Inclusivism: Part 2

We're approaching the end of the Apologetics section of this blog. In fact, this will probably be my second to last post. After I finish Nash's lectures I'm going to slow way down on the blogging. I'll be listening to a "Theology of Missions" series, and I'll most likely only do about one post each week. 

Today won't be too long- it's just a continuation of the other Inclusivism stuff. 

John Sanders- Claim: All humans are saved until they reject the Gospel. 

Implications: People who've never heard the Gospel can be saved. Universalism for the unevangelized. Any movement to show people the Gospel would be harmful- because if they never hear it, they automatically get accepted- but if they have the choice, and refuse, they've been condemned. 

This pretty much says that Christian mission work is useless. We'd be better off letting everyone go their own way, rather than telling them the truth. 

This is crazy. It doesn't make any sense logically, let alone biblically. In fact, this is completely contradictory with the Gospel. 

My two cents: 

Nash is totally right here- this idea is ludicrous. But, I think he leaves something important out. 

I think the reason that Sanders goes this route is because his focus is messed up. He's got his eyes on Salvation, as if that was all there was to the picture. It sounds blasphemous to say, but Salvation really doesn't mean that much. Before you say anything, let me explain. Salvation is lesser, compared to a relationship with Christ. You see, salvation comes as a result of that relationship. Jesus has to come first. The point of Christ isn't just to be saved- it's to love and honor and serve him- the creator of the universe. Yes, Salvation is important, BUT, when we take our eyes off Christ, and just look at the saving part- we miss a lot of vital stuff. We miss precious time to develop our relationship with Christ, and we miss opportunities to bring others to Christ. Sander's view seems like it's for the greater good... right? It's actually kind of selfish. It sort of says, "I'm going to worry about me and my salvation, and I don't need to go share with anyone because as long as they don't have to choose- their ok". See? It really takes away from everything Christ stands for. Christ calls us to be love, to serve, to make disciples... not to sit idle at home and leave the world in the dark. (And I know you could argue semantics of the definition of salvation again, but for simplicity sake, let's just say it means the saving of a soul. Heaven instead of Hell.) 

Back to Inclusivism- The Book of Acts = great stuff. (This is a personal favorite book of mine. If you haven't read it, you need to). 

Nash talks for a while about this, but I'll just give some major highlights I think are cool. This book is literally filled to the brim with stuff that contradicts Inclusivism, and more than that, it's major spiritual food. 

In chapter 20:26-27 it says, "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. ²⁷ For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God."

My bit: 

Lets think about the implications of this for a moment. It's sort of an if-then statement. Meaning? If we do hesitate to proclaim the whole will of God, if we're passive about sharing our faith, if we do it half-heartedly, or don't take it seriously--- we have blood on our hands. Think of it this way: A man is walking by a bridge and sees a child hanging off the edge, above a very deep lake. The child cannot swim, and is about to fall. If it was your child- and the man kept walking- allowing your child to die- what would you think? At least some of the blame goes to the man, who had the power to help, but did nothing. Now, when it comes to sharing Christ with people, it's not like we're solely responsible for the faith of every person we know. But, take time to think about this... If you have the opportunity, day after day, week after week, month after month, ect. to share Jesus- and you never do... well, you think about it. We, as beleivers, have the obligation to share- to make disciples. Christ didn't say that it was our fault if people rejected him, or that we were responsible for everyone. But he did say that we need to try, if nothing else. We need to give it all we've got, because the price isn't just physical life- it's spiritual life. It's eternity. And I apologize if it sounds like I'm preaching from the pulpit. This is definitely convicting for me too. It's encouraging to think though- we've got the holy spirit on our side. In fact- he's the one who really does the saving. But I'm ranting... Sorry. Point? Don't be passive about sharing your faith. It matters. 

2nd example... 

In Chapter 26 it says something like this: "I am sending you to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light." 

Key word here is sending. It's not optional. The God of the universe has given us a mission- to share the light of Christ with the world. Any suggestion that people don't need to hear it for it to be true is completely blasphemous. And if they say it's not- refer them to this. 

Third example (From Philippians though. This book has some great stuff too, and it's by the same author... I think). 

Paul pretty much gives his testimony in this book- and it's great. He's a great example of why inclusivism doesn't work. He attests to personal salvation- explaining how he was in the darkness- in sin- and was saved through Christ. If inclusivism were true, then that darkness Saul felt was salvation, and was no different from the light. Personal testimony tells us this just isn't so. 

..........

So, a lot more personal commentary than I was planning on today, but it's an interesting topic, so I don't regret spending the time on it. I would say stay tuned, but I'm not sure when my next post is comming. Keep an eye out on facebook, I'll be sure to put a link to my next post. Feel free to comment on this one too. Thanks for reading. :)