work. And one learns this through hearing Gospelpreaching.Moreover, thispsychologicalactof faith,originatingastheseArminian thinkers contend it does, in man’s determination and will,constitutesasinfulworkthatcannotsaveandiseverywherecondemnedbyHolyScripture.Itbearsrepeating:Theactofbelievingpersedoesnotand cannot save. Faith’s value depends upon its object. Speakingmoreprecisely,itisnotevenfaithinJesusChristthatsaves.ItisJesusChristwhosavesthesinnerwhoplaceshistrustinhim.AndImustunderscoreagain,as I saidearlier inmydiscussionofRomanCatholic inclusivism,that to thedegreethat theevangelical inclusivistbelieves thatpeopleofotherreligionsmaybesavedapartfromaconsciousknowledgeofChrist,just to that same degree are they implying that the evangelical faith isirrelevantandobsolete.Andthatimplication,regardlessofthedegreetowhich onemay espouse it, is a direct attack upon the uniqueness andfinalityofJesusChrist,theonlySavioroftheworld!

Conclusion

The Bible is solicitous that Christians understand that the nations arelost, unsaved, and perishing without God. They are under divinecondemnation, not just because they have never heard of Christ, butmore primarily because they are transgressors of God’s holy law.ChristiansshouldpraythatGodwillmelttheirownheartsandremoveallthatwouldblindtheireyesthattheymayseetheirworldasitreallyis-aworldonacollisioncoursewiththeflamesofdivinejudgment!Andtheyshould pray thatGodwill empower them and send them to thatworldwiththe“goodnews”ofhisredeemingloveinChristwhoistheonlytrueSaviorofmankind.

AsIbringthisessaytoacloseIfeelcompelledtoasknowthefollowingquestion: If you and I really believe that the world’s masses must,

individually and personally, consciously trust Jesus Christ’s doing anddying if they would be saved from the wrath of God, what are wepersonallydoingtobringthatmessagetothem?IwouldremindyouthatChrist,theLordoftheChurch,declared:“Theharvestisplentifulbuttheworkers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send outworkers into his harvest field” (Matthew 9:37; seeLuke 10:2).He alsostated:“Doyounotsay, ‘Fourmonthsmoreandthentheharvest?’Itellyou, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest”(John4:35).

Let us be clear about the spiritual condition of these “fields ripe forharvest.”Wemaynotlikeit,wemayinstinctivelyrecoilagainstit,buttheBiblewantsus torealize(andtoactonthisrealization) that these“ripefields”arethemultitudesoflost,unsavedpeoplesofthisworld,perishingwithout a saving knowledge of Christ. They are under divinecondemnation,notjustbecausetheyhaveneverheardaboutChrist,butmore primarily because they are sinners by nature, by habit, and bypractice.SomeofyoumayalreadybedoingwhatyoucantoreachthemwiththegoodnewsoftheGospel,andIthankGodforthat.ButifweareChristians we must all become involved in witnessing to friends andneighborsaboutChristanddoingwhatwecantospreadtheGospeltotheends of the Earth, for repentance and forgiveness of sins must bepreachedinChrist’snametoallnations(Luke24:47)sincesalvationistobefoundinnoothernameunderHeaventhanhis(Acts4:12).Wemustalsobemorefaithfulinsupportingwithourprayersandourmoney-evenmore than we have in the past-Christ-preaching, Bible-believingmissionariesonthemissionfieldsoftheworld.Whichisjusttosay,ifwecannotgoourselves,wemustdowhatwecantoenableotherstogo.

NowIwanttorelateastory.SomeyearsagoIviewedthe1993AcademyAwardmovieof theyear,Schindler’sList, the StevenSpielberg story ofOskar Schindler, the Nazi war profiteer, who shortly after the GermaninvasionofPolandin1939begantousetheJewsoftheKrakowghettoasworkersinhispotsandpansfactory.Atfirsthesawthemonlyaschattelto be used to line his own pockets, which he did quite successfully,becoming exceedingly rich. But as the war dragged on, and as heincreasinglywitnessedNaziatrocitiesbeinginflictedagainsttheJewsof

Poland, increasingly did he begin to use his own wealth to bribe NaziofficialsandarmyofficerstogivehimmoreandmoreJewsforhisfactory(that theNazis had turned toward the endof thewar into amunitionsfactory) and that, bySchindler’s personal instructions, becameamodelofnon-productivityintheNaziwareffort.Thoughitvirtuallybankruptedhimpersonally,hesavedovertwelvehundredJewsfromcertaindeathinthegaschambersofAuschwitz.

IrecountthisstorylineonlytosaythatIwasstruckbysomestatementsput inhismouthtowardtheendof themovie.Thewarhad justended,andhavingworked for theThirdReich,bothheandhis Jewish factoryworkers realized that theAlliedauthoritiesmight search forhim.Ashebade them farewell, they presented himwith a letter signed by each ofthemthattheyhopewillhelphimbeforetheAlliedauthorities.

AtthatmomentSchindlersuddenlybecameverysoberandquietlysaid:“Icouldhavedonemore. Icouldhavedonemore!”Hebegantosob.“Icouldhavedonemore. Ididn’tdoenough.This car-whydid Ikeep thecar?Tenpeoplerightthere.Tenpeople.Tenmorepeople.”Pullingoffhislapel pin, he exclaimed, “The pin. Two people. This is gold. Twomorepeople!Onemore.Icouldhaveboughtmorepeople!ButIdidn’t.”

As his words-”I could have done more! Why did I keep the car? Tenpeoplerightthere.Thepin.This isgold.Twomorepeople.Onemore.Icouldhaveboughtmorepeople.ButIdidn’t”-searedthemselvesintomymindasIsatinthedarknessofthattheater,Isuddenlybecameconvictedthat many Christians-I among them-are going to be asking similarquestionsattheGreatWhiteThroneJudgment:“WhydidInotdomoreto reach the lost for Christ?Why did I think I had to have that moreexpensive house, that more expensive car, that snowmobile, that ten-speedbicycle thathangsmostof the time inmygarage?Whydid Inotuse more of my resources for the cause of Christ?” More poignantly,“WhywasInotmorecommittedtoChrist’scause?WhydidIesteemmyownself-preservationsohighly?WhywasInotwillingtogomyself?”InthatGreatDayI fear thatmanyofuswillhavenoanswers tosalveoursmittenconsciences.

MayGodraiseupinourday,whiledivinepatiencestillgrantsustime,a

multitudeofmenandwomenwhowillboldlydaretogointothislostanddyingworldwiththeliberatingworks-freeGospelofGod!

Dr.RobertL.ReymondisProfessorEmeritusofSystematicTheologyatKnoxTheologicalSeminary,Ft.Lauderdale,Florida.

1 .JohnHick(ed.),TheMythofGodIncarnate(Philadelphia,1977), ix.My Jesus, Divine Messiah (Scotland, 2003), demonstrates theshallownessofsuchanexplanation.2.Hick,TheMythofGodIncarnate,181-182.RonaldH.NashprovidesathoroughexpositionandrefutationofHick’sreligiouspluralisminhisIsJesustheOnlySavior?(GrandRapids,1994).3.JohnStott,TheAuthenticChrist(Basingstoke,1985),70.4.KarlRahner,TheologicalInvestigations(NewYork,1966),I:131-32.5 .Theirs is indeedaresponse-anegativeone-toGod’srevelationintheOld Covenant, for which Paul declares: ìThey displease God and arehostiletoallmenintheirefforttokeepusfromspeakingtotheGentilessothattheymaybesaved.Inthiswaytheyalwaysheapuptheirsinstothelimit.ThewrathofGodhascomeuponthematlastî(1Thessalonians2:15-16).Therefore,ashestatesinRomans11:7-10:WhatIsraelsoughtsoearnestly [that is, righteousness before God (Romans 9:31)] it did notobtain,buttheelectdid.Theotherswerehardened,asitiswritten:ìGodgavethemaspiritofstupor,eyessothattheycouldnotseeandearssothat they could not hear, to this very day.î AndDavid says: ìMay theirtablebecomeasnareandatrap,astumblingblockandaretributionforthem.Maytheireyesbedarkenedsothattheycannotsee,andtheirbacksbebentforever.îTosuggestthenthatthefaithofChrist-rejectingJewsisevenremotelyaproperresponsetotheOldTestamentrevelationissurelyaninaccurateappraisalofthesituation.CananyonetrulybelievetheOldTestamentandnotacknowledgeJesusChristastheMessiah,Savior,andLordrevealedinit?TherealtruthofthematteristhatnoJewwhohasheardofChrist andhis atoningwork and then rejects himbelieves theOld Testament revelation. Jesus expressly declared: ìIf you believedMoses,youwouldbelieveme,forhewroteofmeî(John5:46).InlightofthefactthattheonlyhopeofsalvationforJewsresidesintheprovisions

oftheChristianGospel,itissimplygrosswrong-headednesstoencourageor tosupport themin their ìJewishnessîor in theirZionistcauses.Pauldenounced every Jewish hope for acceptance before God that wasfounded on anything other than the imputed righteousness of Christ,whichrighteousnessisreceivedthroughfaithaloneinChrist’spreceptiveandpenalobediencealone.AndthesoonerChristiansrealizethis-thatinordertowinJewstoChristtheymust,first,showthemthefutilityofanyandeveryhopeforsalvationthatisrelatedinanywaytothefactthattheyhaveAbrahamicbloodflowingintheirveins(Matthew3:9;John1:13)orto the fact that theyarecircumcised (Romans2:25-29;Galatians5:2-5;6:13)ortothefactthattheyarepracticingsonsanddaughtersofTorah(Romans2:17-24;3:9;Galatians3:10;4:21-5:1),andsecond,urgethemtorenounceanyandeveryethnicreligiousdistinctioninwhichtheymightrest their hope of salvation and to trust Christ alone-the sooner theirwitnesstoJewswillbecomeeffective.6 .Formoreon Islam’s errors seemy ìWhat’sWrongwith Islam?îTheTrinityReview,October/November2002.7 . For more on this topic, see my A New Systematic Theology of theChristianFaith(Secondedition;Nashville,2002),1085-1093.8 . Clark H. Pinnock, ìActs 4:12-No Other Name Under Heaven,î inThrough No Fault of Their Own, Crockett and Sigountos, eds. (GrandRapids, 1991), 113. He contends for this position more fully in his AWidenessinGod’sMercy(GrandRapids,1992).9 . Clark H. Pinnock, ìToward an Evangelical Theology of Religions,îJETS33/3(September1990),359-368.10.JohnSanders,NoOtherName:AnInvestigationintotheDestinyoftheUnevangelized(GrandRapids,1992).11.MillardErickson,ìHopeforThoseWhoHaven’tHeard?Yes,but....,îEvangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2 (April 1975), 124. Itremains to be seen, of course,whether any unregenerate sinner can orwillcometotheseconclusionsapartfromGospelproclamation.SeealsoEvertD.Osburn,ìThoseWhoHaveNeverHeard:HaveTheyNoHope?îJETS32/3(September1989),367-372).12.Erickson,ìHopeforThoseWhoHaven’tHeard?Yes,but....,î125.13 . John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue(DownersGrove,1988),327.14.SeeThroughNoFaultofTheirOwn,259,fn.3.

15.JohnMurray,TheEpistletotheRomans(GrandRapids,1968),1:70.16.Reymond,ANewSystematicTheology,503-544.17.Pinnock,AWidenessinGod’sMercy,165.18 . InOldTestamenttimesGodhad ìlet thenationsgotheirownwayî(Acts 14:16) as he prepared Israel to be the repository of specialrevelationandtheracialoriginatoroftheMessiah,andduringthattimehehadalsoìoverlookedthenations’ignoranceî(Acts17:23)inthesensethathehadtakennodirectstepstoreachthemsavingly.ButonceChristcame,Godhascommandedallpeopleeverywheretorepent(Acts17:30)andtoputtheirtrustinhim.19.Pinnock,AWidenessinGod’sMercy,157.20.Pinnock,AWidenessinGod’sMercy,158.

MonergismBooks