The Table of Contents

Foreword by Dr. Richard J. Mouw

Introduction

Chapter 1, The So-called Universalistic Texts

A Theology of Inclusivism

A Treatise on

The Generosity of God

By Neal Punt

Copyright © 2008 by Northland Books

Box 63, Allendale, MI 49401

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Punt, Neal,

A Theology of Inclusivism / by Neal Punt

p. cm.

Includes Index

ISBN 978-0-945315-46-9

1. Salvation, 2, Universalism-Biblical teaching. 3. lCalvinism. 4. Arminianism.

5. Salvation Outisde the Church. I. Title

BT751.3.P865 2008

234-dc22

2007047051
Scripture quotations taken from the Holy Bible, New

International Version copyright © 1973, 1978,

1984 by International Bible Society.

[Note: The page numbers of the hard copy book have been changed into uniquely formatted (UF) numbers in this

Kindle (e.g. page 23 becomes p23p). Use the UF numbers with your “search” (or “find”) key to locate these chapters

in this Kindle or other E-books. This may take 2 clicks.]

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p3p

Foreword by Dr. Richard J. Mouw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p5p

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p8p

Chapter 1 The So-called “Universalistic” Texts . . . . p12p

Chapter 2 Those Who Will Be Finally Lost. . . . . . . . . . p20p

Chapter 3 All Are . . . Some Are Not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p30p

Chapter 4 Objective and Subjective Salvation. . . . . p39p

Chapter 5 Isn’t Faith Necessary? . . . . . . . . . . p48p

Chapter 6 Back To The Early Church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p60p

Chapter 7 One Bible For All People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p66p

Chapter 8 Motivation For Missions Or Why Preach? . . p74p

Chapter 9 The Message Of Missions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p84p

Chapter 10 Grace Proclaimed Before Confession

Is Heard . . .. . . . . . . . . p95p
Chapter 11 Evangelical Inclusivism in The Christian

Reformed Church…………………… p102p

Chapter 12 Evangelical Inclusivism In The

Old Testament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p110p

Chapter 13 1 Timothy 4:10 Misused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p115p

Chapter 14 Examining the So-called “Universalistic”

Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p120p

Chapter 15 Protestant Inclusivism and Clark Pinnock. p146p

Chapter 16 John Calvin’s “Unlimited” Atonement. . . . p158p

Chapter 17 What Advantage Do Covenant

Members Have? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p171p

Chapter 18 Practical Applications of Evangelical

Inclusivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p179p

Chapter 19 Restoring Hell (by Edward Fudge) . . . . . p190p

Chapter 20 The Need For Self-Esteem. . . . . . . . . . . . . p198p

Chapter 21 Tiessen’s “Accessibilism” . . . . . . . . . . . . p207p

Chapter 22 Will Only A Few Be Saved? . . . . . . . . . . . . p217p

Chapter 23 Common Objections to Evangelical

Inclusivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p223p

Chapter 24 The 1985 Heresy Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p232p

Chapter 25 Christianity Today Article. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p240p

Chapter 26 Two Observations About Rob Bell’s Book. p248p

Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p254p

Textual Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . p264p

DEDICATION

To my gracious wife, Betty Ann, who provided

the physical, emotional and spiritual support I

needed to write this book.

FOREWORD p5p

Several years ago I heard a lecture by the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama, in which he observed that we all

need to make a basic decision in our approach to theological questions. Either we assume, he said, “a stingy God or

a generous God.” This was a helpful insight for me. It is not difficult to find passages in both the Bible and the

Reformed confessions where it seems like we are being given a picture of a divine stinginess. But there are also

many passages where we are provided with wonderful promises of divine generosity. The question for those of us,

who take the Scriptures as the infallible Word from God, while also viewing the Reformed confessional documents as

reliable guides to the teachings of that Word, is this: how do we square the stingy-sounding passages with the

generous-sounding ones?

Neal Punt’s writings have been a marvelous gift to those of us in the Calvinistic tradition who take our stand on the

side of divine generosity. And, truth be told, his treatment of the texts has also been a gift of sorts to those who

disagree with him. One theologian who has been severely critical of those of us whom he sees as going too far in the

direction of generosity once confided to me that he has learned much from wrestling with the challenges posed by

Neal Punt. “He helps to keep people like me honest,” he confessed. p6p

In my own case, Neal Punt hasn’t just kept me honest. He has helpfully instructed me in the truth by convincing me

that he has the right “take” on the basics of Reformed theology. I have never been able to embrace the kind of

universalism that teaches that all human beings will be saved in the end. That sort of theology is simply impossible for

me to square with the biblical message. But I do want to leave a lot of theological room for the mysterious ways of a

God who has promised that where sin abounds grace much more abounds. Punt has helped me to stay within the

bounds of biblical orthodoxy while relying on the promises of an abundant divine generosity.
Reverend Punt has never been one who is content to consign the stinginess-generosity dilemma to the area of

“tensions” and “paradoxes.” While pointing us to the grace-abounding strains in the Scriptures, he has also struggled

mightily—some would say indefatigably—with all of those texts that might seem on the face of it to be a problem for

his view. I will never forget, for example, the sense of profound relief I experienced when I finished reading for the first

time his treatment of the Matthew 7: 13-14 passage about the broad road that leads to the destruction versus the

narrow path that only a few will find. Not only did his careful exposition convince me that there is a way of fitting this

into an overall generosity perspective, but I actually sensed that he had laid out the most plausible interpretation of

that passage in its context.

In this important book, Neal Punt puts it all together. He summarizes the work of many decades of formulating his

case, and he also gives a fair and careful account of the objections that others have lodged against the perspective

that he has developed.

As I write this I have just read a report of a public poll taken of the younger generation’s attitudes toward Christianity.

The majority of those questioned view Christianity as a narrow-minded, mean-spirited religion. In this book Neal Punt

sets forth the perspective that can correct that perception. I hope that his case for a generous God shapes the minds

and hearts of many! p7p

Richard J. Mouw

President and Professor of Christian Philosophy

Fuller Theological Seminary

(Chapter references are to this book A Theology of Inclusivism.)

INTRODUCTION p8p

It has been said that words are like eyeglasses on our soul. By means of words we place people into loosely defined

groups. We speak of friends, relatives, Muslims, homeless persons, Christians, convicts, etc. The list is nearly

endless. These “eyeglasses” affect our attitude toward and how we relate to the people we place in these groups.

In addition to these narrow categories, the Bible speaks of a final division of mankind—those who will be saved and

those who will be lost. The traditional Christian perspective teaches us to place the entire human race among those

who will be lost unless we have reason to think differently about some people. This assumption is so basic, so

commonly held, so well accepted that it seems insolent to even question it.
How should we view and relate to the people we meet every day and to the masses of humanity? To answer this

question we must ask ourselves which of the following two statements reflects the teaching of the Scriptures:

A. All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible declares will be saved.

B. All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost. p9p

It is through the Bible that we must see God, ourselves, the reality of sin, the plan of salvation, and all creation. Our

sin-damaged vision needs biblical correction. Premises A and B are prescriptions for the “eyeglasses” we choose to

wear. To change from A to B is difficult because this turns many of our thought patterns upside down. However, the

question is which of these two premises (A or B) is the biblical prescription, and are we willing to use the “eyeglasses”

provided in the Scriptures?

To think of adopting premise B in place of A raises so many questions that it seems pointless to even consider

whether B has any validity. This book is intended to overcome the problem of having never-ending questions blot out

the evidence there may be for adopting premise B.

To accomplish this purpose, most of the significant material found in my previous books, on my website and in my

postings has been incorporated into this single volume. This book’s extensive textual and topical index can help the

reader quickly locate the answer to nearly every question that may arise when considering premise B.

Here I must ask for the indulgence of the reader. Please hold your questions in abeyance until after the first four

chapters of this book have been read and seriously considered. Do this even though your questions may be pressing

for immediate answers! The reward for doing so will be that all the remaining chapters of the book need not be read

in sequence. View the remaining chapters as a buffet waiting to be tasted at your leisure. They are a smorgasbord of

thoughts, each waiting to respond to your particular and oftentimes very urgent questions.

In that “smorgasbord” you will find the answers to most of your questions. You can even find out why I refer to B as

Evangelical Inclusivism.

You may be the type of person more interested in the practical application of B. If so, you may find it advantageous to

begin your study by turning to Chapter 18, “It Makes a Difference.” p10p
EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible

expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation

God has given of himself to them, whether in nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) or in gospel presentation.

Evangelical Inclusivism is based upon these four biblical facts:

1. The so-called “universalistic” texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have consistently

maintained, and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed ( Chapter 1).

2. All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (inherited sin). However,

the Scriptures neither teach nor imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in

Adam apart from actual, willful, and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (Chapter 2).

3. We must accept the so-called “universalistic” texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are

necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (Chapter 3).

4. Jesus “saved” sinners, once for all, by making the supreme sacrifice 2,000 years ago. We speak of this as

“objective” salvation. The Bible means something altogether different when it says that Paul set out to “save some” (1

Cor. 9:22). The Holy Spirit “saves” sinners by using human agents to bring the gospel to them. We refer to this as

“subjective” salvation. A great amount of confusion results when this distinction is lost sight of (Chapter 4). p11p

he late J. Robert Spangler, editor of Ministry Magazine, said this about my previous book: “I carefully read your book,

What’s Good About the Good News? I must confess it has done something for my heart and my attitude toward the

whole human race.” He was moved by the scriptural principles found in that book. These same principles form the

basis of this study. May those who study this volume undergo a similar experience.

Cordially, Neal Punt

Chapter 1 THE SO-CALLED “UNIVERSALISTIC” TEXTS p12p

In this chapter we will examine the evidence for the first and most basic tenet of Evangelical Inclusivism, Biblical Fact

#1 (see Introduction):

“The so-called “universalistic” texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have consistently

maintained, and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed.”
My unusual interest in the so-called “universalistic” texts, some of which are listed below, was due neither to my

limited knowledge of the theology of Karl Barth nor to the fact that today we have many people who have been

nurtured in various “world religions” living in our communities. My introduction to these passages was much more

prosaic than that. In preparing to lead a group discussion on “The Salvation of Infants,” I turned to the works of Dr.

Charles Hodge, the Princeton Calvinist, where I found this quote:

DR. CHARLES HODGE

“All the descendents of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of

God, are saved” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1888, Vol. I, P. 26, emphasis added). p13p

Hodge based this comment on his reading of this text:

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of

righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Rom. 5:18).

He went on to say that Rom. 5:18 teaches us that “It is more congenial with the nature of God to bless than to curse,

to save than to destroy.”

Hodge did all his theology on the basis of premise A, namely, “All persons will be lost except those the Bible declares

will be saved.” Only in this one reference to Rom. 5:18 did Hodge work with premise B: “All persons will be saved

except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.”

Consistent with B, Hodge recognized that there are exceptions to Rom. 5:18b when he said, “except those of whom it

is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The Scriptures teach us that those who “cannot

inherit the kingdom of God” are those, and only those, who, in addition to their sin in Adam, —personally, willfully, and

finally reject or remain indifferent to God’s revelation of himself, whether made known in nature/conscience (Rom. 1 &

2) or in gospel presentation (see Chapter 2).

If we accept the biblical fact that not all persons will be saved, we cannot avoid working with either premise A or B

whenever we read or interpret the Scriptures. This is part of our thinking process. We are seldom aware that one or

the other of these assumptions is profoundly influencing our understanding of the Bible’s message.
It is interesting and instructive to learn that for the first 350 years following the age of the apostles, the leading church

fathers spoke of salvation from the perspective of premise B rather than A (see Chapter 6). However, we must turn to

the Bible itself to learn which of these two assumptions conveys the truth of the Scriptures. p14p

EXPLICIT PRONOUNCEMENTS

Hodge could have drawn the same conclusion that he drew from Rom. 5:18 from most of the so-called “universalistic”

texts that are listed below. There are exceptions to the following passages that are necessarily imposed on them by

the broader context of the Scriptures (see Chapter 3). Only the Bible itself has the right to make exceptions to the

following explicit pronouncements that the Bible makes. The Bible says:

“The true light gives light to every man” (John 1:9).

The Lamb of God “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

The Son was sent to “save the world” (John 3:17).

Jesus “will draw all men” to himself (John 12:32).

Jesus came “to save” the world (John 12:47).

All “are justified freely by his grace” (Rom. 3:23, 24).

“One act of righteousness” brings “life for all men” (Rom. 5:18).

God “has bound all men . . . so that he may have mercy on” all of them (Rom. 11:32).

“All will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

“One died for all, and therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5:14).

God does not count “men’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5:19).

Every tongue will “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:10, 11).
Through his Son, God has reconciled “all things” to himself Col. 1:20). p15p

Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all men” (1 Tim. 2:6).

God “is the Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10).

God’s grace “has appeared for the salvation of all men” (Titus 2:11, RSV).

Jesus tasted “death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9).

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

There are no significant textual criticism or translation problems in the above so-called “universalistic” passages.

They are not unclear or fuzzy either in English or Greek. Theologians, not translators, have difficulty with the texts

listed above. Anyone who can read this study can know what these texts say just as well as the most learned

professor of theology.

There are instances where the Bible uses “all,” “every,” “world,” “every one,” and even “all men” when making

reference to a limited group or category of persons or things. For example Rom. 12:18, 2 Cor. 3:2, and Titus 3:2

mean “all whom we meet.” As many as fifty such examples can be found in the Scriptures. These cause no confusion

because the limiting factors are clearly understood from the immediate context. The so-called “universalistic” texts

(listed above) differ from these examples because there is no limiting factor found in their immediate context.

Dr. Thomas Talbott writes: “I have been unable to find a single example drawn from Paul’s theological writings in

which Paul makes a universal statement and the scope of its reference is unduly fuzzy or less than clear. Paul’s

writing may be cumbersome at times, but he was not nearly as sloppy a writer (or a thinker) as some of his

commentators, in their zeal to interpret him for us, would make him out to be” (The Inescapable Love of God,

Universal Pubs.,1999, P. 59).

MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED YEARS p16p

Arminian and Calvinistic theologians have never permitted the so-called “universalistic” texts to say “all persons will

be saved,” no matter how clearly these texts say this. To permit these texts to say “all persons will be saved” would

contradict the assumption theologians have worked with for centuries, namely, “All persons will be lost except those

the Bible declares will be saved,” which I refer to as premise A.

To prohibit the so-called “universalistic” texts from saying “all persons will be saved,” Calvinists claim to find a limiting

factor in the immediate context of every one of these texts. Then, quite cleverly, anyone who fails to find such a

limiting factor in the immediate context is accused of sloppy workmanship (exegesis) because they must have

ignored the context.

Arminian theologians are more forthright. Because we know that some persons will not be saved, they say that every

one of the “universalistic” texts must be speaking merely of a “possible or potential” salvation. They maintain this

claim even though these passages say absolutely nothing about a “potential or possible” salvation.

For more than four hundred years Calvinists have correctly maintained that these so-called “universalistic” texts

speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation. During all these years Arminians have accurately insisted that these texts

speak in terms of all persons. Neither of these schools of thought has been able to demonstrate that the other is in

error regarding what they affirm about these texts. It may not fit into our accepted theological structures, but the fact

is that both the “certain-to-be-realized salvation” and the “all persons” elements are found in these texts.

To maintain their theological tradition, Calvinists limit the extent of the so-called “universalistic” texts (not all persons)

and Arminians restrict the content of these passages (not a certain-to-be-realized salvation). Thus both Calvinists and

Arminians negate the clear reading of these texts. p17p

We have no right to arbitrarily limit either the extent or the content of the so-called “universalistic” texts. Both of these

schools of thought have empowered their theology to determine what these texts may or may not say. We may not

nullify the Word of God as written in order to maintain our theological tradition. The fact is that Absolute Universalists

(those who believe that all persons will eventually be saved) and Evangellical Inclusivists are the only ones who

accept these passages as they are written. These texts must shape our theology. Our theology may not shape these

texts.

[For a vivid example of how both Arminians and Calvinists refuse to accept the so-called “universalistic” texts as

written, turn to Chapter 13, “1 Tim. 4:10 Misused.”]

The four hundred-year debate between Arminians and Calvinists, which continues in full force today, would not and

could not have continued for four centuries except for the fact that the so-called “universalistic” texts do in fact speak

of a certain-to-be-realized salvation in terms of all persons.

For every ten Calvinistic scholars who show beyond all reasonable doubt that these texts speak of an actual, certain-

to-be-realized salvation, there are another ten Arminian theologians of equal credibility who just as convincingly

demonstrate that these texts most assuredly speak of all persons.

Calvinist professors contend that these passages speak so clearly of a certain-to-be-realized salvation that they can

not possibly say all persons. A few miles down the road, equally learned, Bible-believing professors in the Arminian

tradition teach the next generation that so clearly do these same passages speak in terms of all persons, they cannot

possibly be speaking of a certain-to-be-realized salvation. This battle of words has been carried on for more than four

centuries!

AN UNDENIABLE FACT p18p

Although he applied these truths in a different way than I am proposing in this study, John Calvin also recognized the

fact that both the redemption from sin and the all persons elements are found in these so-called “universalistic” texts (

Chapter 16, below).

No one can, with integrity, deny the fact that these texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have

historically maintained, and that they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed. What one does

with this fact may be debatable but the fact itself can not be legitimately debated. The first principle of sound

interpretation is that whatever is less clear must be understood in the light of what is clear in any given text. What is

clear is that these texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation in terms of all persons.

These passages do not speak of merely a “potential” or “possible” salvation as the Arminians claim. They do not

speak of a limited number of persons that are “certain to be saved” as Calvinists assert. We may not like it, it may

compel us to change our theological perspective, but the fact is that Absolute Universalists (those who believe that all

persons will be saved either in this age or in the age to come) have correctly understood these so-called

“universalistic” texts to say, “all persons will be saved.”

However, it is ever so clearly revealed in the Scriptures that “not all persons will be saved” (Chapter 19, below). A

proposed resolution to this apparent contradiction can be found in Chapter 3, “All Are … Some Are Not.”

I received the following response to one of my online postings: “I don’t care how many Arminians say those texts

speak of all people, THEY ARE DEAD WRONG! The Calvinists are the only ones who are right here!” Although the

language is more polite, the sentiment expressed in this outburst is precisely what Calvinists and Arminians are still

saying to each other today, just as they did fifty years ago when I was in seminary.
The four hundred-year-old Arminian/Calvinist debate has demonstrated with finality that the translators have given us

an accurate translation of these texts. We must accept the so-called “universalistic” texts just as we find them in our

English and Greek Bibles. These texts listed earlier (and many similar texts) very clearly speak of a certain-to-be-

realized salvation in terms of all persons. For a close examination, (that is, the exegesis) of most of these previously-

cited texts, see Chapter 14, “Examining the So-Called ‘Universalistic’ Texts.” p19p

Any theology that cannot accept both the certain-to-be-realized salvation and the all persons elements that are found

in the so-called “universalistic” texts, in conjunction with a final division of mankind, is not structured according to the

Word of God as written. Either we accept the so-called “universalistic” texts as written, without any exceptions

(Absolute Universalism); or we accept them as written with the exceptions that are necessarily imposed on them by

the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (Evangelical Inclusivism). We have no right to change the Word of

God as written in order to maintain our favored theological tradition.

There may be a third or fourth possibility that accepts the so-called “universalistic” passages as written. I am not

aware of any such possibility.

(Chapter references are to the book A Theology of Inclusivism.)

Chapter 2 THOSE WHO WILL BE FINALLY LOST p20p

In this chapter we will examine the evidence for Biblical Fact # 2 (see Introduction at Chapter 1):

“All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (inherited sin). However, the

Scriptures neither teach nor imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in

Adam apart from actual, willful and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned.”

The title of this chapter, “Those Who Will Be Finally Lost” assumes that some persons will be finally lost. Before

answering the question, we must say something about this assumption.

UNIVERSALISM’S DENIAL

Throughout the history of the church there has been a minority who deny that some persons will be finally lost. They

believe that every person, without exception, will find salvation in Christ either in this life or in a future existence. This

belief system is called Universalism, Absolute Universalism or Restoration Theology. As strange as it may seem,

evangelical Christians in increasing numbers are accepting this view. “It is a consummation devoutly to be wished,”

as Shakespeare might say ─ but wishing does not make it so. p21p
Universalism is among the most appealing and destructive errors seeping into the church today. It is the original lie of

Satan, “You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:4), tailored for a humanity already in sin. Its message to everyone is, “Even

though you may endure the purging of God’s judgment, you will not surely die.” It is more deceptive than its brief

original form because it is presented as the result of the work accomplished by Jesus Christ.

Universalists find their strongest argument in the so-called “universalistic” texts cited in Chapter 1. Understandably

so. Those passages do speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation in terms of all persons as we saw in Chapter 1.

Our zeal to refute Universalism does not give us permission to distort or deny what those passages clearly say. We

will look at a proposed resolution to this problem in the next chapter.

Few truths are more obvious to those reading this book than that there will be a final division of mankind; some will be

saved and others will be finally lost. An extensive refutation of Universalism in this context would be “preaching to the

choir.” Nevertheless it is good for us to be reminded of the biblical teaching about this final division of mankind (see

Chapter 19, below). At this time I wish to expose three subtle arguments that are often and effectively used by

Universalists.

CHILDREN OF GOD?

Parents never abandon their children except for the fact that those parents are either sinful or weak. God, the Holy

Father, with his unlimited ability and resources, will never finally forsake any of his children. Even though a mother

may “have no compassion on the child she has borne,” God will not forget any of his children (Isa. 49:15). It

necessarily follows: “If we are children, then we are heirs . . . co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). Therefore, the

Universalists say, no one will be finallylost. p22p

The assumption underlying this argument is that all human beings are children of God by virtue of their creation in the

image of God. If the assumption upon which this argument is based is valid, then the argument is irrefutable.

Evangelical Christians seldom question this assumption. We are not told that Adam and Eve were created as God’s

children. The Scriptures know of only two ways to be part of God’s family: through natural generation (“Christ alone is

the eternal, natural Son of God”) and by adoption (“we are adopted children of God”). Even sinless human beings

would require adoption into God’s family.

Biological ancestry does not make someone a member of God’s family! “Do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We

have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Matt. 3:9).

The stuff we are made of, whether Abraham’s physical descendants or stones, does not make us or prevent us from
becoming children of Abraham with God as our Father. “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed” (Gal.

3:29).

INFINITE VALUE?

Another subtle argument based upon a false assumption is this: “Every person will be saved because everyone

created in God’s image is of infinite value.” Again, this argument is irrefutable if the premise is valid. God is neither so

foolish nor so weak as to be deprived of something that has infinite value.

So much good would result if all human beings were treated as though they had infinite value that we like to think this

hyperbole is literally true. But nothing created can be of infinite value. If it were, the essential distinction between the

Creator and what is created would be breached.

Furthermore, to say that every sinner has infinite value does an injustice to the gracious character of God’s saving

act. Each sinner is not a “hidden treasure” or a “pearl of great price” sought after by God because he or she has

infinite value. Such a teaching contradicts the scriptural truth that he saved us “because of his own purpose and

grace [undeserved favor]” (2 Tim. 1:9). They have “become worthless” (Rom. 3:12). The fact that we are mere

creatures saved by grace, not on the basis of worth, requires us to recognize that human beings are not of infinite

value. p23p

A GREATER HOPE?

In recent years some Universalists have been speaking of a “greater hope.” The reference is to the hope that God’s

punishments in the “hereafter” are a chastisement, a purging, that culminates in salvation. It is true that all must

appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Each will receive what is due him or her for the things done in the body,

whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10). This can be neither a punishment nor a form of purification for the sins of those

who are in Christ Jesus. The judgment scene depicts “those on his right ” who are publicly awarded for the good they

have done and “those on his left” who are publicly judged for the evil they have done (compare Matt. 25:35, 36 with

Matt. 25:42, 43).

Those who desire such a “greater hope” (as defined in the preceding paragraph) can do so only at the cost of giving

up the far, far “greater hope” that is expressed in these familiar words of the hymn: “Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe.”

Jesus is the sin bearer who bore all the sins of all his people. The biblical evidence for this truth is so extensive that I

can cite only a fraction of it here: “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). “It is finished” (John

19:30). “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
Universalists who long for such a “greater hope” add “except for some sin” to each of the verses in the preceding

paragraph. The exceptions are those sins for which the sinner himself suffers the penalty. They do the same for the

verses on which they depend for their Universalism, including John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:19; and 1 John 2:2 (see Chapter 1,

above). This denigrates the perfect work Christ accomplished for his elect in that he has removed all our sins from us

“as far as east is from the west” (Ps. 103:12). Christ having completed his work, no further punishment or purification

can be required from any person for whom Christ died. p24p

THOSE WHO WILL BE FINALLY LOST

The question is not “Who deserves to be finally lost?” The answer to this question is crystal-clear: “every person.”

Due to the fall and disobedience of our first parents, all persons, except Jesus Christ, are conceived and born in sin.

Consequently every one of them deserves eternal death and God placed them under the sentence of death. “The

result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18a).

Romans 1:18–3:20 and parallel passages reveal the corruption and blameworthiness of all persons that result from

their sin in Adam (inherited sin). These passages are a description of every person who is not born again and of

every child of God before he or she was born again. They reveal the fact that “All have turned away, they have

together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:12). This inherited sin of all

mankind is both sufficient and efficient to bring all persons to eternal condemnation.

Human blameworthiness is taught so consistently throughout the Scriptures that all of orthodox Christianity confesses

it. This has uncritically filtered into our thoughts and theology as if it were evidence that all persons are outside of

Christ. This erroneous deduction from the doctrine of original sin accounts in large measure for the widespread and

firmly held premise that “All persons will be lost except those the Bible declares will be saved,” that is, premise A (see

Introduction). p25p

The teaching of original sin does not distinguish those who will be saved from those who will be finally lost! The

doctrine of original sin does not tell us whether many or few, all or none, of those involved in it will be finally lost.

Worthiness for final judgment does not distinguish the elect from the non-elect. By reason of original (inherited) sin,

both elect and non-elect are worthy of condemnation.

A VAST DIFFERENCE

There is a vast difference between being worthy of death and the actual implementation of that sentence. It is one

thing to say that all persons, elect and non-elect, infants and adults, Gentiles and Jews, those under the law and
those not under the law, believers and unbelievers are conceived and born in sin and worthy of death. It is something

quite different to say that all of them will suffer eternal death. From the fact that all persons are worthy of death we

can not draw the conclusion that all persons are “outside of Christ.”

Although the Bible teaches that all people (except Jesus Christ) have come under the judgment of God because of

our union with the first Adam and are worthy of eternal death, nowhere does the Bible teach or imply that anyone is

ever consigned to hell solely on the basis of their union with Adam, apart from willful, persistent rejection or remaining

indifferent to God’s revelation of himself to them.

JUDGMENT SCENES

In every final judgment scene portrayed in the Bible the penalty is based upon works done by the individual being

judged. Every New Testament passage that speaks of eternal punishment being carried out is listed below.

Invariably, condemnation is based on what that person has or has not done. It can be said that God permits each and

every one of those who will be lost to follow “in their own ways” and to eternally punish them “. . . not only for their

unbelief but also for all their other sins” (Canons of Dort, I, 15). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is

eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 3:23). p26p

Salvation is obtained by grace (“the gift of God”); condemnation is executed on the basis of works (“the wages of

sin”):

Matt. 7:23 “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evil doers.’”

Matt. 16:27 “. . . and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.”

Matt. 25:42, 45 “For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat . . . . ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do

for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”

John 3:36b “. . . whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

John 5:29b “. . . and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.”

Rom. 1:20b “His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been

made, so that men are without excuse.”

Rom. 1:24, 25 “Therefore, God gave them over . . .” because “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”

Rom. 1:26a “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.”

Rom. 1:28 “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God he gave them over to a

depraved mind. . .”

Rom. 2:1b, 2 “. . . because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against

those who do such things is based on truth.”

Rom. 2:5–8 “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself
for the day of God’s wrath . . . God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’ . . . But for those who are

self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” p27p

1 Cor. 6:9, 10 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the

sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the

greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

2 Cor. 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him

for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Gal. 6:7 “The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction.”

Eph. 5:5, 6 “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person . . . has any inheritance in the kingdom

of Christ and of God . . . for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”

Col. 3:25 “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.”

2 Thess. 2:12 “. . . so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

Rev. 20:12b, 13 “The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books . . . and each

person was judged according to what he had done.”

Rev. 22:12 “. . . and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” p28p
Rev. 22:15 “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters

and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”

The above passages tell us that no one is consigned to eternal death solely on the basis of the sin or the sinful nature

they inherited from the first Adam. This does not mean that no one will suffer the consequences of original (inherited)

sin or that the guilt of original sin has been removed for everyone.

The conclusion we draw from the above scriptural evidence is that all who will be finally lost will be condemned on the

basis of their sin in Adam and the fact that they persistently, knowingly, and willfully rejected or remained indifferent to

God’s truth, kindness, and company, however it was revealed to them during their lives on earth (John 3:19). They

will have consciously said “no” to God and insisted on living apart from him.

It is incumbent upon those who claim that all those who live their entire life apart from any exposure to the gospel to

prove that all such persons are numbered among those who will be finally lost. Where is the testimony of God’s

written Word that all such persons will be finally lost? It is the Bible and only the Bible that has the right to describe

those who will be finally lost.

UNTIL “THE LAST DAY”

How it is possible for mere creatures to turn themselves over to Satan, or why anyone would choose to do so, is lost

in the “secret power of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:7). How many do so, and precisely who they are, will not be known

until “the last day” when the Good Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. The lines of demarcation are not

seen today. There will be many surprises (Matt. 25:31–46,John 12:48). p29p

If we had known Paul before his conversion, when he did “all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus” (Acts

26:9–11), we would have assumed that he clearly was among those who will be finally lost. We would have been in

error.

We cannot even say that those who presently reject Jesus and the words he speaks will be lost. “As for the person

who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him . . . There is a judge for the one who rejects me and

does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day” (John 12:47, 48). If Jesus

says this about a person who rejects him and his words, and does not assume that such a person will be lost, how

much less justification is there for us to believe premise A, namely, “All persons will be finally lost except those who

the Bible declares will be saved.”

Paul’s admonition to “judge nothing before the appointed time” but to “wait till the Lord comes” must certainly apply to

judging that some persons have been assigned a place in Hell (1 Cor. 4:5).

Salvation is by grace and by grace alone. Condemnation is never carried out apart from the deliberate, willful,

persistent sin on the part of the person condemned. This leaves the question concerning the relationship between

God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility unresolved. Nevertheless, we can accept both because this is the

testimony of the Scriptures.

In 1980 the Christian Reformed Church officially subscribed to Biblical Fact # 2 (as presented in this chapter) by

adopting Report 30. The biblical basis for adopting Report 30 can be found in Chapter 11(below), “Evangelical

Inclusivism in The Christian Reformed Church.”

Chapter 3 ALL ARE . . . SOME ARE NOT p30p

In this chapter we will examine the evidence for Biblical Fact # 3 (see Introduction at Chapter 1):

“We must accept the so-called ‘universalistic’ texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are

necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole.”

It looks like we painted ourselves into a corner. Chapter 1 concluded that the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of

a certain-to-be-realized salvation in terms of all persons. Chapter 2 recognizes that some persons will not be saved.

These two biblical facts certainly appear to contradict each other.

The title of this third chapter purposefully reflects this dilemma─Chapter 1 says, “All Are,” while Chapter 2 says,

“Some Are Not.” Can the Bible say both “all are” and “some are not”?

UNIVERSAL STATEMENTS

This apparent contradiction does not arise out the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism: “All persons are elect in Christ

except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.” It arises from the fact that the three main branches

of Christian theology (Arminianism, Calvinism, and Universalism) have failed to recognize the basic difference

between “universal statements” and “generalizations.” These are often confused but there is a world of difference

between them. p31p

This study consistently refers to the texts listed in Chapter 1 as the so-called “universalistic” texts. This is because

they are not true universals, they are generalizations. True universal declarations allow no exceptions.

Generalizations are universal declarations that have known exceptions.

Generalizations are often used in the Bible, as well as in other literature. They are far more common than universals.

This failure to recognize that the so-called “universalistic” texts (see Chapter 1, above) are generalizations, not

universals, has caused major divisions within the Christian church.

Because they insist that the so-called “universalistic” passages are true universals, Arminians insist that these

passages speak of a potential salvation for all persons without exception. Calvinists contend that these same texts

must refer to the fact that all elect persons will be saved in Christ without exception. Universalists conclude that these

texts proclaim actual salvation for all persons without exception.

GENERALIZATIONS

The Bible frequently uses generalizations, that is, universal statements that have known exceptions. We see this in

Ps. 14:3; Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 3:9, 10, 12, 23; Rom. 5:12 and 5:18a, etc. where the Bible boldly claims that “all men

sinned.” No exceptions are found in the immediate contexts of these references. All three branches of Christian

theology acknowledge that these texts have an exception that is found in the broader context of Scriptures. “The

corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants ─ except for Christ alone” (Canons of

Dort, III–IV, 2, emphasis added). Jesus Christ is an exception to the many universal declarations that say, “There is

no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10). p32p

It is exceedingly strange that Arminians, Calvinists, and Universalists accept Rom. 5:18a as a generalization that has

an exception even though no such exception is found in the immediate context. Nevertheless, all three of these

schools of thought insist that Rom. 5:18b must be a universal with no exceptions. There is no structural or

grammatical difference between 5:18a and 5:18b that makes 18a a generalization and 18b a universal! Notice: “Just

as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was

justification that brings life for all men.”

BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF GENERALIZATIONS

Whatever the Bible says, it says from within its entire context. When the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of an

accomplished, certain-to-be-realized salvation in terms of all persons (see Chapter 1, above), they may never be

understood apart from the exceptions that are found in the broader context of the Scriptures of which they are a part.
These so-called “universalistic” texts are like fish out of water, having no sustainable life of their own, when they are

read in isolation from the rest of the Bible.

The Bible itself alerts us to the fact that its universal declarations may have exceptions that are not found in the

immediate context of the declaration. “For he ‘has put everything under his feet’” (1 Cor. 15:27a). This universal

declaration is taken from Ps. 8:6. It is also found in Heb. 2:8 with this qualifying phrase added: “In putting everything

under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him.” There is not the least hint of any exception in the immediate

context of either Ps. 8 or Heb. 2.

This emphatic universal declaration has an exception as 1 Cor. 15:27b tells us explicitly: “Now when it [the Bible]

says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything

under Christ.” First Cor. 15:27 tells us that when reading Ps. 8:6 and Heb. 2:8 we must supply the exception that is

found only in the broader context of the Bible. p33p

We can construct a parallel to 1 Cor. 15:27 as follows: “Now when it [the Bible] says that ‘all persons will be saved in

Christ’” (see Chapter 1, above), “it is clear that this does not include” those that are described in the Bible’s broader

context as those who will not be saved.

Universal statements (having no exceptions) are exceedingly rare in the Bible. Nearly every universal declaration

found in the Scriptures has exceptions that are revealed in the broader context of the entire Bible. We can begin with:

“I am going to put an end to all people” (Gen. 6:13). Noah and his family proved to be an exception. “With God all

things are possible” (Matt. 19:26); yet God “cannot disown himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). “In Christ all will be made alive” (1

Cor. 15:22); nevertheless some “will be punished with everlasting destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9).

We already noted the familiar universal claim that “all men sinned.” Nevertheless, there is one man who “knew no

sin.” “God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Heb. 2:8); 1 Cor. 15:27b reveals an explicit exception. “Everything is

permissible for me,” says Paul (1 Cor. 6:12); surely blasphemy and murder were not “permissible for” Paul. Prayers

should be made “for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1); but not for the dead and possibly not for some others (1 John 5:16).

“Everyone in the province . . . deserted me” (2 Tim. 1:15); the next verse speaks of an exception, etc.

As long as we are mindful of the exceptions that are found in the broader context of the Bible, we can accept all these

universal declarations as written: “all men sinned;” God did put “all things under Christ’s feet;” “All things were

permissible for Paul;” with God “all things are possible;” we ought to “pray for all persons;” “everyone in the

province . . . deserted” Paul. The exceptions do not negate the basic truth set forth in the universal declaration. They
merely set a boundary for the universal extension of the claim, turning it into a generalization. All these passages say,

“All are . . . some are not.” p34p

FOCUSED AND PERIPHERAL VISION

We must view the so-called “universalistic” passages of the Scriptures with both our focused and our peripheral

vision. With our focused vision we see that the so-called “universalistic” texts, within and including their immediate

context clearly say “all persons will be saved.” At the same time our peripheral vision (the broader context of the

Scriptures) tells us that there are exceptions—those who will be finally lost. Those who will be finally lost are

described in no other way in the Scriptures than those who, in addition to their inherited sin in Adam (original sin),

willfully, persistently, and finally reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them.

To view universal declarations of the Bible without using both our focused and our peripheral vision necessarily

results in error. Consider 1 Cor. 6:12, where Paul twice says, “Everything is permissible for me.” If we view this text

with our focused vision exclusively (seeing nothing but the text and its immediate context) we would have to conclude

that murder and adultery were “permissible” for Paul. With our peripheral vision we are made aware that those things

explicitly forbidden by God “are not permissible” for Paul.

So also, if we view the so-called “universalistic” texts with our focused vision exclusively (seeing nothing but these

texts and their immediate context), we wrongly conclude that they teach that everyone (without exception) will be

saved. Our peripheral vision (the broader context of the Bible) fills in the picture that includes certain exceptions.

p35p

We make a serious error if we either do not accept the truth proclaimed in the Bible’s universal declarations, or if we

overlook the exceptions that must be understood from the broader context of the Bible.

WHAT PURPOSE DO GENERALIZATIONS SERVE?

Generalizations appear to be self-contradictory. Murder, blasphemy, and many other things were “not permissible” for

Paul. How can the Bible say “Everything” was permissible for Paul (1 Cor. 6:12) and yet clearly teach that some

things were “not permissible” for Paul. How can there be such a flat contradiction in the Bible?

Generalizations are not contraries. Generalizations reveal the mindset with which the author is working. They give

expression to the perspective from which the matter at hand is to be viewed.

In 1 Cor. 6:12, Paul celebrates the new mindset of Christian liberty. Paul is no longer a legalist viewing all things as

unlawful except what the Law permitted. Paul has a glorious new perspective, a new freedom in Christ. “Everything is

permissible” for Paul, except those things specifically forbidden by God. Not having been nurtured “under the law” as

Paul was, it is difficult for us to realize how liberating this new perspective was for Paul.

A similar purpose is served by the so-called “universalistic” texts (see Chapter 1, above). They reveal the mind-

boggling change that has taken place through the work of Christ. “We are convinced that one died for all, and

therefore all died . . . So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view” (2 Cor. 5:14, 16). We no longer

regard anyone “from a worldly point of view” as those outside of Christ. We may now consider all persons as among

those for whom Christ died, unless we have specific knowledge to the contrary concerning some particular person.

No such knowledge to the contrary will be given us until “the last day” (John 12:48; Rom. 2:16). p36p

These universal accents give us reason for singing “Joy to the world! The Lord is come: let earth receive her King”

(Luke 2:10).

It is difficult to recognize that our understanding of the Bible’s message is colored by the mindset (the generalization)

with which we work. It is even more difficult to change that mindset. Most of the time we are not even aware of the

assumption that affects our understanding of what we read. Our mindset will even determine what we find in the Bible

(see Chapter 18, below).

A FAMILIAR PATTERN

The premise being proposed, that “All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost”

(see Introduction), follows the pattern of God’s dealing with the children of men throughout biblical history. God

created man good and in a right relationship to himself. “God blessed them” (Gen. 1:28). This blessedness of

knowing God and living in fellowship with him was not something conferred upon mankind in response to or merited

by obedience. However, this blessedness would no longer be theirs if they willfully walked in disobedience. The

blessing was unconditional; the judgment had to be earned.

An unconditional blessing was promised to the descendants of Abraham before they were born. “I will establish my

covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to

come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). Abraham and his descendants would

enjoy the unearned blessing and favor of God unless they refused to believe in him or to walk in obedience to him.

The blessing was unconditional; the judgment was contingent upon man’s action. p37p
The commandments were not given to the children of Israel so that by keeping them they could merit God’s favor.

They were already God’s adopted children when they received the commandments. “When Israel was a child, I loved

him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1). They were the recipients of God’s blessing. However, it was also

true that if they willfully and finally refused to walk in accordance with God’s revealed will, they would not experience

his blessing.

God’s favor at the time of creation, in the covenant with Abraham and in the affirmation of God’s goodness to Israel,

was not given on the basis of faith, obedience, holiness or any other good quality in man as a cause or condition for

those blessings. In light of this history, it is not surprising the good news is that in Christ all persons will be saved by

God’s sovereign grace, except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost. Salvation is by God’s grace.

Condemnation results from the sinner’s willful, persistent, evil deeds.

From the above we ought not to conclude that among those who were the recipients of God’s blessing of saving

grace later lost this grace by their indifference and/or rejection of God’s will for their life. The situation is parallel to

what we read in 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to

us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

Similarly those who by their persistent indifference to God’s will for their life earn God’s final judgment, thereby reveal

that they never were among those who received God’s blessing.

We must accept the so-called “universalistic” texts as written, telling us that all persons will be saved. We can do so

as long as we keep in mind the exceptions that are found in the Bible itself. The exceptions are those who reject or

remain indifferent to God’s will for them. It may be that the only testimony concerning God’s law some persons

receive is that “the requirements of the law” were “written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness . . .”

(Rom. 2:15). Those who will be finally lost are those, and only those, who have willfully, persistently, and finally

remained indifferent toward or who have rejected God’s will as he has made it known to them, whether in

nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) or in gospel proclamation. p38p

As difficult as it may be for our logic to embrace ─ the Scriptures teach us that “all are” even though “some are not.”

Chapter 4 OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE SALVATION p39p

In this chapter we will examine the evidence for Biblical Fact # 4 (see Introduction at Chapter 1):

“Jesus ‘saved’ sinners, once for all, by making the supreme sacrifice 2,000 years ago. We speak of this as ‘objective’

salvation. The Bible means something altogether different when it says that Paul set out to ‘save some’ (1 Cor. 9:22).
The Holy Spirit ‘saves’ sinners by using human agents to bring the gospel to them. We refer to this as ‘subjective’

salvation. A great amount of confusion results when this crucial distinction is lost sight of.”

Throughout this study it will be extremely important to keep in mind the distinction between “objective” and

“subjective” salvation. This cannot be emphasized too strongly! Many misunderstandings will develop if we forget this

biblical distinction.

Consider what the apostle Paul said: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save

some” (1 Cor. 9:22). Did Paul ever “save” anyone? Neither Paul nor anyone else can do what Jesus Christ did to

“save” sinners. That was accomplished “once for all.” Therefore it can be said, “Jesus is the only Savior!” This

irrefutable answer alerts us to the fact that the Bible uses the concept “to save” in at least two fundamentally different

ways. This good and absolutely necessary distinction can be maintained by using the terms “objective” and

“subjective” salvation. p40p

OBJECTIVE SALVATION

Objective salvation refers to the work accomplished by Christ nearly two thousand years ago. By his perfect life and

sacrificial death he objectively saved every human being who will be finally saved. Their salvation was made certain

when he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). “By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made

holy” (Heb. 10:14). Second Cor. 5:18, 19 speak of this as an accomplished fact: It was God “who reconciled [past

tense] us to himself through Christ,” and that “God was [past tense] reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” “But

now he has reconciled [past tense] you by Christ’s physical body through death” (Col. 1:22).

Other references to objective salvation as a past event are found in:

Luke 1:68 “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and redeemed his people.”

Rom. 3:25 “God presented him as a sacrificial atonement”

2 Cor. 5:18 “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ”

2 Cor. 5:19 “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”

Gal. 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us.” p41p
Eph. 1:7 “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins”

Col. 1:22 “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death”

2 Tim. 1:10 “Our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light”

Titus 2:11 (RSV) “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.”

Heb. 1:3b “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty in heaven.”

Heb. 9:12 “He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Heb. 10:10 “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Heb. 10:14 “By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”

1 John 2:2 “He is [an accomplished fact] the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of

the whole world”

Rev. 5:5 “The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed.”

Rev. 5:9 “Because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language

and people and nation.”

Because sinners “have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10,

emphasis added), the passive command “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20) cannot mean that sinners must do

something to complete the work of reconciliation. Paul did not conditionally offer “the message of reconciliation” (2

Cor. 5:19). To “be reconciled to God” sinners who hear “the message of reconciliation” must simply trust or believe

the good news that they “have been reconciled to God.” p42p

This trust or belief that they “have been reconciled to God” does not add to or complete the work of reconciliation that

was perfectly accomplished by Jesus Christ. However, for sinners to finally refuse to believe “the message of
reconciliation” will one day be a testimony against them. This is a paradox the Bible leaves us with, the unresolved

dilemma of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

At Christmas we sing, “God and sinners reconciled!” Christians throughout history have confessed that every person

who will be saved has been reconciled to God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Looking back on his life Paul recognized that he had been objectively saved before he set out for Damascus. Paul

speaks of “this grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9). Paul knew that God

had “separated [him] apart from birth” (Gal. 1:15). Paul was not “converted” before his Damascus road experience!

So, a person can be “objectively” saved, as Paul was, before he or she is converted or identified as a Christian.

Because objective salvation is a past event, the Bible occasionally speaks of “the gospel [good news] of your

salvation” (Eph. 1:13, emphasis added). In this study the expressions “the elect in Christ” and “those who will be

saved” refer to those whose salvation has been objectively accomplished by their identity with Christ in his death and

resurrection. They are among those who will surely come to fullness of new life in Christ.

SUBJECTIVE SALVATION

Subjective salvation occurs when the Holy Spirit transforms the sinner’s heart, soul, and mind so that he or she

desires to live in obedience to God’s will. That is to say, their conversion may occur at any point in time during their

earthly life. p43p

It is only in this subjective sense that Paul or anyone else can be an instrument used by God to subjectively save

those who are already objectively saved by Jesus Christ.

A few of the many references to subjective salvation can be found in:

John 3:16 “. . . that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned.”

Acts 2:41 “Those who accepted his message were . . . added to their number that day.”

Acts 2:47 “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
Acts 16:14b “The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”

Rom. 1:13 “I planned to come to you in order that I might have a harvest among you.”

1 Cor. 1:18 “. . . to us who are being saved it [the gospel] is the power of God.”

1 Cor. 9:22 “. . . so that by all possible means I might save some.”

The Holy Spirit often uses the gospel (the good news) to transform the heart, soul, and mind of those for whom Christ

died, thus equipping sinners for good works and bringing to them the joy and comfort of their salvation. This is

subjective salvation. In this subjective sense Paul and the church today have the task of “saving” sinners. Therefore
the gospel is not only spoken of as “the gospel of salvation” (Eph. 1:13, emphasis added), it is also referred to as “the

power of God for” salvation (Rom. 1:16, emphasis added). p44p

When it is reported that, as a result of an evangelism effort, a number of persons were “saved,” this necessarily is a

reference to subjective salvation.

ROMANS 10:9–17

The basic premise of Evangelical Inclusivism is that “All persons will be saved (are elect) except those the Bible

declares will be finally lost.” This premise appears to be contradicted by those passages of Scripture that are often

understood to teach that sinners must do something in order to “be reconciled to God.” One of many such passages

is Rom. 10:9–17 which begins by saying:

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will

be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are

saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’

This passage continues by asking:

“And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’

The passage concludes:

“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”

This passage, together with parallel passages, does not tell sinners what they must do in order to be “reconciled to

God.” The kind of salvation that is spoken of in this passage is the kind that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of God’s

people when they hear the word preached, that is, subjective salvation. This is established beyond doubt by what we

read in Rom. 10:8–11 and 13–17. This passage speaks of what sinners need to know so that they may “live and die

in the joy” of knowing they have been reconciled to God. p45p

Evangelical Inclusivism recognizes that the message of the gospel must be conveyed for subjective salvation to

occur. Therefore Rom. 10:9–17 is totally compatible with the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism.

Rom. 10:9–17 declares the same truth that is summarized in the second question and answer of the Heidelberg

Catechism. The first question and answer of the catechism speak of those who know that they are not their own, “but

belong ─ body and soul, in life and in death ─ to [their] faithful Savior Jesus Christ.”

Because the catechism’s second question is addressed to those who already know they are saved, the question is

not, “What must you know to be saved?” Instead it asks, “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this

comfort?” What comfort? The comfort of knowing you belong to your faithful Savior Jesus Christ. “To live and die in

the joy of this comfort” one must know the truths that are found only in the Word of God. Similarly Rom. 10:9–17

teaches us that for sinners to experience the comfort and joy of knowing they have been reconciled to God (objective

salvation), they need to know the truths that come to them by the preaching of the Word (subjective salvation).

Dr. John Murray and others use the following analogy to help us see the relationship of objective to subjective

salvation:

“To say to the slave who has not been emancipated, ‘Do not behave as a slave’ is to mock his enslavement. But to

say the same to the slave who has been set free is the necessary appeal to put into effect the privileges and rights of

his liberation” (Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1959, I, p. 227). p46p

Dr. Edward Fudge explains in practical terms what this means:

“Just as President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and, by the stroke of a pen, objectively freed every

Black American slave, so Jesus Christ, by his obedience in life and unto death, objectively saved every human being

who finally will be saved. And just as no American slave personally enjoyed the benefits of Lincoln’s act until he or

she heard and believed the good news of emancipation, so no redeemed sinner subjectively enjoys Christ’s
redemption now except through the preaching and belief of the gospel. In this sense, we are presently ‘being saved’

(1 Cor. 1:18; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9).

“Until men and women learn the good news of their salvation, they continue to live as if nothing had happened. They

remain as they had been – without hope, not knowing God, unaware of his forgiveness and favor. The gospel ministry

is for the sake of such men and women – that they may obtain salvation, subjectively as well as objectively (2 Tim.

2:10). Like Paul at ancient Corinth, we also need to declare the gospel fearlessly and without ceasing, for God still

has many people who have not yet heard the good news of what he has done for them in Jesus” (Acts 18:9–10; 2

Cor. 5:18–19; 2 Peter 3:9).

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them [objective salvation]. And he

has committed to us the message of reconciliation [subjective salvation]” (2 Cor. 5:19). p47p

Chapter 5 ISN’T FAITH NECESSARY? p48p

“Isn’t faith necessary?” is a question that comes to mind when we seriously consider the premise of Evangelical

Inclusivism, namely, “All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.” (See

Introduction at Chapter 1.)

Nowhere in all of Scripture do we read, neither is it implied nor to be inferred, that anyone suffers eternal death solely

on the basis of his or her sin in Adam, apart from individual, personal, willful, persistent unbelief and sin on the part of

the person so rejected (see Chapter 2, above). If only those who willfully and persistently defy God’s will are lost, then

it seems that all the others will be saved whether or not they believe.

AN ACCOMPLISHED SALVATION

Furthermore, there is nothing we can contribute toward our reconciliation with the Creator. Reconciliation (peace

between God and sinners) is exclusively God’s work. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old is

passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself” (2 Cor.

5:17, 18, emphasis added). Faith is the fruit of the sovereign, electing grace of God working in the believer’s heart,

illuminating the mind, renewing the will, and creating new life. As Spurgeon noted, not one stitch of our own making

can be found in our celestial garment. Or, to use the analogy of Martin Luther, “We have no more to do with our being

born again than we had to do with our being born the first time.” p49p

The Bible neither imposes a condition or prerequisite for sinners to be established in God’s grace, nor does it indicate

how those who are “dead in sin” would be able to fulfill any condition if it were required. This shalom (peace with God)
is exclusively God’s work completed for us in Christ, and is not dependent on some human act. This is seen in the

analogy between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12–21. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam]

the many were made [in the Greek “constituted”] sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Jesus

Christ] the many will be made [in the Greek “constituted”] righteous” (Rom 5:19). No further human act was

necessary to make Adam’s sin the sin of those he represented, so also no further human act is necessary to make

the righteousness of Christ the righteousness of those who were represented by him.

Those who will be saved were chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. They were redeemed many

years ago by the blood of Christ. In accordance with this election and redemption in Christ, the Holy Spirit works the

miracle of grace in them.

FAITH IS A FRUIT NOT A CONDITION

Faith does not bring about this new standing in the grace of God. As important as faith is, this is one thing faith

cannot do. Faith is the fruit of God’s grace already at work in the sinner’s heart. “The Lord opened her heart to

respond to Paul’s message” (Acts 16:14). Faith (the willingness and ability to believe) is something that God

graciously gives to those for whom Christ died. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith—and this not

from yourselves, it is the gift of God─not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9). p50p

True faith is a matter of resting in, clinging to, and appropriating with a personal intensity the good news of God’s

Word regarding our already established new standing in Christ. This “new standing” was determined apart from any

faith, act, or attitude of ours by the one “who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but

in virtue of his own purpose and grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added). It

was long ago that all those who will be saved were objectively saved as noted in Chapter 4, “Objective and

Subjective Salvation.”

As the Heidelberg Catechism expresses this truth, true faith is a knowledge, a conviction, and a deep-rooted

assurance “that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven,

have been made forever right with God and have been granted salvation” (Heid. Cat. Q & A 21, past tense emphasis

added). Saving faith looks back to what God has already accomplished for the sinner by the life, death, and

resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This election does not take place because those who will be saved already were, in some small measure, what God

required them to be. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us”

(Rom. 5:8). They were chosen in order that they may become what God wants them to be, “For he chose us in him
before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his

sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has

freely given us in the One he loves” (Eph. 1:4–6).

“Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness and the other saving gifts, and

at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, ‘He chose us (not

because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love’ (Eph. 1:4).” (Canons of Dort, I, 9).

p51p

The preceding paragraphs referred to 2 Cor. 5:17, 18; Rom. 5:12–21; Eph. 2:8,9; 2 Tim. 1:9; and Eph. 1:4–6. These

passages tell us something of what God did long ago to sovereignly bring about the reconciliation and salvation of

those who were “dead in sin.” With all the above having been said, we may well be inclined to ask, “Isn’t faith

necessary for salvation?” Sometimes these and similar passages appear too complicated for us to bother with. We

would like to keep it simple.

One theologian suggested: “For a time let us try to forget what God may have done in eternity, and let us see what

He has said and done in time through His gracious revelation [the Bible]. Thus we may be able to determine the

ground of His discriminations between the finally saved and the finally lost. What does the Bible say? We might cite

hundreds of proof-texts, but a few of the outstanding ones will suffice.”

This theologian cited John 3:16 and similar texts that tell us that those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved: “For

God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have

eternal life.” This is plain and simple and it keeps the way of salvation from becoming complicated. This theologian

believes that there are those who will be saved because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior

and all others who do not fulfill this requirement will be lost. This, he maintains, is simple and is the strongest possible

motive for proclaiming the gospel to all persons everywhere.

THERE IS NO ‘BECAUSE’ IN JOHN 3:16 p52p

Of course we have no right to “forget what God may have done in eternity” because “All Scripture is God-breathed

and is useful for . . . training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Furthermore, in John 3:16–18 we again find that there is

no condition or prerequisite for salvation but there is a condition or prescription for condemnation as noted in Chapter

2, “Those Who Will Be Finally Lost.”

John 3:16 and similar texts are descriptive. They describe the actual situation that pertains to everyone who believes

in Jesus Christ. This is a firm, comforting and unshakeable reality: “. . . whoever believes in him shall not perish but

have eternal life.” This declaration does not say, and the Bible never says, they “have eternal life” because they

believe in him. There is no “because” in John 3:16.

There is a “because” in John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only son.” The first part of verse 18,

just like John 3:16, is descriptive and therefore has no “because” in it. The last part of verse 18 is prescriptive. It has a

condition or prescription (a “because”) for condemnation. They stand condemned “because” they have not believed.

Condemnation is by works.

Salvation is by grace; condemnation is by works. It is significant that there is no “because” in John 3:16, but there is a

“because” in John 3:18. Precisely insofar as salvation would be conditioned upon the sinner’s act of faith, it would not

be of grace.

JUSTIFIED BY FAITH OR BY GRACE?

If salvation is by grace, why does Paul say we are “justified by faith” and “the promise comes by faith”? Faith is

something that sinners do. They believe; they exercise faith. Why didn’t Paul simply say we are “justified by grace”

and “the promise comes by grace”? This would have eliminated any possibility of sinners “boasting” about being

“justified” or receiving “the promise.” p53p

The answer is that Jews looked upon the law as God’s grace. In his grace (undeserved goodness) God gave the

Jews his law, so that by keeping his law they could earn acceptance with God. God had not dealt so favorably with

any other nation by giving them his law. To simply say they were “justified by grace” or “the promise comes by grace”

would be understood by the Jews to mean they were “justified by keeping the law” that had been “graciously” given to

them. They could “boast” about having kept the law and thereby in some measure earned their justification. It would

have the very opposite meaning of what Paul intended.

When the Bible says we are saved “by grace through faith” we must be careful not to think in terms of two entities

“grace” and “faith.” To think of two entities again introduces a human action into our being justified, giving saved

sinners reason to “boast.” The phrase “by grace through faith” distinguishes this grace from the Jewish notion that

“grace” comes through keeping the law. This is a “grace” that does not come by their own effort in keeping the law, it

is a gift of God. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this (“faith”) not from yourselves, it is the

gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9).
We do well to substitute the word “grace” in place of “faith” when referring to any blessing that is received “by faith.”

The Bible never portrays faith as a condition that must be met in order to receive God’s gifts. “Therefore, the promise

comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring” (Rom. 4:16). To be

saved or “justified by faith” is to be “justified by grace.” “There is no difference,” everyone who is justified is “justified

freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). p54p

As we noted earlier, according to John 3:18b and other passages, some are condemned because they have “not

believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” May we conclude from this fact that all who, for whatever reason,

do not have a New Testament knowledge of Jesus Christ, will be finally lost because they have “not believed in the

name of God’s one and only Son”?

There is a subtle but nevertheless very real hazard in trying “to forget what God may have done in eternity” and

appeal only to the Bible’s urgent call to faith. In the very nature of the case this urgent call to faith comes only to

accountable persons to whom the message of the Bible has been meaningfully communicated in the power of the

Holy Spirit.

WHEN FAITH IS ESSENTIAL

It is very obvious that the Bible not only warns against the serious consequences of persistent unbelief and sin, as we

saw in Chapter 2, but it also places as great an emphasis—if not greater—on the urgency and necessity of believing.

The Bible demands that those who would be saved must “repent,” “believe,” “obey,” “come to Christ,” “follow him,”

and so on. But, strange as it may seem, none of these Spirit-directed activities are a prescription or prerequisite for

our union with Christ, not even faith.

None of these human activities, not even faith, is a requirement or condition for salvation without which God is either

unable or unwilling to save the sinner. To claim that any such human act is essential before the miracle of grace can

occur would place a restriction on the sovereign power of God to “save whom he will.”

NO OTHER MEDIATING FACTOR

We agree with these words of Dr. John Murray:

“The one ground upon which the imputation of the righteousness of Christ becomes ours is the union with Christ. In

other words the justified person is constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ because of the solidarity

established between Christ and the justified person. The solidarity constitutes the bond by which the righteousness of
Christ becomes that of the believer. Once the solidarity is posited there is no other mediating factor that could be

conceived as necessary to the conjunction of the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the believer” (The

Imputation of Adam’s Sin, p. 70, Eerdmans, 1959, emphasis added). p55p

“No other mediating factor could be conceived,” not even faith.

Any requirement or condition for salvation would be incompatible with the undeniable fact that by Adam’s

transgression, he and his descendants became “dead” in sin, not merely weak or sick (Eph. 2:1). Before a sinner is

transformed by the grace of God he or she is incapable of believing, repenting, or living in obedience to God’s will

because he or she is “dead.”

Furthermore, in this present age every human act (even those directed by the Holy Spirit) insofar as it remains the

sinner’s act or attitude, “is imperfect and stained with sin” (Heid. Cat. Q & A 62). It is as a “filthy rag” (Isa. 64:6).

Nothing that is imperfect and stained with sin can be essential to our union with Christ.

Many theologians have noted that by the time a sinner is able and willing to repent, believe and/or obey, he or she

has already been born again by the renewing Spirit of God. Apart from such a renewing they cannot do what God’s

Word requires.

THE URGENCY OF FAITH

Nevertheless, the urgency and necessity of faith cannot be overemphasized. By his Word and Spirit the Lord Jesus

Christ gathers, defends, and preserves the members of his church. In the obedience of faith, and with the assurance

instilled by that faith, believers become fellow-workers in God’s kingdom. “The righteous will live by faith” (Rom. 1:17).

Faith is a continuous and pervasive power in the Christian life. It appears that if nothing else, faith is one prerequisite,

condition, or requirement for salvation-. p56p

So the question persists: “Isn’t a personal, knowledgeable faith in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation?” The answer

is an unqualified YES for everyone to whom the gospel is presented in a meaningful way. For these individuals a

knowledgeable faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior is absolutely necessary and unbelief is damnable for them. This is

not because their knowledgeable faith is a condition they have to meet in order to be saved.

THOSE WHO HEAR MUST REPENT, BELIEVE, AND OBEY!

These demands are not imposed on this clearly defined segment of humanity (all accountable persons to whom the

good news of salvation has been meaningfully communicated) in order that through these acts God’s saving work

may be actualized in their lives. Faith, repentance, and obedience are absolutely required of these persons because

if they refuse to believe, repent, and obey, then they would be willfully defying the will of God as it has been made

known to them. To neglect or remain indifferent to these demands would be for them a willful, deliberate, and

damnable rebellion against the will of God as it has been made known to them in the gospel.

To persist in rejecting or remaining indifferent to God’s will for them will prove to be the cause of their eternal death.

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps. 95:7, 8; Heb. 4:7). There is “life or death” urgency in

being confronted with the gospel and its demand to believe and obey

HEBREWS 11 p57p

Heb. 11, with its list of “heroes of faith,” seems to say that faith was the one condition that made these heroes

pleasing to God. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). These “heroes” were in a situation exactly

parallel to “all accountable persons to whom the good news of salvation has been meaningfully communicated.” All

these persons had the “things promised” made known to them: “All these people were still living by faith when they

died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw and welcomed them from a distance” (Heb. 11:13) and

“These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised” (Heb. 11:39). It was

not their act of believing that merited God’s approval, but if they had disbelieved “the things promised” they would

neither have been commended nor would they receive what was promised.

Might it be better for some persons to remain ignorant of the gospel so they will not reject it? No, because the

teaching of the Scriptures is not that “All persons will be saved except those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent
to the truth of the gospel.” The exceptions are “all those who persist in rejecting or remaining indifferent to whatever

revelation of himself God has given to them, whether in nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) or in gospel proclamation.”

It is true that those who reject the greater truth will receive a greater punishment (Heb. 10:29). Whatever light God

gives by whatever means is the “true light” (John 1:9, Acts 17:23, Rom. 2:14, 15, 26). Therefore it is impossible for

anyone who has said “yes” to the lesser light of nature and conscience to say “no” to the greater light that breaks

forth from the gospel. Similarly, those who reject the lesser light will reject the greater light (Luke 16:31, Rev. 22:11).

WHEN WORKS ARE ESSENTIAL p58p

In the very same way that we are “justified by faith,” we are “justified by our works.” Neither our works nor our faith is

a condition that must be fulfilled in order to merit God’s favor. But to refuse to believe or do such works is to reject or

remain indifferent to God’s will for his people. Such persistent indifference to or rebellion against God’s will for their

life will bring to sinners the fatal consequence of eternal death. So it can be said that we are justified by what we do

as well as by what we believe: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (James

2:24; Rom. 1:5; 15:18).

The fact that accountable persons to whom the gospel has been presented in a meaningful way are required to

believe “in the name of God’s one and only Son” does not permit us to deduce that there is an essential correlation

between such a New Testament knowledge of Jesus Christ and salvation. Babies who die in infancy, mentally

challenged persons, and those who never hear the good news during their lifetime on earth are not among those

“accountable persons to whom the gospel has come in a meaningful way.” It is totally unwarranted to hold all persons

to the same requirements regardless of the circumstances in which their entire life was lived. God’s judgments will be

just (see Rom. 2:1–16).

No question of fairness arises out of the revealed cause of salvation or the revealed basis of damnation. On the one

hand, God surely has the right to sovereignly and graciously grant his salvation to those whom he will. On the other

hand, those who are finally lost have personally, willfully, and persistently chosen to reject or remain indifferent to

whatever light has been given to them. They receive the just consequence of their deeds.

GOD’S DISCRIMINATIONS

However, even with this perspective of Evangelical Inclusivism, God’s “discriminations” do not make sense to us.

They are not “logical.” Those who will be finally saved would have followed the same path as those who are finally

lost, if it were not for the sovereign, electing grace of God that gives them the gifts of repentance, faith, and a

willingness to walk in God’s ways. p59p

How can that be? The answer to this question is not given to us and we may not put God on trial. Believers gratefully

recognize that they have no obligation to resolve this perceived problem. One merely traces the lines laid out in God’s

inspired Word and humbly accepts them.

Chapter 6 BACK TO THE EARLY CHURCH p60p

The apostles turned the world upside down with “good news of great joy that” was “for all the people” (Luke 2:10).

This appears to have continued for the first few centuries of the Christian era in a way that is lacking in our versions

of the gospel today. Undoubtedly there are many reasons for this difference.
Among these reasons is the fact that the early church fathers took the phrase “for all the people” seriously. “All

persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost,” described earlier as premise B (see

Introduction), was the basic perspective with which the leading church fathers worked. They had a positive view of

God’s plan of salvation that this study calls Evangelical Inclusivism.

Many erroneously believe that Origen (185–254 AD) was convicted by the church of his day for teaching that all

persons will be saved. However, Origen was judged to be a heretic for his views regarding the Trinity. The early

church tolerated his “universalism” (all persons will be saved), objecting only to the fact that he taught that all the

saved would be equally rewarded. His inclusivism was no longer tolerated in the church by the fifth century.

Athanasius (293–373 AD) was so highly regarded as a stalwart defender of biblical orthodoxy that many years after

his death he was honored by having his name associated with the creed that now bears his name. Athanasius

believed that Jesus Christ purchased salvation and granted it to everyone without any exception. To be finally lost

one had to disregard or reject the salvation already given to him or her. p61p

Dr. Roger Olson, whose book The Story of Christian Theology won Christianity Today’s 2000 Book Award, wrote this

to me: “I do not know of any systematic theology prior to your own publications that spell out the nature of salvation

as you do. But I hear distant echoes of it (foreshadowings, adumbrations) in Athanasius and perhaps other early

church fathers” (quoted with permission).

Other theological historians have also said that if any view of salvation similar to the one we are considering in this

study is found, it will be among the early church fathers. Those who were closest (in time) to the apostles had an

inclusive view of God’s plan of salvation (For proof of this claim, see

(http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html). For the most part, they taught that all will be saved with no

exceptions or that all will be saved with some exceptions. They may have gained their perspective from their

understanding of the so-called “universalistic” passages as we considered them in Chapter 1

Pelagius (about 350–418 AD), usually described as a pious British monk, was concerned that Christians were

becoming lax in their lifestyle. For this reason he began to teach that everyone will be lost except those who, by their

own strength and determination of will, would live in obedience to the law of God following the example of Christ.

Augustine (354–430 AD) recognized in Pelagianism an unacceptable works-based righteousness. He taught that all

will be lost except those who God, in his eternal, sovereign, incomprehensible grace, has chosen to bring to

salvation. A middle position between these two was that of the Semi-Pelagianists. They proposed that all will be lost

except those who by their own sovereign decision accept God’s offer of salvation. p62p
ROME’S DOMINANCE

With the increasing influence of the church of Rome, the accepted belief turned into “All will be lost except those who

live in continuing fellowship with the church.” This deteriorated into a source of controlling power not only for the

Roman church but also for the Roman Empire during Constantine’s rule. Few were willing to risk their eternal destiny

by challenging the church’s definition of those who would be saved.

By the end of the fourth century, theologians began to view the plan of salvation in the restrictive form with which we

are familiar: “All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible declares will be saved,” that is, premise A (see

Introduction). Ever since that time, mainstream Christian theologians have attempted to define the “exceptions,” that

is, those who they judged will be saved. Such restrictive definitions of those who will be saved are not found among

the leading church fathers in the first, second, and third centuries.

THE REFORMATION

The Reformers in the sixteenth century emphasized the need for a personal commitment of faith. “The just shall live

by faith.” In place of “no salvation outside the church,” the criteria became “no salvation outside the household of

faith.” That all persons will be lost except those who make and maintain a personal commitment of faith is the

assumption that underlies nearly all evangelical Christian theology and tradition today.

Following the Reformation there is little agreement on how a sinner can come to salvation since, “there is no one who

does good, not even one” (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Where does the ability to believe come from? The many answers that

have been proposed include: p63p

1. There are traces of original goodness that remain in every sinner. By building on the good that is in them, sinners

meet God’s requirement for salvation.

2. God has planted a seed of faith in every sinner’s heart; those wise enough to exercise this faith are accepted by

God.

3. There is an enabling grace that attends the Word whenever it is preached. By seizing this enabling grace the

sinner is saved.

4. From eternity God foresaw all those who would of their own accord believe; salvation is reserved only for such

people.
Many different combinations of these views have been proposed to account for the ability of those totally corrupted by

sin to be able to believe.

Today, evangelical Christians are still defined, and separated into various denominations, by the answer they give to

the question: “How do some persons come to salvation?” Evangelical Christians largely agree that “All are lost except

. . . .” They have not been able to come to a common definition of “the exceptions,” that is, those who will be saved

and how they become so. More than sixteen hundred years after the time of Pelagius, those who look to the Bible for

the answer are still widely divided on this question. What accounts for this lack of consensus?

THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE

This lack of consensus is due to the fact that the Scriptures are silent on the question of how those who are dead in

sin come to fullness of life in Christ. The Scriptures simply tell us that God “reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2

Cor. 5:18). The Bible neither imposes a condition or prerequisite for sinners to be established in God’s grace (see

Chapter 5), nor does it indicate how those who are “dead in transgressions” (Eph. 2:5) would be able to fulfill such a

condition or requirement. p64p

Therefore speculation runs rampant. The question of how sinners come to salvation arises because we have been

taught to view the entire human race among those who will be lost unless we have reason to think differently about

some people (referred to in this study as premise A; see Introduction). If the Scriptures teach to view all persons as

lost, it would seem most reasonable that the Scriptures will tell us how some persons come to salvation.

If, however, the teaching of the Scriptures is premise B, namely, “All persons will be saved except those who the

Bible declares will be finally lost,” then the question of how sinners become saved is not something we expect to find

in the Scriptures. The result of the “one trespass” and the “one act of righteousness” (Rom. 5:18) are inexplicable.

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of

the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). The question of how this happens is left totally

unanswered. “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

With premise B we need not speculate about how those who are dead in sin are made alive in Christ. Those who are

in Christ are “a new creation.” We are told that God created; we are not told how God created. We know that “God

was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5:19). The only

exceptions to this “good news” are those who willfully, persistently, and finally reject or remain indifferent to God’s will

as it has been made known to them, as discussed in Chapter 2. p65p

What is at stake here is not the sort of technical question of doctrine that is significant only for theologians. At issue is

the eternal lot of mankind. The teachings of the Scriptures concerning the grace and judgment of God are not

something that we may leave to professional theologians. The message of salvation is at the very heart of the gospel

and what one believes about it will have broad implications and far-reaching consequences for every aspect of the

Christian life. It is judicious to go back to the early church to be instructed in this important matter.

Chapter 7 ONE BIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE p66p

Although God entrusted his written Word to the church, to preserve and proclaim that Word, its message was to be

“preached among the nations, and believed on in the world” (1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 1:23b).

“The Bible is a missionary book. This means that in the Bible the Gentile peoples are addressed in a direct and

straightforward way. This is the mystery of the Bible, its twofold character. It is a book for the Church, a book that can

only be understood by the Church; and it is at the same time a book for the world, a book in which the world is called

to believe in Jesus Christ. In the Bible God is wrestling with the world, persuading, reproving, admonishing,

beseeching the various people of the world to accept the truth and to be reconciled to God” (Herman Bavinck, The

Impact of Christianity on the Non-Christian World, Eerdmans, 1948, P. 139).

The Bible is the one and only inspired record that reveals the counsel of God concerning the redemption of mankind.

The promise of the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to

all nations and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction. There is solid theological ground for translating

the Bible into as many languages and dialects as possible. p67p

THE SAME DEMANDS REQUIRED OF ALL PERSONS

“It is the same love of God to men, the same death of Christ and the same ransom price paid for men, that are

connected both with the limited and the unlimited phraseology. God loved the world, Christ loved his church; Christ

died for all and He died for His sheep; He gave Himself a ransom for all, and He gave himself a ransom for many;

and there is no warrant whatever for alleging that, in the one case, the love and death and the ransom are descriptive

of totally different things from what they describe in the other. The very same things are predicated of the two

classes, the all and the sheep, the all and the many; and, therefore, the fair inference is that they are not two different

classes, but one and the same class, somewhat differently described and, of course, regarded under somewhat

different aspects” (Cunningham, Historical Theology, London, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960).
God, the only Savior, calls out, “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no

other” (Isa. 45:22). The assignment given us is to “make disciples [students] of all nations . . . teaching them to obey

everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19, 20).

“Everything I have commanded you” would certainly include Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon on the

Mount we are not told, “Live like this and you will become Christian.” The message is “Because you are Christian, live

like this.” All the other appeals to ethical conduct in every New Testament epistle are based on this same assumption,

namely, that the reader or hearer has a new standing with God in Christ. The reader is not told that his or her ethical

conduct will bring them to a new standing with God in Christ. p68p

PRESUMED TO BE

What is required of those who read the Bible, or have the gospel proclaimed to them, is based on what they are

presumed to be in Christ. “Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies” (to do) because “you are not under law but under

grace” (presumed to be) (Rom. 6:12, 14). The readers or hearers are not to live according to the sinful nature (to do)

because “you received the Spirit of sonship” (presumed to be) (Rom. 8:15). They must “put off falsehood and speak

truthfully to his neighbor” (to do) because “we are all members of one body” (presumed to be) (Phil. 4:25). “Set your

minds on things above” (to do) because “your life is now hidden with Christ in God” (presumed to be) (Col. 3:2, 3).

These appeals to ethical conduct are summed up in the familiar trio—repent, believe, and obey. These calls to new

obedience can be called “gospel demands” because they are inseparable from the proclamation of the “good news.”

These gospel demands assume that the one who reads or hears is a new creature in Christ.

“BE RECONCILED TO GOD”

The various people of the world are entreated to accept the truth and to “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18–20).

They are not told “reconcile yourselves to God.” The command is passive because, according to verses 18 and 19,

there is no human contribution to this reconciliation. “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ”

(2 Cor. 5:18, emphasis added). “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against

them” (2 Cor. 5:19). p69p

The message of reconciliation in 2 Cor. 5:19 is a declaration of something that God did through Christ two thousand

years ago (see Chapter 4, page 46*). It is not a promise of something God will do if and when one believes.
There is nothing sinners can do in order to move God to “not count their sins against them.” That would be

righteousness gained by obedience to the law. To “be reconciled to God” sinners must not be indifferent to or reject

the good news that God does not count their sins against them.

On the one hand, the demand “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20) can be made only of those who are presumed to

have been reconciled to God. On the other hand, this demand is to be made of every person, in every nation.

THE IMPERATIVE IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE INDICATIVE

The crucial importance of the fact that the imperative (to do) is based on the indicative (presumed to be) is

demonstrated in this analogy:

“To say to the slave, who has not been emancipated, ‘Do not behave as a slave’ is to mock his enslavement. But to

say the same to the slave who has been set free is the necessary appeal to put into effect the privileges and rights of

his liberation” (John Murray, The Epistle to The Romans, Eerdmans, 1959, P. 227).

The New Testament writers assume that their readers are no longer slaves of sin. The readers or hearers of the

gospel are presumed to have been set free from the power of sin. Therefore they are commanded “to put into effect

the privileges and rights” of those who belong to Christ. p70p

THREE POSSIBILITIES

How are the gospel demands (repent, believe, obey, be reconciled to God, etc.) related to those who read the

Scriptures or have the good news proclaimed to them? There are three possibilities:

Possibility # 1 — These demands are imposed only upon a limited number of persons, that is, those assumed to be

new creations in Christ. These demands are not placed on the rest of humanity.

This cannot be the answer. God requires these things of everyone who reads the Bible or hears its message. “Let not

sin reign in your mortal body” (Rom. 6:12) is God’s will for everyone. No one may live according to his or her sinful

nature. Everyone must “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25). Everyone confronted with

the Word of God is required to “Set [their] mind on things above” (Col. 3:2). We may demand of everyone, “Be

reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Gospel demands are not limited to certain individuals: “But now he commands all

people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom,

so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (Col. 1:28).

Possibility # 2 — The same demands and requirements are made of all persons. However, for a limited number of

persons these demands are based on their presumed new standing in Christ. The same obedience is required of all

other persons on some other basis—perhaps on the basis of their creation in the image of God.

This is not the answer for two reasons. First, it is impossible to demonstrate from the Bible that there is one basis for

making these demands of some people and a different basis for others. Second, no other basis (other than their

presumed new standing in Christ) is adequate to serve as a basis for these demands.

Possibility # 3 — All these demands are addressed to all persons and find their validity and appeal on the presumed

new standing that all persons are in Christ (Page 71*) p71p

The premise of Evangelical Inclusivism that “All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will

be finally lost” (premise B) provides the biblical warrant for this third possibility. We may and must assume that

everyone we approach with the gospel has a new standing with God in Christ unless or until we have decisive

evidence to the contrary. Such evidence to the contrary will not be given us until “the last day” (see Chapter 2*).

I am not aware of any fourth possibility. If there is some possibility other than the three listed above, I would be very

interested in hearing about it.

DUAL PURPOSE OF GOSPEL DEMANDS

It is important to point out that the gospel demands serve a twofold purpose. They are intended to bring to expression

and maturity the new life that is presumed to be in those to whom we bring the gospel (the good news of their new

standing in Christ). They also bring a more severe judgment upon those who willfully and finally reject or remain

indifferent to what is demanded (Heb. 10:26–30). If what is demanded never takes place, then and only then (on the

day of judgment) will we know that this particular person was one of the exceptions allowed for in our premise (Page

28).

The Scriptures do not tell us why anyone would want to disobey God’s will for them or, for that matter, even how

anyone can do so. The Bible speaks of this lifelong, self-destructive unbelief and sin as “the secret power of

lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:7). The issue of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility remains unresolved.

AN UNAVOIDABLE ASSUMPTION p72p

The reality is that it is only on the basis of an assumption that we can ever convey the gospel demands (e.g. “Be

reconciled to God”), announcements (e.g. “Christ died for you”), or promises (e.g. “He will never leave you nor

forsake you”) to any specific person or group of persons (see Chapter 10*).

There are those who strongly contend that gospel demands, announcements, and promises cannot be made to any

specific individual or group of persons on the basis of an assumption. They say that person-specific demands,

announcements, and promises can only be made on the basis of universalism (applying to every person without

exception) or on the basis of an objective certainty that this particular person or group has a new standing with God in

Christ.

UNIVERSALISM AND ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY NOT AVAILABLE TO US

On the basis of the Scriptures, we have ruled out Universalism (see Chapter 2* and Chapter 19*). We then need

evidence that a particular person or group is necessarily included in God’s work of reconciliation before we can say to

them, “Christ died for you” or “be reconciled to God.”

What kind of certainty or evidence would we need? A confession of faith in Christ, together with a lifestyle that

appears to be consistent with that confession, would not be sufficient. That kind of evidence assumes that we can

judge a person’s heart and thereby know that he or she is making a truthful confession. There are false professors of

Christ living apparently godly lives. We may not replace a biblically warranted assumption (described in the next

section) with our personal opinion of someone’s spiritual status. We cannot judge anyone’s heart.

The evidence we would need is some objective, absolute, verifiable proof or certainty that a particular person or

group is among those who have been reconciled to God through Christ. This kind of “proof” is never available to us,

not even for professing Christians who are closest and dearest to us. p73p

A BIBLICALLY WARRANTED ASSUMPTION

That we are not so limited in saying “Christ died for you,” or “be reconciled to God” is evident from such passages as

1 Cor. 15:3: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to

the Scriptures.” Paul based this neither on “universalism” nor on some absolute irrefutable evidence gained from

those to whom he declared it. Paul explained that he “passed on to” them the “message of reconciliation” (Christ died

for our sins) that he had “received” long before he met the citizens of Corinth (2 Cor. 5:19).
What must be demanded is an appropriate response to the good news of what God has already done for the person

or persons to whom we present the gospel that: “Christ died for our sins.” The gospel is not a proposal that says, “If

you repent, believe, and obey then Christ will save, redeem, die for you.” The gospel is the good news that “Christ

has redeemed you, and therefore you must repent, believe, and live in joyful obedience (Page 99*).

This “good news” can be declared and published to all nations and to all persons promiscuously and without

distinction only on the assumption that all those to whom the gospel comes have been reconciled to God through

Christ. That is on the basis of the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism (premise B): “All persons will be saved (are

elect) except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost” (Introduction, page 10*).

*A Theology of Inclusivism (Contact Northland Books 1 616 847 9403).

Chapter 8 Motivation for Missions or Why Preach? p74p

Evangelical Inclusivism acknowledges that some persons may be saved without having heard the
gospel during their lifetime on earth. With this perspective, it is alleged, we lose the strongest motive
for proclaiming the gospel, namely, rescuing sinners from eternal death. If sinners can be saved
without hearing the gospel, why send out missionaries and why preach?

In discussing this question we must keep in mind that if there is scriptural basis for Evangelical Inclusivism (“All

persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost”), we must subject our thinking and our

actions to it. We must do so whether or not we believe it will stimulate mission enterprise. To do otherwise is to

elevate our opinion above the teaching of God’s Word.

SOME PUZZLING QUESTIONS

Furthermore, the above allegation raises some serious questions. Has God determined that no one will be saved

except by human proclamation of the gospel? Will the size of our missionary budgets and the quality of our outreach

programs determine the number of people in heaven? Will the eternal destiny of some persons depend on whether or

not someone made the effort to bring the gospel to them? Our salvation is not dependent upon our good works; does

the salvation of millions of those living in non-Christian lands depend on our good works? p75p

ROMANS 10:9–15

“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they

have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Rom. 10:14
Rom. 10:14 appears to say YES in response to the above “puzzling questions.” However this YES can be derived

from Rom. 10:9–15 only by overlooking the good and necessary distinction that must be made between objective and

subjective salvation. As we saw in Chapter 4, there will be a great deal of confusion if we fail to recognize the two

distinct ways in which the Bible speaks about salvation.

Perhaps the simplest way to remind ourselves of the two ways the Bible uses the concept of salvation is to refer to 2

Cor. 5:19: “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them [objective

salvation]. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation [subjective salvation].”

There can be no doubt that Rom. 10:9–15 is speaking of subjective salvation. Subjective salvation occurs when the

Holy Spirit transforms the sinner’s heart, soul, and mind so that he or she desires to live in obedience to God’s will. It

is only in this subjective sense that Paul or anyone else can be an instrument used by God to subjectively save those

who are already objectively saved by Jesus Christ.

Subjective salvation is made certain, even in places where the gospel is not proclaimed, by the fact that God’s arms

are not shortened by the sinful neglect of the Great Commission. Apart from special revelation, sinners know God;

their thoughts accuse or defend them (Rom. 1:21, 2:14–16). If need be, God can cause “stones to cry out,” donkeys

to talk, or a star to lead the Magi to Christ. God will accomplish his eternal purposes with or without human means.

p76p

The only revealed means for causing sinners to experience the full joy of their salvation, to give fitting praise to God

and becoming an active part of the community of believers is the Word preached. This task has been given to the

church. Paul challenges the church to get on with its task by asking: “How, then, can they call on the one they have

not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without

someone preaching to them?” Therefore the passage concludes: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good

news!” (Rom. 10:14–15; Isa. 52:7).

The fact that God has entrusted the preaching of the Word (proclaiming the good news) to the church does not mean

that God is unable or unwilling to save any among those who do not hear the good news proclaimed by human

agents. God the Father has chosen his people. By sovereign grace, the Holy Spirit can and will create new life in all

those chosen by the Father.. Jesus will lose none of all those who were given to him. “And this is the will of him who

sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day” (John 6:39).

But the question still deserves an answer: “Why send missionaries and preach the Word if all persons who are elect

in Christ are certain to come to salvation one way or another?” The Bible provides these answers among others:
1. BECAUSE THE COMMAND OF CHRIST REMAINS THE SAME (Matt. 28:19)

To “make disciples” is to establish a “teacher/student” relationship. To become mature “disciples” of Jesus, these

students must come to know that out of sheer grace, earned [past tense] for them by Christ, not only others, but they

too, have had [past tense] their sins forgiven, have been made [past tense] forever right with God and have been

[past tense] granted salvation. This knowledge becomes a deep-rooted assurance only by the miraculous work of the

Holy Spirit using the means of the Word preached. Therefore, this teaching and nurturing activity must be continually

bathed in the prayers of God’s people (Eph. 4:11–16; Heid. Cat. Q & A 21). p77p

These “teachers” have been given “the ministry of reconciliation.” They identify themselves with their “students” in

proclaiming that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us [teacher and student], so that in him we [teacher and

student] might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). Only on the assumption that both the teacher and the

student have been “reconciled [past tense] to God” can the message of reconciliation be meaningfully communicated

from the teacher to the student.

2. BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE GOSPEL FOR ALL PERSONS (Chapter 7, above).

No wonder the heavens were radiant with the glory of God the night Jesus was born. The angel announced, “I bring

you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you;

he is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10).

Jesus was “born to the Jews,” it is said, and therefore the “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” was

intended for the Jews as “God’s people.” So be it. This takes nothing away from the fact that this same “good news”

ought to be declared and published to all nations and to all persons. With the Holy Spirit upon him, Simeon said, “My

eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles

and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:30). p78p

3. BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REDEEMED BY CHRIST AMONG ‘EVERY TRIBE AND

LANGUAGE AND PEOPLE AND NATION’ (Rev. 6:9)

Suppose for a moment that as a missionary you are told of a village of some 150 inhabitants who have never heard

the gospel. In some miraculous way, you know that every one of them is an adopted child of God. They are those for

whom Christ died, whose everlasting salvation is consequently assured. Would you avoid this village because “there

is no need to tell them the good news?”

When the citizens of Corinth became abusive, Paul was inclined to leave without doing further work among them. The

Lord told Paul, “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent . . . because I have many people in this city.” The

result? Paul did not reason to himself “God himself told me he has ‘many people in this city,’ their salvation is

therefore secure, they have no need of me.” Instead the passage continues, “So Paul stayed for a year and a half,

teaching them the word of God” (Acts 18:9–11). Similarly, to view and to relate to all persons as God’s chosen

people, until and unless we have knowledge to the contrary, encourages us to stay and teach “them the word of

God.”

4. BECAUSE EVERY ACCOUNTABLE PERSON HAS A DECISION TO MAKE

Evangelical Inclusivism recognizes that every sinner has a choice to make. This is not the power of contrary choice.

Unbelievers are not in a neutral position from which they can choose good or evil. No one conceived and born in sin

has the capacity within himself or herself to choose the good. Those who choose to repent and believe will

experience that decision as though their own strength and determination of will made the decision. However, it is God

who “gives [them] repentance” as he works in them “to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Acts 5:31; Acts

11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25; Phil. 2:13) p79p.

God gives this gift of his Holy Spirit to everyone except those who personally, willfully, and finally remain indifferent to

it (Acts 15–18). This decision to reject or remain indifferent to the revelation God gives of himself is made in the

sinner’s “own strength and determination of will.” This is true whether this revelation comes through nature (Acts

14:17; Rom. 1:19–25), conscience (Rom. 2:15–16), or the proclamation of the gospel (John 5:45–47). Such

indifference or rejection sets in motion a hardening process that, if persisted in, ends in eternal death (see the last

three paragraphs of Chapter 5).

God does not sentence anyone to eternal death because no one brought the gospel to them. The only basis for

condemnation (consignment to Hell) is the fact that those persons have willfully, persistently, and finally rejected or

remained indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them (Chapter 2, above). They have

“exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator—who is forever

praised” (Rom. 1:25). It is for this reason alone that they “are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

In Acts 27:21–32 we find a parallel to the fact that warnings against unfaithfulness come to those who are assumed to

be elect. Paul announces, “Not one of you will be lost, only the ship.” Nevertheless the consequences would have

been fatal if any among them did not heed the warning that came later: “Unless these men stay with the ship you

cannot be saved.” There is a triumph of grace in Christ Jesus that is to be announced and declared to all people. All
persons will share in this grace except those who willfully and finally “suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:28) and do “not see

fit to acknowledge God” (Rom. 1:28). p80p

Therefore, with life or death urgency the church must use the one tool given to it—the Word preached—to seek to

persuade all people everywhere to be reconciled to God. Nowhere can sinners see the ugliness of their sin and the

astonishing light of God’s redeeming love as clearly as in “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

5. BECAUSE THE MAN OF GOD NEEDS TO BE “THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK” (2 Tim.

3:17)

God wants all of his people to be prepared “for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all

reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son and God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure

of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12,13).

Without the “very words of God” being proclaimed, God’s will for every aspect of the redeemed sinner’s life remains in

a significant sense “unknown.” In the closing portion of Rom. 2, Paul speaks of the fact that both those who were

circumcised (Jews) and those not circumcised (Gentiles) could either break the law or be praised by God (Rom.

2:25–29). Both covenant people and those outside that covenant fellowship are treated in the same way. No wonder

Paul asks, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew or what value is there in circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1).

We do no injustice to this question if we ask, “What advantage, then, is there in being a member of the church or

what value is there in baptism?” Very significantly, Paul does not answer by saying, “Only among those incorporated

into the fellowship of the church and receive baptism is there salvation.” Instead, Paul says “Much in every way!” Of

primary importance, “they have been entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2). p81p

The advantage of being a Jew was to be entrusted with the Old Testament as “the very words of God.” How much

greater is the advantage of those who, through the work of missionaries and the preaching of the Word, are entrusted

with both the Old and the New Testament as “the very words of God”! Together with this, the sign and seal of God’s

commitment and promise of grace (baptism in place of circumcision) is given to them.

What fellowship, joy, light, comfort, hope, vision, encouragement, peace, nurturing, “teaching, rebuking, correcting

and training in righteousness” begin to shape the lives of redeemed sinners when and if they become part of the

community of believers (the visible church) by way of the work of missionaries! Even if we were given to know that all

those living in non-Christian lands were elect in Christ and certain to be saved without hearing the gospel, we would

still have ample reason to bring the “good news” of what God in Christ has done for them.
“How can God tolerate our leaving people in their despair a moment longer when he has given us such good news for

them?” This question was asked by the Rev. James L. Vander Laan, former Director of Disability Concerns for the

Christian Reformed Church. This question addresses a basic motive for doing mission work and the very purpose for

Jesus’ coming into this world as announced by the angel: “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the

people.”

Dr. Edward Wm. Fudge accepts the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism and maintains a very significant Internet

ministry. In his “gracEmail” (the logo for his ministry) he very graciously and knowledgeably responded to the

question we discussed in this chapter:

In an earlier “gracEmail,” I stated that God will judge all people by the light they had and not by truth they could not

know. A missionary in South America asks, “If that is so, am I wasting my time here? Why preach the gospel today?

Are you saying that people are saved apart from Jesus Christ?” p82p

“Not at all. I am saying that no one will finally be saved except through Jesus Christ and what God accomplished

through him. That includes people who lived before Jesus and after Jesus—within Israel and among the nations. That

is not to say that all those saved people knew in this life the details of God’s work in Christ, although they all did relate

to God in the kind of creaturely faith we see in the patriarch Abraham, “the father of the faithful” (Acts 4:11–12; Rom.

2:11–16; Rom. 4:1–16).

Are you wasting your time? No! You are obeying Jesus, fulfilling his Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). You are

speaking because you believe (2 Cor. 4:13) and are sharing the way of life (Acts 11:18). You are turning people from

darkness to light (Col. 1:13–14), introducing people to the living and true God (1 Thess. 1:9–10) and spreading hope

of eternal life (Titus 1:1–3). You are giving freedom over fear of death (Heb. 2:14–15), inspiring a living hope (1 Pet.

1:3) and filling people with joy and peace in believing (Rom. 15:13). You are giving assurance of God’s mercy that
transforms lives (Titus 2:11–15). You are bestowing many, many other blessings through the knowledge of Jesus

Christ.

In the process, you are being used by God as an agent in the salvation of those who through your ministry receive

the grace of God (2 Cor. 5:18–6:2). The gospel is God’s power for saving sinners—in the fullest sense of the word

“save” (Rom. 1:16). The kingdom of God brings wholeness and healing of all kinds—spiritual, emotional and physical

(Acts 4:10–12). Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). We are privileged to tell people what God has

done for them through him, and how God has revealed himself most fully through his only-begotten Son, the divine

Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Our success depends on God. His success does not depend on

us.” p83p
.© 2001 by Edward Fudge. www.EdwardFudge.com.

Chapter 9 THE MESSAGE OF MISSIONS p84p

With letters eight inches tall the sign in front of a conservative Calvinist church read:

You are not a nobody.

You are a child of God.

So many questions can be asked about this sign! Was the sign intended only for the members of this church? Facing

a rather busy street, it apparently was addressed to all who passed by.. Is this a greeting that ought to be extended to

everyone? Is the sentiment expressed by this sign “The Message of Missions”? One wonders what, if any,
biblical/theological consideration went into posting this sign.

For centuries, the church has worked with the assumption that “All persons will be finally lost except those who the

Bible declares will be saved.” This leads us to think that the sentiment expressed by the sign ought to be limited to

those who have given some indication that the saving grace of God is already at work in them.

Jesus said, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matt. 7:6). The apostles were told to

“shake the dust off your feet” in protest against those who would not receive them or listen to their words (Matt. 10:14;

Acts 13:51). Some individuals, it appears, are unworthy of being told, “You are a child of God.” p85p

Furthermore, the need of forgiveness must be felt before anyone can appreciate being told, “You are a child of God,”

implying that their sins are forgiven. Repentance is an essential part of the good news that is to be proclaimed (Mark

1:14, 15). These facts seem to require that in outreach ministry we must first tell sinners how great their sin is;

second, how they can be delivered from their sin; and third, show them how their entire life ought to be an expression

of gratitude to God for that deliverance.

BAD NEWS TOGETHER WITH A GOOD SUGGESTION

Thus, the Gospel has become “bad news” accompanied with a good suggestion. The bad news is “You are a corrupt

sinner under the judgment of God’s wrath.” The good suggestion is “Believe and you will be saved from your sin.”

This view of the message of missions assumes that sinners are not aware of their need for forgiveness. Such is not

the case. God has already spoken to all sinners about his wrath. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be

known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them” (Rom. 1:18, 19). “The requirements of the

law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing them . . .”

(Rom. 2:15).

Because God’s wrath against sin has been made plain to all persons, “Many are asking, ‘Who can show us any

good?’” (Ps. 4:6). Henry David Thoreau was quite right when he said, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet

desperation.” Why desperation? They are deeply troubled because they know they have provoked the just anger of

an awesome being. The extremes to which many have gone in sacrificing their possessions, their bodies, and even

their own children in order to appease the “gods,” whom they consider to be against them, testify to the seriousness

with which they view their plight. p86p

WHITE-WASHED TOMBS

In civilized society the “wrath of God” against the wickedness of men is so effectively suppressed that we have the

impression that the unbelievers we meet do not feel the need of forgiveness. It hardly seems that God has made his

wrath “plain to them.”

Despite their boasting of goodness, sinners know better. At a deep level sinners are afraid, non-trusting, insecure,

and self-defensive. We tend to evaluate these “white-washed tombs” by their appearance. “You are like white-

washed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything

unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy

and wickedness” (Matt. 23:27, 28).

Some “suppress the truth,” and teach their children to do so, by putting on a “good front.” They speak of the good

they do and that they “try their best.” They want to convince others that they are pretty good because deep within

they know they are pretty bad. A few try to convince themselves that there is no God out there to whom they are

accountable. Others turn to external stimuli of all kinds and to alcohol and other drugs to drown out their conscience.

Still others suppress the truth by living in open rebellion against nearly everything their conscience tells them is good.

The apostle Paul appeared to have no qualms of conscience before his conversion. We think he needed to be told:

“Saul, you are a blatant sinner on the way to hell; you had better make your life right with God.” This is: ‘The bad

news coupled with a good suggestion approach.”

However, the message that came to him was “Saul, Saul (an address of affection), why do you persecute me? It is

hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14). Deep within, Saul was striving against what is good and it was

“hard” for him to do so. Later, as one of God’s elect, he was approached by an evangelist as “Brother Saul” (Acts

9:17) and heard a message of acceptance. This was an expression of God’s kindness that led the “chief of sinners” to

repentance. p87p

What the masses of mankind need to know is that the same holiness that accuses them has provided a full and free

forgiveness for their sins. Only then will they dare to admit to themselves, to God, and to others that they are sinners

worthy of judgment. John Calvin says, “We mean to show that a man cannot apply himself seriously to repentance

without knowing himself to belong to God. But no one is truly persuaded he belongs to God unless he has first

recognized God’s grace” (Calvin’s Institutes, III, iii, 2).

We occasionally hear that there is little interest in theological questions among Christians today. Yet J. Gresham

Machen considered the question of whether sinners ought to be told that God is for them or against them so vitally

important that he said:

“Here is found the most fundamental difference between Liberalism and Christianity—Liberalism is altogether in the

imperative mood [“Do something and thereby experience salvation.”], while Christianity begins with a triumphant

indicative [“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.”]; Liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity

announces, first, a gracious act of God. Where the most eloquent exhortation fails, the simple story of an event

succeeds; the lives of men are transformed by a piece of news” (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 47–48). p88p

To admit they are grievous sinners worthy of God’s judgment is suicidal for unbelievers unless they are first assured

that God has removed their sin from them. The instinct for self-preservation does not permit such spiritual immolation.

The gospel is the good news for sinners that God has redeemed them.

THE FIRST WORD SHOULD BE “GOOD NEWS”

Therefore, we should not make God’s wrath and judgment against sin the first words in our approach to unbelievers.

Jesus was anointed to “preach good news,” proclaim freedom, “recovery of sight,” “release to the oppressed,” and “to

proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18). Paul says that Christ “came and preached peace to you who were

far away [Gentiles, non-Covenant people] and peace to those who were near [Israelites, Covenant people],” because

both were reconciled “to God through the cross” (Eph. 2:11–22). “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his

kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?” (Rom. 2:4)
To live and die in the joy of knowing they belong to their faithful Savior (Ques.and Answer 1, Heid. Cat.), sinners need

to know how great their sin and misery is, how they were delivered from their sin and misery, and how to express

their gratitude to God for their deliverance. This does not mean that the first thing we must convey to those to whom

we bring the good news is how great their sin is (Chapter 10, below).

Those who would bring “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” must identify themselves with those to

whom they bring the message. They have biblical warrant for saying with Paul, “In Christ God was reconciling the

world to himself not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting us with the message of reconciliation. So

we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be

reconciled to God. For our [your and my] sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we [you and I]

might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:19–21). Nowhere can the sinner see the hideousness of his or her

own sin and the majestic glory of the grace and goodness of God more clearly than in the sacrifice that was made for

them on the cross of Christ. Therefore it is God’s will that this testimony of his goodness should be proclaimed to

everyone. p89p

When sinners give evidence of remaining indifferent to this good news, or harden themselves against it, God remains

gracious as he, through his ambassadors, warns them to flee his wrath, which is sure to come upon all who persist in

unbelief and sin. This, however, does not mean that we ought to withhold the “word of peace” until there is a

demonstrated worthiness to receive it.

WHAT IF

Resonating deeply within our minds is an objection to assuming that all the persons we meet are among those for

whom Christ died. This objection asks, “What if the person we address is not, as a matter of fact, a person for whom

Christ died?” There are two biblically based responses that we must give to this seemingly formidable objection:

1. There were members of the early church that were not true believers. There were false brethren, false teachers,

and even false apostles (see John 6:66; Gal. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:21; 1 John 2:9). Nevertheless, Paul did not hesitate to

address the church at Galatia by declaring the blessing of grace and peace from “God our Father and the Lord Jesus

Christ who gave himself for our sins.” p90p

The response may be that Paul addressed those in the church whose members “professed” to be believers. The

onus for a misspoken word that is spoken to them is their responsibility. But the point is that Paul addressed them as

though they were among God’s elect, when in fact some of them were not.
2. If we need to have some objective, verifiable proof that a particular person or a group of persons is among God’s

elect before we can say to them “God loves you” (in the redemptive sense) or “Christ died to take away your sins,”

then we can not say these things to anyone! Who among us is such a searcher of hearts that they can determine

beyond all possibility of error that the person standing before them is one of God’s elect? We are called upon to make

our “election sure” (2 Peter 1:10). but we can never make such a determination concerning anyone else.

The most we ever have for declaring the good news to anyone is a biblically warranted assumption ( Chapter 7,

above).

Those who pray that they may elicit a response of faith and joyful obedience from those to whom they proclaim the

good news must do so with the assumption that those who hear are elect in Christ. Apart from such a union with

Christ there is no “good news” for them, and there can be no spiritual harvest. The gospel is not, “If sinners will do

something then God will forgive their sins.” That is salvation by way of the law. The gospel is: “God has forgiven their

sins, therefore sinners must do something.” That is salvation by grace. Such a message can be proclaimed only on

the basis of the biblically warranted assumption of Evangelical Inclusivism that “All persons are elect in Christ except

those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.”

SOMETHING MORE THAN ‘A FRIENDLY CHURCH’ p91p

Every congregation and every mission outreach program has had visitors who attend for a while, show interest in

joining in fellowship, and then disappear. Later it is reported that while attending they felt like outsiders. All kinds of

initiatives are then suggested and implemented to make certain that everyone feels welcome in “our church.” The ads

read, “A Friendly Church.”

But the problem is much, much, deeper than lack of friendliness or feeling unwelcome. People can feel welcome at

the friendly local tavern “where everybody knows your name.” Due to the “eyeglasses” the church has worn for

centuries (see Introduction, above), we tend to look upon everyone as an outsider until they give evidence of some

kinship with us. Although perhaps not so intended, many of the sermons we hear, the songs we sing, the prayers we

offer, and the conversations we engage in convey this exclusive attitude in small and subtle ways that strike the

inquirer as barriers to full acceptance. Some who have come to church for many months say they still feel like

“outsiders.” We need not wonder “why.”

We begin this wrong approach by teaching our children to sing:

“One door, and only one, yet the sides are two.

I’m on the inside, on what side are you?”

That is hardly a message of acceptance. It strongly implies that “outsiders” must “do something” and if they do this

they too will be one who is “on the inside.” The assumption upon which the church has done its theology for centuries

has infected the songs we teach our children to sing and our learned professors’ thoughts.

Consider J.H. Bavinck’s approval of a conversation between a nonbelieving Chinese language teacher and a

missionary. As they concluded reading Luke 23 the language teacher asked: “’Why had Jesus to suffer all this?’ The

missionary replied, ‘He gave His life for you and for me.’ The Chinese teacher asked, ‘For me also?’ The missionary

said, ‘Yes, also for you, if you believe in him’” (The Impact of Christianity, p. 163).

One wonders why the missionary’s answer to the second question was not simply, “Yes, also for you.” He had

already told the teacher that Christ had given his life for him. Surely the extended answer was, in a certain sense,

valid. But any number of extended answers would have been equally valid:

“Yes, also for you, if you deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow him” (Matt. 16:24).

“Yes, also for you, if you keep Jesus’ word” (John 8:51). p92p

“Yes, also for you, if you consider yourself dead to sin and alive to God” (Rom. 6:11) .

“Yes, also for you, if you walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4).

“Yes, also for you, if you will present your body a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1).

“Yes, also for you, if you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).

All these extended responses convey the required outgrowth or fruit of God’s saving grace working in our hearts.

None of them, including faith, is a condition, a basis, or activating device that makes us qualified to be a worthy

recipient of Christ’s sacrifice, that is, one who is: “on the inside.” Due to the “eyeglasses” the Christian community has

worn for centuries (see Introduction, above), the missionary’s response seems ever so correct. Yet that answer

conveys the notion that “faith” is a condition for salvation that strikes the inquirer as a barrier to real acceptance.

To view everyone as children of God for whom Christ died engenders an attitude of oneness that is far more profound

than simply being a friendly church or a friendly person. We must have a positive attitude in outreach ministries. The

particular words we use are not nearly as important as the attitude we have in our approach to unbelievers.
“Whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’”

(Rom. 13:9). Without this, we are “only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol” (1 Cor. 13:1).

RECONCILED! ─ PAST TENSE

Because all of God’s elect “have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.

10:10), the passive command “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20) cannot mean that we must instruct sinners to do

something in order to complete the work of reconciliation. The apostles did not conditionally offer “the message of

reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). p93p

The apostle Paul earnestly begged the masses, “on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” He did so by assuming

that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us [the speaker and the hearer], so that in him we [the speaker and

the hearer] might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:20, 21). To be reconciled to God, sinners who hear the

message of reconciliation must simply trust or believe the good news that they have been reconciled to God. We may

not convey to them the thought that they must do something so that they may be reconciled to God.

By trusting or believing that they have been reconciled to God, sinners do not add to or complete the work of

reconciliation. That was perfectly accomplished by Jesus Christ. However, for sinners to finally refuse to believe the

message of reconciliation will one day be testimony against them. This is a paradox that the Bible leaves us with.

With divine authority, we announce the good news that God loves the sinner to whom we bring the good news and

has reconciled them to himself in Jesus Christ (Col. 1:19–22). We promise that whoever trusts God in Christ will

experience the joy of salvation (Rom. 10:9–10). We exhort all who will listen to live the redeemed life (Titus 2:11–15).

Finally, if need be, we warn all those who remain indifferent toward or reject this good news that if they so continue

there is no hope for them (Heb. 4:6, 7).

Therefore the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism provides the only effective basis for proclaiming the good news of

what God has done for the one to whom we bring message of redemption. The sentiment expressed by the sign

referred to earlier is indeed “The Message of Missions” proclaiming the good news. One would wish, however, that

the signboard was big enough and the human heart and mind were not so crimped by sin, so that those driving by at

45 miles an hour could assimilate the extended message: p94p

You are not a nobody.

You are a child of God.

Therefore you must live

like one. Repent, believe

the Gospel, and live in

joyful obedience to him.

Chapter 10 GRACE PROCLAIMED BEFORE CONFESSION IS HEARD p95p

“Why do I have a purple stole on today?” the pastor asked the children gathered at the front of the church I am a

member of. “That’s right, it’s because this is the first Sunday in Lent.”

“During Lent we think of the suffering of Jesus. Jesus took a big step down—all the way from heaven to earth.” With

each step the pastor took downward from the pulpit area, he mentioned another step in Jesus’ suffering: “He

suffered; he died; he entered the grave.”

“Why did he do this?” The pastor answered his own question simply, yet with eloquence and with great conviction:

“He did this to take away your sins! Perhaps you can remember this when you walk down steps sometime.”

What a masterful way to get the children to think about what the season of Lent means for them!

WHAT IF SOME OF THESE CHILDREN ARE NOT ELECT?

I may have been the only person in church that morning who recalled a time when talking so positively about what

God had done even for covenant children (children of believers) was frowned upon. What if there were some non-

elect children among those gathered in the front of the church that morning? May we say to all of them

indiscriminately: “He did this to take away your sins!”? p96p

“Children of the covenant are to be considered as members of the body of Christ,” the Conclusions of Utrecht say, “—

until the contrary should become evident from their doctrine and conduct as they grow up.” This assumption was

officially challenged, forcing the Christian Reformed Church to reply to the question: “What if some of these children

are not elect?”

The church replied that this assumption was “. . . not a judgment about the nature of the child, it indicates the

approach the church should take in leading them to the Lord” (Acts of Synod*, 1962, pp. 107–109). Evidently, “in

leading certain persons to the Lord,” it is legitimate to communicate the good news to them on the basis of an

assumption before a word of confession or repentance comes from their lips. How appropriate it was to begin this
Lenten season by addressing the question, “Why did he do this?” and saying to all the children of the church, “He did

this to take away your sins!”

In the church I attend, “The Children’s Moment” is a seminal statement of the message that is to be proclaimed in the

sermon. How fitting and spiritually strengthening it was on that first Sunday of Lent to be reminded that everything

Christ suffered (as that suffering was movingly portrayed based on Matt. 27:45, 46), he suffered “to take away our

sins.” The entire message was based upon the assumption that all who heard this message, both members and

visitors, like the children who had gathered in the front of the church, were among those for whom Christ died.

A POSITIVE APPROACH OUGHT TO BE USED

From 1962 to 1967, the professor of missions at Calvin Seminary used his study of the mission principles articulated

in the Scriptures, his experience as a missionary, and his association with many missionaries as the basis to attempt

to convince the Christian Reformed Church that, as a theology of approach, it is appropriate to assume the sinner

whom we wish to “lead to the Lord” is an elect child of God for whom Christ died. We may say to persons whom we

know very little about, “Christ died for you.” p97p

If we have no biblical basis for saying to unbelieving sinners, “God loves you and sent his Son to take away your

sins,” then we do not have “good news” to announce and declare “without differentiation or discrimination to all

nations and people” (Canons of Dort, II, 5). This does not mean there is no need to call these sinners to repentance,

to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to be “reconciled to God.” Rather, the assumption that these people are

among those for whom Christ died provides the basis we need for insisting that they must repent, believe in the Lord

Jesus Christ, and be reconciled to God.

The biblical basis that the Calvin Seminary professor provided for saying to all people indiscriminately, “Christ died for

you” (in the redemptive sense) proved to be inadequate and unconvincing. The controversy “stirred interest and

caused unrest in the churches” (Synod 1967). So much so that the committee appointed to consider this matter

proposed that the church should be urged not to use the expressions “God loves you” and “Christ died for you” in

outreach ministries.

The Synod 1967 of the Christian Reformed Church said absolutely nothing in response to the very significant

practical questions the Calvin professor of missions had raised concerning Reformed witnessing. The church dropped

the subject like the proverbial “hot potato.”

Many members of the church, striving to be faithful Reformed witnesses to “the good news,” wrote letters to the study

committee reacting negatively to the possible restriction of the use of these phrases. Among these letters, there was

a communication that was adopted unanimously by the Japan Mission Conference of the Christian Reformed Church.

It said:

“The proposed proscription of the use of the sentence ‘Christ died for you’ in the proclamation of the gospel seriously

straitjackets the kerugmatik situation. As missionaries we feel that . . it is one of the beauties of the Gospel and one of

the joys of preaching to be able to preach to individual sinners and assure them that Christ gave Himself as a

sacrifice for the sins of particular individuals. . . . Proscription of this phrase would truncate our evangelistic

preaching. We need to say this in our preaching so that sinners as individuals feel individually drawn to the Loving

Savior and make an individual commitment of repentance and faith” (Acts of Synod, 1967, p. 493). p98p

“GOOD NEWS…FOR ALL THE PEOPLE”

The Calvin professor had correctly pointed out that as a practical matter the question of saying “Christ died for you” in

the redemptive sense cannot be limited to those for whom we have objective, verifiable evidence that they are indeed

numbered among God’s elect. We never have such proof concerning anyone because we can not judge the human

heart. “The choice is not between saying to believers or to unbelievers, ‘God loves you’ and ‘Christ died for you.’ The

choice is rather between saying these things to any audience or to no audience at all” (Acts of Synod*, 1967, p. 510).

If we do not feel free to say “Christ died for you,” we find ourselves in the awkward situation of inviting, asking, and

even demanding of others that they believe something we do not feel free to declare to them. When the Scriptures

say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31), this is a call to the one true faith in which all

believers are joined together. An ingredient of that faith is a trust or confidence that “not only others, but I too, have

had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God and have been granted salvation” (Heid. Cat., Q & A

21).

It is not enough for the sinner to know that “Christ died for sinners.” The trust element in true faith includes the

conviction that “Not only others but I too, have had my sins forgiven” and “have been made forever right with God.” In

simplest terms, we cannot expect an unbelieving sinner to believe Christ died for him or her, if we have no biblical

basis for saying to him or her, “Christ died for you.” p99p

The sad and costly effect of hesitating to proclaim grace “. . . before confession is heard” is lamented by the Dutch

theologian B. Holwerda:
“I believe in the forgiveness of sins, because God promises me that God acquits me before I believe. And Paul is

correct that God justifies the ungodly. My faith is never first, the promise is first. Otherwise my faith becomes a

shadow in the air, and my faith has nothing to grasp. The promise of forgiveness—that is, God’s acquittal—goes

before faith . . . If I had to begin with faith, what could my faith hang on to? But his word of acquittal is there first.” (B.

Holwerda, De Dingen die ons van God geschonken sign [N.V. Goes, Netherlands; Oosterbaan and LeCointre, 1954],

P. 161; my translation, Neal Punt)..

THE BIBLICAL WARRANT FOR PROCLAIMING “GOOD NEWS”

In this study we find that we have biblical warrant for viewing all persons as children of God, those for whom Christ

died, until and unless we have knowledge to the contrary. By “biblical warrant” I mean that the Bible permits,

authorizes, and even requires us to view all persons as children of God. That is, we are to love, respect, and relate to

each of them as if he or she is a person for whom Christ died.

This biblical warrant is not a judgment about the nature of the person addressed. The person may, in fact, not be one

of God’s elect—a person for whom Christ died. This warrant indicates the approach we should take in leading them to

the Lord. Paul says, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view” (2 Cor. 5:16–21). We have the

right and the duty to assume they are children of God, a new creation, unless and until we have knowledge to the

contrary. p100p

We will not have such “knowledge to the contrary” concerning any particular person or group of persons until the last

day, no matter how evil they appear to be. Early in his life the apostle Paul certainly appeared to be “outside of Christ”

even though he belonged to Christ from the day of his birth (Gal. 1:13–15). Even if a person is confronted by Jesus

himself and rejects Jesus and the words he speaks, we would have no right to judge that person to be among the

non-elect (John 12:47, 48).

If we say, “We don’t know whether he or she is or is not one of God’s elect,” then what “good news” are we asking

that person to accept? Do we truly intend to say to such a person “If you do something (believe) then Christ will die

for you?”

We will not be as effective as we can and should be until in our Reformed witnessing we feel free to say to

unbelieving sinners, “Christ died for you.” More importantly, we will not enthusiastically want to communicate “the

good news” to sinners until, on the basis of a sound theological perspective and a warm-hearted Reformed cultural

atmosphere, we assume that he or she is loved by God just as much and in the same way that God loves us. This is
“. . . not a judgment about the nature of the” unbeliever, but “it indicates the approach the church should take in

leading them to the Lord” (Acts of Synod*, 1962, pp. 107–109).

The so-called “universalistic” texts found throughout the Scriptures provide us with the biblical warrant for viewing and

relating to all persons as children of God, unless and until we have explicit knowledge to the contrary concerning

specific persons or groups of persons. The passages that establish the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism (see

Chapter 1, above) provide the biblical basis we need for saying to the masses during the season of Lent and

throughout the year, “Why did Christ suffer all this? He did this to take away your sins.” p101p

*Acts of Synod of The Christian Reformed Church

Chapter 11 EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED

CHURCH p102p

In responding to a complaint registered by the late Dr. Harry Boer, the Christian Reformed Church adopted a biblical

description of all those who will be finally lost. From this we may conclude that all other human beings will be saved.

In 1977, Boer submitted a serious charge against the teachings of the creeds of the church. Boer said that “The

heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non” of his complaint was that the Canons of Dort teach that “a segment of

mankind…is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever come into being” (p. 497*).

Boer’s complaint was a well-structured summary of an objection that has been raised against Calvinism for hundreds

of years. An historic formulation of this complaint is that Calvinists teach that God at times consigns infants “only a

span long” to everlasting damnation. Because this charge has often been alleged against Calvinism, a committee of

well-qualified theologians and philosophers was appointed to study Boer’s complaint. After three years of study they

submitted their report (Report 30) to the 1980 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church.

REPORT 30 p103p

Whatever else Report 30 (pp. 486 – 558*) may or may not say, it gives a resounding “NO” to the notion the Canons of

Dort teach that a “segment of mankind . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being.”

The very first ground for rejecting Boer’s complaint states: “The Canons of Dort do not teach…‘that God has

consigned certain human beings to damnation apart from any merit or demerit on their part’” (p. 76*, emphasis

added). This is a direct refutation of Boer’s complaint.

What did Synod 1980 intend by the phrase “apart from any merit or demerit on their part”? This phrase cannot refer to

the “merit or demerit” attributable to the whole human race by their identification with the first Adam. If there are
persons who are consigned to damnation solely on the basis of their original sin in Adam (inherited sin), then Boer’s

complaint is valid. A “segment of mankind…is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being.”

THE LIGHT SHED BY REPORT 30

The following quotations from Report 30 tell us what “merit or demerit on their part” refers to. The basis or cause of

consignment to hell is said to be:

• Man’s “sin” (two times, pp. 516, 517)

•”Sin and unbelief” (seven times, pp. 516, 517, 522, 548 [twice], 553,and 554)

•”God consigns to destruction only on the basis of what that person does and whatever evil actions that person

performs” (p. 521)

•”So can we say that God rejects only those who reject him? Most emphatically we can” (p. 521)

•”Damnation is a response to the evil the ‘reprobates’ do” (p. 522) p104p

•”They themselves are the agents of unbelief” (p. 530) [An agent is one who acts for himself or for another person.]

•”God condemns to destruction only those who do, in fact, sin and exhibit unbelief” (p. 530)

•”Human beings are condemned only on the basis of what they actually do in history” (p. 530)

•”Those not selected have disqualified themselves through their sins” (p. 537)

•”The condition of the non-elect results from their unbelief” (p. 538)

•”Condemnation, however, is to be found solely in the persistent unbelief and sin of those so condemned” (p. 553)

These quotations from Report 30 establish beyond all doubt that “merit or demerit on their part” refers to the “willful,

persistent sin” committed by the person consigned “to damnation.” No one is consigned to damnation APART FROM

such individual, willful, persistent sin.

The entire Report was referred “to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and

reprobation. —adopted” (p. 76*). What the Christian Reformed Church confesses relating to “the teachings of the

Canons on election and reprobation” is to be understood in the light that is shed by Report 30.

I consider it providential that my book, Unconditional Good News (Eerdmans, 1980), appeared in print the very same

week that Report 30 was referred “to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and

reprobation.” The quotations from Report 30 (above) clearly show that Report 30 and my book both reach the same

conclusion, that “No one will be finally lost apart from individual, willful, persistent sin on the part of the person

consigned to eternal death.” p105p

A NECESSARY IMPLICATION OF REPORT 30

I had been studying this subject for 16 years in preparation for the publication of my book when Report 30 appeared

in the Agenda for Synod 1980. Therefore I instantly recognized what Report 30 was saying and the many good and

necessary implications that follow from the report’s conclusion. This conclusion directly refuted Boer’s complaint that

a “segment of mankind…is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being.”

Boer’s complaint and Report 30’s conclusion cannot both be true. By referring the entire report “to the churches for

elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation,” Synod essentially told Dr. Boer that he had

misconstrued the teaching of the Canons of Dort.

I seriously doubted that either the committee members who wrote Report 30 or the synodical delegates recognized

the many good and necessary (unavoidable) implications that flow directly from the conclusion of Report 30. If “God

consigns to destruction only on the basis of what that person does and whatever evil actions that person performs”

(p. 521*) and the many other similar statements found in Report 30 are valid (See above list.), then the most obvious

implication of Report 30 is that no one dying in infancy would be “consigned to destruction.”

Therefore, I wrote an overture that was adopted by Classis Chicago South and was sent to Synod 1980 (Overture 23,

Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 592–594). The overture alerted Synod 1980 to the fact that if they would adopt Report 30’s

understanding “of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” then “the church will, for the first time,

accept the doctrine of the salvation of all who die in infancy” (p. 593*) p106p

In addition to writing Overture 23, I sent a letter to each of the Study Committee members pointing to what I called an

“ambiguity” in their report. I used the word “ambiguity” in deference to the scholarship of the committee members. I

did not want to tell them point blank that there was a good and necessary implication of their report that they had not

considered. I received the following response from Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff (a member of that study committee).
Notice it is dated June 9, 1980, a day when Synod 1980 was still in session. I have Wolterstorff’s permission to make

this letter public.

______________________________________

Calvin College

EST. 1876

June 9, 1980

The Rev. Neal Punt

Christian Reformed Church of Evergreen Park

9547 S. Homan Ave.

Evergreen Park, IL 60642

Dear Rev. Punt,

The ethics pertaining to individual members of a synodical study committee are not very clear to me. Perhaps they

aren’t very clear to anyone! But I trust that I’m not going outside the bounds of those ethics in composing this

response, purely as an individual and without talking to my committee members, to your communication sent to our

study committee.

In working on the report with the committee, and in composing part of the report myself, I throughout worked with the

conviction that the Canons teach that it is only on the basis of actual individual sin that a person is condemned, not

on the basis of original sin. You are quite right to read the report along those lines. This clearly does have the

implication concerning the salvation of infants that you point out. Obvious as it is however, once it is pointed out, I

didn’t notice this implication, nor do I remember any committee member pointing it out. p107p

In the quotations you give from some of your own theological work, you make some interesting suggestions about the

difference between “being under the sentence of death” and “the actual implementation of that sentence.” Those are

suggestions that I hope our community reflects on in the coming years.

So I guess I would have said about our report not that it has an “ambiguity” in it, but rather that it has an important

implication that the committee has not reflected on. But I do think that on the most charitable, and not implausible,

reading of Dordt, all they meant by “passing some by in electing” is electing not all. I would myself prefer putting the

situation your way, “All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost.” But Dordt’s

phraseology is, in my judgment, at least compatible with that.

Let me add my Thank You for the seriousness with which you have taken the committee’s work, and the good spirit in

which you have raised some important questions about it. And let me do what I can to encourage you to think through

some of these issues, and publish them for consideration by the church. p108p

With all best wishes, (signed) Nicholas Wolterstorff

______________________________________

REPORT 30 WAS CONFIRMED BY SYNOD 1981

The decision of Synod 1980 was appealed to Synod 1981. As a delegate to Synod 1981, I called attention to

Overture 23 that was sent to Synod 1980. I also read Dr. Wolterstorff’s letter on the floor of Synod 1981. Thus the

delegates to both of these synods knew, or should have known, what light Report 30 shed on “the teaching of the

Canons on election and reprobation.” Synod 1980 adopted and Synod 1981 confirmed Report 30 as an “elucidation

of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” thereby necessarily teaching, among other things, that all

who die in infancy are saved.

This elucidation confirms that, “Condemnation [consignment to hell] is to be found solely in the persistent unbelief and

sin of those so condemned” (p. 553*). This is, consequently, the synodically approved understanding “of the teaching

of the Canons on election and reprobation” (p. 76*).

This understanding “of the teaching of the Canons” is the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism, namely, that “All

persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.” Therefore I can and do say that this is

the perspective of the Christian Reformed Church on the doctrine of “election and reprobation.”

The report that Synod 1980 referred to the churches and the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism do not constitute a

change in or a revision of the creeds of the church. They are a clarification of what the Canons of Dort mean. They

are “an elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.” Neither Report 30 nor Evangelical

Inclusivism impinge in the least bit upon any of the doctrines represented in the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity,

Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation of the Saints. p109p

As members of the Christian Reformed Church, we can rejoice in and work out all the good and necessary

implications of Evangelical Inclusivism. That is, that no one is ever sent to Hell solely on the basis of their sin in

Adam, apart from willful, personal, and final rejection of or indifference to the revelation God has given of himself to

him or her. This is the synodically approved “teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.” From this we can

conclude that “All the others will be in heaven.”

*.All the above page references are to the 1980 Acts of Synod of The Christian Reformed Church.

Chapter 12 EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT p110p

I have been justly faulted for advocating the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism strictly on the basis of New Testament

considerations. I did not trust my grasp of the Hebrew language to convey the evidence that is found in the Old

Testament for this concept. Therefore I was very pleased when Dutch writer Jan Bonda’s book The One Purpose of

God (Eerdmans, 1998) appeared in English. Bonda’s book is a welcome supplement to much of what I have been

attempting to say.

According to Bonda, the one purpose of God is to undo the havoc caused by the disobedience of the first Adam by

means of the obedience of the second Adam (Jesus). Bonda presents a scholarly exposition of the book of Romans.

This study is buttressed by the biblical portrait of salvation for “all persons” as depicted in the Psalms, the Prophets,

and Historical books of the Old Testament. Whether or not one agrees with everything Bonda writes, it is impossible

to escape Bonda’s proof for the fact that the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, teaches that “As in Adam

all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

ALLOWS NO EXCEPTIONS p111p

Listen to what Bonda says: “The evil that has been brought about by Adam extends to the whole of humanity, without

any exception. And the salvation that Christ brings extends to the whole of humanity without any exception,

comprising everyone, just as Adam’s fall did” (Bonda, P. 107). “Without any exception” is a theme that runs

throughout his book. It epitomizes what Bonda means by “The One Purpose of God.”

Although we can learn much about the Old Testament’s inclusive perspective regarding the plan of salvation from

Bonda’s book, his repeated emphasis on “without any exception” is to be lamented. Bonda appears to have failed to

recognize that the repeated Old Testament expressions concerning the final salvation of all mankind would still allow

for the exceptions that are revealed in other portions of the Old as well as the New Testament. Here Bonda, together

with many others, fails to appreciate the legitimate and necessary distinction between universal declarations and

generalizations as considered in Chapter 3 (above).

SPECULATION ABOUT “THE GREATER HOPE”

Bonda’s emphasis on “without any exception” forces him to speculate about the possibility of “the greater hope.” This

is the teaching that all of God’s judgments have a redemptive purpose. Therefore the hope (and for Bonda the

certainty) that even the final judgment of God has as its purpose the restoration of all mankind in the life hereafter.
However, those who desire such a “greater hope,” including Bonda, can do so only at the cost of giving up the far, far

“greater hope” that is expressed in the familiar words of the hymn: “Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe.” Jesus bore all

the sins of all his people. The biblical evidence for this truth is so extensive that only a fraction of it can be cited here.

“The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). “It is finished” (John 19:30). “The blood of Jesus, his Son,

purifies us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). p112p

To claim that for some of God’s elect there remains some payment for sin that must still be made after Jesus Christ

accomplished his sacrifice is to demean the perfect work accomplished by Jesus on the cross. Think of all the

testimony of Scripture that “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”

(Heb. 10:10) when we considered the reality of objective salvation (Chapter 4, above).

Why would it be necessary for those whose sin was removed by Christ’s blood to continue to experience the

consequence of their sin after their life upon earth? Was there something lacking in the offering Christ made “once for

all” for man’s salvation? Is there something that those sinners must do or an attitude they must display before God

can or will translate them to glory? If so, then the teaching of Scripture concerning salvation by sovereign grace is

compromised.

ALLOWS SOME EXCEPTIONS

We already noted that throughout his book Bonda insists that these universal expressions allow for no exceptions.

However, in the final analysis Bonda concedes that certain exceptions are possible: “Surely, that is possible. God is

free to accept this ‘NO’ of that particular person as his final choice” (Bonda, P. 259). It appears that by this

concession Bonda has abandoned his strict view that all the universal expressions of the Scriptures are “without

exception.” Bonda can be identified as one who accepts the so-called “universalistic” texts as generalizations

(Chapter 3, above)

Even without knowing the intricacies of the Hebrew language, one can detect certain broad outlines of the pattern of

God’s dealing with the children of men in the Old Testament. These are consistent with the premise of Evangelical

Inclusivism that all persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost. p113p

OLD TESTAMENT PATTERNS

God created man good and in a right relationship to himself. “God blessed them” (Gen. 1:28). This blessedness of

knowing God and living in fellowship with him was not something conferred upon mankind in response to or merited
by obedience. However, this blessedness would no longer be theirs if they willfully walked in disobedience. The

blessing was unconditional; the judgment had to be earned. That is the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism.

An unconditional blessing was promised to the descendants of Abraham before they were born. “I will establish my

covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to

come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). Abraham and his descendants would

enjoy the unearned blessing and favor of God unless they refused to believe in him or to walk in obedience to him.

The blessing was unconditional; the judgment was contingent upon man’s action.

The commandments were not given to the children of Israel so that by keeping them they could merit God’s favor.

They already were God’s adopted children when they received the commandments. “When Israel was a child, I loved

him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1). They were the recipients of God’s blessing. However, it was also

true that if they willfully and finally refused to walk in accordance with God’s revealed will, they would not experience

his blessing.

God’s favor at the time of creation, in the covenant with Abraham and in the affirmation of God’s goodness to Israel,

was not given on the basis of faith, obedience, holiness, or any other good quality in man as a cause or condition for

those blessings. In light of this history, it is not surprising the good news is that in Christ all persons will be saved

except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost. Salvation is by God’s grace; condemnation never occurs apart

from the sinner’s willful, persistent, evil deeds ( Chapter 2, above). p114p

That God’s favor and blessing would extend far beyond those with whom God established his covenant (the nation of

Israel) is the biblical theme developed in Walter Vogels’ book God’s Universal Covenant (University of Ottawa Press,

1986). On pages 44–45 he notes that this is declared to the patriarchs:

• “And all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:3), to Abraham

•“And all nations on earth will be blessed through him” (Gen. 18:18), to Abraham

•“And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), to Abraham

•“And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen. 26:4) to Isaac

•“All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring” (Gen. 28:14), to Jacob
The drama unfolds: “The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of the God of Abraham, for the kings of the

earth belong to God” (Ps. 47:9); and “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork and Israel my inheritance”

(Isa. 19:25).

CHAPTER 13 1 TIM. 4:10 MISUSED p115p

1 Tim. 4:10 “Who is the Savior of all men,

and especially of those who believe.”

THE WORD “SAVIOR”

The interpretation of this text depends largely on the meaning of the word “Savior.” In the Old Testament this word is
applied not only to God but also to men whom God had appointed to deliver his people from the hands of their

enemies (Neh. 9:27). God is also called the Savior of his people because he delivered them from Egypt (Ps. 106:21),

and because he had demonstrated his loving care and concern for them (Isa. 63:8).

The Bible draws a parallel between the physical deliverance of Israel from their bondage in Egypt and the deliverance

of God’s people from sin to everlasting life. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a corresponding enrichment of the

word “Savior” in the New Testament. The word is used 24 times in the New Testament; each time it refers either to

God or to the Lord Jesus Christ (as in 1 Tim. 4:10, above). The word is never used in reference to a mere human

being in the New Testament.

Realizing that in the New Testament the word refers either to God or to Jesus Christ exclusively, we must ask

ourselves, “Is the word ‘Savior’ ever used in the sense of general benefactor, helper, or preserver?” p116p

No doubt God is such a benefactor; he “causes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the

righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). But does the New Testament ever use the word “Savior” when speaking

of God’s work of providence and general benevolence?

In fourteen of the twenty-four instances of “Savior” in the New Testament, the immediate context leaves no doubt the

reference is to “Savior from sin,” as in 2 Tim. 1:10: “Through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has

destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

In nine other instances the context does not speak to the issue, but there is no reason for questioning that it means

“Savior from sin” and therefore in our English translations the word is capitalized. One example is in 1 Tim. 1:1: “Paul,
an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope.” (See also Titus 1:3, 4; 2

Pet.1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Jude 25.)

Of the twenty-four times “Savior” is used in the New Testament, there is no reason to question the theological content

of the word in twenty-three instances. Why would anyone suggest a different meaning for the word in 1 Tim. 4:10?

The answer is that if it means “Savior from sin” in this verse, then this verse says God “is the Savior of all men,”

implying universalism. That is precisely what 1 Tim. 4:10 says. Therefore this verse is listed among the so-called

“universalistic” texts in Chapter 1.

Traditionally Calvinist exegetes have claimed that in this verse the word “Savior” refers to the fact that God is the

“general benefactor, provider, helper, sustainer” of all men. Therefore, although all our English translations capitalize

“Savior” in this text, they need not do so. Among Calvinists, 1 Tim. 4:10 is interpreted to mean “God is the general

benefactor of all persons and he is the Savior from sin for all who believe.” – p117p

Calvinists cannot revert to their usual ploy of claiming that when the Scriptures say God is “the Savior of all men,” as

in this text, it means that “God is the Savior of all the elect.” That will not do in this one instance because the last

phrase of this verse, “those who believe,” is a reference to the elect. The text would then say that God is the one

“who is the Savior of all the elect, and especially of the elect.” To avoid such nonsense, traditional Calvinists are

compelled, in this one New Testament instance, to change the theological content of the word “Savior” to mean

“general benefactor” of all persons.

Arminian exegetes have just as much trouble with the word “Savior” in 1 Tim. 4:10. They accept the capitalization of

“Savior” because they say it does mean “Savior from sin.” Dr. Clark Pinnock speaks on behalf of all Arminian

exegetes when he says, “God is ‘the Savior of all men [potentially], and especially of those who believe [actually]‘ (1

Tim. 4:10). This is the path I will take to explain how the unevangelized gain access to God and are finally saved”

(Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Zondervan, 1992, P. 158). In my opinion, Pinnock takes a dubious path.

Arminians fear that without the word “potentially” this text would say God “is the Savior from sin for all persons,” that

is, universalism —all persons will be saved. To avoid this heresy, the word “potentially” must be added in this text as

in all the other so-called “universalistic” texts. Where do Pinnock and other Arminians get the word “potentially” for

this and for all the other so-called “universalistic” texts? It comes neither from the immediate nor the extended context

of the Bible.

It comes from the four hundred-year Arminian tradition of arbitrarily never permitting the word “Savior,” in the so-

called “universalistic” texts, to refer to an “actual, certain-to-be-realized” salvation (see Chapter 1). Pinnock placed the
word “potentially” in brackets, indicating it was added to the approved text. This addition is not acceptable. The text

says quite plainly that God is “the Savior of all men,” and to be their potential Savior or only to have made provision

for their salvation would not make God their Savior any more than one who desired and attempted to save a

drowning victim could be called the victim’s “savior.” p118p

THE WORD “ESPECIALLY”

Both Calvinists and Arminians place a disjunction between the nature of the salvation which has to do with “all men”

in 1 Tim. 4:10 and that which has to do with “those who believe.” Calvinists say the first is the salvation of “general

benevolence, sustenance and care,” while the second is “salvation from sin.” Arminians say the first is a “potential”

salvation from sin and the second is an “actual” salvation from sin. But the word “especially” does not permit such a

disjunction. It never changes the essence or the effect of the action to which it refers; it only connotes an intensity or

“concentration on” that same action.

The word translated “especially” means “more of the same.” It is used ten times in the New Testament. It never

speaks of a distinction in the kind or the effect of the actions to which it refers. It invariably connotes an intensity of,

an awareness of, or concentration on the same action. A typical use of “especially” is found in 2 Tim. 4:13: “When you

come bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.”

Paul did not intend a different kind or effect of the action that should be taken regarding the parchments than would

be taken with the cloak and the scrolls. By using the word “especially,” he simply meant to tell Timothy to be

particularly aware of taking the same action in respect to the parchments as to the cloak and the scrolls. The word’s

use in the nine other passages clearly confirms this. (See Acts 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; Titus

1:10; Phm 16; 2 Pet. 2:10.) p119p

The maneuverings of both Arminians and traditional Calvinists in their treatment of 1 Tim. 4:10 appear to be

exceedingly strange even to the point of silliness. It is futile to distort what 1 Tim. 4:10 and the other so-called

“universalistic” texts clearly say in a vain attempt to refute the claims of Absolute Universalism. First Tim. 4:10, like all

the other so-called “universalistic” texts, speaks of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have consistently

maintained and it does so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed. Our zeal to refute Absolute

Universalism does not give us permission to change the approved text.

How long before the church at large will recognize that ever since the days of Pelagius the “central biblical theme

about God’s love for the whole world” has been “obscured”? (Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 43). This
historical wrong turn has compelled Arminians to distort all the so-called “universalistic” passages by adding the word

“potentially” to the text and Calvinists to distort them by claiming they do not say “all persons.” (see Chapter 1).

How is 1 Tim. 4:10 to be understood? “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men” (in the

inclusive sense, allowing for the exceptions that are found in the broader context of the Scriptures). “. . . and

especially of those who believe.” Some of the “all men” referred to in the first part of this verse have not yet heard the

good news of their salvation in Christ. Some of them may have temporarily rejected the gospel. But “those who

believe” are “aware of,” “they concentrate on” their salvation from sin.

Chapter 14 EXAMINING THE SO-CALLED “UNIVERSALISTIC” TEXTS p120p

On the basis of Rom. 5:18, Princeton Calvinist Dr. Charles Hodge claimed that: “All the descendants of Adam…are

saved” and that only the Bible itself may make exceptions to this claim (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1888, Vol. 1, p.

26 emphasis added).

This chapter aims to demonstrate that (1) each of the following texts speaks of the full benefits of salvation in Christ;

and (2) this salvation is spoken of in terms of all persons. The necessary exceptions to these universal declarations

are not found in the immediate context of these passages. They are found in the broader context of the Scriptures as

a whole (Chapter 2, above).

These passages speak of the “full benefits of salvation in Christ.” This includes the biblical concepts of:

Redemption — Jesus Christ paid the price to remove his people from their sin and its consequences;

Propitiation — By his death Christ turned away the wrath of God from every sinner for whom Christ died;

Reconciliation — All estrangement was removed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ so that all of

those for whom Christ died are reunited with God in perfect fellowship. p121p

The very language of the Bible does not allow the possibility that the work of Christ is something well-intended but not

necessarily effectual, that is, merely a “potential” salvation. Redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation are

accomplished for all who are in Christ Jesus.

Therefore the exposition of each of the following texts is a biblical refutation of the theme often expressed in the

Emerging Church Movement: “Christ died for all people everywhere without any exceptions.” Consequently it claims

that: “Heaven is full of forgiven people, for whom Jesus died; and Hell is full of forgiven people, for whom Jesus died.”

It is significant that, although technical details relating to the original language must be considered, the conclusion

arrived at in this chapter is that each of the following texts can be accepted just as it is found in most English

translations. The evidence for Evangelical Inclusivism is readily discerned by reading the commonly accepted English

translations of the following texts:

1 Cor. 15:22 — “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Does the phrase “shall all be made alive” refer only to the physical resurrection of the body, making this a declaration

of the general resurrection of all persons? Or does this phrase imply newness of life, including the resurrection of the

body for the elect? It has the latter meaning for the following reasons:

1. The words “in Christ” are used. It is true that this expression can be used to include more than the elect; it is used

when the redemption of “all things” is spoken of (Col. 1:16, 17; Eph. 1:9, 10). However, nowhere in Scripture is the

phrase “in Christ” used to designate any persons who are finally lost. It is impossible for anyone “in Christ” to be lost.

“If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). Those who are made alive “in Christ” are saved. p122p

2. Similarly, the verb “made alive” is nowhere used of unbelievers. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary says of this Greek

word, “In the New Testament and post-apostolic fathers [it] always means ‘to make alive’ in the soteriological [saving]

sense” (*1).

3. The theme of the entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the hope of those who are joined to Christ, for they

share in his resurrection.

Some have felt it necessary to say that the second “all” in this text refers to the general resurrection of all persons

because the second “all” is a distributive universal just as much as the first “all” is. They say that Paul does speak of

the general resurrection of all persons in contrast to the resurrection of believers, since in several verses the phrase

“from dead” appears in the original without the definite article “the” (*2). They take this to be a reference to the dead

in general, and they say that when Paul means the resurrection of believers, he uses the expression “from the dead”

(with the article).

However, the absence of the article in this verse and in the other verses in this chapter has been adequately

accounted for by Grosheide and others. They make the point that the phrase “from dead” without the article indicates

that Christ arose from the realm of death as a quality, not that he left other dead behind (*3).

4. The final reason for saying that 1 Cor. 15:22 speaks of the new spiritual and physical life in which all the elect and

only the elect participate is that in verse 23 Christ is declared to be “the firstfruits” of those who are made alive. They

are also “those who belong to him.” In neither instance can these expressions designate those who will be finally lost.

p123p

That being made alive in Christ is a benefit which the text applies to all persons distributively (each person head for

head), allowing only for the exceptions found in the broader context of the Scriptures, can be seen in these

considerations:

a) “All” appears without the article. Unless modified by the immediate context, its primary meaning is “all persons

distributively.”

b) The very structure of the sentence suggests “all” without modifications; it says “in Christ shall all be made alive,” it

does not say “all in Christ shall be made alive.” To say that Paul uses this structure, as found in our English

translations, in order to maintain the parallel between the first and the second parts of the sentence begs the

question. If Paul had meant to maintain a parallel structure without having in mind all persons distributively in

relationship to Christ, he could have written, “For as all in Adam die, so also all in Christ shall be made alive.”

c) It is generally acknowledged that the first “all” is a distributive referring to all persons universally. It is most unlikely

that the identical word used in a totally parallel grammatical construction within the same text would have a different

denotation, unless there was some notice of an exchange of terms.

These arguments are weighty in themselves, but they are especially impressive because the only way to refute them

is to claim that the benefit spoken of is the gift of new life in Christ, so that the second “all” cannot be a reference to

all persons distributively. This refutation is based on an invalid theological presupposition, namely that there is no

sense in which Scripture can ever say “all persons are elect in Christ.” p124p

First Cor. 15:22 depicts salvation in Christ. The words and grammatical structure of the text point to an unrestricted

application of this benefit to all persons. An impartial reading of this verse ─indeed of this entire chapter —in isolation

from the rest of Scripture would lead one to absolute universalism. Nowhere does this chapter mention any who are

finally lost; indeed, it says plainly that in Christ all persons are made alive.
However, this passage, like the other so called “universalistic” passages, may not be read and interpreted apart from

the rest of Scripture. Therefore the conclusion is properly drawn that 1 Cor. 15:22, within the general context of

Scripture as a whole, says that “all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares (in its broader

context) will be finally lost” (Chapter 3, above).

2 Cor. 5:14, 15 — “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all

died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and

was raised again.”

It would be difficult to deny the universalism of this passage. Not only does the word “all” point in the direction of

universalism, but so does the sentence structure. It reads “one has died for all,” a much wider extension than if it said,

“all in the one have died.”

Mention of the “all” for whom Christ died leads some to take this text as teaching Arminian or Lutheran universalism.

They contend that the phrase “therefore all have died” means that in the death of Christ the moral and legal barrier

preventing the salvation of all persons has been removed. God’s judgment and wrath against sin have been taken

away. All have died because Christ died for all and atoned for the sins of all. Christ’s death was their death, and

salvation is now available to all those who by faith are willing to receive it. “Those who live” is then a reference to a

more restricted number of individuals, namely, those who accept this universal provision in faith. p125p

Others, while they affirm the distributive universalism of the second “all” in verse 14, find it unacceptable to say that

Christ merely made salvation possible by his death. Their view is that Paul has come to the understanding (he is

“convinced”) that “one has died for all,” that is, for both Jews and Gentiles—a totality without the article. On this

interpretation, the fact that Christ had to die for both Jews and Gentiles caused Paul to understand that the law

brought death to all persons distributively; “therefore [the] all have died’ (individual application with the article). That

is, the realization that all persons are spiritually dead was brought to Paul’s consciousness by the fact that Christ died

for both Jews and Gentiles. “And he died for all” (for both Jews and Gentiles—same totality without the article) “that

those who live” (a more restricted group, namely, believers) “should no longer live for themselves but for him who for

their sake died and was raised.”

Besides seriously questioning the interpretation of “all” as “Jews and Gentiles,” we should note that both the

preceding views suffer from the error of claiming that “those who live” is restrictive and refers to a smaller yet

component part of the “all” for whom Christ died.

Suppose we were to assume that the expression “those that live” is restrictive and does not have the same extent as

the “all” for whom Christ died. This would bring us into conflict with the explicit affirmation of Paul in Rom. 6:5, 8 to the

effect that those who have been planted into the likeness of Christ’s death will also be in the likeness of his

resurrection and that those who died with him will also live with him. The analogy of Paul’s teaching in Rom. 6:4–8

must be applied to 2 Cor. 5:14, 15. Hence those referred to as “those who live” must have the same extent as those

embraced in the preceding clause, “he died for all.” (*4) p126p

We must view 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 in its context. The immediate setting discloses that these verses do not constitute a

statement of Paul’s missionary motivation, as though the meaning were that, since Paul has come to understand that

Christ died for all persons, the love he has for Christ constrains him to go out to bring the gospel to all those for whom

Christ died. Paul is not talking about his love for Christ; but he is controlled (or “hemmed in on all sides”) by Christ’s

love for Paul.

In verse 14, Paul is speaking of a compelling power which has changed every aspect of his life, not just his

missionary zeal. Indeed, this compelling love was evident in his missionary enthusiasm, but the point is that he would

have been similarly controlled by the love of Christ for him had he been a merchant, a farmer, a teacher, a lawyer, or

a bulldozer operator. In the words of Anders Nygren:

“When a man is laid open to the action of God, God’s Agape is shed abroad in his heart through the Holy Spirit (Rom.

5:5), and the foundation is thereby laid for the new Spirit-given, Agape life, of which the subject is no longer the man

himself, but God, Christ, God’s Agape, God’s Spirit. Constrained by the Agape of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14), or led by the

Spirit (Gal. 5:18), the Christian now carries out God’s work, bears the fruit of the Spirit.” (*5)

Paul’s Spirit-filled life after his conversion was so radically different that many thought he was “beside” himself (vs.

13). He even ate and drank differently (1 Cor. 10:31). He knew everyone in a different way (2 Cor. 5:16). Paul had

become a “new creation,” so that everything (not just his missionary motivation) had become new (vs. 17). Now he

tried to “persuade men” (vs. 11), to cause them to understand his new lifestyle, but they did not. In verse 11, Paul

expresses the hope that since God understands, his fellow Christians will also understand. p127p

Beginning in verse 13, Paul explains his seemingly odd behavior (his new life in Christ). The content of this

explanation is not so much rational as evangelical, since he declares the revealed truth concerning the actual status

of all those joined to Christ; they have died but they also live in Christ. But the form of Paul’s argument is persuasively

logical. Its structure is this: whatever is said of the totality is true of each of the component parts individually, unless

there is something which modifies an application. Paul speaks of the individualized death and individualized new life
of all who are in Christ. The “therefore” and the “that” (“in order that”) in 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 indicate that Paul moves on

the basis of the first “all” (totality) to the second “all” (individualized application).

“One has died for all” (a totality without the article), “therefore [the] all have died” (individualized application, with the

article). “And he died for all” (same totality, without the article) “that [the living ones] those who live” (individualized

application with the article) “might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

From the same truth (“one has died for all”) Paul draws two opposite conclusions by way of individualized application

of the totality. All have died and all live because Christ has died for all.

We have noted that Paul is accounting for his own behavior, which his detractors dismissed as very odd. What was

being said about Paul also grieved his friends (vv. 11–13) and so Paul wants to explain to them the cause of his

radically different lifestyle. He is convinced that he has died and is living a new life in Christ. It is the love which Christ

has for him that now moves him to do everything differently. p128p

The apostle indicates that “all” (the totality) of those for whom Christ died have themselves individually died and also

live a new life in Christ. It is very significant that Paul offers no proof or demonstration of the fact that he himself is

included in those for whom Christ died or that he is among those who have new life in Christ. This omission is vital to

the chain of his reasoning, since he wants his readers to understand that his different lifestyle is due to the fact that

he has died and that he is living a new life.

Is Paul himself included? Yes. He is among the “all” for whom “the one” died. The “all” is a distributive universal which

necessarily includes Paul, just as it includes all other persons individually. This is a truth of which Paul has become

“convinced” (as the “because” of vs. 14 indicates). Paul is arguing from the premise that all persons are in Christ

except those who disregard or reject the truth. With this premise Paul needs no evidence to prove that he is among

those who died and have new life in Christ, so consequently none is given.

When Paul accounts for the change that had taken place in his life, he reasons on the basis of a premise which must

have been taken for granted in the church, namely, all persons are in Christ (“one died for all”). Paul sees no need to

validate that premise. He states it and uses it as an axiom that Paul considers to be accepted by himself and his

readers. Upon this axiom he bases his conclusion that he (Paul) has died and is alive again. As has already been

stressed, “All are in Christ except those who reject or remain indifferent to God’s will for them.” Paul is sure he is in

Christ because all are in Christ except those excluded by Scripture itself. His being “in Christ” is not something Paul

has to establish on an individual basis, and his being in Christ accounts for the slander that he was “beside” himself.

p129p
Some will object that on this line of reasoning practically everyone may claim to be a new creation in Christ. Our reply

is, indeed everyone may if, in response to the revelation God has given concerning his (God’s) will for his or her life,

he or she can say with Paul, “Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). Such

obedience does not merit, nor does it become the effectuating cause of, a new standing with God in Christ. Such

obedience is the fruit of the redemption Christ has purchased on the cross for all persons except those who willfully

and finally refuse to acknowledge God’s will for their lives. Paul knew he was not among those who refused to

acknowledge God’s will for his life.

2 Cor. 5:19 — “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”

That actual (not merely potential) salvation in Christ is the subject of these words is conveyed by the term

“reconciling,” and the phrase “not counting their trespasses against them.” These expressions place this interpretation

beyond doubt. “Not counting” trespasses is the same as forgiving them. Reconciliation is the process by which God

sets aside his own legitimate and necessary grievance against the sinner by virtue of the work of Christ. Christ

assumes the guilt and penalty belonging to the sinner. By this action God can and does receive all those for whom

Christ died, without compromising his righteousness, holiness, and truth.

It is important to make a few observations about the universal extension of this actual (not merely potential)

reconciliation-forgiveness. For one thing, it is untenable to suggest that Paul uses “world” here in the cosmological

sense of the whole created universe. The “world” of humanity is intended. This is seen in the fact that the personal

pronouns ”them” and “their” have the term “world” as their antecedent. p130p

“World,” when appearing in the Greek without the article “the,” refers to “world” as a totality and in this instance as the

totality of persons. Whatever is said concerning a totality is true of its constituent parts if no limiting factor is found in

the immediate context. Not only do we find no limiting factor here, but the plural personal pronouns “them” and “their”

indicate that an individualized application of the reconciliation is intended.

Verse 18 is transitional, reflecting that the gospel Paul proclaimed is the same truth on which he based his own

assurance of being “in Christ” (Vs. 14). It is the fact that “God was reconciling the world [the totality of persons] to

himself in Christ.” If it were not for the exceptions found elsewhere in Scripture, verse 19 would teach absolute

universalism.

1 Tim. 2:6 — “… who gave himself a ransom for all men.”

This text has to do with Christ’s giving himself, and there is no reason to dispute that it conveys the idea of

substitutionary atonement for sin. Because the atonement is said to be for “all,” various attempts have been made to

avoid interpreting this verse as teaching absolute universalism.

One such attempt consists of those Arminian and Lutheran interpretations which state that Christ paid the price and

atoned for the sins of all persons, thereby making salvation possible for all without actually redeeming anyone. Yet it

is not the simple word “ransom” which is used here, but the compound word “substitute-ransom,” indicating that the

exchange of one for the other actually took place.

Another approach is to say that the words “all men” in verses 1 and 4 of this chapter and the substantive “all” in verse

6 mean all persons without distinction of race, nationality, or social position, rather than all persons individually.

Appeal is made to the mention in verse 2 of “kings and all who are in high position” and the reference in verse 7 to

Paul as a teacher of the Gentiles. Paul, it is said, is warning Timothy against Jewish exclusivism or perhaps the

exclusivism of Gnosticism. p131p

But what this proposal overlooks is that all persons without distinction of race is still a reference to “all men”

distributively. This poses no problems for verses 1 and 4; but if the substantive “all” in verse 6 is not understood

somewhat differently, and all persons without distinction of race is construed to mean all persons distributively, then

only those who teach provisional salvation and absolute universalists can accept the interpretation. At this point some

have sought refuge in the unacceptable claim that the simple substantive “all” means “all classes of people” (4).

A more recent attempt to escape the apparent absolute universalism of this passage is to assert that Paul is not

interested in numbers, groups, classes, or specific individuals at all. The “all men” without the article in verses 1 and 4

is to be taken as an indefinite universal: “anyone at all,” or “anyone you please.” In this construction, then, the “all” of

verse 6 implies a universal availability of Christ’s ransom. It is available to “anyone at all.” The apostle’s concern in

this passage is to declare that in the actual confrontation of the sinner with the gospel it is God’s positive disposition

and desire to save the particular sinner whom he confronts with the gospel. (*6)

The difficulty with this approach is that in verse 5 and 6 the gospel is not actually being proclaimed any more than

“supplications and prayers” are actually being made in verses 1 through 3. Although this approach does justice to

verse 4, which discusses the disposition of God in the function of gospel proclamation, it does not do justice to the

meaning of verse 6. Verses 5 and 6 are not speaking of an attitude, disposition, or inclination on God’s part in the

kerygmatic (proclamation) encounter. Those verses declare who Christ is (vs. 5) and what he has in fact done (vs. 6).

p132p
It may be true that as a consequence of Christ’s having given himself “a substitute-ransom for all,” salvation is now

available to all in the indefinite universal sense of “anyone at all.” But if that is the case we must learn it from other

portions of Scripture, since it is not taught here.

The following interpretations have been given to verse 6:

1. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore salvation is provided for all universally” (Arminian or

Lutheran universalism).

2. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore salvation is available to all” (indefinite universalism).

3. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all, therefore all persons will be saved” (Absolute Universalism).

4. “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore all persons will be saved except those who the Bible

declares will be finally lost” (Evangelical Inclusivism).

The first two conclusions listed above cannot be properly drawn from this text. They are garnered from what certain

advocates consider to be the teaching of Scripture as a whole. The third conclusion (absolute universalism) is based

solidly on what the text says, but it is in conflict with the teaching of Scripture as a whole. It is only the fourth

conclusion (Evangelical Inclusivism) that is based solidly on what this text says and is consistent with the analogy of

Scripture.

1 Tim. 4:10 — “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who

believe” (See Chapter 13, above.). p133p

Titus 2:11 — “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.” (RSV)

The central question here is whether the phrase “all men” should be read with the verb “has appeared” or joined to

the word “salvation” (in the original, “saving”). Some say that the issue is in doubt and could be decided either way,

but most interpreters agree that the structure of the sentence points to the reading adopted by the Revised Standard

Version, associating the phrase “of all men” with the word “salvation.” This reading, of course, poses a problem for

most schools of theology except for absolute universalism and Evangelical Inclusivism.

Some Lutheran theologians have preserved the universal element in this text by adopting the minority reading linking

“all men” with the verb “has appeared.” The problem with that interpretation is explaining in what sense salvation has
appeared to all persons, since it is self-evident that there are those who never heard and those who never will hear

the gospel during their lifetime on earth. The solution of claiming that all persons are called by the Word of God at

least indirectly has not been convincing even to most Lutherans. By indirectly they mean that general revelation and

rumors concerning a people who worship the true God are invitations to seek the true God. To not respond to such

invitations is to reject the gospel.

Lutheran historian Lars Nielsen Dahele is compelled to speculate about a postmortem confrontation, concluding that

“the gospel, the message of salvation, testimony concerning Christ, must come to everyone before the final judgment

can be passed upon him or her. If it does not reach them in this life, then we see no other conclusion that it will come

to them after death.” (*10) p134p

Others conclude that Paul intends to say that the grace of God has appeared “saving all classes of men,” and they

substantiate their contention by noting that various classes of men are mentioned in the immediate context. This

solution is unacceptable (4).

Still others avoid absolute universalism by arbitrarily adding words such as “capable of bringing salvation to all,” or

“offering salvation to all,” or “providing salvation for all.” Such arbitrary additions will be necessary as long as one

rejects absolute universalism and does not accept the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism that all persons are elect in

Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.

Heb. 2:9b — “So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

The only attempt made to limit the universal-substitutionary element in this text is the claim that it refers to the

category or kind of persons mentioned in the immediate context: those who are “sons,” “brethren” of Christ, and the

“sanctified” (see vv. 10, 11). It is said that Christ tasted of death “for every one” in this classification of people.

Grammatically, “everyone” has a standing independent of those mentioned in the immediate context, although as a

universal term it necessarily includes them. If, however, the author had intended the term “everyone” to convey the

idea of each individual within the category depicted in the context, he would have used a demonstrative pronoun, so

that the translation would read: “so that he might taste death for all of these.”

Plainly, this text is an individualistic universal, depicting the tasting of death in the place of “everyone.” The singular

form stresses the thought “everyone individually.” Most English versions translate this verse accurately, using no

demonstrative pronoun to restrict this action of Christ to a particular category of persons. Whatever reasons there

might be for restricting the text to everyone within a category of people, they are theological not grammatical. p135p
An accurate translation of this verse is readily agreed upon. It cannot be denied that it speaks of Christ as having

tasted death “for everyone.” To do justice to the text, in the light of the teachings of the Bible as a whole, it appears

that one is required to choose between two conclusions. Either he “tasted death” (paid the price of sin) “for everyone”

and therefore some of those for whom Christ paid the price of sin are not ultimately saved (Arminian or Lutheran

universalism); or, he tasted death “for everyone” and therefore all persons are elect in Christ except those who the

Bible declares will be finally lost (Evangelical Inclusivism).

John 3:17 — “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

John 12:47 — “For I did not come to judge the world but to save it.”

The term “world” has many different meanings in Scripture, and the context must determine what it means in a given

instance. In the light of what is found in other universalistic passages, most of the “world” texts could be readily and

meaningfully understood as Evangelical Inclusivism views them, namely, all persons with the exceptions described

elsewhere in the Bible. However, because they may be open to other interpretations they shall not be used as a

support for Evangelical Inclusivism. This is true of such texts as John 3:16; 6:33, 51; and 1 John 4:14. We shall,

however, consider John 3:17 and John 12:47, because there is evidence that they can be rightly understood only as

Evangelical Inclusivism understands them.

B. B. Warfield suggested that in the familiar words of John 3:16 “world” may have an ethical connotation, referring to

the world of evil, that is, all that which is the contradiction of holiness, goodness, and righteousness. * (*11) Be that as

it may, “world” obviously does not have reference to moral evil in John 3:17 or in John 12:47. These two verses point

to Christ’s intention to save “the world;” surely this is not the world of evil which Christ came to destroy. p136p

The verb “to condemn” or “to judge” (the same word in Greek), in conjunction with its antonym “to save,” is ample

evidence that the evangelist is speaking of the world of people. Only human beings can be “judged” or “saved.” In

William Hendriksen’s words, “Salvation, in the fullest sense of the term (deliverance from punishment not only but

from sin itself, and bestowal of everlasting life) was what God had in store for the world into which he sent his Son;

not condemnation but salvation.” (*12)

The term “world” in these verses is an undifferentiated totality. As such, whatever is said about it applies to each of its

component parts. John 3:17 and 12:47 tell us that the Son came into the world in order that the world (of people)

should be saved. Listen to Warfield again:

“The elect—they are not the residuum of the great conflagration, the ashes, so to speak, of the burnt-up world,

gathered sadly together by the Creator, after the catastrophe is over, that He may make a new and perhaps better

beginning with them and build from them, perchance, a new structure, to replace that which has been lost. Nay, they

are themselves the world.” (*13)

Christ accomplishes his purpose—the world of human beings will not be lost. It will be saved because all persons are

elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost. p137p

John 12:32 — “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to myself.”

The meaning of this verse revolves around the expression “will draw.” The same term is used in John 7:44: “No one

can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” In this instance it

undoubtedly means to effectively bring to salvation. Elsewhere, the word “draw” is used to depict physical force. It is

helpful to note that in every instance the word “draw” portrays a power that overcomes whatever resistance is offered.

(*14)

In John 12:32, therefore, there is reference to the effective drawing power of the cross of Christ, that is to salvation.

We cannot say that this text teaches only a possible or potential salvation.

To solve the “problem” of this text—that is, to get around the implication that the extension is universal in scope

without any exception —some people point to the occasion which prompted Jesus to speak of the drawing power of

his death. They maintain that when certain Greeks requested to see Jesus (vs. 21) his response was that by his

death he would draw not only Jews to himself but “all classes” of men, including, possibly, those inquiring Greeks.

However, there is no validity to the claim that the simple substantive “all” (in the plural) can be interpreted to mean

“some persons of all classes” (4).

But even if that interpretation were grammatically acceptable, it would have made the answer evasive as it related to

the Greeks who had come to see Jesus. At most it would have assured them that some of their fellow citizens —

some representatives of the class of persons called Greeks —would be drawn to Christ. Whether in fact they would

be so drawn is left unanswered. There is no real joy in the universalism of the gospel if the proclamation is that “some

persons of all classes” are saved. That kind of universalism gives assurance of salvation to no one. It proclaims

“release” from prison (Luke 4:18) as an accomplished fact to no one. p138p

A more plausible understanding of Jesus’ response to these Greeks is this. He takes note of the fact that Satan, as

the prince of this world, had all persons (distributively) under the power of sin. “Now shall the ruler of this world be
cast out” (John 12:31). The binding power of sin is to be broken. The cross would overcome the “ruler of this world.”

“For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32). The obedience of

Christ counteracts the disobedience of Adam (Rom. 5:18) in every instance except those specifically excluded by the

analogy of Scripture.

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” This was indeed a relevant and joyous

response to the Greeks who were making the inquiry. If they did not “see Jesus,” or were not “drawn” to Christ, they

have only themselves to blame, because the full benefit of Christ’s being “lifted up from the earth” is shared by all

persons, except those who do “not see fit to acknowledge God” (Rom. 1:28).

1 John 2:2 — “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

“Perhaps no text in Scripture presents more plausible support to the doctrine of universal atonement . . . The

extension of the propitiation to “the whole world” would appear to allow for no other construction than that the

propitiation for sins embraces the sins of the whole world. It must be said that the language John uses here would fit

in perfectly with the doctrine of universal atonement if Scripture elsewhere demonstrated that to be a biblical

doctrine.” (*15) p139p

Having made this concession, John Murray then proceeds, as do most Reformed scholars, to argue that 1 John 2:2

does not necessarily teach a distributively universal atonement, since there are other reasons the apostle may have

had for using the expression “for the whole world.” Murray mentions three possibilities: (1) to indicate the scope of

Christ’s propitiation─not limited to the immediate circle of disciples, but extending to every nation and kindred and

people and tongue; (2) to emphasize the exclusiveness of Jesus as the propitiation; there is no other sacrifice for sin;

“the whole world” needs him; (3) to remind his readers of the perpetuity of Christ’s propitiation; he continues to be the

only hope in every age of world history.

Various Reformed scholars have selected one or another of these options. The apostle John, however, did not intend

that his readers would be required to select one from many possible meanings. Murray himself appears to favor a

combination of all three: “Hence the scope, the exclusiveness and the perpetuity of the propitiation provided sufficient

reason for John to say, ‘not for ours only but also for the whole world.’” (*16)

We must now ask ourselves, “How can it be that scope, exclusiveness, and perpetuity are all implied in the

expression “the whole world”? The words themselves carry no such diverse a range of meanings. Careful analysis

discloses that such inferences are present only when the expression is accepted as a distributively universal

statement. Only because “the whole world” is a universal declaration does it imply that Christ is the propitiation for the
sin of all peoples and nations, that Christ’s sacrifice is the exclusive provision for payment of sin all over the world,

and that the atonement is needed in every age of the world’s history.

We need not hesitate to accept the distributive universalism of this text for which the language of John, according to

Murray, is “perfectly fitted,” because the exceptions to this universal declaration are found in the broader context of

Scripture, thereby averting absolute universalism. p140p

Can we perhaps say that there is in this text a potential or provisional salvation (a universalis gratia) which Christ has

obtained for all persons without any exceptions? Expiation or propitiation (“the atoning sacrifice”) means

appeasement or the cause for turning away wrath. So if Christ is the cause for turning away wrath for all persons

without any exception, then there is no more condemnation for anyone. Any further punishment for sin would be

capricious, since God’s just wrath was satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice.

It should also be noted that in the Greek this verse begins with the conjunction “and,” indicating its close association

with the preceding text. Jesus Christ is the “one who speaks to the Father in our defense” and “he is the atoning

sacrifice for our sins.” Those for whom Jesus “speaks to the Father” and those for whom “He is the atoning sacrifice”

are coextensive, as Murray points out. (*17) Jesus himself is both the lawyer and the evidence for permitting

righteous wrath to be turned away from those who deserve it. (*18) With such an advocate, who is himself the perfect

“atoning sacrifice for our sins,” the fate of those represented by him cannot be in doubt.

If 1 John 2:2 and other universalistic texts are seen in the light of the entire context of Scripture, they can be most

readily understood as teaching the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism, that all persons are elect in Christ except

those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.

OBSERVATIONS

OBSERVATION 1 Chapter 1 (above) demonstrated that the four hundred-year-old Arminian/Calvinist debate has

established with finality that the translators have given us an accurate translation of the so-called “universalistic”

texts. We must accept these texts just as we find them in our English and Greek Bibles. p141p

No one can reasonably deny that these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation as Calvinists have

historically maintained and they do so in terms of “all persons” as Arminians have always affirmed. What one does

with this fact is debatable but the fact itself cannot be denied. The first principle of sound interpretation is that

whatever is less clear must be understood in the light of what is clear in any given passage. What is clear is that

these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation in terms of “all persons.”

We have the obligation, after hearing what these texts say, to interpret them in a manner consistent with the entire

context of the Scriptures. One such interpretation is suggested by Dr. Charles Hodge: “all the descendants of

Adam . . . are saved” and only the Bible itself may make exceptions to this premise (Chapter1, above).

Hodge’s premise can be referred to as Evangelical Inclusivism because it does justice to the universalistic language

found throughout the Bible. One inevitable consequence of denying Hodge’s premise is to give the Absolute

Universalists exclusive use of the strong grammatical evidence that is found in most of the “all,” “all persons,” “every,”

and “world” passages of the Bible.

OBSERVATION 2 Reformed theologians have been rather quick to say that most of the so-called “universalistic”

passages do no more than reflect the fact that in the New Testament God’s overtures of grace are extended to

Gentiles as well as Jews. This, they say, accounts for the “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” passages.

Because nearly every book in the New Testament speaks of the pivotal truth that in Christ “the dividing wall of

hostility” (Eph. 2:14) between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, we are not dependent on any of these

passages to be convinced of this historical development. Every universalistic text, by virtue of its being universal,

does make reference to both Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, the mention of Jews and Gentiles in the immediate

context does not demonstrate that the author intended to merely make reference to two categories of people and not

to “all people” distributely. p142p

The use of such terms as “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” is a very indirect way of making reference to two

categories or classes of people. The preferred expression would be “both Jews and Gentiles.” This formulation is

employed when so intended (see Acts 14:5; 19:10; 20:21; Rom. 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:24, etc.).

OBSERVATION 3 We may not simply rely on the words “all,” “all persons,” “every,” and “world” to resolve the issue of

extent. Such terms are often limited by their immediate context. It must be kept in mind, however, that the primary

meaning of such expressions is universal in scope. We may limit their extension only if the immediate or extended

context of the Scriptures as a whole require such limiting.

The rule is that when the Greek word for “all” (in the plural) is used without the article, it refers to a totality. What is

said of the totality is to be considered true of each of the component parts individually, unless there is something

which modifies such a deduction. “The generic use of the adjective ‘all’ (as in ‘all men’) refers to each one in a group,

though not with such stress on the individual that there can be no exceptions” (Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, Eerdmans, 1967, V, P. 888).

OBSERVATION 4 The “all,” “all men,” and “every” expressions are burrs under the saddle of traditional Calvinists.

They cannot accept them as written. Therefore they make the amazing claim that the “all,” “all men,” and “every”

phrases refer to “all kinds” or “all classes of people.” With what justification? None whatsoever! No translator has ever

been so bold as to translate these terms as “all kinds” or “all classes” of people when translating the so-called

“universalistic” texts. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (cited above) gives no warrant for doing so.

A.C. DeJong states: “All in the plural without the article can have various meanings but, seldom, if ever, means all

classes, all types or all kinds” (The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, Franeker, 1954, P. 173). p143p

An even more substantial reason for rejecting “all kinds” or “all classes” as a translation for “all” in these so-called

“universalistic” passages is the fact that “classes of persons” denotes an abstraction which can exist only in one’s

mind. Such abstractions do not need, nor are they capable of receiving “salvation” as it is referred to in these

passages.

To bring these abstractions back into reality, it is said that the “all” and “all men” texts refer to “some persons of all

classes.” This, however, is so far removed from what these texts actually say that this is not a viable interpretation.

Consider how the Bible designates “some persons of all classes” in a non-abstract way (see Acts 2:5; Rev. 5:9; 7:9).

A listing of various “classes” or “kinds” of people in the immediate context does not necessarily account for the “all”

and “every” terms. Indeed, the reverse is often the case. It is the “all” (a universally valid truth) of Titus 2:11 that

accounts for various “classes” of people being listed in the immediate context (vv. 2–10), as the “for” at the beginning

of verse 11 indicates (see also John 12:32; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:6).

The force that the claims and obligations of these passages place on all persons is lost when it is said that the

universal truth they proclaim applies only to “some people of all classes.” The demands, obligations, and authority of

Christ’s kingship apply to all persons distributively and allegiance to him is required of all persons whether or not they

acknowledge his kingship. p144p

FOOTNOTES

(*1) Vol. II, p. 874.

(*2) See vv. 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 29, 30

(*3) Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International

Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1953, p. 363.

(*4) John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1955), p. 71. For further

substantiation that Scripture teaches that all who die with Christ also live with him, see Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 3:1–

5; 1 Pet. 4:1, 2.

(*5) Agape and Eros, tr. Philip Watson (London: SPCK, 1957) pp. 132f.

(*6) DeJong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer, p. 174.

(*7) The same meaning is apparent in Luke 1:47; 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 3:20; Phil. 3:20;

1 Tim. 2:3; Titus 2:10, 13; 5:4, 6; 1 John 4:14.

(*8) See also Titus 1:3, 4; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Jude 25.

(*9) See Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Phm. 16; 2 Pet. 2:10.

(*10) Life After Death, tr. J. Beveridge (Edinburgh: T&T. Clark, 1896), p.187.

(*11) The Savior of the World (London; Hodder & Stoughton, 1913), p. 118.

(*12) New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 1, p.

142. p145p

(*13) Op. cit., p. 124.

(*14) See John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30j; James 2:6. See also Hendriksen, op. cit., 1, p. 238.

(*15) Murray, Redemption, p. 72.

(*16) Ibid, p. 74.

(*17) Ibid, p. 75.

(*18) John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), presents biblical

evidence to establish that those for whom Christ made oblation are the same individuals for whom he makes

intercession (pp. 70–88).

CHAPTER 15 PROTESTANT INCLUSIVISM

AND CLARK PINNOCK p146p

Protestant Inclusivism is the teaching that, although Jesus is the only Savior, nevertheless salvation is possible

through Him even among those who have never heard the gospel during their lifetime on earth. This perspective is

called Protestant or Evangelical Inclusivism because it is based directly upon the inspired, infallible, written Word of

God, making its claims upon no other source.

In his book Is Jesus the Only Savior?, Dr. Ronald H. Nash argues against Protestant Inclusivism as he understands it

(*F, pp.103–175). He estimates that more than fifty percent of “professors at mainstream evangelical colleges and

seminaries” may hold to some form of Inclusivism (*F, p. 107).

Because Nash’s estimate is nearly correct, one finds that there are widespread public evaluations of Inclusivism, just

as Nash anticipated there would be. Nash observes: “Until inclusivists like Pinnock and Sanders published their

books in the early 1990s, few evangelicals had any opportunity to think through the significant biblical and theological

issues at stake. Now that the inclusivists have expressed their views publicly, the critical evaluations of their thinking

that are about to appear may help to sharpen the debate and inform evangelicals who may be attracted to inclusivism

initially with their hearts rather than their minds” (*F, p. 107). p147p

PINNOCK’S EXPOSURE TO EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM

The “early 1990s” reference by Nash is interesting. Other than my book Unconditional Good News (*A) there are no

books that present an apologetic for Protestant Inclusivism throughout all of the 1980s.

In February 1983, Dr. Robert Schuller invited Dr. Clark Pinnock, myself, and nine others to a six-day conference to

dialogue openly with Schuller about a biblical basis for his positive ministry of acceptance and affirmation. Before the

meeting background materials were exchanged. Each participant received a copy of my book Unconditional Good

News: Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universalism.

At this conference Pinnock defended “Biblical Universalism” (now called Evangelical Inclusivism) against the

“Absolute Universalism” advocated by most of the other participants. He did so because he believes some persons

will be finally lost (as do I; Chapter 19). By 1983, Pinnock was well acquainted with the premise of Evangelical

Inclusivism, namely, “All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost” (Premise B).
I appreciate the fact that Dr. John Sanders, who looks upon Pinnock as his mentor in espousing a Protestant

Inclusivism, formulated the clearest and most accurate one paragraph summary of my views that I have seen

anywhere. This is included in the comprehensive “Historical Bibliography” of theologians from the New Testament era

through the twentieth century who have espoused various forms of Inclusivism (*D, pp. 267 thru 280).

ROMAN CATHOLIC INCLUSIVISM

Pinnock and Sanders had written extensively about Roman Catholic Inclusivism as expressed by Vatican II in1962.

As intriguing as Roman Catholic Inclusivism is, Vatican II continued to hold that the Roman Catholic Church is The

Church founded by Jesus and is the only means of salvation for all people of all nations throughout all the earth for all

time. Vatican II did not abrogate the dictum, “No salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.” It simply extended

the concept of the Roman Catholic Church to include all persons who will be saved, including some Protestants as

well as all “anonymous” Christians. Pinnock and Sanderson could not endorse Roman Catholic Inclusivism without

conceding that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. p148p

THE SEED OF PINNOCK’S INCLUSIVISM

Although they had written much about Inclusivism, there is no published evidence that either Pinnock or Sanders has

advocated, endorsed, or adopted any form of Inclusivism before 1987. In 1987, Pinnock wrote a very brief article

“Who Can Become A Christian?” in which he says: “Because of Paul’s teaching elsewhere—as when he warns about

God’s wrath that is coming (1 Thess. 1:10)—we know there will be wicked who perish and are banished from God’s

presence. But we should not lose the marvelous scope of Scripture. God’s intention is to save the human race, not a

pathetic little segment of it. ‘Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one

act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men’ (Rom. 5:18).”

Pinnock continues: “According to this kind of theology, we ought to think of being saved as the normal outcome and

being rejected as the exception, and not the other way around. I think we have erred in thinking of condemnation as

the ordinary and salvation as the extraordinary outcome of the history of divine redemption” (*B, p. 22).

This is the first time Pinnock publicly advocated a form of “Inclusivism.” This did not come to full expression until he

expounded upon it in his 1992 book A Wideness in God’s Mercy (*E). p149p

“This kind of theology” that Pinnock spoke of in his 1987 article, namely, “that we ought to think of being saved as the

normal outcome and being rejected as the exception,” is the the perspective used only one time by Charles Hodge

(see Chapter 1). This was the “kind of theology”I developed extensively in my book Unconditional Good News
(Eerdmans, 1980). In this book I noted that: “Although the presupposition used by Hodge is found in the reference

cited, we must go on to note that there is no evidence that he used this premise in the rest of his writings. Even more

perplexing is that in the history of the interpretation of the ‘all’ and ‘every’ texts one finds this solution neither

developed nor any refutation of it” (*A, p. 7).

I know of no other published work in which “being saved” is viewed “as the normal outcome and being rejected as the

exception” as the “outcome of the history of divine redemption.” This was my conclusion in 1980 after sixteen years of

searching and asking hundreds of others to search for “this kind of theology” in all theological traditions. The search

continues and scholars indicate that it is only in the early church fathers that we find anything else that even comes

close to “this kind of theology.” Pinnock found “this kind of theology” in my book, Unconditional Good News, with

which he became acquainted in 1983.

SUGGESTING RELATIVISM

Pinnock was not able to find any form of Inclusivism with which he was comfortable. As a Protestant he could not

accept Roman Catholic Inclusivism. As an Arminian he could not accept the Evangelical Inclusivism that he found in

my book. He therefore came to this conclusion: “I think that any theological tradition can find a way to entertain an

optimism of salvation on a scriptural basis.” p150p

Pinnock denies that this is “a question of relativism, approving whatever theory yields the desired practical result.”

This is, for Pinnock, a matter of restoring in various traditions “the early church’s central biblical theme about God’s

love for the whole world” (*E, p. 43).

Despite his denial, Pinnock’s conclusion is illegitimate relativism. It is “approving whatever theory yields the desired

practical result.” To “find a way to entertain an optimism of salvation” consistent with his firmly held Arminianism,

Pinnock proposes an “Arminian Inclusivism” that we must consider at this time.

In his book Nash argues against Arminian Inclusivism as developed by Drs. Clark Pinnock and John Sanders (*F).

FRAIL THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS

Pinnock and Sanderson are handicapped by the fact that their Arminianism requires that they must accept all the so-

called “universalistic” texts as teaching nothing more than a “possible” or “potential” salvation for all persons without

any exception (Chapter 1, above). Therefore they forfeit any direct appeal to the so-called “universalistic” passages

as a basis for their view of Inclusivism. Nash correctly notes that consequently Arminians must provide some way by
which this “possible/potential” salvation is made available to all persons: Arminian “Inclusivists insist that all people

must have a chance to be saved” (*F, p. 104).

To provide “accessibility to all persons,” Pinnock and Sanders resort to such frail theological constructs as a saving

grace that can be mediated through: general revelation; pagan views of God that are similar to biblical revelation;

subjective attitudes that are as important as the content of faith; ethical deeds that are equivalent to faith

commitment; and even the possibility of a “post mortem” (after death) evangelism. Nash readily disposes of these frail

theological constructs (*F, p. 104). We agree with his reason for doing so. p151p

These imaginative possibilities suggested by Pinnock and Sanders are not derived from the teaching of the

Scriptures. They are resorted to in order to maintain the Arminian principle that every sinner must in some way have

the opportunity to say “Yes” to God’s offer of grace. Such a positive response is a condition or requirement for

salvation according to Arminianism. In order to be saved, sinners must have the opportunity to agree with God’s

terms.

MORE SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENTS

Arminians also use the following arguments to substantiate their view of Inclusivism:

• Old Testament believers had no explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ

• The saved who die in infancy were never confronted with the gospel.

• Believers such as Melchizedek and Abimelech lived beyond the reach of Old – Testament revelation.

• The faith that Abraham had “before he was circumcised” was neither an – old nor a New Testament faith.

• “In every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to

him.” (Acts 10:34,35, Rom. 2:14,15, 26; 3:30).

• Some come to the light “that it may be clearly seen that [their] works have

been wrought in God” (John 3:19–21).

• The parable of the last judgment (Matt. 25) implies that some persons from “all

the nations” are placed at his “right hand.” Some nations passed out of existence without ever being exposed to the

gospel. p152p

These arguments are consistent with Evangelical Inclusivism. However, in contrast to Arminian Inclusivism,

Evangelical Inclusivism does not argue its validity on the basis of them. I refer to these types of arguments as

“Biblical Indications” of salvation apart from gospel proclamation (*C, p. 81). Whether or not these arguments are

valid need not concern us. Nash’s arguments against these cannot be lodged against Evangelical Inclusivisim as

presented in this study because Evangelical Inclusivism is not dependent upon them.

Nash also presents three arguments against the Inclusivism of Pinnock and Sanderson that, if valid, would refute

every form of Inclusivism including Evangelical Inclusivism. These are (1) the misuse of Romans 10; (2) the many

biblical demands to “repent,” and “believe”; and (3) the so-called “universalistic” texts. We will now consider each of

these.

THE MISUSE OF ROM. 10

Nash makes the following observation in referring to Rom. 10:9–17: “Even the most superficial reading of the context

makes it clear that Paul is talking about the indispensability of special revelation for salvation and the urgency of

human preachers to carry the gospel to the world” (*F, p. 121). Nash continues: “I believe it is reckless, dangerous,

and unbiblical to lead people to think that the preaching of the gospel (which I insist must contain specifics about the

person and work of Christ) and personal faith in Jesus are not necessary for salvation” (*F, p. 126).

If Nash’s assertion in the preceding paragraph is valid, it would undermine the biblical basis for all forms of

Inclusivism, including Evangelical Inclusivism. Likewise, every one of the millions and millions of persons who never

hear the gospel during their lifetime on earth will suffer eternal damnation. Such a teaching contradicts the fact that by

his blood Christ “purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). What

Nash calls the indispensable “special revelation” has not been proclaimed to “every tribe and language and people

and nation.” p153p

Nash’s treatment of Rom. 10:9–17 is faulty because he makes the very common error of failing to make the critical

distinction between objective and subjective salvation (Chapter 4, above). It is of utmost importance to keep this

distinction in mind whenever we speak of salvation theologically.

OBJECTIVE salvation is the work accomplished by Christ once for all some 2,000 years ago. This is the good news

that can be proclaimed as an announcement OF an accomplished fact. The Bible speaks of this as “The gospel OF

your salvation” (Eph. 1:13).

SUBJECTIVE salvation is the application or realization of that work in the life of those for whom Christ died. In this

sense the gospel is declared to be the effectual means used by the Holy Spirit FOR transforming the heart, soul, and

mind of those for whom Christ died. In this sense the Bible speaks of “the gospel” as “the power of God FOR

salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

What Nash could have said is that “Even the most superficial reading of the context [of Rom. 10:9–17] makes it clear

that Paul is talking about the indispensability of special revelation for ‘subjective’ salvation and the urgency of human

preachers to carry the gospel to the world.” Such an observation is perfectly consistent with both Arminian and

Evangelical Inclusivism. In Chapter 4, “Objective and Subjective Salvation,” I make it abundantly clear that Rom.

10:9–17 is speaking of “subjective salvation” in which the human messenger has an indispensable role to play. p154p

BIBLICAL DEMANDS TO “REPENT,” “BELIEVE,” etc.

According to Nash, the urgent demands to “repent,” “believe,” “obey,” “come to Christ,” and “follow him” that are

found in such passages as Rom. 10:9–10; John 1:12; John 3:16,18; 1 John 2:23 and 5:12, “speak for themselves”

against all Inclusivism (*F, p. 148). If these demands are required of every sinner, then salvation beyond the sphere

where these demands have been made known is impossible.

However, in the very nature of the case, each of these demands to repent, believe, and live in joyful obedience

through Christ, which can be called “demands of the gospel,” are addressed only to accountable persons to whom

the gospel has been proclaimed in a meaningful way. For these persons such responses are absolutely necessary

and indifference or refusal to do so is damnable. This is not because these acts of obedience collectively, or the act

of faith in particular, is a required prerequisite for salvation without which God either will not or can not save the

sinner. However, for such persons to reject or remain indifferent to these gospel demands is to disobey the will of

God as it has been made known to them. This disobedience, if persisted in, sets in motion a hardening process that

ends in damnation, that is, the second death.

These demands to repent, believe, and live in joyful obedience through Christ, are “demands of the gospel,” and have

never been made known to those who live their entire life beyond the reach of the gospel. It is simply unwarranted to

conclude that these gospel demands are made of those who never hear the gospel during their lifetime on earth, as

Nash insists (Chapter 5, above).

ALL “KINDS” AND “CLASSES” CANNOT SIN OR BE SAVED

As we noted earlier, neither Pinnock nor Sanders can make a direct appeal to the so-called “universalistic” passages

of Scripture as a basis for their Inclusivism. Their Arminian perspective allows these passages to speak of nothing

more than a “possible” or “potentia”l salvation. Because Nash’s rejection of Inclusivism is directed primarily against

Arminian Inclusivism, he makes only a cursory observation about what he calls the “supposed universalist texts.” He

is of the opinion that “all” and “all men” must refer either to all persons “without exception” or to all humans “without

distinction.” p155p

Nash selects the traditional Calvinist view of accepting these texts as meaning all humans “without distinction,” that

is, “all classes” or “all kinds” of people. The so-called “universalistic” texts tell us nothing more than that, when

speaking of salvation, the Bible makes “no distinctions between male and female; young and old; Jew and Gentile;

educated and uneducated; etc.” (*F, p.143).

For a complete exposition of why the so-called “universalistic” texts simply cannot be speaking of “classes” or “kinds”

of people, see Chapter 14, Observation 4. For whatever reason, Nash is unaware of any Protestant Inclusivism other

than that proposed by Pinnock and Sanders. He is not aware of the “kind of theology” that Pinnock alluded to in his

1987 article that prompted him to construct his Arminian Inclusivism. Therefore Nash’s arguments do not refute

Evangelical Inclusivism.

CONCLUSION

To affirm or to deny the possibility of Inclusivism is infinitely more than a matter of “who will be surprised by the

number of the redeemed in heaven,” as Nash flippantly suggests (F, p. 165). God does all things for his own name’s

sake, especially his saving of sinners. He is jealous of his name. God desires to have his name proclaimed

throughout the entire world in this present age: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to
anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.

Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Ex. 34:6, 7). Here we have a revelation of who God is and what he, the

gracious and compassionate God, still reluctantly does. He reluctantly “does not leave the guilty unpunished.” p156p

If there is “A Wideness in God’s Mercy,” as expressed by Pinnock, Sanders, and many others, then God’s world-

embracing mercy is among “the revealed things that belong to us and our children forever” (Deut. 29:29). It is God’s

goodness that will lead sinners to repentance (Rom. 2:4). We have biblical warrant for approaching every sinner with

an attitude that says, “You are not a nobody, you are a child of God. Therefore you must live like one. Repent, believe

the good news of what God in Christ has done for you and joyfully show works worthy of your repentance.” Nash

finds such an approach nowhere in the Scriptures (F, p. 148). We find it confirmed in every approach to sinners that
is recorded in the book of Acts (See Chapter 19, below). It depends on the eyeglasses we choose to wear

( Introduction, above).

NOTE: The following books are listed in the order of dates of publication:

*A. Neal Punt Unconditional Good News, (Eerdmans, 1980)

*B. LaVonne Neff et al (Editors), Practical Christianity, (Tyndale House, 1987)

*C. Neal Punt What’s Good About The Good News?, (Northland Books, 1988)

*D. Dr. John Sanders, No Other Name, (Eerdmans, 1991)

*E. Dr. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, (Zondervan, 1992)

*F. Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Zondervan, 1994)

*G. Neal Punt, So Also In Christ, (Northland Books, 2002)

*H. Neal Punt, A Theology of Inclusivism, A Treatise on the Generosity of God, – (Revised, Northland Books, 2012)

p157p

Posting 16 JOHN CALVIN’S ‘UNLIMITED’ ATONEMENT p158p

“Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509–1564) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all

men.”

The above claim is the first sentence of R.T. Kendall’s book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (republished,

Paternoster Press, 1997). This claim was made much earlier by Moise Amyraut (1596–1644), who thought he was

following Calvin when he insisted that Christ died for all men.

Kendall buttresses his first sentence with numerous citations from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion,

Sermons on Isaiah and from Calvin’s commentaries. Kendall’s “Appendix 1” is comprised of sixteen pages of nothing

but quotations taken from Calvin’s commentaries (pp. 214 – 230). Here is a small selection of these quotes:
Isa. 53:12 — “’He bore the sin of many’ I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of man,

because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth

Posting of the Epistle to the Romans, that ‘many’ sometimes denotes ‘all’.”

Mark 14:24 — “The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”

John 1:28 — “And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human

race.”

John 3:16 — “He nevertheless shows He is favorable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the

faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.”

John 3:17 — “The word world comes again so that no one at all may think he is excluded.”

John 4:17 — “He declared that the salvation He had brought was common to the whole world, so that they should

understand more easily that it belonged to them also.”

John 12:47 — “For He delayed pronouncing judgment on them, because He had come rather for the salvation of all.”

John 14:30 — “For the word world here embraced the whole human race.”

John 16:8 — “I think that under the word world are included both those who were to be truly converted to Christ and

hypocrites and reprobates.”

John 17:9 — “He openly declares that he does not pray for the world, for He is solicitous only for His own flock which

He received from the Father’s hand.”

Rom. 5:18 — “Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world and is offered by the goodness of God without

distinction to all men, yet not all receive him.”

Gal. 5:12 — “For God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins

of the whole world.”

Col. 1:14 — “He says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the

sins of the world have been expiated.”

Heb. 2:9 — “He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.”

Heb. 8:4 — “He made atonement for the sins of the world as a Priest.”

Heb. 9:28 — “He says many meaning all, as in Rom. 5:15.”

1 John 2:2 — “The reason why God does not impute our sins to us is because He looks upon Christ the intercessor.”

ABOUT R.T. KENDALL

Kendall is the author of more than forty books. His purpose in this particular book is not to demonstrate that Calvin’s

view of the atonement is scriptural. His only purpose is to set forth what Calvin believed. His book is a work of

historical theology, not dogmatic theology.

Dr. R.T. Kendall succeeded Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones as Senior Minister of Westminster Chapel, serving for twenty-five

years from 1977 to 2002. He retired to Largo Sound in Key Largo, Florida. He describes his relationship to Lloyd-

Jones: “We were like father and son for the four years I was also his Minister—from 1977 to 1981.”

In a personal email to me (dated Sept. 7, 2004) Kendall wrote: “I know that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was absolutely

convinced I got it right as to Calvin’s views. He showed me passage after passage from Calvin that I had not even

used” (quote used with permission). This does not mean that Lloyd-Jones accepted Calvin’s doctrine of faith. It

means that Lloyd-Jones was fully convinced that John Calvin did not believe in “limited atonement.” p161p

“UNLIMITED” ATONEMENT

That Calvin believed “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men” is an astonishing claim for those who, like myself,

have always read the works of Calvin from the perspective of the five points of the Canons of Dort. We must keep in

mind, however, that the five Arminian propositions and Dort’s response to them (Total Depravity ─ Unconditional

Election ─ Limited Atonement ─ Irresistible Grace ─ Preservation of the Saints) were formulated some forty years

after Calvin’s death.

In Kendall’s words, Calvin believed: “That Jesus died for everybody without exception but that the blood he shed was

applied to God’s elect only and made effectual as a consequence of Christ’s intercession at the Father’s right hand”

(Kendall, p. vii).
Calvin repeatedly and explicitly affirms four of the traditional five points of doctrine explicated in the Canons of Dort.

Such repeated, explicit affirmations regarding the doctrine of “limited atonement” are not found in Calvin’s writings.

THE SO-CALLED “UNIVERSALISTIC” TEXTS

Calvin seldom comments on those texts that speak plainly of Christ having died to save “the world” or “all men”

(Posting 1, above). Calvin leaves such verses alone because he accepts these verses to mean what they clearly say.

“He [Calvin] generally leaves verses like these alone, he never explains, for example, that ‘all’ does not mean all or

‘world’ does not mean world, as Calvinists after him tended to do” (Kendall, p. 13).

The internal quotes in the following paragraph are from the works of Calvin and are accurately referenced on page 14

of Kendall’s book:

“Had Christ died only for those whom God has chosen by His secret decree, then, it would obviously cease to be a

pledge to all. But ‘our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for

we can obtain salvation in Him.’ This is why ‘no worse injury can be done to Him than not to believe the Gospel.’ John

3:16 says God so loved ‘the world’ which is ‘a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut

off every excuse from unbelievers.’” p162p

Therefore faith to Calvin may be described as knowing and personally believing “what God has already done in

Christ” (Kendall, p. 20). Because Christ died for all, without exception, this grace can be offered to all and believers

can look to Christ by faith and thus be assured that what Christ has done for “all” necessarily includes them.

NEITHER A UNIVERSALIST NOR AN ARMINIAN

Although Calvin believed that Christ died for “all,” it is obvious that he was not a Universalist. Kendall quotes Calvin,

“God does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what He denies to others.” Again

quoting Calvin, “eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others” (Kendall, p. 15).

Christ died for every person without any exception, according to Calvin; nevertheless, until faith is given, “. . . all that

He has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” (Calvin’s

Institutes III.i.1).

The decree of election is not rendered effectual by Christ’s death, according to Calvin, but the ascension was the

event that “opened the way into the Heavenly Kingdom, which had been closed through Adam” (Calvin’s Institutes
II.xvi.16). Christ first shed his blood and then entered heaven to intercede for God’s people. This is foreshadowed by

the Old Testament High Priest who never entered the place of intercession without the blood having first been shed

(Commentary on Isa. 53:12). The analogy is this: “The death of Christ was the fulfillment of open sacrifice on the

Altar; the Intercession was the fulfillment of the high priests sprinkling the blood on the Mercy Seat. It is there that the

atonement is limited, not at the place of the sacrifice” (p. vii, Kendall). p163p

Christ intercedes only for the elect. They alone receive the grace to believe that Christ died for them. “I pray for them.

I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9).

Kendall records the words of Georgius, who argues “Christ is the propitiation of the sins of whole world; and hence

those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world” (pp. 229–

230). This argument has no weight with Calvin because, as this quote from Calvin’s Sermons on Isaiah affirms:

“Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ’s

death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable

that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand; that whosoever

believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (John 3:16). For the present question is not how great

the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed.”

According to Calvin, Christ “gives himself to be enjoyed” to the elect only by continually interceding for them at the

“mercy seat.” p164p

Again, Calvin notes that the message that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins

against them” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19) “reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it

comes so as to be effectual.”

Serious students of Calvin admit that there is only one instance in Calvin’s writings that appears to be an explicit

denial of a universal atonement. This solitary quote is far from obvious. The second appendix to Kendall’s book (1997

edition) is an extract from the Ph.D. thesis of Dr. Curt Daniel (New College, Edinburgh, 1983). Daniel discusses in

detail this single example of what appears to be the only “explicit denial of the universality of the atonement” that can

be found in all of Calvin’s writings (Kendall, p. 231–238).

According to Daniel, this single instance appears where Calvin is refuting Heshusius’ view that unbelievers eat and

drink the body and blood of Christ when they profanely partake of the Lord’s Supper. Heshusius (a Lutheran)

contended that this is true because it is said “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Calvin believed that Christ is
only spiritually present (not physically) in the elements. That is, Christ is truly present in the elements of the Lord’s

Supper only for those who partake in true faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin therefore argues: “And as he [Heshusius] adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the

wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified for them? And how they can drink the blood which was not shed to

expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned. But it is one

thing to be eaten and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on

the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit” (Tracts and Treatise, Vol. II, P. 527).

THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS NOT “AN EXPLICIT DENIAL OF THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT.”

p165p

Calvin, in the above quote, points to the fact that Heshusius “adheres so doggedly to the words.” What words? “This

is my body,” “This is my blood.” By adhering “so doggedly to the words,” Heshusius insists that unbelievers eat and

drink the body of Christ as they profanely partake in the Lord’s Supper. Calvin is arguing that Christ is only spiritually

present and consequently only those who partake in true faith eat and drink the body and blood of Christ.

Daniel says, “We would paraphrase the words in the Treatise quotation as follows: ‘I should like to know how the

wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them’” (Kendall, p. 236).

Traditionally, Reformed scholars have looked at the phrases “the flesh which was not crucified for them” and “the

blood which was not shed to expiate their sins” in isolation from the context of Calvin’s refuting Heshusius’ view of the

physical presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. So viewed, the phrases appear to teach that Calvin

did not believe that Christ was crucified and shed his blood for “all men.”

Beginning with this supposedly “clear teaching,” they then claim that all the other references in Calvin’s writings about

the extent of the atonement must be interpreted in the light of “this one explicit statement” (Kendall, p. 232). Daniel

argues against such a methodology by noting that it strikes him as strange indeed that those who so intensely search

among the writings of Calvin can only produce this solitary quotation. He then observes, “Surely to argue on the basis

of this solitary quote, no matter what it means, against the flood of the rest of the testimony is precarious at best”

(Kendall, p. 231).

FURTHER PROOF p166p

In the rest of this appendix, Daniel cogently argues his case by citing the many references in Calvin’s Institutes, the

Treatise and Calvin’s Commentaries that emphasize that those who do not partake of the supper in true faith by the

power of the Spirit do not eat the body or drink the blood of Christ.

Daniel concludes that Calvin taught that: “Christ died for all men. The believer knows that he is a man and therefore

that Christ died for him. Saving faith accepts this.” Daniel continues: “The conclusion is that without a Universal

atonement no man can know by the Gospel that Christ died for him. In this sense we can agree with Kendall’s

introductory sentence to his first Posting. ‘Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509-1564) is his belief

that Christ died indiscriminately for all men’” (Kendale, P. 238).

REFUTATIONS OF KENDALL’S WORK

Paul Helm’s book, Calvin and Calvinists, (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982) is intended to be a rebuttal of Kendall’s

work. He spends most of his energy refuting not what Calvin actually says, but what he determines Calvin must have

been saying about the extent of the atonement. His argument, like that of nearly all of Kendall’s detractors, is based

on what Calvin says about the other four points of doctrine set forth by the Synod of Dort. From these observations

they draw the logical conclusion that Calvin must have believed in a “limited” atonement.

A more recent book that supposedly debunks Kendall’s thesis is The Glory of the Atonement. (Eds. Charles Hill and

Frank James III, Intervarsity Press, 2004) This is a 495-page, scholarly, well-written, and extremely well-organized

treatment of the biblical basis, historical development, and practical implications of the doctrine of the atonement.

However, in this book we are also told that the defenders of Kendall “. . . usually fail to perceive the logic of ‘definite

atonement’ and what it consistently allows, that is, sufficiency for all, universal offer, salvation accomplished for the

‘race’ as an organic whole, and the like” (pp. 280–281). This is the same kind of argument used by Helm and others,

determining what Calvin “must have believed” in their attempt to refute Kendall’s thesis. p167p

The uncritical reader thinks this type of argument, based on the coherency of the Five Points of Dort, refutes

Kendall’s thesis. It does not do so. At most, such arguments do nothing more than demonstrate that Calvin is not

always consistent in his writings.

The Glory of the Atonement says precious little about Calvin’s handling of the “world” and “all men” passages of the

Scriptures. It adds nothing to what others have said or implied regarding the precise question at issue. It does not

counter the sixteen pages of compelling passages Kendall cites directly from Calvin’s writings in his Appendix #1.
The question is not what “the logic of definite atonement” would compel Calvin to say, if he was consistent. Neither is

the question “what would Calvin have said” if he had been confronted with the Arminian propositions. The question is,

what in fact did Calvin actually say and teach regarding the “world” and “all men” passages of the Scriptures.

We should take note of the fact that ever since the framers of Dort responded to the five points of Arminianism,

evangelical scholars have been obligated to take one side or the other in their interpretation of the so-called

“universalistic” texts. They had to accept either the “certain-to-be-realized salvation” element (as Calvinists do) or the

“all persons” ingredient (as Arminians do) of the so-called “universalistic” texts. The only other possibility they had

was to accept both elements, as Universalists do.

The result of the four hundred-year struggle between Arminianism and Calvinism (see FAQ’s 1) is a conviction,

among those who wish to refute Kendall’s thesis, that Calvin must have made the same kind of choice they have

been compelled to make. These theologians are unalterably opposed to what Calvin says, namely that “Christ died

indiscriminately for all men.” Everything in their psyche rejects what Kendall and others before him have

demonstrated that Calvin actually taught. p168p

In his theologizing about the “world” and “all persons” passages, Calvin simply does not make the Hobson’s choice

that evangelical theologians, ever since Dort, have been forced to make. John Calvin accepted the so-called

“universalistic” texts as written teaching us “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men,” however, this sacrifice is

made effective only in the lives of those for whom Christ intercedes at the mercy seat..

To make the claim, as J.I. Packer and many others do, that the Synod of Dort’s formula of limited atonement states

what Calvin “would have said had he faced the Arminian thesis” (Kendall, p. 1) misses the point completely. For the

question is not “what Calvin would have said.” The question is, “What, in fact, did Calvin say about the extent of the

atonement?” or “How did Calvin understand the meaning of the so-called ‘universalistic’ passages?”

Calvin’s doctrine of faith would provide the church with a clear basis in its outreach ministry for saying to everyone

“Christ died for you.” Such a gospel would also provide an assurance of salvation for believers. Because Christ

atoned for the sins of every human being, therefore believers may know that Christ atoned for their sins.

However, Calvin’s doctrine of faith is not viable for two reasons:

1. The Rule of Intended Consequences — The three persons of the Trinity are fully united in their work and

intentions. Election by the Father, redemption by the Son, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit are all intended for the

same persons. “Those God foreknew . . . he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). “Being confident of this, that he who
began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). God does not begin a

good work for anyone and not “carry it on to completion.” p169p

2. God’s justice — If some perish for whom Christ died, then God would be demanding double payment for sin in

some instances. By his blood Christ purchased all those for whom he died (Rev. 5:9); nevertheless, from some of

these “purchased” individuals a final judgment is also exacted. Such double penalties are fitting, according to Calvin,

because such reprobates are “doubly culpable.” Their sin makes them guilty. This is combined with their ingratitude “.

. . in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith” (Kendall, p. 16).

This response by Calvin is inadequate for many reasons. Among them is the fact that It could conceivably apply for

those who hear the gospel but it would not pertain to those who never hear the good news during their lifetime on

earth. Calvin and other theologians of that age had little or no awareness of such people.

CONCLUSION

“Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.” My

purpose in presenting this claim made by Kendall is not to claim that Calvin’s view of the atonement is scriptural or to

show how Calvin’s view of the atonement is related to that of Beza, the Puritans, or to other Calvinists. My only intent

is to report what Calvin actually believed and taught regarding the so-called “universalistic” texts. p170p

In Posting 1 (above), I strongly argue that it is impossible to avoid the fact that the so-called “universalistic” texts

speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation and they do so in terms of all persons. Calvin, like Evangelical Inclusivism,

accepted the fact that the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of “redemption” in terms of “all persons” and that any

restriction of these universal claims must be garnered from the broader context of the Scriptures. Calvin found this

restriction in the fact that Christ intercedes only for the elect. Evangelical Inclusivism finds this restriction in the

description the Scripture gives of all those who will be finally lost (See Chapter 2).

Chapter 17 WHAT ADVANTAGE DO COVENANT MEMBERS HAVE? p171p

Four infants were baptized at the morning service in the church I attend. What a tremendous advantage these four

infants have over thousands of other infants throughout the world who were also born about the same time. The

parents of these baptized infants, and all the members of the congregation with them, took a vow to instruct these

infants in the things pertaining to their relationship to God. God is one and they are to love him with all their soul,

heart, and being. These truths are so important that parents are to:
“Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up”

(Deut. 6:7).

God’s attitude of grace toward these infants will be made known to them. Before long they will understand the

meaning of the words from the song: “Jesus loves me, this I know —for the Bible tells me so.” These children will be

“entrusted with the very words of God.” Baptism, the sign and seal of God’s attitude and disposition of grace toward

them, was administered to them. These are “covenant children” and as such they inherit the promise already

experienced by their parents or guardians: p172p

“I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the

generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7).

God established his covenant with Abraham and ever since there has been an externally identifiable community to

whom the testimony concerning the one true God has been made known. This covenant continued with Abraham’s

descendants and was sealed with the sign of circumcision: “You will undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of

the covenant between you and me” (Gen. 17:9–11). This “covenant line” is known today as the “visible” church, that

is, those people to whom God has made known his attitude of favor and grace. “We are the circumcision, we who

worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:3). This social group has advantages not shared by

the rest of mankind.

Referring to the visible church, the covenant community, as a social group emphasizes the fact that all covenant

members are not necessarily “born again” Christians who are certain to come to salvation. There are hypocrites and

pretenders within this group. It is fitting and necessary that members of this community make their “calling and

election sure.” What all members of this group have in common is that God has made his Word of grace known to

them.

EXPRESSED GRACE

The Jews, the Old Covenant people of God, could say “In the past God spoke [i.e. established his covenant] with our

forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken [i.e.

established his covenant] with us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1). “The Word [from God] became flesh and made his dwelling

among us” (John 1:14). Jesus, as the Word from God, is “the mediator of the new covenant.” Through the birth, life,

death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God expressed his attitude of favor and grace to Gentiles as well as Jews.

p173p
In light of that, it is no wonder that much has been said and written about the meaning and implications of the

covenant between God and his people. Much more ought to be said about it. It is understandable that some students

of the Scriptures find evidence of this covenant relationship on most pages of the Bible.

Does this mean that salvation is found only among those either born or brought into “the line of the covenant”? There

are those who say that Evangelical Inclusivism, as espoused in this study, obliterates the distinctive covenant

relationship between God and his people because it allows that salvation may be found among some people who are

not members of this “covenant line.” We must answer the question: “What advantage do covenant members have?”

In responding to this question, I do not wish to detract from what has been said about the importance of the covenant

relationship between God and his people. I will, however, call attention to one essential characteristic of “the

covenant.”

In a post-graduate course, the late Dr. John Murray (Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia), reviewed with us every

instance where the word “covenant” is used in both the Old and New Testament. Murray concluded that the following

definition applies to every one of these uses: A covenant is an oath-bound commitment or promise, usually

accompanied with a sign. The act of putting into words belongs to the very essence of the biblical idea of covenant.

The Bible, unlike modern legal codes, knows nothing of an unexpressed or implied covenant.

Thus there are two distinct and essential elements in God’s covenant of grace. First, there is the disposition or

attitude of grace, that is, God granting favor and blessing (salvation) to those who are not deserving of his goodness.

Second, there is the matter of expressing (putting into words) his disposition or attitude of grace to this group of

people. It is only when both of these elements are present that God’s covenant of grace is established with some

people and not with others. p174p

UN-EXPRESSED, IMPLIED GRACE

It is possible that God’s attitude of favor and grace toward some people exists even though he has not expressed this

grace to them. Although not expressed, God’s saving grace is implied in the words spoken to the serpent: “I will put

enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15). The “seed of the woman” is

all persons. She is “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). There is “enmity” (hostility, antagonism) placed there by God

between Satan and “the seed of the woman,” that is, all persons. Satan seeks to destroy all those created in the

image of God.
This “enmity” comes to its ultimate expression in the doing and dying of the “last Adam” who, like the “first Adam,”

stands in the place of the “seed of the woman” (all persons). “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made

alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). “He [Jesus Christ] will crush your head” (Gen. 3:15). All persons are ultimate beneficiaries of this

crushing blow except those who willfully, persistently, and finally choose to align themselves with Satan and to live

apart from God ( Chapter 2, above). They are “the seed of Satan” they will be lost. They will share in his fate.

GOD’S ATTITUDE OF GRACE IS TO BE EXPRESSED

OR PROCLAIMED TO ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he committed to us the

message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). p175p

During the Old Covenant, God expressed his “Word of grace” to Abraham and his descendants and to others who

were joined to this covenant community. This does not mean that God had an attitude of indifference or ill will toward

all those who were not associated with the covenant community. It is not the case that through the coming of Jesus

Christ, God’s attitude toward the vast stretches of humanity was suddenly and dramatically changed from one of ill

will to one of favor and grace. Until the appointed time Gentiles were “. . . excluded from citizenship in Israel and

foreigners to the covenant of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). In the Old

Covenant, God’s attitude of grace was not expressed in words to the world at large.

What changed with the coming of Jesus Christ was the proclaiming of God’s favor and salvation to Gentiles as well

as to Jews. This is evident in Eph. 3:1–10.

The very words of God “ought to be announced and declared without differentiating or discriminating, to all nations

and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel” (Canons of Dort II, 5). Paul preached “to the

Gentiles [non-covenant people] the unsearchable riches of Christ, and [made] plain to everyone the administration of

this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.” He did so because God’s “intent

was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known . . .” (Eph. 3:8–10). “He

redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus” (Gal.

3:14).

As members of the New Covenant, it has been made known to Gentiles that “God was reconciling the world to

himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” And God “committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2

Cor. 5:19). God is not, and the church ought not to be, pleased to leave any people in their despair (living apart from

“the very words of God”), keeping from them the fact that in Christ God has reconciled “the world to himself.” New

Testament (covenant) members have been given the “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke
2:10). They may—and are obligated to—communicate this good news “without discrimination” to all people

everywhere. p176p

Paul says that Christ “came and preached peace to you who were far away [Gentiles, "non-covenant people"] and

peace to those who were near [Israelites, those who were in "the covenant line"] because through him “we both have

access to the Father by one Spirit” (Eph. 2:17, 18). God’s attitude and disposition of grace is, in the New Testament,

to be made known to covenant members and those outside the covenant line, thereby bringing them into a covenant

relationship with God.

This grace is only made known by “the very words of God” being spoken to those outside the covenant line.

“Therefore go and make disciples [students] of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son

and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). This baptism, whether of infants or adults, is never administered without the

anticipation of further nurturing those baptized in the things pertaining to their salvation.

COVENANT AND NON-COVENANT MEMBERS TREATED SIMILARLY

The basic theme running through Rom. 1 and 2 is that there is no substantive difference between Jews and Gentiles.

This fact is reflected in God’s attitude toward and dealing with Jews (covenant people) and the rest of mankind. This

is evident in Rom. 1:5, 6, 14, 16; 2:1, 4, 6–29. In the closing portion of Rom. 2, Paul speaks of the fact that both those

who were circumcised (Jews) and those not circumcised (Gentiles) could either break the law or be praised by God.

Both covenant people and those outside that covenant fellowship (the covenant line) are treated in the same way

(Rom. 2:25–29). We do no injustice to these verses if we substitute the word “baptism” for “circumcision” and the term

“church member” for “Jews.” p177p

“[Baptism] has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been

[baptized]. If those who are not [baptized] keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were

[baptized]? The one who is not [baptized] physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who are a lawbreaker,

even though you have the written word and [baptism].

“A man is not a [church member] if he is only one outwardly, nor is [baptism] merely outward and physical. No, a man

is a[church member] if he is one inwardly; and [baptism] is [baptism] of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written

word. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:25–29).

WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE?

Rom. 2:25–29 tells us that God’s attitude towards and dealing with church members (those in the covenant line) is no

different than his attitude towards and dealing with those who are not members of the church. That is an astonishing

truth! Paul, led by the Holy Spirit, realizes that what he has said up to this point in his letter to the Romans will make

his readers ask: p178p

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1)

Or, as we may say:

What advantage, then, is there in being a [member of the church], or what value is there in being [baptized]?

It appears in Paul’s exposition, as it does in Evangelical Inclusivism, that the distinction between being a member of

the church and not being a member of the church is lost. The question is: “What advantage is there in either being

born into, or as an adult participating in, the covenant community?” In responding to this question, Paul does not say,

“Much in every way! It is only among them (covenant members, church members) that salvation can be found.” If

salvation is found only among church members, this would have been Paul’s answer to his own question.

Paul is very clear in the answer he gives to the question he asked: “First of all” ["chiefly" or "most importantly"] “they”

(the Jews, the covenant people, church members) “have been entrusted with the very words [the “oracles”] of God”

(Rom. 3:1).

That is the advantage the four infants who were baptized that Sunday had over thousands of other infants throughout

the world who were also born about that time. They were going to be nurtured “with the very words of God.” Paul did

not say, and the Bible never says, that the advantage of being “in the covenant line” is that God’s saving grace is

found only among covenant people and all others remain the objects of God’s wrath.

Chapter 18 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVIS p179p

Shortly after I had written this chapter, I received notice that I would be hospitalized for seven to ten days. I resolved

to put into practice, among this smaller group of persons with whom I would be in contact, the practical application of

the concept that “We should recognize and relate to all persons as being children of God for whom Christ died and

treat each one of them with such respect.”

As I consciously put this into practice, I really began to feel that way about each person I met in the hospital, whether

someone from house-keeping or a doctor. The result was that even when they woke me at three A.M. to take my
blood pressure, I had no right to think of them as idiots who were needlessly interrupting my precious sleep. I thought,

“Here is a person for whom Christ shed is blood, who is doing what they truly believe they should be doing at this

very moment.”

What peace this brought to me and joy to those who were caring for me! A twenty four-year-old male nursing student

wrote me following my stay in the hospital:

“Nothing makes my job more rewarding than spending time with patients who lift you up with their graceful

personalities. You definitely were one of those. While in the hospital you were more than welcoming every time I

came through that door, no matter what time of night. p180p

“Holly, (the one who wheeled you out) thought she was pretty funny stealing you from me. She knew I wanted to

wheel you to your car when you left the hospital. She must have enjoyed your gracious attitude as much as I did.

Luckily I caught you at the elevator for a parting word of thanks.”

What a vast difference it makes to view all persons as those for whom Christ died, and to treat them as such! What

warmth would radiate from the church if every Christian adopted this attitude of Inclusivism.

TWO VIEWS

The silhouette of the goblet demonstrates that our mind interprets what we see. A person who had

never seen a goblet would recognize only the faces. Whether we see the faces or the goblet depends on past

experience. By concentrating, we can direct our mind to see the faces or the goblet.

Something similar happens when we read the Bible. If we accept the fact that some persons will not be saved, there

are two ways of viewing the overall message of God’s Word. The “good news” is either: all persons will be finally lost

except those the Bible tells us will be saved; or: all persons will be saved except those the Bible tells us will be finally

lost. In the Introduction (above) I referred to premises A and B as prescriptions for the eyeglasses we choose to wear

and through which we see the world of humanity. p181p

The Bible speaks of two men ─ two “Adams.” One came at the dawn of history; the other came “in the fullness of

time.” Through the disobedience of the first Adam, condemnation and death came into this world. The obedience of

the second Adam (Jesus Christ) brought salvation and life.

We can concentrate our attention on the first Adam so fully that we see all mankind involved in his disobedience

having brought corruption, condemnation, and death on themselves. Entering this dark picture are separate spots of

light shining upon those who by their own decision and will power accept the testimony of God’s Word.

The other possibility is that we give the crucified and risen Savior the place of preeminence and through him we see

the world (of people) bathed in the light of his glorious grace. In this second picture there are some who cover

themselves with darkness for no other reason than that they love darkness rather than the light (John 3:19–21).

For some people, the first picture of a fallen mankind due to Adam’s sin has been so deeply etched on their mind that

they find it impossible to see the second picture. Others see the two ways of viewing the Bible’s message and are not

impressed. It is a matter of six of one and a half dozen of the other, they say. One picture or the other does not

change either the number of persons who will be saved or the way in which God saves them. Nothing actually

changes, so why bother about it.

Still others begin to see that the righteousness of Christ “brings life for all men” (Rom. 5:18b). This new insight has a

dramatic effect upon their life. They begin to see God, themselves, and others in a new way and it brings them a joy,

a peace, and a delight in God’s plan of salvation they had not known before.

The difference in how we view mankind (through the FIRST or the SECOND Adam) will be a change within our heart

and mind. Our perceptions form our attitudes. Our attitudes, in turn, affect the way we relate to God, to ourselves, and

to all other human beings wherever we meet them and in whatever circumstances. Christians ought to view

themselves as children of God and ought to respect all other human beings in the same way. p182p

FINDING WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR

The difference between premises A and B is so profound that it even affects what we find in the Scriptures. Reacting

negatively to the claim that salvation is unconditional, an internationally known theologian responded, “Salvation is a

gift conditional upon response.” To substantiate this claim he referred me to Heb. 4:2, which says, “For we also have

had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those

who heard did not combine it with faith.”

Because he was thoroughly immersed in premise A, that “All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible

declares will be saved,” he drew the following conclusion from Heb. 4:2: “The good news comes indiscriminately to all

persons, those who benefit from it do so because they believe.”

Does Heb. 4:2 say that some benefited (or entered “his rest,” as in vs. 1) because they believed? Or does it say the

message “was of no value to” some because they refused to believe? Heb. 4:6 makes it abundantly clear that it is the

latter; some “did not go in, because of their disobedience” (emphasis added).

The conclusion to be drawn from Heb. 4:1–7 is that “the promise of entering his rest still stands” (vs. 1) for those who

“have the gospel preached to” them (vs 2) and “we who have believed enter that rest” (vs. 3). It does not say that

“some will enter that rest” because they believe. The only exceptions are those who “because of their disobedience”

(vs. 6) or because they “harden their hearts” (vs. 7) do not “enter that rest.” This is consistent with the theme of

premise B, that “Salvation is a gift of unconditional sovereign grace; condemnation is earned by disobedience.” p183p

PRACTICAL BENEFITS

A thoughtful correspondent reminded me that there are many persons wso. To encourage the reader to seriously

consider the principles discussed in the first four chapters of this book, I will now randomly list some of the practical

benefits that we can expect if we, and the entire Christian community with us, would accept premise B.ho might be

more willing to consider the biblical and theological basis for accepting premise B if they thought that there were

some real practical benefits in doing

OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHERS

Accepting premise B would positively affect our attitude towards the person who “aggravates” us at work; our uncle

who is an alcoholic; the person who packs our groceries; our boss; our husband or wife; our children; the stranger we

meet on the street; the Muslim who lives next door, etc. With the perspective of premise B, we would have a

compelling motivation to love them even if they were “our enemies” and to pray for them even if they “despitefully use

us” (Matt 5:44, KJV).

This perspective would be costly. It would mean that every person you see in need, to whom you could reasonably

extend practical help, would be your “brother” (Matt. 25:40).

NO NEED TO BE JUDGMENTAL
“There is so much evil in the best of us and there is so much good in the worst of us, that even the most skilled

technician cannot, with certainty, distinguish the children of light from the children of darkness” ( L. Verduin,

Somewhat Less Than God, Eerdmans, 1970, p. 81).

We can and may judge only their deeds. We cannot and may not judge any person’s “heart” in relationship to “the

true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” (John 1:9) The weeds will not be separated from

the wheat until the time of harvest (Matt. 13:24–30). There will be many surprises on that day. p184p

Listen to Jesus’ words, “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did

not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my

words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day” (John 12:47, 48). Even if a person would

openly reject Jesus and not accept his words, we may not assume that he or she is among those “who will be lost.”

We know Paul’s previous way of life. Even while he was persecuting “followers of this Way to their death” (Acts 22:4)

he was one of God’s elect.

NO ONE CONSIDERED AN ‘OUTSIDER’ IN CHURCH

Evangelical Inclusivism provides the only basis we need for viewing every “stranger” who enters church doors as one

of us. There are no hoops for visitors to pass through before we accept people we have not seen before as being

among those for whom Christ died. Many times the message, the songs, the prayers, and the casual conversations

we hear in church reflect the fact that we have been nurtured on premise A, that “All persons are outside of Christ”

except those for whom we have some indication they are God’s children.

An unwitting snobbishness easily poisons the atmosphere of our fellowship. A ministry of affirmation and acceptance,

structured on the biblically warranted assumption of Evangelical Inclusivism, engenders a positive sense of oneness

among the members of the church and among those who might happen to visit. This is something far deeper and

more meaningful than just a friendly church.

ASSURANCE OF SALVATION p185p

To base our assurance of salvation on anything other than, or in addition to, Christ’s completed work subjects us to

perpetual uncertainty. Perhaps you are among the many sincere Christians who are neither indifferent toward nor do

you reject the promises and claims of Christ in the gospel. Yet you are plagued with doubts because you have always

felt that your acceptance with God is in some way conditional: “Do I love him enough?” “Is my faith strong enough?”

“Will I remain faithful to the end?” “If others only knew how sinful I am, they wouldn’t consider me to be a Christian.”
Conditional salvation also leads to pride on the part of those who think they have fulfilled the required conditions. On

the other end of the spectrum are those who correctly sense they do not have the power within themselves to meet

such conditions and often feel as though there is no “good news” for them.

Although unintended, it is cruel to say to those who have difficulty coming to assurance of salvation, “Well, you

believe don’t you?” It is precisely their faith or the strength of their faith that they are questioning. It is no comfort

whatsoever to tell such a person that his or her salvation depends on nothing but their faith!

The response of Evangelical Inclusivism to all who inquire about their lack of assurance of salvation is: “The Gospel

is meant for you unless you are indifferent toward it or willfully reject it.” They may be assured that no sin or

weakness (including the weakness of their faith) that remains in them against their will can hinder them from being

received of God in grace and being worthy partakers of the cup of salvation.

A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR UNBELIEVERS

If the Bible does not permit us to tell the unbelievers we meet that Jesus Christ died for them, why should they

believe that he died for them? Where does the good news for a particular person come from if it does not come from

the Bible? p186p

“News” can not be presented conditionally. To bring “news” to anyone is to tell them about something that has

already happened. If what you are talking about has not already happened, whatever it is, it is not “news.” The Bible

does not hesitate to call what Jesus has done for sinners the “good news.” To bring the good news of salvation to any

particular person or group of persons, we must have a biblical basis for telling them that by Jesus’ life, death, and

resurrection from the dead they were reconciled to God.

How strange to think we must communicate this good news conditionally by telling sinners that Jesus Christ will save

them “if they believe.” When will Jesus save these individuals? Either those to whom we witness have been

“reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20, 21) or not. How much more genuine our embrace of sinners would be if we looked

upon these particular persons as being among those for whom Christ died. Premise B gives us biblical warrant for

making this assumption. Because God in Christ has reconciled himself to them, therefore they must repent, believe,

and joyfully obey. God will judge those who finally remain indifferent to or reject this message.

DEALING WITH CONFLICTING PASSAGES

There are so many biblical passages that, when simply understood as written, seem to say that all persons will be

saved. The more familiar ones are that the Lamb of God “takes away the sin of the world”; that Jesus “gave himself a

ransom for all men”; that in Christ “all will be made alive”; that Jesus “tasted death for everyone”; and that Jesus’

sacrifice was for our sins and “for the sins of the whole world” (Chapter 1, above).

In many Bible studies these truths are explained away. “All” does not mean all; “world” does not mean the world of

people. “All men” refers to a limited number of persons; “everyone” means some; “the whole world” is seldom

explained. If they are not explained away, we are told that all these passages speak only of a “possible” or “potential”

salvation that God in Christ has wrought for all persons. p187p

The ruses mentioned in the preceding paragraph stem from the fact that for many centuries evangelical theology has

been structured on premise A, namely: “All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible declares will be

saved.” With premise B: “All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost,” we can

accept as written, delight and find comfort in the so-called “universalistic” passages of the Scriptures, even though the

Bible tells us that there are some exceptions to these world-embracing claims.

A PROPER SELF-ESTEEM

The biblical witness to proper self-esteem is crystal clear: “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that

we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” (1 John 3:1). God wants his followers to respect

themselves as equal children of God and to treat all other human beings with the same respect.

Corrupted self-esteem is sinful pride. Few sins are more sternly denounced than pride. Such pride is based upon our

own accomplishments. Proper self-esteem is a biblically defined view of oneself as a child of God—fully that and

never anything more than that. Such a self-image is essential to everyone’s spiritual and psychological wellbeing.

Both within the church and in outreach ministries the gospel must be communicated so as to engender a positive self-

image in those who hear it.

A ministry of affirmation and acceptance, structured on the biblically warranted assumption of premise B, builds a

self-esteem that is structured entirely on God’s grace.

PRAISING GOD FOR HIS MIGHTY WORK p188p

It must be noted that the prevailing premise A, that “All persons will be finally lost except those the Bible declares will

be saved,” has distorted the universal accents of the Scriptures so that they are not accepted as an essential and
joyous characteristic of the “Good News.” This unexamined assumption has deprived many sincere Christians of the

assurance of their salvation and has often placed believers in doubt as to whether they should press the claims of

Christ’s kingship upon everyone everywhere. It has detracted from the positive, world-embracing, thrilling good news

of what God in Christ has done for mankind.

Evangelical Inclusivism emphasizes the universal accents of the Scriptures, which are essential and joyous

characteristics of the “Good News.” It declares the positive, world-embracing, thrilling good news of what God in

Christ has done for mankind. Consequently, God is praised more fully and joyfully as he desires and deserves to be

in this present age.

“YOU ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD”

Imagine for a moment that everyone in your church would view and affirm themselves and everyone they meet as an

elect child of God for whom Christ died. What a glorious light and warmth would radiate from that church!

We have biblical warrant for viewing all persons as children of God, those for whom Christ died, until and unless we

have knowledge to the contrary. By “biblical warrant” I mean that the Bible permits, authorizes, and even requires us

to view all persons, even unbelievers, as children of God. We are to love, respect, and relate to each of them “as if”

he or she is a person for whom Christ died.

This biblical warrant is not a judgment about the nature of the person addressed. The person may, in fact, not be a

person for whom Christ died. This warrant indicates the approach we should take as we seek to impress upon them

what God in Christ has done for them. As Paul says, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view”

(2 Cor. 5:16–21). p189p

There are two considerations to keep in mind as we think about the practical benefits of Evangelical Inclusivism:

1. If premise B has biblical validity (Chapters 1 through 4, above), we must seek to live our lives in conformity with it

whether or not we recognize its practical benefits. To do otherwise would be valuing our thoughts above the teaching

of God’s Word.

2. If premise B has biblical validity, it will take the Christian community many years to fill in and work out all of its

practical applications.
Posting 19 RESTORING HELL p190p
Edward William Fudge

[NOTE: I know of no one who has better credentials to write

this Posting than Edward Fudge. What he writes deserves

our serious attention. Neal Punt]

Jerry Walls of Asbury Seminary put it very well: “We cannot be moral without God, and we cannot have God without

hell. Hell needs to make a comeback” (Christianity Today, June 16, 1997, “Can We Be Good Without Hell?”). I say

“Bravo!” to Professor Walls for reminding us that we are creatures accountable to our Creator, that earthly actions

have consequences beyond this Age of time and space, and that there is a dark side to divine justice as well as

eternal reward. The New Testament certainly warns against hell, and Jesus himself says more about it than anyone

else. As we restore the doctrine of damnation from widespread disuse, it is important that we faithfully represent what

Scripture actually says on this fearful subject. We must observe how Jesus uses this teaching, to whom he addresses

it, and what he actually says about it.

Interestingly, the fear of punishment is not the driving force behind most scriptural exhortations to godliness or

abstinence from evil. Love for God, and gratitude for what he has accomplished for sinners in Jesus Christ, are far

greater incentives to good than fear of hell─although that has its place for those whose spiritual hides are too thick

and insensitive to respond to nobler motivations. The Acts of the Apostles reports the gospel as originally preached

during the first generation following Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost. And the fact is that, aside

from one or two general statements about a coming judgment (Acts 17:30–31; 24:25), this book of apostolic

preaching mentions final punishment only once (Acts 3:23). Instead, almost every discourse recorded in Acts focuses

on the reality of eternal life in Christ for those who believe in him (too many references to cite). P191P

HOW JESUS USED HELL

What is the point of hell anyway, if not the “big stick” of evangelism to club sinners to repentance and to motivate

them to believe in Jesus? How did Jesus use hell in his own teaching? Whom did he warn about it? What evils

elicited his mention of it? Did Jesus, like many preachers and professing Christians today, thunder hell-fire warnings

to unchurched sinners: to prostitutes, drunkards and homosexuals? Did he use hell to spur conversions and to bring

people to faith? The answers to these questions might surprise us—and teach us something important as well. Jesus

specifically mentioned hell (gehenna) just eleven times in the Gospels. You will find his statements at Matt. 5:22;

5:29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; and Luke 12:5.
In fact, “hell” (gehenna) is never mentioned by name as the place of final punishment outside the Gospels, by anyone

other than Jesus, or in speaking to anyone other than Jerusalemite Jews. When we look closely, we discover that the

original gehenna was a literal place—the Valley of Hinnom, the city dump filled with stinking garbage including dead

animals, a place of smoldering fire and insatiable maggots representative not of dreadful pain and torture but of utter

loss, disgust and, finally, complete and irreversible destruction. p192p

When we read everything in the Gospels that Jesus said about hell, we find him speaking twice to the Pharisees,

warning these rigid and self-righteous morality policemen that God is unhappy with what their teaching turns their

converts into and with the hypocrisy of their external-only religion (Matt. 23:15, 33). Everything else Jesus says about

hell is directed to his own disciples. Twice he is encouraging them not to be afraid of those who might oppose them

but to be afraid of God who can destroy the whole person in hell (Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:5). Every other time Jesus

mentions hell he is warning his own followers not to mistreat or misuse vulnerable people, whether women (Matt.

5:29–30), “little ones” (Matt. 18:9; Mark 9:43, 45, 47), or anyone with whom one might be angry (Matt. 5:22). What if

we used hell the way Jesus did? Would that change the way we use it, whatever we think it will actually be like?

Would it change the way we ourselves live and how we treat others?

WHY THE SILENCE?

Brother Walls is right. There is a resounding silence about hell in many pulpits. Yet I am convinced that the major

cause for silence about final punishment in the churches today is neither loss of gospel conviction nor lack of nerve. It

is rather a widespread and uneasy awareness that the traditional doctrine of everlasting conscious torment rests on

shaky scriptural interpretation, and that it is patently inconsistent with the character of God revealed in Scripture and

especially in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many conscientious Christians, dedicated to evangelism and deeply committed to the authority of Scripture, simply

cannot conceive that the God who loved sinners so much that he gave his Son on the cross for their salvation intends

to preserve the lost alive for the sole purpose of torturing them throughout endless ages. These people hesitate to

teach on hell—not for lack of biblical boldness, but from a nagging suspicion that the traditional understanding of hell

is not biblical. p193p

Does Scripture really teach that God, who “so loved the world” and who does not wish for anyone to perish, will

preserve alive forever everyone who fails to trust in Jesus (including those who never heard of him) so that he can

torture them in fire throughout eternity without end? Or does the Bible actually teach that those who knowingly and

persistently reject God as the only source of life will finally find themselves in hell, where they will disintegrate into

nothingness while suffering whatever pain perfect justice requires in each individual case? Is there any basis for
thinking that hell will involve a pain that purges, so that all who go there will finally be purified by fire as it were and

eventually join God in eternal life and joy?

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

Jesus warns of everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), and Paul tells us exactly what that punishment will be. It will be

everlasting destruction (2 Thess. 1:9)—at the hands of God who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell (Matt.

10:28). We cannot possibly say it more plainly than this: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life

through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Against such a backdrop of eternal death, the gospel promise of eternal life shines all the more brightly. Those are

our only alternatives, and now is the time to make them plain to a world so desperately in need of life. But what is

“eternal punishment” of which Jesus sternly warns? The word “punishment” itself is quite colorless and vague. While

it clearly speaks of retribution imposed by a judge (in this case, God himself), the word “punishment” alone does not

tell us the nature of that retribution. In our own legal system, for example, “punishment” covers quite a spectrum—

from a fine, to probation, to jail or prison (for a short or extended term), to the death penalty—which we regard as the

ultimate “punishment.” p194p

And how about the word “eternal”? Does the fact that it is joined to the word “punishment” require us to conclude that

the lost will endure endless conscious torment? Not at all, if we allow Scripture to define its own terms. “Eternal” fire is

fire which belongs to the Age to Come. It is also eternal in the sense that its effects will be everlasting. The ancient

cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were “reduced to ashes,” illustrate the punishment awaiting evildoers (2 Pet.

2:6; Jude 7). Those cities—which were wiped out thoroughly and forever by fire from heaven (Gen. 19:27–28)—

illustrate “the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Similarly, God will “destroy both body and soul” in hell (Matt.

10:28). The wicked, once destroyed, will be gone forever.

Normally, when the New Testament uses the adjective “eternal” to describe words involving processes or activities,

the result is everlasting, not the process or activity itself. “Eternal salvation” does not suggest an unending process

but rather a result that lasts forever (Heb. 5:9). The same is true of “eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:2), “eternal

redemption” (Heb. 9:12) and “eternal sin” (Mark. 3:29). In the same way, “eternal punishment” is not “eternally

punishing,” and “eternal destruction” is not “eternally destroying.”

Jesus says there will be “punishment” which is “eternal” and Paul amplifies what Jesus left ambiguous. When Christ

returns, says the Apostle, he will “punish” the lost with eternal destruction (2 Thess.1:9). This punishment is “eternal”

in at least two senses. It is “eternal” in quality because it belongs to the Age to Come. It is also “eternal” in quantity,
so to speak, because those who suffer it will remain dead forever. From this death there is no recovery, resurrection,

or escape. p195p

The wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life (Rom. 6:23). This life and this death both concern the Age

to Come. Each lasts just as long as the other. The saved will be resurrected immortal and deathless to enjoy life with

God forever. The lost will be raised for condemnation—but they are not given immortality or deathlessness. Instead

they perish in the Second Death, the Lake of Fire, and are gone forever.

IMMORTALITY: GOD’S GIFT TO THE SAVED

Immortality “means deathlessness and anyone who is “immortal” is incapable of dying. According to the Bible, God

“alone possesses immorality” inherently or in his own nature (1 Tim. 6:16). Human beings are not naturally

“deathless” or “immortal.” We are mortal human creatures who owe our existence every moment to God who made

us (Gen. 2:7; Acts 17:25, 28). We cannot survive death by ourselves. Nothing about us is inherently death-proof. Our

immortality is conditional on God who gives it.

Despite this grim and humbling reality, humans seemingly have always tried to discover or to obtain immortality apart

from God. The Egyptians embalmed their dead and Hindus taught reincarnation. Greek philosophers theorized that

every human possesses a mortal body but also an immortal or deathless “soul,” which has always existed and will

never cease to be. During the second and third centuries after Jesus, certain converted Greek philosophers brought a

form of this pagan notion into the church.

Based on this premise that the human “soul” cannot die but will live somewhere forever, these church fathers

concluded that the wicked will suffer everlasting conscious torment. This teaching, which makes God the supreme

torturer of the universe, overlooks the fact that whenever Scripture ascribes immortality or incorruptibility to humans it

always refers: p196p

1. to the saved, never to the lost;

2. to the body, never to a disembodied soul or spirit;

3. to the Resurrection state, never to the present order.

(Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:52, 53, 54; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Pet. 1:4).
The traditional doctrine of hell also ignores the regular affirmation of Scripture from first to last that God is his

creatures’ only source of existence, and that those who finally refuse God’s grace and gift of life will “die,” “perish,”

and be “destroyed” (Gen. 3:4; Ezek. 18:4; Mal. 4:1–3; Matt. 10:28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 21:8).

All that I have said above is really only another way of saying that God is God and we are not; that “the wages of sin

is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23); and that “God so loved the world

that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” John 3:16).

A STUDY OF HELL

There is considerable discussion these days about the nature of hell. Indeed, I have done my share to stir this

discussion and also to participate in it. Although I grew up with the traditional majority view of unending conscious

torment, a year-long exhaustive study of the whole Bible plus two thousand years of church history forced me to

change my mind. I have recorded in detail the biblical and historical evidence that caused my own mind change in

The Fire That Consumes (www.BarnesandNoble.com), a five hundred-page book with sixteen hundred footnotes that

was a selection of the Evangelical Book Club and that is now popping up in the bibliographies of Bible dictionaries,

religious encyclopedias, and theology textbooks around the world. In Two Views of Hell (InterVarsity Press), I

summarize the evidence in less detail and respond to arguments of my co-author Robert A. Peterson for the

traditional view of unending conscious torment. p197p

Edward William Fudge has been honored by the fact that Cascade Books, the theological/academic arm of Wipf &

Stock Publishers, will release in May 2011 the new revised and enlarged third edition of Fudge’s book, The Fire That

Consumes, featuring a foreword by Professor Richard Bauckham, formerly of St. Andrews University, Scotland, and

now at Cambridge University, U.K. Christianity Today calls The Fire That Consumes “the standard reference on

annihilationism.”

E. Fudge is a preacher, Bible teacher, theologian, author, and a practicing attorney in Houston, Texas. He earned a

master’s degree in biblical languages from Abilene Christian University and a doctor of jurisprudence degree from the

University of Houston College of Law. His books have been published by Baker and InterVarsity among others and

his articles have appeared in Christianity Today. He is a member and former officer of the Evangelical Theological

Society. For much more on the subject of final punishment and hundreds of other biblical topics, see his website at

www.edwardfudge.com.

Posting 20 THE NEED FOR SELF-ESTEEM p198p

Every person has a deep need for recognition from others and a hunger for self-esteem. This is not the invention of

secular humanism or modern psychological theories. This need for recognition and self-esteem finds its roots in the

fact that we have been created in the image of God who does all things “for his own glory.”

Satan was crafty enough to make an appeal to this hunger and need when he tempted our first parents, Adam and

Eve, telling them, “You will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). If achievable, that would certainly provide “recognition from

others” and “self-esteem.”

Satan appealed to something that was good and tempted our first parents to corrupt it. Recognition from others and

hunger for self-esteem must have been good in themselves, otherwise Satan could not have made his appeal to

them in God’s sinless creatures.

Corrupted self-esteem can be called negative self-esteem or sinful pride. One would be hard pressed to know of any

evil that has been more pervasive and done more harm than sinful human pride. Few sins are as vehemently

denounced in the Scriptures than human pride. Self-esteem (properly understood) has a great potential for good and

therefore, when corrupted it has a great potential for evil. p199p

BIBLICAL GUIDELINES

Proper self-esteem is not to be rejected. It must be restored to its God-given role according to some such biblical

guidelines as:

1. Proper self-esteem is a biblically defined view of oneself as a child of God. Fully that and never anything more than

that.

2. It is only by a vital redemptive relationship to Jesus Christ that a person can have such a positive self-esteem.

3. Such a self-image is essential to everyone’s spiritual and psychological well being.

4. Both within the church and in evangelistic outreach the gospel must be communicated so as to engender such a

positive self-image in those who hear it.

Few evangelical Christians would quarrel with a gospel of self-esteem if it was understood as described in these four

guidelines. The biblical call to such a view of ourselves is clear: “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us,
that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” (1 John 3:1). God wants his followers to respect

themselves as equal children of God and to treat all other human beings with the same respect.

The need for self-esteem as taught by Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Robert Schuller, and others has been so stridently

denounced by some of their critics that any defense of such a need is seen as a seduction of evangelical Christianity.

These critics may be surprised to realize that the above four guidelines were gleaned from Schuller’s book Self-

Esteem: The New Reformation (Word Books, 1982). p200p

This is not to say that Schuller has consistently stayed within these guidelines in applying this perception of self-

esteem. Nevertheless, these biblical guidelines should alert overly zealous critics that they ought not to try to debunk

everything that is said about a Christian view of self-esteem.

The insight about self-esteem came to Schuller as a result of his unflagging efforts to bring the gospel to the

unchurched. Schuller calls it “God’s pathway to human dignity” and expressed it as follows:

“What is our Lord’s greatest passion for his church today? I believe that he wants his followers to respect themselves

as equal children of God and to treat all other human beings with the same respect” (Self-Esteem, p. 47).

In his ministry and by his writings, Schuller has worked out many of the practical implications of the need for self-

esteem. He provides extremely helpful insights regarding the relationship between lack of proper self-esteem and

nearly every form of sin.

As seen in the sin of our first parents, the need for positive self-esteem can quickly turn into sinful pride. Therefore

the biblical guidelines laid out above must be followed in developing a Christian view of self-esteem.

The best method to determine whether or not Schuller and others present Christian self-esteem in a legitimate way is

to apply these guidelines to what they say about self-esteem. This is far more difficult and more productive than

simply denouncing every form of self-esteem.

NEW INSIGHTS

Schuller came to understand the need for self-esteem by discovering the deepest felt need in the hearts of the

unchurched people he was trying to reach with the gospel. He found that sinners lack the assurance, comfort, trust,

and positive attitude that comes from respecting ourselves as children of God. God often provides such insight for
understanding an aspect of biblical truth through someone’s practical striving to live in obedience to the Word of God.

Such an insight may be an authentic picture of God’s truth. p201p

It was not simply by reading his Bible that Martin Luther received the insight that he could not be right in God’s eyes

by his deeds. He received his “authentic insight” by prayerfully striving for many years to be made right with God.

Once Luther received his “authentic insight,” the Bible read differently for him and for others with him. Through this

process, certain truths were set before God’s people which now appear to be self-evident to us simply by reading the

Bible. “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law” (Rom. 3:20).

TESTING OUR INSIGHTS

The church at large must validate what individuals perceive to be an authentic insight. Our insights are neither

intrinsically trustworthy nor are they to be accepted merely because they are joyfully received by many people. There

are at least two tests for validating such insights.

There is the consideration of practical usefulness. Theological insights are not useful to God. If they do not help us

give greater praise to God and to live more joyfully in his presence, we need have little to do with them. By the growth

of his worldwide ministry, Schuller has convincingly demonstrated the usefulness of his insight. A positive and

affirming approach is an effective means to use when trying to reach the unchurched with the gospel. Engendering a

positive self-image also provides emotionally and spiritually healthy kingdom workers. Great indeed is the loss to

those churches and individuals who fail to learn the need for self-esteem and how the gospel fills that need. p202p

A second test is to examine the Scriptures”to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11b, RSV). Our insights must be

tested by the Scriptures to see whether they are of God and to know how they relate to the authentic insights that

God gives to others. If notions about self-esteem are accepted without having a strong foundation firmly positioned on

the truth of the Scriptures, they may prove to do more harm than good.

Schuller’s book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation was his attempt to provide the biblical basis for supplying a basic

need that all sinners have—the need for self-esteem. He expected the evangelical community to join him in this

venture to secure a firm biblical basis for his insight. Through the generosity of associates, Schuller’s book was

distributed free of charge to nearly every religious leader in the United States and Canada. Schuller admits that even

with this wide exposure there was not so much as one religious periodical that gave the book a positive review. This

was very disconcerting for Schuller.

The evangelical community, by in large, did not think that Schuller had provided a biblical basis for what he

considered to be an authentic insight. Very few evangelical leaders joined in the search. There is no public evidence

that Schuller has continued the search for a biblical basis for his message of affirmation and acceptance.

Even without an explicit biblical basis, Schuller’s message grew in popularity. Who can deny that through this ministry

great things were accomplished? With the total failure of his book to accomplish its intended purpose, Schuller

appeared to have concluded that no such biblical basis is required. The sentiment has grown that all such

theologizing is divisive and therefore ought not to be attempted. This assumes that our insights are self-authenticating

and whatever God may have revealed in his Word about the matter is irrelevant or secondary at best. p203p

THE FAILURE OF TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY

The rejection that Schuller received in his attempt to provide a biblical basis for his gospel of affirmation and

acceptance is not at all surprising when one considers the history of Christian theology. Ever since the time of

Pelagius, nearly all theology has been done on the basis of premise A, that “All persons are outside of Christ (i.e.

“lost,” “condemned,” “on the way to hell,” “under law,” “children of wrath”) except those who the Bible expressly

declares will be saved.

This traditional premise cannot provide a biblical warrant for announcing and declaring “good news” to all persons in

general or to any person in particular unless there is prior evidence of God’s grace working in the sinner’s heart.

Premise A, if consistently applied, provides a basis only for “bad news” coupled with a good suggestion. Therefore

the burden of the church has been to “tell all persons that they are lost, condemned, on the way to hell, but if they

believe they will be saved” (Chapter 9*).

Schuller’s positive approach of affirmation and acceptance conflicts with the assumption upon which nearly all

evangelical theology has been structured ever since the time of Pelagius (p. 61*). Schuller failed to realize this.

Schuller needed a biblical basis for declaring good news indiscriminately to all persons everywhere.

UNACCEPTABLE CLAIMS

In his book, Schuller made claims that evangelical Christians did not and ought not to accept. Among the

unacceptable claims that Schuller repeatedly makes in his book are the following:
1. By virtue of creation in God’s image, everyperson is a child of God and is worthy of and entitled to recognition from

others and a senseof self-esteem. Everyone, he says, has an “estranged father-child relationship” with God and as

such has infinite value. p204p

Even though commonly accepted and very popular among non-evangelicals, these concepts are not found in the

Scriptures ( Page 22*). On the one hand, Schuller correctly acknowledges that it is only by means of an actual, vital,

redemptive relationship to Christ that a person can have a positive self esteem. On the other hand, needing a basis to

address everyone with good news, Schuller claims that every person has an “estranged father-child” relationship with

God by virtue of their creation in the image of God.

God, according to Schuller, is everyone’s Father in the richest sense of that term. Anyone holding firmly to this

concept will necessarily be led into Absolute Universalism (the belief that everyone will be finally saved, either in this

life or in a future existence). God will not loose any of his children. Evangelical Christians recognized this error in

Schuller’s book.

Schuler also claims that each one of these “children” of God has infinite value. If this is so, then God saved his elect

not out of “sheer grace,” (goodness to the undeserving), but because sinners have an inherent value that is worthy of

the sacrifice that Jesus made in their behalf.

Absolute Universalism would be the result of Schuller’s view because God, the ideal Father with unlimited resources,

must necessarily see to it that all the “estranged” relationships with his children are eventually healed: “Can a

mother . . . have no compassion on the child she has born? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!” (Isa. 49:15).

It necessarily follows that “If we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (Rom.

8:17).Absolute Universalism does provide a consistent (but not a biblical) basis for a positive gospel of acceptance

and affirmation for all persons. p205p

2. Schuller also claims that the essence of original sin is “lack of trust.” At its core original sin is a weak self-esteem,

according to Schuller,evidenced in a lack of trust.

He correctly observes that due to Adam’s sin everyone is born with a negative self-image that expresses itself in

many diverse ways—anxiety, fear, anger, mean rebellion. At a very deep level sinners are afraid, non-trusting,

insecure, and self-defensive.

What must be understood, however, is that a corrupted or weak self-image is a by-product of sin, not the essence of

sin. In the same way, a positive self-image (recognizing oneself as a child of God for Christ’s sake) a by-product of

salvation, not the essence of salvation.

As long as a weak self-image is viewed as the essence of original sin, and a positive self-image is understood to be

the essence of salvation, no biblical basis can be found for self-esteem theology.

Schuller proclaimed his positive gospel of acceptance and affirmation on the basis of what all persons are by reason

of their creation in the image of God. He also claimed that the sin in which all persons are born is essentially lack of

trust. What is required, therefore, is that a person put their trust in a power that is outside and greater than

themselves. It is not surprising therefore that some of Schuller’s critics accuse him of presenting a hope that is

attainable apart from redemption in Christ.

When Schuller appealed to the power of a positive mental attitude, it is not apparent that the appeal was made within

the constraints of the biblical principles he summarized in his book. Occasionally Schuller seemed to promote a

positive mental attitude that is equally as effective for tearing down barns and building bigger ones as it is for seeking

first the Kingdom of God.

A BIBLICAL BASIS p206p

Schuller’s insight is compatible with Dr. Charles Hodge’s observation that “All the descendants of Adam, except those

of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved” ( Page 12-13*). This is the

perspective of Evangelical Inclusivism, or Premise B, that “All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible

expressly declares will be finally lost.”

This biblically warranted assumption is all that we have and all that we need as a basis for a positive ministry of

acceptance and affirmation that can be addressed to every person we meet (Chapter 7*). There are only two other

possible bases for addressing particular persons or groups of persons as being among those for whom Christ died.

One is Absolute Universalism (all persons will be saved), which is not a biblical concept (Chapter 19*). The other is

some objective, absolute, verifiable proof or certainty that this particular person or group actually is among those who

have been reconciled to God through Christ. This kind of “proof” is never available to us, not even for professing

Christians who are closest and dearest to us.

Evangelical Inclusivism provides the only basis we need for viewing ourselves and every person we meet as a child

of God for whom Christ died, unless we have final and decisive evidence to the contrary. Such evidence to the
contrary concerning any person or group of persons will not be given us until “the last day” (John 12: 47, 48). A

ministry of affirmation and acceptance, structured on this biblically warranted assumption, engenders a positive self-

image in those who proclaim it and in those who hear it.

*A Theology of Inclusivism by Neal Punt

Chapter 21 TIESSEN’S ‘ACCESSIBILISM’ p207p

“We do know that no man can be saved except throughChrist; we do not know that only those who know Him can be

saved through Him” (C. S. Lewis, Book II, 5, p.65).

Who Can be Saved? by Prof. Terrance L. Tiessen (InterVarsity Press, March 2004) is “A book that will become a
reference point for all further work in the field” (John G. Stackhouse Jr., Regent College).

In his book, Prof. Terrance L. Tiessen heads in the direction suggested by the great mind and heart of C. S. Lewis. It

is eminently worthwhile to carefully consider what Tiessen finds on his theological journey. Because John G.

Stackhouse Jr. may well be correct in his assessment of Tiessen’s book, in this chapter we will consider how

Evangelical Inclusivism compares to Tiessen’s work.

Tiessen traces the history of Inclusivism back to the second century. He provides convincing biblical evidence for the

following truths among others that are also held by Evangelical Inclusivism: p208p

● all persons, except Jesus Christ, are sinners;

● no one can be saved except through Christ;

● there is an urgent need for missionary endeavor;

● no one is condemned apart from personal, willful, and final indifference to or rejection of whatever revelation God

has given of himself to that particular individual;

● salvation is possible without a New Testament knowledge of Jesus Christ;

● at the moment of physical death each person’s eternal destiny is already determined.
Tiessen also furnishes an amazingly detailed biblical basis for dialogue with other religions while fully maintaining the

exclusivism of Christianity. Serious students of the plan of salvation owe it to themselves to examine this well-written,

scholarly, five hundred-page work.

Tiessen comes very close to what I have been attempting to say for many years when he says, “God will hold all

people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation”

(p. 478). By examining the teaching of the early church fathers in the light of the Scriptures we both reach the

conclusions mentioned earlier. On one section of this trail we take divergent paths. He calls the path he takes

“Accessibilism.” I call the route I take “Evangelical Inclusivism.”

ACCESSIBILISM

The unique characteristic of “Accessibilism” is that “God’s saving grace is universally sufficient so that, on at least one

occasion in each person’s life, one is enabled to respond to God’s self-revelation with a faith response that is

acceptable to God as a means of justification” (Who Can Be Saved?, p. 25). This “faith response” is the work of the

Holy Spirit given only to the elect. p209p

EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM

The essence of “Evangelical Inclusivism” is that we must accept the so-called “universalistic” texts as written (Posting

1, above).. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader

context of the Scriptures as a whole.

In this chapter we will look only at the divergent section of the paths taken. There is a basic difference in our

understanding of how God’s grace becomes effective in the life of sinners. I will point to the most important

impediments I see on the pathway of “Accessibilism.” Undoubtedly, Tiessen sees stumbling blocks on the route taken

by “Evangelical Inclusivism.”

ACCESSIBILISM’S ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT

Faith has an essential role to play in the existential experience or application of salvation according to Accessibilism.

It is so indispensable that there is no application of salvation apart from a deliberate, positive, personal response of

faith exercised by the person who is brought to salvation.

Accessibilism draws this conclusion: Saving grace must be universally sufficient so that every person, on at least one

occasion during their lifetime on earth, is enabled to respond affirmatively to the self-revelation God has given to that

particular person. This “enablement” makes those who do not believe personally and individually responsible for not

believing.

This function of faith in the application of salvation is so essential, according to Accessibilism, that God must and in

fact does reveal himself to every person (including infants who die in infancy, the mentally challenged, and those

living in areas of the world where the gospel has never gone) in a way that is compatible with the varied

circumstances found in the totality of that person’s life experience. God uniquely determines the amount and kind of

self-revelation given to each person, to which they must respond positively in order to be saved. The effective power

of the Holy Spirit that gives some sinners a willingness to respond in a way that is pleasing to God is given only to the

elect. p210p

By reason of physical and other constraints we cannot meaningfully communicate with infants in the womb, other

very young infants, some mentally challenged people, and people living in areas of the world where the gospel has

never gone. From this fact we may not conclude that God is also so limited. To illustrate this point, Tiessen appeals to

the way the babe in Elizabeth’s womb responded to the greeting of Mary (Luke 1:41). Tiessen, a former missionary,

speaks of the experience of missionaries. They report that many respond to the good news by saying that this is the

kind of hope and God (or religion) they have been in search of for many years.

Tiessen notes that the church has always taught that salvation comes by grace “through faith.” “Without faith it is

impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Tiessen correctly stresses that in proclaiming the gospel the urgency and

necessity of faith cannot be overemphasized.

One benefit that flows from Accessibilism, according to Tiessen, is that this universally sufficient enabling grace

reveals God’s justice in imposing judgment upon those who reject or remain indifferent to this enabling grace (Who

Can Be Saved?, p. 478). By contrast, according to Tiessen, traditional Calvinism carries the burden of teaching that

the non-elect are never given a grace that enables them to believe. This inability to believe makes God’s distress

about unbelief

incomprehensible; it places a weight upon original guilt in Adam that the biblical account of final judgment does not

warrant; and it appears to make God morally responsible for the sinner’s sin because it requires something the sinner

is not able to do. p211p

ACCESSIBILISM ACKNOWLEDGES GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

Arminianism teaches that all persons are provided with a potential salvation that can be existentially realized by all

who choose to believe. Accessibilism acknowledges that this universal, sufficient, enabling grace is sovereignly made

effective only by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of God’s elect. Therefore for the redeemed all

boasting is excluded.

IMPEDIMENTS TO TIESSEN’S BASIC CLAIM

I see the following impediments to Tiessen’s claim that God “gives each of us, at least once in our lives, a gracious

enablement to respond in faith, such that we are justly held accountable if we fail to do so” (Who Can Be Saved?, p.

478).

1. Acessibilism places a greater responsibility on those who fail to respond affirmatively to God’s self-revelation

because they have been given an “enablement to respond in faith.” This accounts for God’s great displeasure and

grief over those who fail to believe.

Sinners “are justly held accountable” whether or not God provides “a gracious enablement to respond in faith.”

Tiessen acknowledges that whatever the circumstances no one has a right to disregard or reject God’s self-revelation

for his or her life no matter how God’s will was made known to them. Tiessen’s claim is that God is so sorely grieved

by those who fail to believe because they were enabled “to respond in faith.”

However, he neither provides biblical witness that this “enablement” is given to all persons nor that this “enablement”

accounts for God being sorely grieved at the failure of some to believe.

He gets these concepts from his belief about “what must be.”

2. Tiessen goes on to say that those who do respond to God in faith [only the elect] do so because of an effectual

calling by God—a work that goes beyond enablement—and it alone secures a favorable response from sinners.

Therefore the elect have no reason to boast. p212p

According to Accessibilism, God provides “salvific revelation to all human beings” and “also gives each of us, at least

once in our lives, a gracious enablement to respond in faith, such that we are justly held accountable if we fail to do

so” (p. 478). This “at least” one time “gracious enablement to respond in faith” is something other than the “effectual

calling by God” that only the elect receive.

The difficulty with the distinction that Tiessen makes between these two gifts is that if these two gifts are identical in

effectiveness then all persons will be saved. If, however, they are not identical in effectiveness, then Accessibilism
has the identical burden that traditional Calvinism has. That is, the non-elect do not receive the sovereign gift of “an

effectual calling by God” without which they can not believe and be saved.

3. Nineveh had “more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who [could not] tell their right hand from their left”

(Jonah. 4:11). This undoubtedly means that they did not have the elementary capability of knowing the simplest

things in order to make a judgment (right or left hand) based upon their intellectual capacity. According to

Accessibilism, there is no existential application of salvation apart from a deliberate, positive, personal response of

faith exercised even by infants who are brought to salvation.

It seems most unlikely that the Scriptures intend to teach that the millions of individuals who die while still in their

immature ignorance [infants] and all mentally challenged persons are miraculously enabled to meaningfully decide

whether or not to make the required favorable response. It is precarious to structure such a plan of salvation without

more explicit evidence from the Scriptures than what Tiessen presents. p213p

4. Tiessen, as a Reformed theologian, recognizes that faith is the fruit of salvation. It is not a prerequisite or condition

essential for salvation. Martin Luther observed that we have no more to do with our rebirth than we had to do with our

physical birth.

Lutheran theologians have noted that by the time a person is inwardly or subjectively changed to such a degree as to

be able and willing to believe he or she is no longer the natural person who regards the Gospel as foolishness, but a

new creation, completely transformed within, who has learned to regard the Gospel as wisdom of God. If everyone is

enabled at least at one time during their lifetime to “accept grace” (that is, to believe) they are completely transformed

within, they are new creations in Christ.

Sinners are not in a neutral position from which they can choose good or evil. No one conceived and born in sin has

the capacity within himself or herself to choose the good. They are “dead in transgressions” (Eph. 2:5). Where in the

Scriptures do we find the teaching that before God’s saving grace can be effective in the life of a sinner, that sinner

must be brought to a state of moral equilibrium in which he or she is “enabled to respond to God’s self-revelation with

a faith response that is acceptable to God as a means of justification”? (Who Can Be Saved?, p. 25).

In Posting 5 (above), we established that there is no positive role that repentance, faith, or obedience can play in

order to establish the sinner in the state of grace. It is true, however, that if a sinner refuses to repent, believe, and

walk in newness of life, as God has made these requirements known to them, they bring upon themselves the final

judgment of God. If what we argued in Chapter 5 is valid, then it cannot be said that a deliberate, positive, personal

decision is essential for the salvation of infants who die in infancy, for all those who are mentally challenged, for those
who live their entire life beyond the reach of the gospel as well as for all who have the gospel proclaimed to them.

p214p

ACCESSIBILISM IS BASED ON PREMISE “A”

The problem that Accessibilism attempts to solve is rooted in the fact that ever since the time of Pelagius,

mainstream theologians have understood the gospel’s message to be that “All persons will be finally lost except those

who the Bible declares will be saved,” that is, Premise A (see Introduction, above). With this perspective we expect

the Scriptures to tell us how sinners are “enabled” to be saved.

The Bible is totally silent on the question of how sinners become new creations in Christ other than to tell us that “All

this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18). The Bible does not tell us how those who

are “dead” in sin come to new life in Christ other than to say that this new life is a miracle of grace given to all of

God’s elect. To fill in this silence of the Scriptures, innumerable theories have been advocated to explain

how those who are totally corrupted by sin can come to an actual, existential experience of salvation.

These proposals include: Pelagianism; Semi-Pelagianism; salvation only within the established church; traces of

original goodness that remain in every sinner; a seed of faith implanted in every sinner’s heart; an enabling grace that

attends the Word preached; Religious Instrumentalism; God’s foreseeing those who would of their own accord

believe; Relativism; and Hypothetical Universalism etc.

Evangelical Christians have not been able to agree on which of these schemes, or combination of them, is the correct

biblical picture because all these proposals arise out of the silence of the Scriptures. Tiessen adds “Accessibilism” to

this long and still growing list. p215p

EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM IS BASED ON

PREMISE “B”

On the basis of the so-called “universalistic” texts, Evangelical Inclusivism recognizes that the message of Scripture

is that “All person will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.” With this perspective we do

not expect the Scriptures to tell us how sinners are “enabled” to believe and to be saved. It respects the silence of the

Bible on this question.

It is indisputable that the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation, as Calvinism

correctly maintains, and they do so in terms of “all persons” as Arminianism rightly affirms (Posting 1, above) It is only
the Bible itself that has the authority to make exceptions to the affirmations that are made in the so-called

“universalistic” texts that all persons will be saved (Posting 3, above).

Evangelical Inclusivism holds that all persons are sovereignly and graciously encompassed in God’s election and are

given the gift of faith except those who willfully, persistently, and finally remain indifferent to or reject God’s will for

them, no matter how this was made known to them. How anyone can or would want to remain indifferent to or reject

God’s will for them remains lost in the irrationality of sin. The Bible does not explain how this can happen; it only

records that God is deeply grieved when it does happen. Evangelical Inclusivism acknowledges the paradox of God’s

sovereignty and man’s responsibility as taught in the Scriptures.

Evangelical Inclusivism recognizes that all attempts to explain the discriminations between the elect and the non-elect

are bound to fail. These discriminations do not make sense to us. They are not “logical.” Those who will be finally

saved would have followed the same path as those who are finally lost, if it were not for the sovereign, electing grace

of God that gives them the gifts of repentance, faith, and a willingness to walk in God’s ways. p216p

How can that be? The answer to this question is not given to us in God’s Word and we cannot put God on trial.

Believers must gratefully recognize that they have no obligation whatsoever to resolve this perceived problem. One

merely traces the lines laid out in God’s inspired Word and humbly accepts them.

In this chapter, we focused on the one major element of Accessibilism that differs from Evangelical Inclusivism. This

should not create the impression that the two views are in total opposition to each other. Those who have serious

questions about Evangelical Inclusivism will have many of those questions answered by reading Tiessen’s book.

Those who are inclined to accept Evangelical Inclusivism will be pleased that Tiessen provides a great deal of biblical

evidence that is supportive of both Accessibilism and Evangelical Inclusivism.

Chapter 22 WILL ONLY A FEW BE SAVED? p217p

Nothing is gained by speculating whether few or many will be saved. It may be useful, however, to consider why the

impression that proportionally “few” will be saved is rather common. We cite the following reasons for this impression:

PREMISE “A”

Neither the traditional premise “A”, nor the perspective I propose, premise “B” (Introduction, above), speak directly to

the question of whether few or many will be saved. However, the belief that “All persons will be finally lost except

those who the Bible declares will be saved” (Premise A) has been the premise that nearly all theologians have
worked with ever since the fourth century (Chapter 6, above). This perspective seems to imply that many (perhaps

most) persons will be finally lost.

SCARCITY INCREASES VALUE

Another reason is that scarcity increases the value of most things. Antique collectors are well aware of this. At one

time salt was so scarce it was used as money. The chemical composition of salt has not changed, but today it is so

plentiful it has lost its value as a medium of exchange. If diamonds were as plentiful as gravel, we might pay

someone to haul them away from our property. Because salvation is so extremely valuable, we are biased toward

thinking it must be scarce. p218p

Salvation is not scarce: “Where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom. 5:20). Its price is right: “Come,

buy wine and milk without money and without cost” (Isa. 55:1). The assurance is promised: “For everyone who asks

receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (Matt. 7:8). The command is given: “Go

out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full” (Luke 14:23). The invitation

is issued: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ and let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ Whoever is thirsty, let him come;

and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Rev. 22:17).

THE KINGDOM PARABLES

To portray the great value of salvation, the kingdom of heaven is depicted as a treasure hidden in a field that a

person buys. Consequently, he is the only person who has this “hidden treasure” (Matt. 13:44). Jesus said that the

kingdom of heaven is like a pearl “of great value” that one merchant, by selling “everything he had,” was able to be

the sole owner of that pearl (Matt. 13:45). These two parables depict the high value we ought to place on entering the

kingdom of heaven. But we do not conclude from these two parables that few persons will enter the kingdom of

heaven.

“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matt. 7:14). Does this parable of

“The Two Ways” mean that the way is hard to find because the “gate is small,” that entering the kingdom is difficult

because the road “is narrow,” and that rarely does anyone enter because it says “few find it”?

While this conclusion appears to be plausible, that cannot be the lesson that Jesus intended to teach. Jesus is not

saying that the kingdom of heaven is given to us as a reward for our diligent searching and careful walk and that

because of these difficulties “few” enter the kingdom of heaven. That would be salvation by works. p219p
Furthermore, earlier in Matt. 7 Jesus has already taught that the entrance to the kingdom is not hard to find because

everyone “who seeks finds” it. It is not difficult to attain because to everyone “who knocks, the door will be opened.” It

is not limited to a few because “everyone who asks receives” it (Matt. 7:7, 8). Matt. 7:14 may not be understood to

contradict Matt. 7:7, 8.

The “small gate,” “narrow road,” and “few” finding convey the intrinsic value of salvation, not the extent of its

availability. These expressions have the same meaning as finding the “hidden treasure” and selling everything else in

order to purchase the “pearl of great value.”

These figures of speech are intended to teach us to covet salvation as a rare discovery and an invaluable treasure.

We should be willing to forsake all other interests in order to attain it. Even though access to “the road that leads to

life” is by grace and therefore not difficult, an attitude of thoughtlessly drifting along with the crowd through a “wide”

gate and down a “broad” road is a sure sign that one is not on the road that leads to glory.

The observation has been correctly made that there is no more reason to conclude from the parable of the “Two

Ways” that few will be saved than there is to conclude from the parable of the “Ten Virgins” (Matt. 25:1-13) that

precisely as many will be saved as will be finally lost.

“FOR MANY ARE INVITED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN” (Matt. 22:14) .

This verse is a conclusion to a series of four parables (Matt. 21:28 to 22:14), as the word “for” at the beginning of

verse 14 indicates. The parables are: The Two Sons, The Tenants, The Cornerstone, and The Wedding Banquet.

p220p

“When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard [these] parables, they knew Jesus was talking about them” (Matt.

21:45). Jesus is speaking of these leaders in Israel as representatives of “his own.” The theme of each of these four

parables is the fact that “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:11). The

religious leaders and many of God’s covenant people did not respond favorably to Jesus’ earthly ministry.

We need not think this was a permanent result even among the “Men of Israel.” Peter proclaimed the name of Jesus

and “three thousand were added to their number” in one day (Acts 2:22-41).

Even the poor reception Jesus received was overruled for good, as we see in the ministry of Paul and Barnabas: “We

had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we

now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46, 47).

“For many are invited, but few are chosen” refers to the fact that “few” of his countrymen responded to Jesus’

invitation and therefore “many” from among the Gentiles were invited and came.

Although the Bible nowhere speaks of the relative number of saved compared to those who will be finally lost, it does

reveal that the number of saved will be “great.” “And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came

descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore” (Heb. 11:12).

Amazingly, “Where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom. 5:20).

“LORD, ARE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE GOING TO BE SAVED?” (Luke 13:23) p221p

Jesus did not answer this question. Instead, knowing the questioner’s thoughts (Matt. 9:4), Jesus exposed the pride

that prompted the question.

Jesus refused to answer this question in the context of what is required for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Luke

13:24, 25 reveals the context: “make every effort to enter.” Jesus knew that the questioner relished the thought that

“few” would be saved and he considered himself to be among those favored “few” who “ate and drank with” Jesus

and those in whose streets Jesus taught (vs. 26). He was among those who claimed “Abraham as our father” (Matt.

3:9) and therefore mistakenly thought that therefore his place “at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:28, 29)

was secure.

Jesus’ response is that the questioner need not think only the Jews would enter kingdom of God. There would be

many coming from all directions (Luke 13:29) and they might well have precedence over those who think their place

is secure. Jesus’ concluding thought in response to the question asked in Luke 13:23 is “Indeed there are those who

are last who will be first, and the first who will be last” (vs. 30).

HONORING GOD’S NAME

There is nothing more sacred than God’s name. He does all things for His name’s sake. God has proclaimed his

name. Not only in the life to come, but also in this present age, God wants to be praised for his exceedingly great

mercy. Therefore, he declares who he is over against what he reluctantly does in Exod. 34:6, 7: “The Lord, the Lord

the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to

thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and a sin” who reluctantly “does not leave the guilty unpunished.”

p222p
Even though few responded to Jesus’ ministry, nevertheless the outcome is that “People will come from east and

west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29).

Chapter 23 COMMON CRITICISMS OF EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM p223p

There are many superficial criticisms that have been registered against Evangelical Inclusivism. However, one critic

made some well-reasoned objections to what I have written about Protestant (or Evangelical) Inclusivism that are

worthy of serious response. .

I sent a direct response to each of the criticisms to the 2,400 recipients on my Email list. These responses were very

helpful in fleshing out the implications of what I have written. I culled ten of these that would be helpful to the readers

of this book and report the substance of them below.

Although this critic used some pejorative phrases, he began by giving a reasonably accurate summary of my work

followed by these criticisms:

1. “Rather than starting his discussion with man’s fall in Adam, Punt starts with man’s salvation in Christ and works

backward to Adam.”

That I do. Creation itself is part of the “background” for Christ’s work on earth: “All things were created . . . for him”

(Col. 1:16). So also “man’s fall” was part of the reality into which Christ came. Col. 1:15-20 reveals Christ’s place in

this real-life drama: “He is the beginning . . . so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (emphasis added).

Especially when talking about “the good news,” it is the second Adam (Jesus Christ) and not the first Adam who “is

the beginning” and occupies the place of “supremacy.” p224p

Those who insist on beginning “with man’s fall in Adam” do so because they think mankind needs first of all to be told

they are sinners. Such is not the case. God has already spoken to sinners about his wrath (see Rom. 1:18, 19, 20;

2:15). Because God’s wrath against sin has been “made plain to them . . . since the creation of the world,” therefore

many are asking, “Who can show us any good?” (Ps. 4:6) The extremes to which the masses of mankind have gone

in sacrificing their possessions, their bodies, and even their own children in order to appease the “gods,” whom they

consider to be against them, testifies to the seriousness with which they view their plight.

Despite boasting of their goodness; sinners know better. At a deep level, sinners are afraid, non-trusting, insecure,

and self-defensive. What the masses of mankind need to know is that the same holiness that accuses them has

provided a full and free forgiveness for their sins. Only then will they dare to admit to themselves, to God, and to

others that they are sinners worthy of judgment (Chapter 9, above).

2. “Punt refuses to see faith—even faith created by the Spirit of God—as a ‘condition’ of salvation,” says this critic. To

substantiate this claim, he quotes Dr. Cornel Venema (President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America

Reformed Seminary) to the effect that “faith must be termed a ‘condition’ for salvation” (from “an unpublished 1987

review of Punt’s first book”).

“Even the very best we do in this life” is “imperfect and stained with sin” (Heid. Cat. Q & A 62, emphasis added).

Insofar as faith is something we do, it is “imperfect and stained with sin.” As such, our faith cannot be a “condition” for

our salvation. God has not chosen “the intrinsically unworthy act of faith,” or “the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a

condition of salvation” (Canons of Dort, Rej. of Errors, III, emphasis added) p225p.

Faith is the “fruits and effects” of election; it is not a “condition” to bring us into the state of grace. “Election [to

salvation] took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good

quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be saved.”

“Election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation, faith, holiness and other saving gifts and at last eternal life

itself, flow forth from election as its fruit and effects (Canons of Dort I, Art. 9, emphasis added).

To say that faith is a condition for salvation contradicts these words of the apostle: “God who has saved us and called

us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was

given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added).

Faith is necessary and it “is indispensable to the reception of the gospel.” However, we must pursue the question,

“Why is faith ‘indispensable to the reception of the gospel?’” When this question is pursued ( Chapter 5, above), it

becomes clear that both the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds emphatically deny that faith is a “condition” or

“prerequisite” for salvation.

3. My critic says Report 30 (Acts of Synod 1980 of the Christian Reformed Church, pp. 468–558), a three-year study,

is “hopelessly muddled.”

No matter how he chooses to characterize Report 30, the same cannot be said about Synod’s “recommendations”

and “grounds” for adopting Report 30 and for referring it “to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons

on election and reprobation. —adopted” (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 76). p226p

Report 30 gave an emphatic “no” to Dr. Harry Boer’s complaint. “The heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non”

(Boer’s words) of his complaint was that the Canons of Dort teach that “a segment of mankind is consigned to

everlasting damnation before they ever come into being” (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 497). Synod concluded that the

Canons of Dort do not teach that God has “consigned certain human beings to damnation apart from any merit or
demerit on their part.”

With this emphatic “no,” Synods 1980 and 1981 embraced the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism and with it the good

and necessary implication that all who die in infancy are saved (Chapter 11, above).

4. This critic dismisses what I have written about the so-called “universalistic” texts by simply repeating what

Calvinists have traditionally said in their interpretation of these passages. In this way the dispute has continued for

more than four centuries.

Does this critic really believe that he, perhaps in collaboration with some professors, will be able to refute the fact

that: The so-called “universalistic” texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have consistently

maintained, and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed? (Chapter 1, above). By so

doing they will, after more than 400 years of debate finally have proven that the so-called “universalistic” texts to not

say “all men.”

5. My critic cites many biblical passages that clearly say “All those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be

saved.” From these passages he concludes, “Only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” p227p

He does not claim that I deny what these passages say. The objection is that I say these passages do not mean:

“only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.”

It is, of course, a fallacy to say that: “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved,” means “only those who

believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” It is just as reasonable to say that “all apples are fruit” means “only

apples are fruit.” That is an obvious violation of Logic 101.

C.S. Lewis was fully aware of the many scriptural passages that say “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be

saved.” However, Lewis does not draw the faulty conclusion that therefore “only those who have a New Testament

knowledge of Jesus Christ will be saved.” Lewis says, “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ;

we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him” (Book II, 5, p. 65, emphasis added).

6. It is said by my critic that I am in a “confessional conflict” with Heidelberg Catechism Q & As 20, 60, and 65. He

notes that these

questions were part of the charges filed against me in a heresy trial.

This is an easy charge to make if one neither refers to my response to these charges nor the outcome of the heresy

trial that contained these charges. These charges made their way to the national Synod of 1985 where the following

recommendation was adopted:

“That synod not sustain the appeal of the Lethbridge CRC against the decision of Classis Chicago South re the views

of Rev. Neal Punt.

Ground: The appeal does not prove that Classis Chicago South erred when it decided that the views of Rev. Punt do

not contradict the Scriptures or the creeds. Adopted” (Acts of Synod, 1985, p. 790 of the Christian Reformed Church).

p228p

For a full account of this trial and its outcome see Chapter 24 (below).

7. I have said there is nothing a sinner can do to move God to “not count their sins against them” Therefore, this critic

says, it makes no sense for me to also say; “All they must do is ‘accept’ the good news that God has already

reconciled them to himself.“

There is, of course, nothing sinners can do to move God to “not count their sins against them” because “All this is

from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18). Sins are not counted against God’s elect

because their sins were nailed to the cross 2,000 years ago (See last part of Chapter 9 above, “RECONCILED!─

PAST TENSE.”).

“Accepting this good news” (to believe) is not an attempt to “move God not count their sins against them.” It is

essential for those who have heard the gospel to “accept this good news” because to refuse to do this is to reject the

will of God as it has been made known to them. It is not because by “accepting this good news” they fulfill a condition

for salvation (Chapter 5, above).

8. “Oddly enough, Evangelical Inclusivism would seem to make abortion the most certain means of evangelism ever

devised!,” my critic opines. The editor of Christian Renewal (a Canadian publication) thought enough of this quote to

make it a prominent sidebar in an article written by my critic.

The same could then be said for godly parents who “ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children

whom God calls out of this life in infancy” (Acts of Synod, 1962, p. 107). p229p

My critic and the editor of Christian Renewal evidently believe that some infants are “…consigned to everlasting

damnation before they ever come into being.” The argument is that with Evangelical Inclusivism all who die before
they can personally, willfully, reject God’s will for them, would be saved. Thus abortion becomes: “the most certain

means of evangelism.”

The above argumentation is a repetition of the charge that Dr. Harry Boer made against the Canons of Dort. The

Bible does not say or imply that God consigns some persons to damnation before they come into existence. The

Canons of Dort do not teach any such thing (Chapter 11, above). To say or imply that perhaps God does consign

some person to hell, before they are born, is a very precarious position to take and may be blasphemous.

9. It is said that I “force” the interpretation of every one of the so-called “universalistic” texts through a “grid” in order

to get a consistent result.

What I am saying is that “We may not arbitrarilyprohibit the so-called ‘universalistic’ texts from ever saying that ‘all

persons will be saved.’” This is not the adoption of a “grid.” It is denying both Arminian and Calvinist theologians the

use of a grid they have used for centuries which is: “No text may ever say, ‘All persons will be saved.’”

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians can accept what I say about the so-called “universalistic” texts in Chapter 1 (above)

without violating their basic assumption, namely that:: “All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible

declares will be saved.”

10. Portions of Articles 27, 28, and 29 of the Belgic Confession are quoted to claim that Evangelical Inclusivism

contradicts what these articles say about the “one catholic or universal Church.” These articles describe the Church

as “a gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it” and

“all people are obliged to join and unite with it” and submit “to its instruction and discipline.” “All believers” ought “to

join this assembly wherever God has established it.” p230p

My critic continues: “There is nothing spiritualized” about the definition of this church as found in Article 29 of the

Belgic Confession. Its members are defined “as those who bear ‘the marks of Christians,’ including a faith that

receives Jesus Christ as the only Savior.” This definition alone would seem to dictate that either Evangelical

Inclusivism or the Belgic Confession fails to ‘fully agree with the Word of God,’” says this critic.

We ought to keep two thoughts in mind about the Belgic Confession’s description of the true church:

1) Guido de Bres, and the other authors of this confession, lived in the age when theologians seldom seemed to

consider that there were entire nations and peoples who were never exposed to the teachings of the Bible. All of
civilization was pictured as being Christian or those opposed to Christianity. In such a scenario everything described

in these three articles makes very good and understandable sense.

2) At one point my critic says, “We learn that all are called to exercise faith according to their capacity.” We can

probably agree that those who die in infancy and certain mentally challenged persons never did “have the capacity” to

join such a church as described in the Belgic Confession. So also those who have never been exposed to the written

Word of God during their lifetime on earth do not “have the capacity” to either join or withdraw from the assembly of

believers. They have never heard of “a gathering of those who are saved.” p231p

Chapter 24 THE 1985 HERESY TRIAL p232p

The scriptural teaching of unconditional election speaks of a definite number of persons—less than all—who, before

the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3, 4), were chosen in Christ to a certain-to-be-realized salvation. From this fact it

seems reasonable to conclude that there must also be some who were not so chosen and their having been “passed

by” accounts for their damnation.

THE OPPOSITE OF ELECTION

However, the Bible never speaks this way and neither may we. It has been said that in this particular matter the Bible

is “splendidly illogical.” According to the Scriptures, the opposite of election to salvation is not non-election resulting in

damnation. Rather, the opposite of election to salvation is willful, persistent, disobedience to the will of God as it has

been made known to the person who is condemned. We must accept what the Scriptures teach concerning election

and non-election even though these concepts cannot be neatly harmonized in our mind.

Because the many so-called “universalistic” texts speak of salvation in terms of all persons, Evangelical Inclusivism

teaches that all persons are elect in Christ and are certain to come to salvation, except those who the Bible expressly

declares will be finally lost. Those who will be lost are those, and only those, who, in addition to their sin in Adam,

finally reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in

nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) OR in gospel presentation (Chapter 2, above). p233p

THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST ME

This definition of the elect has vast implications for our Christian life. These relate to our theology, the message of

missions, the cultural mandate, and many other practical aspects of Kingdom activity. In light of these significant

implications, it is not surprising the Lethbridge Christian Reformed Church council of Alberta, Canada concluded that
in advocating the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism I was promoting a doctrine that must be contrary to the

Scriptures and the Reformed creeds.

After some correspondence with me, a six-page, single-spaced document containing four sections of charges leveled

against my writings was sent to my church council. These charges and my written response to them were thoroughly

discussed in the council (elders and deacons) of the church of which I was the pastor. The council concluded that

these charges did not prove that I had contradicted the Scriptures or creeds either in my book Unconditional Good

News (Eerdmans, 1980) or in other published articles.

CLASSIS CHICAGO SOUTH

The Lethbridge Council appealed this decision to Classis Chicago South. The Classis was comprised of the fourteen

Christian Reformed churches in the area. A Classis advisory committee prepared the following responses to the

Lethbridge charges and distributed them to the churches five weeks before the special evening session of classis.

The record of these charges is maintained by the Stated Clerk of Classis Chicago South.

On March 1, 1985, the Kedvale Avenue church sanctuary was filled with delegates and spectators. Even in those

days it was uncommon for a minister to be officially charged with heresy. p234p

The following four responses to the charges brought against me are transcribed from the minutes of that special

evening session of Classis Chicago South. Classis responded as follows:

“A) Classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt contradicts the Scripture or the creeds when:

1. He uses the terms “unconditional good news,” or “objective announcement” as a definition of the gospel.

Ground:

It is possible to use a restricted or narrower definition of the gospel than one finds in the creeds or the Scriptures and

still stay within the bounds of the truths expressed in the creeds and the Scriptures.

2. He holds that faith is not essential in establishing us in the state of grace.

Ground:

The quotations in point II of the charges do not show that Punt disagrees with the creeds. Their summary of the

creedal teaching Punt affirms (Cf. Response A, Para. 2, p. 5).

3. He affirms that “Believers must regard all others as joined with them in obeying the cultural mandate unless and

until those with whom they work reject the revelation God has given. . .” and makes similar statements.

Ground:

This position respects the antithesis and only recommends Scriptural tolerance in determining who is on the other

side. “For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).

4. He contends that all who die in infancy are saved, since no one is condemned on the basis of original sin alone.

p235p

Ground:

The creeds do not address this issue. All the references (I,1, 17; II Rej. Of errors, 5, III/IV, Rej. Of Errors 1) state that

all (elect and non-elect) are worthy of condemnation on the basis of original sin. This Punt nowhere denies. Canons II

rejection of errors 5 has as its obverse, “some shall be condemned because of original sin and some are not free

from the guilt of original sin.” But this may apply only to those who are also condemned and punished forever, not

only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins (I, 15).

Furthermore, the isolated unexegeted texts found in charge four do not in any way prove that the position taken by

Rev. Punt contradicts the Scriptures.

B) That classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt contradicts the creeds when he affirms that

“whoever brings the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are ‘elect in Christ,’” but that

Punt does not give sufficient attention to the proper sense of the creeds.

Each of the four responses (above) were discussed and voted on separately. The committee members and all

twenty-eight delegates to Classis were free to ask whatever questions they wished. I was in the “hot seat” for nearly

three hours. Each of the above four responses were adopted by Classis.

Following the adoption of the four points in section A, section B was placed on the table for discussion and questions.

I informed Classis that I refused to be judged by the nebulous phrase that the committee called “the proper sense of

the creeds.” I said I had subscribed to the creeds “as written.” Classis was obligated to cite those portions of the

creed I had violated, if any. This refusal stymied Classis. p236p

At the request of the chairman of Classis, I met separately with the members of the advisory committee during a

recess. I suggested, and the committee agreed, that the following paragraph be substituted as section B. The

following was adopted by Classis:

A DIFERENT ASSUMPTION
B) “Although Classis recognizes, with the Lethbridge consistory, that the assumption underlying the creeds is different

than the one of Punt, namely ‘whoever brings the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are

elect in Christ,’ Classis declares that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt goes beyond the limits set by the Word

of God or the creeds.”

I had no objection to this statement. As far back as page four of my first book, Unconditional Good News, I

acknowledged that I worked with a different assumption than that which was “common to all mainstream historical

theological traditions.” This has always been the position of Evangelical Inclusivism.

Do we have a right to work with a different assumption than that which the authors of the creeds had in mind? I

believe we do. In adopting the creeds, the church was so careful to include only those things that are clearly taught in

the Scriptures that the authors’ assumptions found no place in the creeds. Therefore Classis was unable to find any

place where I contradicted the creeds.

APPEAL TO SYNOD 1985

Lethbridge appealed the decisions of Classis to the national synod (1985) of the CRC. The advisory committee of

Synod reviewed the six pages of charges presented by Lethbridge, my reply to them, and Classis’ summary and

disposition of them. The following recommendation was presented to the full Synod of the Christian Reformed Church

and adopted by it: p237p

That synod not sustain the appeal of the Lethbridge CRC against the decision of Classis Chicago South re the views

of Rev. Neal Punt.

Ground: The appeal does not prove that Classis Chicago South erred when it decided that the views of Rev. Punt do

not contradict the Scriptures or the creeds. Adopted (Acts of Synod, 1985, p. 790).

Q & As 20, 60, AND 65 OF THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

Included in the four summaries of the charges leveled against me was the claim that the premise of Evangelical

Inclusivism is inconsistent with Heidelberg Catechism Q & As 20, 60, and 65. An initial reading of these questions

and answers seems to indicate that they are inconsistent with premise B that “All persons will be saved except those

the Bible declares will be finally lost.”

Q. 20 — Are all men saved through Christ just as we all were lost through Adam?
A. No. Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his blessings.

Q. 60 — How are you right with God?

A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.

Q. 65 — You confess that by faith alone you share in Christ and all his blessings; where does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the

holy sacraments. p238p

To say that Evangelical Inclusivism contradicts these questions and answers, one must assume that the purpose of

the Catechism, when it speaks of “true faith,” is to delineate all those, and only those who will be saved. This cannot

be the case for at least three reasons:

First, when the Catechism asks “What is true faith?” it answers “True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that

everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit

through the gospel” (Q & A 21). If this is intended to describe “all those, and only those, who will be saved,” then no

one dying in infancy and many mentally challenged persons can be saved.

It would also mean that no one living their entire life beyond the reach of the gospel could be saved. This has never

been the confession of the Reformed Church. At most the church has said the Scriptures do not address this

question.

Second, to say that the above questions and answers cannot be harmonized with the premise of Evangelical

Inclusivism would be to say that God has made “true faith” to be a “condition” for salvation. Such is not the case:

“Election [to salvation] took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any

other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be

saved” (Canons of Dort I, Art. 9, emphasis added).

God has not chosen “the intrinsically unworthy act of faith,” or “the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of

salvation” (Canons of Dort, Rej. of Errors, III, emphasis added).

Third, it is a misuse of the Catechism to treat it as a guide instructing us how to lead unbelievers to Christ. The entire

Catechism is an exposition of Question and Answer 2. This question does not ask: “What must you know to be

saved?” The theme of the entire Catechism is: “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?” What
comfort? The comfort of knowing “That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul in life and in death—to my

faithful Savior Jesus Christ” (Q & A 1). p239p

The Catechism addresses itself to mature individuals who have been meaningfully exposed to the truth of the gospel

and have confessed Jesus Christ as their “faithful Savior.” The subject matter of the entire Catechism is “What is

necessary for these believers to know so they can “live and die in the joy of” knowing they have been redeemed and

made righteous in God’s sight. To experience this comfort, they must know how great their sin and misery are, how

they are delivered from their sins and misery, and how to thank God for such deliverance.

The expressed purpose of the entire Catechism is to expound this question: “What must you know to live and die in

the joy of this comfort?” The answer is “Three things . . .” The three things mentioned are the subject matter of the

three parts of the Catechism. Evangelical Inclusivism fully agrees in order “to live and die in the joy” knowing they

belong to their Savior, every believer must know these three biblical truths: 1) how great their sin and misery are; 2)

how they are delivered from their sin and misery and; 3) how to thank God for such deliverance.

Chapter 25 CHRISTIANITY TODAY ARTICLEp240p

Along with Drs. Roger Nicole and Clark Pinnock* I was invited to write one of three articles for the March 1987 issue

of Christianity Today. These articles appeared under the general theme: “Universalism; Will Everyone Be Saved?” At

the time I referred to “Evangelical Inclusivism” as “Biblical Universalism.” My article, “All Are Saved Except” (below),

provides an accurate summary statement of Evangelical Inclusivism and my reason for still advocating this premise

today.

ALL ARE SAVED EXCEPT

Our understanding of salvation depends on which of the following two assumptions we work with: (A) all are outside

of Christ (i.e. “lost,” “condemned”) except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be saved (Thus, Rom. 1:18–

3:20 and parallel passages become the starting point—prolegomenon—for structuring the doctrine of salvation); or

(B) all persons are elect in Christ (i.e., “certain to be saved”) except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be

finally lost (See Introduction, above.).

Throughout the centuries, the first premise has dominated Christian thinking. The biblical doctrine of original sin—the

belief that all persons, except Jesus Christ, are children of wrath by nature, inclined to do evil, and deserving of

eternal death—led many to the conclusion that all persons are outside of Christ except those whom the Bible

expressly declares will be saved. p241p

This perspective continued because its only challenge came from absolute universalists (those who teach that all

persons will be saved). The church instinctively knew that such was not the overall message of Scripture, and

summarily rejected that teaching (and rightly so).

Absolute universalism cannot be an option for those who acknowledge the authority of Scripture. However, in our

dismissal of universalism we have closed our eyes to the fact that many verses in the Bible speak of salvation in

terms of all persons. These universalistic texts cannot be so easily ignored (Chapter 1, above). Failure to

acknowledge them hinders our ability to understand the good news. And yet, how do we reconcile God’s judgment

with texts that imply universal salvation?

A NEW STARTING POINT

Three facts help resolve that problem: (1) the “universalistic” texts speak of an actual salvation and they do so in

relationship to all men; (2) some persons will be lost; and (3) those who will be lost are those and only those who, in

addition to their sin in Adam, finally persist in refusing to have God in their knowledge.

These biblical givens can be held in a tension-filled unity by recognizing that the so-called universalistic texts are not

universals. They are generalizations, that is, they are universal statements that have known exceptions. In this case,

we can best account for these biblical givens by acknowledging the overall message of salvation is that all persons

will be saved except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.

This interpretation is consistent with the way God has dealt with mankind throughout history. He created man good

and in a right relationship to himself. “And God blessed them” (Gen. 1:28). This blessing, together with the joy of

living in God’s presence, was not something conferred upon mankind in response to, or conditioned by, obedience.

However, these blessings and fellowship with God were no longer enjoyed when man refused to live in obedience to

God’s revealed will. “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:1;6b–17). Mankind’s relationship to God followed

this pattern: “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezek.

28:14). The blessing was unconditional; the judgment had to be earned. p242p

Again, when establishing his covenant with Abraham, God did not propose or prescribe certain conditions so that by

keeping them Abram could attain a favorable status with God. “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless

you, and make your name great so that you will be a blessing” (Gen. 12:2).
God affirmed this covenant with the entire nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. He made his will know to them and gave

them the Ten Commandments. The commandments were not given so that by keeping them the Israelites could

become the recipients of God’s favor. The commandments came to Israel with the assurance “I am the Lord your

God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2).

Thus, the Israelites were the recipients of God’s blessing, but it was also true that if they willfully, persistently, and

finally refused to walk in accordance with God’s revealed will, they would not experience his blessing or live in

fellowship with him.

UNCONDITIONAL GOOD NEWS

In the light of this history, we have reason to expect that salvation would also come as an announcement of

unconditional good news accompanied with a threat of judgment upon disobedience. Salvation is by grace;

condemnation is by works. (Rom. 3:23). p243p

The good news is that the obedience of the second Adam has overcome all the dreadful effects of the disobedience

of the first Adam except for those who finally refuse to have God in their knowledge. That is to say: All persons are

elect in Christ except those whom the Scripture expressly declares will be finally lost. It may be helpful to think of this

premise as a “qualified universalism.” The necessary limiting qualifications to universalism are so clearly spelled out

in Scripture that I do not hesitate to call this premise “biblical universalism.”

To so view the overall message of Scripture is foreign to our way of thinking. It raises many questions. But consider

the following:

1. Biblical Universalism does not say we should assume that all persons are converted. We are to assume they are

elect in Christ unless we have decisive and final evidence to the contrary. Their subjective salvation, their

regeneration, their new birth and conversion may take place at any point in time during their earthly life.

2. Saying “All the descendants of Adam are saved,” and allowing only for biblically declared exceptions, does not

imply that all persons are initially elect in Christ but subsequently some of them are removed from this union with

Christ.

Such a view would contradict the scriptural teaching of the security of those who are “in Christ,” as well as John 3:36,

which says of those who disobey the Son that “the wrath of God rests upon” (Greek: “remains upon”) them. God’s

wrath was never removed from them.

3. Biblical universalism does not deny or in the least degree compromise the scriptural teaching concerning the sin of

Adam and its devastating effect upon all his descendants. Due to the sin of Adam, all persons, except Jesus Christ,

are not only worthy of eternal judgment, but they will actually suffer eternal death on the basis of their sin in Adam

unless the sovereign electing grace of God intervenes to rescue them from such a fate. p244p

What has been overlooked, however, is that the electing grace of God does intervene on behalf of every person

except those who willfully, personally, and finally “refuse to have God in their knowledge.”

4. Biblical universalism does not negate the need for a definite decision to accept Christ as Savior. Everyone to whom

the gospel is presented must repent, believe, and begin to walk in accordance with God’s will or they will not be

saved.

If we use this premise rather than the idea that all are lost, some progress could be made between Arminians and

Calvinists toward a common understanding of the good news.

A NEW VIEW OF THE LOST

To put the premise of biblical universalism into practice is to view every person, and treat him or her, as one “for

whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11) unless, and until, they give decisive and final evidence to the contrary. The approach

of biblical universalism breaks down the barriers between people. It promotes a feeling of genuine concern and

mutual trust. It helps overcome prejudices that arise out of fear because we view others apathetically—or worse still,

with suspicion. On this basis we are to view all persons as heirs of the kingdom of heaven; bring to them the good

news of what God in Christ has done for them; exhort them to repent, believe, and obey; help them, counsel them,

and, if need be, warn them to flee the wrath which is sure to come on all who disregard the witness of God in Christ

Jesus our Lord. p245p

Because we will not have final and decisive evidence to the contrary until the last day, we must approach all people

with the perspective that “[Christ] is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole

world” (1 John 2:2). This gives us biblical warrant for regarding all persons as equal children of God. And it exhorts us

to warn them that persistent refusal to accept God’s provision for salvation will be just cause for their condemnation.

________________________________________

By Neal Punt, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Evergreen Park, Illinois, and author of Unconditional Good

News (Eerdmans, 1980)

* In 1987 Pinnock accepted the premise I advocated in the above article (Chapter 15, above).
THE Christianity Today INSTITUTE talks to Neal Punt p246p

What reaction did your book, Unconditional Good News, create?

It was received quite favorably, though some in my own denomination thought I was contradicting Reformed

theology. In fact, the book was brought before the local church and our classis where I was grilled rather thoroughly.

Then, the full synod was asked to rule on it. In each case, it was concluded I hadn’t violated either our creeds or the

Scriptures.

Were you surprised at the reaction?

Not at all. A new perspective takes a good deal of time and thought before it can be discussed intelligently. I first ran

across the idea of Biblical Universalism in Charles Hodge’s writings, eighteen years before I started writing the book.

If it took me that long to feel comfortable with it, I can’t expect others to accept my ideas without question.

Some might come to the conclusion that your concept of salvation is really a form of Arminianism. How would you

respond?

I’ve had Arminians criticize the book for being too Calvinistic, and Calvinists have said it’s too Arminian. That suits me

just fine because it shows that maybe these two points of view have more in common than we think.

What effect did the actual writing of the book have on your pastoral ministry?

It stimulated the process of finding sermon material. If all pastors would read and study for personal edification rather

than for next Sunday’s sermon, they would discover more sermon material than they could use. As I worked on the

book, I felt as if I was walking in an orchard. Like trees overburdened with fruit, sermon ideas fell before me.

In light of the criticism of Unconditional Good News, are you concerned about how your next book will be received?

Not really. Basically it is the same book rewritten for a general audience. It will undoubtedly attract more attention, but

theology must be a communal work. If I’m wrong I want to be corrected. But so far, no one has been able to refute my

understanding that all are saved except those whom the Bible says will be lost. p247p

SUBJECT INDEX

1 Timothy 4:10 Misused, 115

Absolute Universalism, see Universalism

Accessibilism, 207; on exclusivism of Christianity, 208; similar to teachings of evangelical inclusivism, 208; unique

characteristic of, 208-209; essential function of faith, 209-210; acknowledges God’s sovereignty, 211; impediments

to, 211-214; based on premise A, 214-215

Adam, and Christ, Analgy of, 49

Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

After life confrontation, see Post Mortem

All are . . . Some are not, 30

Arminianism, on universalistic texts, 31

Assumption, only basis for promises, announcements and demands of the gospel, 68-72, 90, 97; biblically warranted,

73; what if not true, 89, 95, 99; verifiable proof not availableto us, 90, 98; approach for leading to the Lord, 96;

Assurance of Salvation, 185

Athanasius, on salvation granted to every one, 61

Augustine, rejected Pelagius’ view, 61

Authentic Instincts, 201; must be tested, 201-203

Back To The Early Church, 60

Baptism, same importance for adult and infant, 80-81, 172-174, 176-177; sign of the covenant, 172

Barnes, Rev. Douglas see Christian Renewal

Bavinck, J. H. On Bible addressed to church and world, 66; on Luke 23, 91-92

Because not found in John 3:16, ─52

Belgic Confession, 230-2

Biblical fact # 1, ─13; # 2, ─20’ # 3. ─30; # 4, ─39

Biblical facts, four listed, 10

Biblical Universalism see Evangelical Inclusivism, 10; see also premise B, 9

Blessings unconditional/ judgments earned pattern, 36-38

Boer, Dr. Harry, his complaint, 102; Synod’s response to, 103; Report 30, 102-105; Implication of Report 30, 105-108;

confirmed by Synod 1981, 108; light shed by Report 30 endorses concept of Evangelical Inclusivism, 108

Bonda, Dr. Jon, The One Purpose of God, 110; allows no exceptions, 111; the greater hope, 111; possible

exceptions, 112;

Calvin, John, Need to know grace before one can repent, 87; on unlimited atonement, 158; no difficulty with so-called

universalistic texts, 161-162, 164; on Christ’s intercession, 163; only one apparent reference to limited atonement,

164; refutes physical presence in elements, 165; arguments against Calvin’s view of faith, 168-169

Calvinism, on universalistic texts, 31

Canons of Dordt, I, 9 ─51, 225, 238; l, 15 ─26; ii, 5 ─97, 175, 235; Rej. of Errors III ─225, 238; elucidation of, 104; on

Gospel to be announced to all persons, 175; on unworthiness or imperfection of faith, 225; on faith as fruit, not

condition of salvation, 225, 238; on “all have sinned” as generalization, 32; on Christ as exception, 32

Christ, analogy between Adam and Christ, 49; as Second Adam, 110-111; explicit knowledge of not essential to

salvation, 49

Christian Renewal, responding to, 223; second Adam deserves preeminence, 223-224; faith is not a condition of

salvation, 224-225; report 30 not muddled, 225-226; defends traditional Calvinistic views of universalistic texts, 226;

claims all who believe means only those who believe, 226-227; Evangelical Inclusivism contradicts Heidelberg

Catechism Q & A,s (20, 60, 65), 227-228, 237; abortion then acceptable, 228-229; claims I use a grid for certain

texts, 229; articles 27, 28 29 of Belgic confession do not contradict Evangelical Inclusivism, 229-231
Christianity Today Article, 240

Church Membership, advantage of, 176-178

Church, see Visible Church

Circumcision, Old Testament sign of covenant, 171-173

Clark Pinnock, 146

Classes or kinds of persons exist only in our minds, 142-144, 154-155

Conditional salvation, can lead to pride, 185

Covenant, benefits of, 167-177; initiated with Abraham, 172; necessarily expressed in words, 172-174; New,175-176;

Old, 175-176; is the visible church, 172; salvation found outside the covenant line, 173-174; non-covenant members

treated similarly, 176-178

Definite atonement, see Particular atonement

DeKoster, Dr. Lester see Back Cover

Description is not prescription, 52

DeJong, Dr. A.C., All in plural seldom means all classes, 143

Demands of the gospel addressed only to those who hear it, 154

Discriminations, God’s, 51, 52, 58, 59; no need to resolve, 59

Early church, used premise B, 60-62;

Election, of a definite number of persons, 232; presumed to be true of all persons, 136
Elucidation of Canons of Dort, see Report 30

Especially means more of the same, 118-119

Exclusiveness of Christianity, see Uniqueness of Christianity.

Eternal Judgment, deserved by all, 24; never experienced apart from persistent willful sin, 25-28

Ethical demands, see Gospel demands

Evangelical Inclusivism in The Christian Reformed Church, 102

Evangelical Inclusivism In The Old Testament, 110

Evangelicl Inclusivism, defined, 10; based on four biblical facts, 10; does not contradict five points of Calvinism, 109;

is the teaching of the CRC, 108; practical advantages of, 179; based on premise B, 215-216

Examining the So-called “Universalistic” Texts, 120

Exceptions, found in immediate or broader context, 34-35

Exegesis of so-called universalistic

texts, 120

Explicit knowledge of Christ not essential for salvation, 48-55

Eyeglasses, words as, 8; can not avoid them, 13; two views 180-182

Faith, is fruit or result, not condition or requirement for salvation, 49-51; urgency of, 55-56; necessary for all who hear

he Gospel, 55-56; not essential for salvation, 55

Family of God, membership in by adotion not by creation, 22, 204-205

Few saved?, 217; why a popular concept, 217-221; kingdom parables seem to imply, 218-219; salvation not scarce,

218, 220

Final Judgment, see Eternal judgment

Focused and peripheral vision, 34

Four biblical facts listed, 10

Fudge, Dr. Edward, on Hell, 190; on redemption compared to emancipation, 46; on why preach, 81-83

Generalizations, 31; basis for promises, demands and announcement of “good news,” 68-72, 90, 97; examples of,

32-34; purpose of, 35,36

Good news more than friendliness, 91

Gospel, the, an announcement of an objective state of affairs not conditional, see Unconditional good news; Urgency

of, 54-57, 80, 210; better if not heard? No, 57;

Grace Proclaimed Before Confession Is Heard, 95

Grace, justification by, 52-53; must be known before one can repent, 87; proclaimed before confession, 95, 99;

unexpressed, 174;

Greater hope, 23-24, 111; compromises sovereign grace, 112;

Heidelberg Catechism, General theme is what need to know for comfort not for salvation,45; objective salvation is

past event, 50, 55; human acts imperfect and stained with sin, 55, 225; not only other but I too have been saved, 98;

Evangelical Inclusivism consistent with questions and answers 20, 60, 65 ─237-239

Hell, Restoring, 190; not common motivation for godliness, 190-191; how used by Jesus, 191; why not preached,

192; meaning of eternal punishment, 193-195; immortality God’s gift in salvation, 195-196

Helm, Paul, on refutation of Kendall’s work, 166

Heresy Trial in 1985, 232; charges stated, 234-235; section B of charges substituted, 235-236; working with different

assumption, 236; appeal to national synod, 236-237; Evangelical Inclusivism not inconsistent with questions 20, 60

&65 of Heidelberg Catechism, 227-228, 237

Hodge, Charles on “all are saved . . . except,” 12, 13, 141; on Rom. 5:18, 13; on those who will be lost, 13; provides

basis for Schuller’s insight, 206

Holwerda, Dr. B., on grace promised before faith can be exercised, 99

Human decision, real significance of, 78-80, 244

Immediate imputation, of righteousness, 48-55; of sin, 24-25

Imperative / Indicative, 69-71

Imputation, see Immediate imputation

Inability to respond to the gosel, 49. 51. 55. 63-64, 213-214

Indifference is sin, 25, 28, 34, 56-58, 69, 71, 93, 185

Indicative / Imperative, 69-71

Infant salvation, 102, 105, 107, 171, 176, 229

Infinate value of human person a hyperbole, 22, 23

Inherited sin, see Original sin

Isn’t Faith Necessary?, 48

Japan Mission Conference letter, expressing need for positive proclamation, 97-98

John Calvin’s “Unlimited” Atonement,158

Judgment Scenes, listed 25-28

Justification by faith is justification by grace, 52-54; by works, 58

Kendall, Dr. R. T., on Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 158-170; successor to Lloyd-Jones, 160; refutations of his work,

166

Last day, can not judge before, 28, 29

Last Judgment, Parable of, 23-24

Limited atonement, see Particular atonement

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martin, agrees with Kendall, 160

Love Wins, Reb. Rob Bell’s Book 248

Lutheran indirect call of God, 133

Machen, J. Gresham, liberalism in imperative mood Christianity in indicative mood, 87-88

“Many saved, see Few saved

Message of Missions, 84, not bad news with good suggestion, 85; sinners aware of their sin, 85-87; need good news,

87-89; sin and grace best seen in Christ on the cross, 89; on sign, 94

Missions, message of, 84;

Motivation For Missions Or Why Preach?, 74

Mouw, Dr. Richard J, Foreword 5; on parable of two ways, 6; on stinginess / generosity texts, 5, 6

Murray, Dr. John, on gospel demands based on an assumption, 45-46, 69; on solidarity no other mediating factor, 54-

55; on universalism in 1 John 2:2, 138-139

Nash, Dr. Ronal H., on number of professors holding to inclusivism, 146;

Need For Self-Esteem, 198

New Covenant, 175-176

Objective and Subjective Salvation, 39

Objective salvation, defined 40, 153; examples of, 40-41; a past event, 42, 48-49

Old Covenant, universal, 114

Old Testament patterns, 113-114

Olson, Dr. Roger, on church fathers, 61

One Bible For All People, 66

Origen, not convicted for universalism, 60

Original sin, corruption and blameworthiness off, 24-25; is never sole basis for consignment to hell, 28, 34, 103-

104,107, 235; not evidence of being outside of Christ, 25, 34, 240-241; not removed for everyone, 28, 235; Schuller

on, 205

Packer, Dr. J.I., invalid criticism of Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 168

Parables. Hidden Treasure, 218; Pearl of Great Price, 218; Ten virgins, 219; Two Ways, 6, 218-219; The Two Sons,

219-220; The Tenants, 219-220; The Cornerstone, 219-220; The Wedding Feast, 219-220

Parents assume their children are elect, 96

Partcular atonement, 232;

Pearl of Great Price, Parable of, 218

Pelagius, 61

Pinnock, Dr. Clark, on God’s love for the whole world, 119; exposure to Evangelical Inclusivism, 147-149; on

relativism, 149-150; relies on faulty theological constructs, 150-151

Post Mortem. salvation will be found in future existence, 20-21

Power of lawlessness, 28, 29

Practical advantages of Evangelical Inclusivism, 170; practical advantages may not be final criteria, 189; will take

years to fill in and work out 189

Premise A, Stated, 8; generally accepted because, 8; not basis for good news, 84-89, 180-182, 203; seems to imply

few will be saved, 217

Premise B stated, 9; allows possibility of salvation beyond the reach of the gospel, 173-174; as Evangelical

Inclusivism, 9; basis for all gospel demands, promises, proclamation, 68-71; basis for assurance of salvation, 185;

basis for salvation of all infants see Infant salvation; basis for positive gospel of acceptance and affirmation, 185-186;

consistent with God’s way of dealing with mankind, 113, 114; does not deny original sin, 28, 235; does not remove

motive for missions, 74

Prescription is not description, 52

Propitiation, defined, 120

Protestant Inclusivism and Clark Pinnock, 146

Puzzling questions for restrictivists, 74-75

Reconciliation, defined, 120; can be demanded only of those presumed to be in Christ, 68-69; demanded of all

persons, 68-69; God’s work, 69-70, 120-121; past tense, 92-94

Redemption, defined, 120

Reformed witnessing, 100

Reformers on faith, 62

Repentance, a gift, 59, 79, 88, 156, 216; requires knowledge of grace, 85, 86, 87;

Report 30, ─102-109

Reprobate see Those who will be lost

Reprobation, elucidation of, see Report 30

Responding To Christian Renewal, 223

Restoring Hell, 190

Roman Catholic Church’s dominance, 62; incluslivism, 147-148

Same demands required of all people, 67

Savior, New Testament use of the word, 115-117; Arminian use, 117-118

Sanders, Dr. John, mentor is Pinnock, 147;

Schuller, Dr. Robert, 198; on insight gained from practice, 201-202; on being children of God because created in his

image, 204; on original sin as lack of trust, 205; on self-esteem, 200-201

Self-esteem, 198; biblical guidelines for, 199; a biblical basis for proper self-esteem, 206

Sermon on the Mount, 67-68

Significance of human decision, 58-59, 79-80, 154

So-called universalistic texts, 12; speak of two elements, 12; listed, 14, 15; are generalizations, 31-33; cannot be

understood apart from exceptions, 34-35; examination (exegesis) of, 120; speak of all men, 16, 17, 18; speak of

certain to be realized salvation, 16, 17, 18

Spangler, J. Robert, endorsement of, 11;

Stob, Dr. Henry, endorsement of, see back cover

Subjective salvation, defined, 43, 153; examples of, 43; human mean in, 43; in Romans 10:9-17, 44 – 45

Talbot, Dr. Thomas on Paul’s writing, 15

Ten Virgins, Parable of, 219

Threau, Henry, on “quiet desperation, 85

Those who have not heard, possible salvation of, 74, 146, 231

Those Who Will Be Lost, described, 20

Tiessen, Prof. Terrance L. see Accessibilism

Tiessen’s “Accessibilism”, 207

Two Views, 180-182

Two ways, Parable of, 6, 218-219

Unbelief is damnable, 56 154

Universalistic Texts, So-Called, 12

Unconditional good news, 36-37, 41-42, 49, 52-58, 64, 92-92, 113-114, 182, 185-186, 213, 224-225, 228, 238
Universalism, arguments against, not children of God, 21, 22; not infinite value, 22, 23; no “greater hope,” 23,24; on

universalistic texts 31

Universal statements, 30

Universalistic texs, see so-called “universalistic” texts

Uniqueness of Christianity, 208

Unlimited atonement, 158

Urgency of gospel proclamation, 54-57, 80, 210

Vander Laan, Rev. James L., on motive for missions, 81

Vogel, Wallter, universal covenant, 114

Visible church, advantage of membership in, 80-81; is the covenant community of God’s people, 172

Warfield, Dr. B. B., on world may have ethical connotation, 136; elect are the world, 136

Website – www.evangelicalinclusivism.com

What Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

Will Only A Few Be Saved?, 217

Why preach or send missionaries?, 74

Wolterstorff, Dr. Nicholas, letter from 106-108

Works, justified by, 58

Worthy of death does not mean outside of Christ, 25

SUBJECT INDEX p248p

The regular page numbers of the book have been changed to uniquely formatted (UF) numbers in this Kindle (e.g.

page “100” changed to page “p100p”). The numbers below indicate the place where the selected entry is found in this

E-book.

Use the corresponding UF number in place of the regular page number found below (e.g. use page p100p in place of

page 100). The selected subject will be found in the paragraph immediately preceding this UF number; or, in the

section between this UF number and the next higher UF number.

[NOTE: Following each chapter title and section heading that is at the beginning of a page there is a UF number.

Each of these headings is treated as a complete paragraph.]

These instructions are repeated at the beginning of each index.

1 Timothy 4:10 Misused, 115

Absolute Universalism, see Universalism

Accessibilism, 207; on exclusivism of Christianity, 208; similar to teachings of evangelical inclusivism, 208; unique

characteristic of, 208-209; essential function of faith, 209-210; acknowledges God’s sovereignty, 211; impediments

to, 211-214; based on premise A, 214-215

Adam, and Christ, Analgy of, 49

Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

After life confrontation, see Post Mortem

All are . . . Some are not, 30

Arminianism, on universalistic texts, 31

Assumption, only basis for promises, announcements and demands of the gospel, 68-72, 90, 97; biblically warranted,

73; what if not true, 89, 95, 99; verifiable proof not availableto us, 90, 98; approach for leading to the Lord, 96;

Assurance of Salvation, 185

Athanasius, on salvation granted to every one, 61

Augustine, rejected Pelagius’ view, 61

Authentic Instincts, 201; must be tested, 201-203

Back To The Early Church, 60

Baptism, same importance for adult and infant, 80-81, 172-174, 176-177; sign of the covenant, 172

Barnes, Rev. Douglas see Christian Renewal

Bavinck, J. H. On Bible addressed to church and world, 66; on Luke 23, 91-92

Because not found in John 3:16, ─52

Belgic Confession, 230-2

Biblical fact # 1, ─13; # 2, ─20’ # 3. ─30; # 4, ─39

Biblical facts, four listed, 10

Biblical Universalism see Evangelical Inclusivism, 10; see also premise B, 9

Blessings unconditional/ judgments earned pattern, 36-38

Boer, Dr. Harry, his complaint, 102; Synod’s response to, 103; Report 30, 102-105; Implication of Report 30, 105-108;

confirmed by Synod 1981, 108; light shed by Report 30 endorses concept of Evangelical Inclusivism, 108
Bonda, Dr. Jon, The One Purpose of God, 110; allows no exceptions, 111; the greater hope, 111; possible

exceptions, 112;

Calvin, John, Need to know grace before one can repent, 87; on unlimited atonement, 158; no difficulty with so-called

universalistic texts, 161-162, 164; on Christ’s intercession, 163; only one apparent reference to limited atonement,

164; refutes physical presence in elements, 165; arguments against Calvin’s view of faith, 168-169

Calvinism, on universalistic texts, 31

Canons of Dordt, I, 9 ─51, 225, 238; l, 15 ─26; ii, 5 ─97, 175, 235; Rej. of Errors III ─225, 238; elucidation of, 104; on

Gospel to be announced to all persons, 175; on unworthiness or imperfection of faith, 225; on faith as fruit, not

condition of salvation, 225, 238; on “all have sinned” as generalization, 32; on Christ as exception, 32

Christ, analogy between Adam and Christ, 49; as Second Adam, 110-111; explicit knowledge of not essential to

salvation, 49

Christian Renewal, responding to, 223; second Adam deserves preeminence, 223-224; faith is not a condition of

salvation, 224-225; report 30 not muddled, 225-226; defends traditional Calvinistic views of universalistic texts, 226;

claims all who believe means only those who believe, 226-227; Evangelical Inclusivism contradicts Heidelberg

Catechism Q & A,s (20, 60, 65), 227-228, 237; abortion then acceptable, 228-229; claims I use a grid for certain

texts, 229; articles 27, 28 29 of Belgic confession do not contradict Evangelical Inclusivism, 229-231

Christianity Today Article, 240

Church Membership, advantage of, 176-178

Church, see Visible Church

Circumcision, Old Testament sign of covenant, 171-173

Clark Pinnock, 146

Classes or kinds of persons exist only in our minds, 142-144, 154-155

Conditional salvation, can lead to pride, 185

Covenant, benefits of, 167-177; initiated with Abraham, 172; necessarily expressed in words, 172-174; New,175-176;

Old, 175-176; is the visible church, 172; salvation found outside the covenant line, 173-174; non-covenant members

treated similarly, 176-178

Definite atonement, see Particular atonement

DeKoster, Dr. Lester see Back Cover

Description is not prescription, 52

DeJong, Dr. A.C., All in plural seldom means all classes, 143

Demands of the gospel addressed only to those who hear it, 154

Discriminations, God’s, 51, 52, 58, 59; no need to resolve, 59

Early church, used premise B, 60-62;

Election, of a definite number of persons, 232; presumed to be true of all persons, 136

Elucidation of Canons of Dort, see Report 30

Especially means more of the same, 118-119

Exclusiveness of Christianity, see Uniqueness of Christianity.

Eternal Judgment, deserved by all, 24; never experienced apart from persistent willful sin, 25-28

Ethical demands, see Gospel demands

Evangelical Inclusivism in The Christian Reformed Church, 102

Evangelical Inclusivism In The Old Testament, 110

Evangelicl Inclusivism, defined, 10; based on four biblical facts, 10; does not contradict five points of Calvinism, 109;

is the teaching of the CRC, 108; practical advantages of, 179; based on premise B, 215-216

Examining the So-called “Universalistic” Texts, 120

Exceptions, found in immediate or broader context, 34-35

Exegesis of so-called universalistic

texts, 120

Explicit knowledge of Christ not essential for salvation, 48-55

Eyeglasses, words as, 8; can not avoid them, 13; two views 180-182

Faith, is fruit or result, not condition or requirement for salvation, 49-51; urgency of, 55-56; necessary for all who hear

he Gospel, 55-56; not essential for salvation, 55

Family of God, membership in by adotion not by creation, 22, 204-205

Few saved?, 217; why a popular concept, 217-221; kingdom parables seem to imply, 218-219; salvation not scarce,

218, 220

Final Judgment, see Eternal judgment

Focused and peripheral vision, 34

Four biblical facts listed, 10

Fudge, Dr. Edward, on Hell, 190; on redemption compared to emancipation, 46; on why preach, 81-83

Generalizations, 31; basis for promises, demands and announcement of “good news,” 68-72, 90, 97; examples of,

32-34; purpose of, 35,36

Good news more than friendliness, 91

Gospel, the, an announcement of an objective state of affairs not conditional, see Unconditional good news; Urgency

of, 54-57, 80, 210; better if not heard? No, 57;

Grace Proclaimed Before Confession Is Heard, 95

Grace, justification by, 52-53; must be known before one can repent, 87; proclaimed before confession, 95, 99;

unexpressed, 174;

Greater hope, 23-24, 111; compromises sovereign grace, 112;

Heidelberg Catechism, General theme is what need to know for comfort not for salvation,45; objective salvation is
past event, 50, 55; human acts imperfect and stained with sin, 55, 225; not only other but I too have been saved, 98;

Evangelical Inclusivism consistent with questions and answers 20, 60, 65 ─237-239

Hell, Restoring, 190; not common motivation for godliness, 190-191; how used by Jesus, 191; why not preached,

192; meaning of eternal punishment, 193-195; immortality God’s gift in salvation, 195-196

Helm, Paul, on refutation of Kendall’s work, 166

Heresy Trial in 1985, 232; charges stated, 234-235; section B of charges substituted, 235-236; working with different

assumption, 236; appeal to national synod, 236-237; Evangelical Inclusivism not inconsistent with questions 20, 60

&65 of Heidelberg Catechism, 227-228, 237

Hodge, Charles on “all are saved . . . except,” 12, 13, 141; on Rom. 5:18, 13; on those who will be lost, 13; provides

basis for Schuller’s insight, 206

Holwerda, Dr. B., on grace promised before faith can be exercised, 99

Human decision, real significance of, 78-80, 244

Immediate imputation, of righteousness, 48-55; of sin, 24-25

Imperative / Indicative, 69-71

Imputation, see Immediate imputation

Inability to respond to the gosel, 49. 51. 55. 63-64, 213-214

Indifference is sin, 25, 28, 34, 56-58, 69, 71, 93, 185

Indicative / Imperative, 69-71

Infant salvation, 102, 105, 107, 171, 176, 229

Infinate value of human person a hyperbole, 22, 23

Inherited sin, see Original sin

Isn’t Faith Necessary?, 48

Japan Mission Conference letter, expressing need for positive proclamation, 97-98

John Calvin’s “Unlimited” Atonement,158

Judgment Scenes, listed 25-28

Justification by faith is justification by grace, 52-54; by works, 58

Kendall, Dr. R. T., on Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 158-170; successor to Lloyd-Jones, 160; refutations of his work,

166

Last day, can not judge before, 28, 29

Last Judgment, Parable of, 23-24

Limited atonement, see Particular atonement

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martin, agrees with Kendall, 160

Lutheran indirect call of God, 133

Machen, J. Gresham, liberalism in imperative mood Christianity in indicative mood, 87-88

“Many saved, see Few saved

Message of Missions, 84, not bad news with good suggestion, 85; sinners aware of their sin, 85-87; need good news,

87-89; sin and grace best seen in Christ on the cross, 89; on sign, 94

Missions, message of, 84;

Motivation For Missions Or Why Preach?, 74

Mouw, Dr. Richard J, Foreword 5; on parable of two ways, 6; on stinginess / generosity texts, 5, 6

Murray, Dr. John, on gospel demands based on an assumption, 45-46, 69; on solidarity no other mediating factor, 54-

55; on universalism in 1 John 2:2, 138-139

Nash, Dr. Ronal H., on number of professors holding to inclusivism, 146;

Need For Self-Esteem, 198

New Covenant, 175-176

Objective and Subjective Salvation, 39

Objective salvation, defined 40, 153; examples of, 40-41; a past event, 42, 48-49

Old Covenant, universal, 114

Old Testament patterns, 113-114

Olson, Dr. Roger, on church fathers, 61

One Bible For All People, 66

Origen, not convicted for universalism, 60

Original sin, corruption and blameworthiness off, 24-25; is never sole basis for consignment to hell, 28, 34, 103-

104,107, 235; not evidence of being outside of Christ, 25, 34, 240-241; not removed for everyone, 28, 235; Schuller

on, 205

Packer, Dr. J.I., invalid criticism of Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 168

Parables. Hidden Treasure, 218; Pearl of Great Price, 218; Ten virgins, 219; Two Ways, 6, 218-219; The Two Sons,
219-220; The Tenants, 219-220; The Cornerstone, 219-220; The Wedding Feast, 219-220

Parents assume their children are elect, 96

Partcular atonement, 232;

Pearl of Great Price, Parable of, 218

Pelagius, 61

Pinnock, Dr. Clark, on God’s love for the whole world, 119; exposure to Evangelical Inclusivism, 147-149; on

relativism, 149-150; relies on faulty theological constructs, 150-151

Post Mortem. salvation will be found in future existence, 20-21

Power of lawlessness, 28, 29

Practical advantages of Evangelical Inclusivism, 170; practical advantages may not be final criteria, 189; will take

years to fill in and work out 189

Premise A, Stated, 8; generally accepted because, 8; not basis for good news, 84-89, 180-182, 203; seems to imply

few will be saved, 217

Premise B stated, 9; allows possibility of salvation beyond the reach of the gospel, 173-174; as Evangelical

Inclusivism, 9; basis for all gospel demands, promises, proclamation, 68-71; basis for assurance of salvation, 185;

basis for salvation of all infants see Infant salvation; basis for positive gospel of acceptance and affirmation, 185-186;

consistent with God’s way of dealing with mankind, 113, 114; does not deny original sin, 28, 235; does not remove

motive for missions, 74

Prescription is not description, 52

Propitiation, defined, 120

Protestant Inclusivism and Clark Pinnock, 146

Puzzling questions for restrictivists, 74-75

Reconciliation, defined, 120; can be demanded only of those presumed to be in Christ, 68-69; demanded of all

persons, 68-69; God’s work, 69-70, 120-121; past tense, 92-94

Redemption, defined, 120

Reformed witnessing, 100

Reformers on faith, 62

Repentance, a gift, 59, 79, 88, 156, 216; requires knowledge of grace, 85, 86, 87;

Report 30, ─102-109

Reprobate see Those who will be lost

Reprobation, elucidation of, see Report 30

Responding To Christian Renewal, 223

Restoring Hell, 190

Roman Catholic Church’s dominance, 62; incluslivism, 147-148

Same demands required of all people, 67

Savior, New Testament use of the word, 115-117; Arminian use, 117-118

Sanders, Dr. John, mentor is Pinnock, 147;

Schuller, Dr. Robert, 198; on insight gained from practice, 201-202; on being children of God because created in his

image, 204; on original sin as lack of trust, 205; on self-esteem, 200-201

Self-esteem, 198; biblical guidelines for, 199; a biblical basis for proper self-esteem, 206

Sermon on the Mount, 67-68

Significance of human decision, 58-59, 79-80, 154

So-called universalistic texts, 12; speak of two elements, 12; listed, 14, 15; are generalizations, 31-33; cannot be

understood apart from exceptions, 34-35; examination (exegesis) of, 120; speak of all men, 16, 17, 18; speak of

certain to be realized salvation, 16, 17, 18

Spangler, J. Robert, endorsement of, 11;

Stob, Dr. Henry, endorsement of, see back cover

Subjective salvation, defined, 43, 153; examples of, 43; human mean in, 43; in Romans 10:9-17, 44 – 45

Talbot, Dr. Thomas on Paul’s writing, 15

Ten Virgins, Parable of, 219

Threau, Henry, on “quiet desperation, 85

Those who have not heard, possible salvation of, 74, 146, 231
Those Who Will Be Lost, described, 20

Tiessen, Prof. Terrance L. see Accessibilism

Tiessen’s “Accessibilism”, 207

Two Views, 180-182

Two ways, Parable of, 6, 218-219

Unbelief is damnable, 56 154

Universalistic Texts, So-Called, 12

Unconditional good news, 36-37, 41-42, 49, 52-58, 64, 92-92, 113-114, 182, 185-186, 213, 224-225, 228, 238

Universalism, arguments against, not children of God, 21, 22; not infinite value, 22, 23; no “greater hope,” 23,24; on

universalistic texts 31

Universal statements, 30

Universalistic texs, see so-called “universalistic” texts

Uniqueness of Christianity, 208

Unlimited atonement, 158

Urgency of gospel proclamation, 54-57, 80, 210

Vander Laan, Rev. James L., on motive for missions, 81

Vogel, Wallter, universal covenant, 114

Visible church, advantage of membership in, 80-81; is the covenant community of God’s people, 172
Warfield, Dr. B. B., on world may have ethical connotation, 136; elect are the world, 136

Website – www.evangelicalinclusivism.com

What Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

Will Only A Few Be Saved?, 217

Why preach or send missionaries?, 74

Wolterstorff, Dr. Nicholas, letter from 106-108

Works, justified by, 58

SUBJECT INDEX p248p

The regular page numbers of the book have been changed to uniquely formatted (UF) numbers in this Kindle (e.g.

page “100” changed to page “p100p”). The numbers below indicate the place where the selected entry is found in this

E-book.

Use the corresponding UF number in place of the regular page number found below (e.g. use page p100p in place of

page 100). The selected subject will be found in the paragraph immediately preceding this UF number; or, in the

section between this UF number and the next higher UF number.

[NOTE: Following each chapter title and section heading that is at the beginning of a page there is a UF number.

Each of these headings is treated as a complete paragraph.]

These instructions are repeated at the beginning of each index.

1 Timothy 4:10 Misused, 115

Absolute Universalism, see Universalism

Accessibilism, 207; on exclusivism of Christianity, 208; similar to teachings of evangelical inclusivism, 208; unique

characteristic of, 208-209; essential function of faith, 209-210; acknowledges God’s sovereignty, 211; impediments

to, 211-214; based on premise A, 214-215

Adam, and Christ, Analgy of, 49

Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

After life confrontation, see Post Mortem

All are . . . Some are not, 30

Arminianism, on universalistic texts, 31

Assumption, only basis for promises, announcements and demands of the gospel, 68-72, 90, 97; biblically warranted,

73; what if not true, 89, 95, 99; verifiable proof not availableto us, 90, 98; approach for leading to the Lord, 96;

Assurance of Salvation, 185

Athanasius, on salvation granted to every one, 61

Augustine, rejected Pelagius’ view, 61

Authentic Instincts, 201; must be tested, 201-203

Back To The Early Church, 60

Baptism, same importance for adult and infant, 80-81, 172-174, 176-177; sign of the covenant, 172

Barnes, Rev. Douglas see Christian Renewal

Bavinck, J. H. On Bible addressed to church and world, 66; on Luke 23, 91-92

Because not found in John 3:16, ─52

Belgic Confession, 230-2

Biblical fact # 1, ─13; # 2, ─20’ # 3. ─30; # 4, ─39

Biblical facts, four listed, 10

Biblical Universalism see Evangelical Inclusivism, 10; see also premise B, 9

Blessings unconditional/ judgments earned pattern, 36-38

Boer, Dr. Harry, his complaint, 102; Synod’s response to, 103; Report 30, 102-105; Implication of Report 30, 105-108;

confirmed by Synod 1981, 108; light shed by Report 30 endorses concept of Evangelical Inclusivism, 108

Bonda, Dr. Jon, The One Purpose of God, 110; allows no exceptions, 111; the greater hope, 111; possible

exceptions, 112;

Calvin, John, Need to know grace before one can repent, 87; on unlimited atonement, 158; no difficulty with so-called

universalistic texts, 161-162, 164; on Christ’s intercession, 163; only one apparent reference to limited atonement,

164; refutes physical presence in elements, 165; arguments against Calvin’s view of faith, 168-169

Calvinism, on universalistic texts, 31

Canons of Dordt, I, 9 ─51, 225, 238; l, 15 ─26; ii, 5 ─97, 175, 235; Rej. of Errors III ─225, 238; elucidation of, 104; on

Gospel to be announced to all persons, 175; on unworthiness or imperfection of faith, 225; on faith as fruit, not

condition of salvation, 225, 238; on “all have sinned” as generalization, 32; on Christ as exception, 32

Christ, analogy between Adam and Christ, 49; as Second Adam, 110-111; explicit knowledge of not essential to

salvation, 49

Christian Renewal, responding to, 223; second Adam deserves preeminence, 223-224; faith is not a condition of

salvation, 224-225; report 30 not muddled, 225-226; defends traditional Calvinistic views of universalistic texts, 226;

claims all who believe means only those who believe, 226-227; Evangelical Inclusivism contradicts Heidelberg

Catechism Q & A,s (20, 60, 65), 227-228, 237; abortion then acceptable, 228-229; claims I use a grid for certain

texts, 229; articles 27, 28 29 of Belgic confession do not contradict Evangelical Inclusivism, 229-231
Christianity Today Article, 240

Church Membership, advantage of, 176-178

Church, see Visible Church

Circumcision, Old Testament sign of covenant, 171-173

Clark Pinnock, 146

Classes or kinds of persons exist only in our minds, 142-144, 154-155

Conditional salvation, can lead to pride, 185

Covenant, benefits of, 167-177; initiated with Abraham, 172; necessarily expressed in words, 172-174; New,175-176;

Old, 175-176; is the visible church, 172; salvation found outside the covenant line, 173-174; non-covenant members

treated similarly, 176-178

Definite atonement, see Particular atonement

DeKoster, Dr. Lester see Back Cover

Description is not prescription, 52

DeJong, Dr. A.C., All in plural seldom means all classes, 143

Demands of the gospel addressed only to those who hear it, 154

Discriminations, God’s, 51, 52, 58, 59; no need to resolve, 59

Early church, used premise B, 60-62;

Election, of a definite number of persons, 232; presumed to be true of all persons, 136
Elucidation of Canons of Dort, see Report 30

Especially means more of the same, 118-119

Exclusiveness of Christianity, see Uniqueness of Christianity.

Eternal Judgment, deserved by all, 24; never experienced apart from persistent willful sin, 25-28

Ethical demands, see Gospel demands

Evangelical Inclusivism in The Christian Reformed Church, 102

Evangelical Inclusivism In The Old Testament, 110

Evangelicl Inclusivism, defined, 10; based on four biblical facts, 10; does not contradict five points of Calvinism, 109;

is the teaching of the CRC, 108; practical advantages of, 179; based on premise B, 215-216

Examining the So-called “Universalistic” Texts, 120

Exceptions, found in immediate or broader context, 34-35

Exegesis of so-called universalistic

texts, 120

Explicit knowledge of Christ not essential for salvation, 48-55

Eyeglasses, words as, 8; can not avoid them, 13; two views 180-182

Faith, is fruit or result, not condition or requirement for salvation, 49-51; urgency of, 55-56; necessary for all who hear

he Gospel, 55-56; not essential for salvation, 55

Family of God, membership in by adotion not by creation, 22, 204-205

Few saved?, 217; why a popular concept, 217-221; kingdom parables seem to imply, 218-219; salvation not scarce,

218, 220

Final Judgment, see Eternal judgment

Focused and peripheral vision, 34

Four biblical facts listed, 10

Fudge, Dr. Edward, on Hell, 190; on redemption compared to emancipation, 46; on why preach, 81-83

Generalizations, 31; basis for promises, demands and announcement of “good news,” 68-72, 90, 97; examples of,

32-34; purpose of, 35,36

Good news more than friendliness, 91

Gospel, the, an announcement of an objective state of affairs not conditional, see Unconditional good news; Urgency

of, 54-57, 80, 210; better if not heard? No, 57;

Grace Proclaimed Before Confession Is Heard, 95

Grace, justification by, 52-53; must be known before one can repent, 87; proclaimed before confession, 95, 99;

unexpressed, 174;

Greater hope, 23-24, 111; compromises sovereign grace, 112;

Heidelberg Catechism, General theme is what need to know for comfort not for salvation,45; objective salvation is

past event, 50, 55; human acts imperfect and stained with sin, 55, 225; not only other but I too have been saved, 98;

Evangelical Inclusivism consistent with questions and answers 20, 60, 65 ─237-239

Hell, Restoring, 190; not common motivation for godliness, 190-191; how used by Jesus, 191; why not preached,

192; meaning of eternal punishment, 193-195; immortality God’s gift in salvation, 195-196

Helm, Paul, on refutation of Kendall’s work, 166

Heresy Trial in 1985, 232; charges stated, 234-235; section B of charges substituted, 235-236; working with different

assumption, 236; appeal to national synod, 236-237; Evangelical Inclusivism not inconsistent with questions 20, 60

&65 of Heidelberg Catechism, 227-228, 237

Hodge, Charles on “all are saved . . . except,” 12, 13, 141; on Rom. 5:18, 13; on those who will be lost, 13; provides

basis for Schuller’s insight, 206

Holwerda, Dr. B., on grace promised before faith can be exercised, 99

Human decision, real significance of, 78-80, 244

Immediate imputation, of righteousness, 48-55; of sin, 24-25

Imperative / Indicative, 69-71

Imputation, see Immediate imputation

Inability to respond to the gosel, 49. 51. 55. 63-64, 213-214

Indifference is sin, 25, 28, 34, 56-58, 69, 71, 93, 185

Indicative / Imperative, 69-71

Infant salvation, 102, 105, 107, 171, 176, 229

Infinate value of human person a hyperbole, 22, 23

Inherited sin, see Original sin

Isn’t Faith Necessary?, 48

Japan Mission Conference letter, expressing need for positive proclamation, 97-98

John Calvin’s “Unlimited” Atonement,158

Judgment Scenes, listed 25-28

Justification by faith is justification by grace, 52-54; by works, 58

Kendall, Dr. R. T., on Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 158-170; successor to Lloyd-Jones, 160; refutations of his work,

166

Last day, can not judge before, 28, 29

Last Judgment, Parable of, 23-24

Limited atonement, see Particular atonement

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martin, agrees with Kendall, 160

Lutheran indirect call of God, 133

Machen, J. Gresham, liberalism in imperative mood Christianity in indicative mood, 87-88

“Many saved, see Few saved

Message of Missions, 84, not bad news with good suggestion, 85; sinners aware of their sin, 85-87; need good news,

87-89; sin and grace best seen in Christ on the cross, 89; on sign, 94

Missions, message of, 84;

Motivation For Missions Or Why Preach?, 74

Mouw, Dr. Richard J, Foreword 5; on parable of two ways, 6; on stinginess / generosity texts, 5, 6

Murray, Dr. John, on gospel demands based on an assumption, 45-46, 69; on solidarity no other mediating factor, 54-

55; on universalism in 1 John 2:2, 138-139

Nash, Dr. Ronal H., on number of professors holding to inclusivism, 146;

Need For Self-Esteem, 198

New Covenant, 175-176

Objective and Subjective Salvation, 39

Objective salvation, defined 40, 153; examples of, 40-41; a past event, 42, 48-49

Old Covenant, universal, 114

Old Testament patterns, 113-114

Olson, Dr. Roger, on church fathers, 61

One Bible For All People, 66

Origen, not convicted for universalism, 60

Original sin, corruption and blameworthiness off, 24-25; is never sole basis for consignment to hell, 28, 34, 103-

104,107, 235; not evidence of being outside of Christ, 25, 34, 240-241; not removed for everyone, 28, 235; Schuller

on, 205

Packer, Dr. J.I., invalid criticism of Calvin’s unlimited atonement, 168

Parables. Hidden Treasure, 218; Pearl of Great Price, 218; Ten virgins, 219; Two Ways, 6, 218-219; The Two Sons,

219-220; The Tenants, 219-220; The Cornerstone, 219-220; The Wedding Feast, 219-220

Parents assume their children are elect, 96

Partcular atonement, 232;

Pearl of Great Price, Parable of, 218

Pelagius, 61
Pinnock, Dr. Clark, on God’s love for the whole world, 119; exposure to Evangelical Inclusivism, 147-149; on

relativism, 149-150; relies on faulty theological constructs, 150-151

Post Mortem. salvation will be found in future existence, 20-21

Power of lawlessness, 28, 29

Practical advantages of Evangelical Inclusivism, 170; practical advantages may not be final criteria, 189; will take

years to fill in and work out 189

Premise A, Stated, 8; generally accepted because, 8; not basis for good news, 84-89, 180-182, 203; seems to imply
few will be saved, 217

Premise B stated, 9; allows possibility of salvation beyond the reach of the gospel, 173-174; as Evangelical

Inclusivism, 9; basis for all gospel demands, promises, proclamation, 68-71; basis for assurance of salvation, 185;

basis for salvation of all infants see Infant salvation; basis for positive gospel of acceptance and affirmation, 185-186;

consistent with God’s way of dealing with mankind, 113, 114; does not deny original sin, 28, 235; does not remove

motive for missions, 74

Prescription is not description, 52

Propitiation, defined, 120

Protestant Inclusivism and Clark Pinnock, 146

Puzzling questions for restrictivists, 74-75

Reconciliation, defined, 120; can be demanded only of those presumed to be in Christ, 68-69; demanded of all

persons, 68-69; God’s work, 69-70, 120-121; past tense, 92-94

Redemption, defined, 120

Reformed witnessing, 100

Reformers on faith, 62

Repentance, a gift, 59, 79, 88, 156, 216; requires knowledge of grace, 85, 86, 87;

Report 30, ─102-109

Reprobate see Those who will be lost

Reprobation, elucidation of, see Report 30

Responding To Christian Renewal, 223

Restoring Hell, 190

Roman Catholic Church’s dominance, 62; incluslivism, 147-148

Same demands required of all people, 67

Savior, New Testament use of the word, 115-117; Arminian use, 117-118

Sanders, Dr. John, mentor is Pinnock, 147;

Schuller, Dr. Robert, 198; on insight gained from practice, 201-202; on being children of God because created in his

image, 204; on original sin as lack of trust, 205; on self-esteem, 200-201

Self-esteem, 198; biblical guidelines for, 199; a biblical basis for proper self-esteem, 206

Sermon on the Mount, 67-68

Significance of human decision, 58-59, 79-80, 154

So-called universalistic texts, 12; speak of two elements, 12; listed, 14, 15; are generalizations, 31-33; cannot be

understood apart from exceptions, 34-35; examination (exegesis) of, 120; speak of all men, 16, 17, 18; speak of

certain to be realized salvation, 16, 17, 18

Spangler, J. Robert, endorsement of, 11;

Stob, Dr. Henry, endorsement of, see back cover

Subjective salvation, defined, 43, 153; examples of, 43; human mean in, 43; in Romans 10:9-17, 44 – 45

Talbot, Dr. Thomas on Paul’s writing, 15

Ten Virgins, Parable of, 219

Threau, Henry, on “quiet desperation, 85

Those who have not heard, possible salvation of, 74, 146, 231

Those Who Will Be Lost, described, 20

Tiessen, Prof. Terrance L. see Accessibilism

Tiessen’s “Accessibilism”, 207

Two Views, 180-182

Two ways, Parable of, 6, 218-219

Unbelief is damnable, 56 154

Universalistic Texts, So-Called, 12

Unconditional good news, 36-37, 41-42, 49, 52-58, 64, 92-92, 113-114, 182, 185-186, 213, 224-225, 228, 238

Universalism, arguments against, not children of God, 21, 22; not infinite value, 22, 23; no “greater hope,” 23,24; on

universalistic texts 31

Universal statements, 30
Universalistic texs, see so-called “universalistic” texts

Uniqueness of Christianity, 208

Unlimited atonement, 158

Urgency of gospel proclamation, 54-57, 80, 210

Vander Laan, Rev. James L., on motive for missions, 81

Vogel, Wallter, universal covenant, 114

Visible church, advantage of membership in, 80-81; is the covenant community of God’s people, 172

Warfield, Dr. B. B., on world may have ethical connotation, 136; elect are the world, 136

Website – www.evangelicalinclusivism.com

What Advantage Do Covenant Members Have?, 171

Will Only A Few Be Saved?, 217

Why preach or send missionaries?, 74

Wolterstorff, Dr. Nicholas, letter from 106-108

Works, justified by, 58

Worthy of death does not mean outside of Christ, 25

Worthy of death does not mean outside of Christ, 25

TEXTUAL INDEX p259p

The regular page numbers of the book have been changed to uniquely formatted (UF) numbers in this Kindle (e.g.

page “100” changed to page “p100p”). The numbers below indicate the place where the selected entry is found in this

E-book.

Use the corresponding UF number in place of the regular page number found below (e.g. use page p100p in place of

page 100). The selected subject will be found in the paragraph immediately preceding this UF number; or, in the

section between this UF number and the next higher UF number.

[NOTE: Following each chapter title and section heading that is at the beginning of a page there is a UF number.

Each of these headings is treated as a complete paragraph.]

These instructions are repeated at the beginning of each index.

Genesis

1:28 36, 113, 242

2:6─17 242

2:7 195

3:4 21, 196

3:5 198

3:15 174

3:20 174

6:13 33

12:2 242

12:3 114

17:7 36, 113, 172

17:9─11 172

18:18 114

19:27─28 194

22:18 114

26:4 114

28:14 114

Exodus

20:2 242
34:6 156, 221

34:7 156, 221

Deuteronomy

6:7 171

Nehemiah

9:27 115

Psalms

4:6 85, 224

8:6 32, 33

14:3 31

47:9 114

95:7 56

95:8 56

103:2 24

106:21 115

Ecclesiastes

7:20 31

Isaiah

19:25 114

45:22 67

49:15 22, 204

52:7 76

53:6 23, 112

53:12 158, 163

55:1 218

63:8 115

64:6 55

Ezekial
18:4 196

28:14 242

Hosea

11:1 37, 113

Malachi

4:1─3 196

Matthew

3:9 22, 221

5:22 191, 192

5:29─30 191, 192

5:44 183

5:45 116

7:6 84

7:7 219

7:8 218, 219

7:13─14 6

7:14 218, 219

7:23 26

10:14 85

10:28 191, 192, 193,

194, 196
13:24─30 184

13:44 218

13:45 218

16:24 91

16;27 26

18:9 191

19:26 33

21:28─22:14 220

21:45 220

22:14 219

23:15 191, 192

23:27 86

23:28 86

23:33 191, 192

15:1─13 219

25:31─46 29

25:35 23

25:36 23

25:42 23

25:43 23

27:45 96

27:46 96, 193

28:18─20 82

28:19 67, 76, 176

28:20 67

Mark

1:14 85

1:15 85

3:29 194

9:40 234

9:43─47 191, 192

14:24

Luke

1:68 40

2:10 36, 60, 77, 176

2:30 78

4:18 88, 138

12:5 191, 192

13:23 221

13:24 221

13:25 221

13:26 221

13:28 221

13:29 221, 222

13:30 221

14:23 218

16:31 57

23 91

John

1:9 14, 57, 184

1:11 220

1:12 154

1:14 173

1:28 159

1:29 14, 25

3:16 43, 51, 52, 135, 136

154, 159, 162, 163, 196

3:16─18 52

3:17 14, 135, 136, 159

3:18 43, 52, 54, 154

3:19 28

3:19─21 151, 181

3:23, 24 14

3:36 26, 243

4:17 159

5:18 14

5:29 26

5:45─47 79

6:33 135

6:39 76

6:51 135

6:66 89

7:44 137

8:51 92

11:32 14, 137

12:21 137

12:31 138

12:32 137, 143

12:47 14, 29, 135, 136,

159, 184, 206

12:48 29, 36, 206

14:6 83

14:30 159

16:8 159

17:9 159, 163

19:30 23, 40, 112

Acts

2:5 143

2:22─41 220

2:41 43

2:47 43

3:23 191

4:10─12 83

4:11─12 82

5:31 79

9:17 87

10:34 151

10:35 151

11:18 79, 82

13:46 220

13:47 220

13:51 85

14:5 142

14:17 79

16:14 43, 49

16:31 46, 98

17:11 203

17:23 57

17:25 195

17:28 195

17:30 70

17:30─ 191
18:9 46

18:9─11 78

19:10 142

20:21 142

22:4 184

24:25 191

25:26 119

26:3 119

26:9─11 29

26:14 87

26:19 129

27:21─32 79

Romans

1:5 58, 176

1:6 176

1:13 43

1:16 176

1:16 44, 83, 153

1:17 56

1:18─3:20 24, 63, 85,

224, 240

1:19 85, 224

1:19─25 79

1:20 26, 79, 224

1:21 76

1:24 26

1:25 26, 79

1:28 26, 80, 138

2 57

2:1 26, 176

2:1─16 58

2:2 26

2:4 88, 156, 176

2:5─8 27
2:6─29 176

2:7 196

2:11─16 82

2:14 57

2:14─16 76, 151

2:15 38, 57, 85, 151, 224

2:15─16 79

2:16 36

2:25─29 80, 177

2:26 57, 151

3:1 80, 177, 178

3:2 81

3:9 31, 142

3:10 31,32

3:12 23, 24, 31

3:23 31

3:24 54

3:25 40

4:1─16 82

4:16 53

5:5 126

5:12─21 49, 51

5:15 160

5:18 13, 24, 31, 32, 64,

120, 138, 148, 159, 181

5:19 49, 64

5:20 218, 220

6:4─8 126

6:5 126

6:8 126

6:11 92

6:12 68, 70

6:14 68

6:23 193, 195, 196

8:4 92

8:17 22, 204

10:8─11 45

10:9 46

10:9─10 93, 154

10:9─17 44, 45, 75, 152,

153

10:13─17 45

10:14 75

10:14─15 76

11:32 138, 143

12:1 92

12:18 15

13:9 92

15:13 82

15:18 58

1 Corinthians

1:18 43, 46

1:24 143

2:2 80

4:5 29

6:9 27

6:10 27

6:12 33, 34, 35

8:11 244

9:22 11, 39, 43

9:25 196

13:1 92

15:3 73

15:22 14, 33, 64, 110,

121, 123, 124, 174

15:27 32, 33

15:52─54 196

2 Corinthians

3:2 15
2:5 23

4:13 82

5:10 27

5:11 127

5:11─13 127

5:13 127

5:14 14, 35, 124, 125,

126, 127, 128, 130

5:15 124, 126, 127

5:16 35, 127

5:16─21 100, 189

5:17 48, 51,122, 127

5:18 40, 48, 51, 64, 69,

130, 164, 214, 228

5:18─19 46

5:18─20 68

5:18─6:2 83

5:19 14, 24, 40, 42, 47,

64, 69, 73, 75, 129, 130,

176

5:19─21 89, 92

5:20 41, 69, 70, 92, 93

5:21 77, 93, 186

Galatians

1:13─15 100

1:15 42

2:4 89

3:13 40, 127

3:29 22

5:12 159

5:18 126

6:7 27

6:10 119
Ephesians

1:4 51

1:4─6 50, 51

1:7 41

1:9 122

1:10 122

1:13 42, 43, 153

2:1 55

2:5 64, 213

2:8 50, 51, 53

2:9 50, 51, 53

2:11─22 88

2:12 175

2:14 142

2:17 176

2:18 176

3:1─10 175

3:8─10 175

3:14 175

4:11─16 77

4:12 80

4:13 80

4:25 70

5:5 27

5:6 27

Philippians

1:6

2:10 14

2:11 14

2:12 92

2:13 79

3:3 172

4:22 119
Colossians

1:13─14 82

1:14 160

1:15─20 224

1:16 122

1:17 122

1:19─22

1:20 15

1:22 40, 41

1:23 66

1:28 70

3:2 68, 70

3:3 68

3:25 27

1 Thessalonians

1:9─10 82

1:10 148

2 Thessalonians

1:9 33, 193, 194, 196

2:7 28, 71

2:12 27

1 Timothy

1:1 11, 116

2:1 130, 131

2:1─3 131

2:2 131

2:4 130, 131

2:5 131, 132

2:6 15, 130, 131, 132,

143

2:7 131

3:16 66
4:10 15, 115, 116, 117,

118, 119, 133

5:8 119

5:17 119

6:16 195

6:21 89

2 Timothy

1:9 42, 50, 51, 225

1:10 41, 11, 196

1:15 33

1:19 23

2:1 33

2:10 46

2:13 33

2:25 79

3:16 52

3:17 80

4:13 118

Titus

1:1─3 82

1:3 116

1:4 116

1:10 119

2:2─10 143

2:11 15, 41, 133, 143

2:11─15 82, 93

3:2 15

Philemon

16 119

Hebrews

1:1 172
1:3 41

2:8 32, 33

2:9 15, 134, 160

2:14─14 82

4:1 182

4:1─7 182, 183

4:2 182

4:6 93

4:7 56, 93

4:25 68

5:9 194

6:2 194

8:4 160

9:12 41, 194

9:28 160

10:10 41, 112

10:14 40, 41

10:26─30 71

10:29 57

11 57

11:6 57, 210

11:12 220

11:13 57

11:39 57

James

2:24

1 Peter

1:3 82

1:4 196

2:24 41

2 Peter

1:1 116
1:4 196

1:11 116

2:6 194

2:10 119

2:20 116

3:2 116

3:9 47

3:18 116

1 John

1:7 23, 112

2:2 15, 24, 41, 138, 140,

160, 245

2:9 89

2:19 37

2:23 154

3:1 187, 199

4:14 135

5:12 154

5:16 33

Jude

7 194

25 116

Revelation

5:5 41

5:9 41, 143, 153

6:9 78

7:9 143

20:12 27

20:13 27

21:8 196

22:11 57

22:12 28
22:15 28

22:17 218

Copyright 2003 Northland Books

© 2014 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission to copy and distribute this document,

for non-commercial use, without altering text is hereby granted if this source is acknowledged.