The Evangelical Universalist Forum

scriptures that refute inclusionism. Here are fifty:

I love Paul Ellis,he is a great Grace teacher, but has come out pretty hard against UR. Here he lists 50 scripture that we cannot explain. What say you? escapetoreality.org/2014/12/12/s … t-explain/

We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.” (Heb 2:1)

Being careless with God’s word can cause people to drift away. This is why I am opposed to the doctrine of inclusion for it distorts and twists scripture and, as a result, some have drifted away.

Inclusionism teaches that Jesus died not as one of us but as all of us and that humanity was included in his resurrection and ascension. Since “all are in Christ,” everyone is now reconciled, justified, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Spirit whether they believe it or not. (Authoritative sources for these claims of inclusionism can be found here.)

As I have explained elsewhere, inclusion is not the gospel of grace and it was not preached by the early church fathers. Inclusionism is a manmade philosophy that can damage your faith and one of the ways it does this is by contradicting scripture. By my rough count there are several hundred scriptures that refute inclusionism. Here are fifty:
:black_medium_small_square:Genesis 7:13 “On that very day Noah and his sons, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.” Noah’s Ark represents Christ. If inclusionism is true, then humanity would’ve boarded the ark and been saved. Instead, the only people who entered were those who believed what Noah preached. (For more on how inclusionism is not reflected in Old Testament types and shadows, read this.)
:black_medium_small_square:Matthew 7:23 “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me.’” Inclusionism: “All have been united with the Lord. All are part of God’s family, so how can Christ claim he doesn’t know us?”
:black_medium_small_square:Luke 7:50 “Jesus said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’” Inclusionism: “That must be a mistake since it’s the faith of Jesus that saves us. Anyway, the woman was only sort of saved.” See next point.
:black_medium_small_square:Luke 8:12 “Believe and be saved.” Inclusionism: “You are saved whether you believe it or not but you’re not really because there are actually three kinds of salvation.” This is one of greatest (and most confusing) perversions of scripture. Jesus and the apostles say “believe and be saved” (Mark 16:16, 8:12, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9), but inclusionism reverses the order: “You are saved. Believe it.”
:black_medium_small_square:Luke 11:13 “… how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Jesus said the Father is eager to give the Holy Spirit to all who ask but inclusionism says “A loving Father gives his children what they need before they ask. You don’t have to ask for the Holy Spirit; you already have him. Everyone does.”
:black_medium_small_square:John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already…” Jesus said “God condemns no one (John 3:17), but unbelievers condemn themselves.” Inclusionism disagrees. “No they don’t. Since all are in Christ, there’s no condemnation for anyone.”
:black_medium_small_square:John 5:24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes… has crossed over from death to life.” Inclusionism: “Since humanity was co-resurrected with Christ, all have crossed over to life whether they believe it or not.” Jesus said the unbeliever remains under condemnation and death (serious words!), but inclusionism says that’s just an illusion (not so serious really).
:black_medium_small_square:John 5:40 “Come to me to have life.” The gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached came with sweet invitations (Matthew 11:28, 19:14, 6:37, 44, 65, 7:37; Acts 3:19, 20:21, 26:20). Inclusionism, in contrast, tells the unbeliever, “You are already in a relationship with Christ, you just don’t know it.” Jesus woos us with love, but inclusionism preaches involuntary union.
:black_medium_small_square:John 6:37 “Those who come to me I never cast away”. Inclusionism: “There is no coming to Christ. You’re already in!”
:black_medium_small_square:John 6:47 “He who believes has everlasting life.” Jesus and the apostles preached so that you might believe and have eternal life (John 5:24, 40, 1 John 5:12-13). “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). In contrast, inclusionism claims, “Raised with Christ, you already have new life. You just don’t know it.”
:black_medium_small_square:John 10:9 “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” Inclusionism: “You were saved before you entered. Entering sounds like a work. So does faith. Your entering and believing have little to do with it.”
:black_medium_small_square:Act 10:44 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.” Inclusionism: “Actually Cornelius and his household already had the Holy Spirit hiding inside them. He didn’t come down, he popped out.”
:black_medium_small_square:Act 19:6 “When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” Inclusionism: “Again, the Holy Spirit didn’t ‘come on them.’ One with the Lord, unbelievers are already joined to the Holy Spirit.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” Inclusionism: “No, the saving power of God is for all, including those who reject the gospel.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 3:22 “This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe” (see also Romans 4:24, 10:4). In many places the Bible says, “The believer is righteous.” Inclusionism adds, “So is the unbeliever.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 5:15,19 “…the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, will overflow to the many! … through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Inclusionism: “Not many, but all and not will be, but have been, as in all have been made righteous.” (What about when Paul refers to “all men” in v.18? See this note.)
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 5:17 “…how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” The Bible: “Receive the gift of righteousness!” Inclusionism: “All are exhibited righteous on account of Jesus.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 6:3 “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Inclusionism: “This is describing everyone since all were included or baptized into Christ’s death on the cross.” Yet the apostles found some who had not been baptized into Christ (see Act 10:48, 19:5). They were excluded.
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 8:9 “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.” Inclusionism: “The second part of that verse is a fiction for all have the Holy Spirit in them.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 10:10 “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” Inclusionism: “The unbeliever is justified and saved too – they just don’t know it.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 10:13 “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Inclusionism: “This is misleading for Jesus saved you before you called. But in truth it’s complicated because salvation means a whole lot of things.”
:black_medium_small_square:Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who were in Christ before I was.” Inclusionism: “Paul was mistaken – everyone was in Christ at the cross.”
:black_medium_small_square:2 Corinthians 6:14-15 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers … What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” Inclusionism: “Quite a lot actually, since they are both yoked in Christ.”
:black_medium_small_square:Colossians 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church…” The Bible: “Jesus is the firstborn of (supreme above) creation (Colossians 1:15), the firstfruits of the resurrected dead (1 Corinthians 15:20), and the head of the family of God (Ephesians 3:15).” Inclusionism: “Paul was confused for Jesus is the federal head of humanity.”
:black_medium_small_square:Ephesians 1:13 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” Inclusionism: “Wrong again. You were included before you heard and before you believed.”
:black_medium_small_square:Ephesians 4:18 “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” Inclusionism: “God has established a relationship with everyone and all have been raised to resurrection life. Any separation is a figment of the unbeliever’s imagination.”
:black_medium_small_square:2 Corinthians 5:20 “We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” Inclusionism: “Unbelievers are reconciled to God. Indeed, they are married to Jesus.”
:black_medium_small_square:1 Timothy 1:9 “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinners…” (See also 1 Peter 4:18 and James 4:8.) Inclusionism: “Strong words! And irrelevant because there are no ungodly and no sinners. Just people living in a state of denial.”
:black_medium_small_square:1 Timothy 5:24 “The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.” Inclusionism: “What sins?”
:black_medium_small_square:Hebrew 4:2 “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.” Inclusionism: “Hebrews was written for Hebrews, not us. It was written for people living under law so we can ignore this.”
:black_medium_small_square:James 4:8 “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Inclusionism: “James wrote for the twelve tribes, not you. He probably didn’t understand grace anyway, so we can take his epistle with a pinch of salt.”
:black_medium_small_square:1 John 1:3 “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” The Bible: “Not everyone is connected to the Vine.” Inclusionism: “Everyone is connected. Unbelievers are non-participating members of the body of Christ.”
:black_medium_small_square:1 John 3:15 “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” Inclusionism: “Everyone has eternal life in them; they just don’t know it.”

Inclusion appeals to some because it comes wrapped in borrowed ribbons of grace. But don’t be fooled – the involuntary union of inclusionism is a hideous distortion of God’s love for humanity. Jesus died to set you free and that freedom includes the freedom to choose. Thankfully, inclusionism is easily recognized as a counterfeit for it doesn’t fit with scripture. Indeed, scripture refutes it again and again, as we have seen. (If you can think of other scriptures refuting inclusionism, let us know below.)

In contrast, the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed on every page and in every book in the Bible. That gospel is the divine announcement that God loves every single one of us, holds nothing against us, and draws us to himself through his Son Jesus. The gospel is the stunning announcement that God loves you like a Father – unconditionally, deeply, wildly. Those who respond to his overtures of love will never be turned away.

To embrace inclusionism one must either ignore large chunks of the Bible or rewrite it. I suggest we hold to scripture and dismiss the counterfeit.

I didn’t look into your authoritative source, nor did I read the entire post. But I do want to point out that there IS no authoritative source for UR beliefs. We aren’t a denomination, and we don’t subscribe to a particular UR doxology that stipulates what we must believe. I would say that Jesus IS the ark. If we are in Christ, we are saved from the death. If we are not, then we are dying that death and will experience the further death of the LoF. It doesn’t follow that we will not be saved in the end through Christ. We even have scripture from Peter’s epistle suggesting this:

Nevertheless whichever authorities you’re citing, who claim that all universalists believe this or that, I would say are exercising hubris. No one can authoritatively say what we as a group believe. We haven’t signed onto a statement of faith; we’re not that organized. Hence the breadth of discussion on this site.

He doesn’t seem to directly be talking about the idea that everyone will be saved (though what he is refuting obviously does lead to the idea of everyone being saved but not in a way that most people here would agree with I imagine). What he’s refuting is an involuntary inclusion, possibly inferring a penal substitutionary death where Christ dies for everyone and thereby everyone is automatically passed as righteous and receives eternal life, even without faith or belief. Quite beside the point that I don’t believe in that theory of atonement, I agree with him - we do have to have belief in God, we do have to have faith. Jesus in no way died to excuse us from our sinfulness and evil injustice. That idea is not even close to being biblical and has no relation to any truth. We don’t inherit eternal life simply through the act of Jesus; we have to follow Him and turn from our sinful ways.

The only thing I take immediate objection to on first glance is his point about Jesus dying to set us free and how that freedom includes the freedom to choose. That is a very bizarre way of understanding the notion of Jesus’ death setting us free, not to mention the fact that we have freedom of choice without the death of Jesus as well.

Yes, I think you’re right, Jonny. I just get a little stressed when someone else seems to be describing to me what I must and do believe – because so and so says I believe it.

He is a great Grace teacher, but has come out pretty hard against UR. Here he lists 50 scripture that we cannot explain. What say you?

The essence of UR is that judgment can and does include within it the possibility of restoration and generally this is thought to happen through the lake of fire.
As you know traditional Christianity believes the lake of fire is eternal hell but UR believes it’s a place of eventual restoration. We believe there is no other way except through accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, but he is as the bible says “the Savior of the World” not just the potential savior of the world.

My problem with this guy’s argument is that it’s a strawman. Most of us aren’t “inclusionists,” which is a new term for me. Yes I believe that Jesus died for all, but I also believe that to be included in the benefits of that death, we must be “in Christ,” which happens when we put our trust in Him and the Father places us within His Son. This man gives all these scriptures which “we inclusionists” can’t answer and then expects us to defend inclusionism and insists that we are and must be inclusionists because his expert says so. It irritates me when people do this.

I agree totally Cindy, that is part of his straw man argument. He argues against a caricature of what he believes UR to be.

Totally Steve. From what I have read of his views, he seems to take a CS Lewis approach. That is, we freely choose to stay in hell and because of that we slowly go out of existence and no longer are. Like a amber out of the fire slowly looses its flame and grows cold and dies.

I don’t understand why URPilgrim says “has come out pretty hard against UR”. I read a fair amount of the source material and the thing he has come out hard against is “inclusionism”. Reading much of his description of inclusionism, it does not remotely represent my understanding of UR. Like Cindy, I don’t have any familiarity with that term prior to this post.

I’m confused. I thought inclusionism means that all are included in the salvation plan as opposed to an elect. Everyone but Calvinists believe this. Jesus died to save everyone. UR affirms inclusion, not the other way around.

Totally Steve. From what I have read of his views, he seems to take a CS Lewis approach. That is, we freely choose to stay in hell and because of that we slowly go out of existence and no longer are. Like a amber out of the fire slowly looses its flame and grows cold and dies.

Why would we freely choose to stay in hell? Is it because we hate God?

Yes, he seems to be teaching an elect/non-elect exclusion when that looks more like it refutes universal salvation; and yet also an Arminianistic inclusion of what Christ accomplishes for everyone on the cross (thus his emphasis on free choice to stay in hell instead of ever repenting and coming out a la Lewis).

Yeah, and by the same verses, what shall happen to those who reject so great a salvation that even rebel gods are exhorted and expected to loyally worship Christ (earlier in Heb 1)?! :unamused:

Whereas when people leave Christianity it tends to be over rejecting a lesser salvation, not over accepting the greatest salvation. (Or when people switch from Calv to Arm or vice versa, rejecting one lesser salvation to accept a different lesser salvation either way.)

Replace “all of us” and “all” (which by the way are reflective of Biblical language in such claims) with “the chosen elect” or whatever – and then where’s the problem? Because the elect don’t start out filled with the HS etc.? Neither do “all”.

Re: Noah and the ark, that some people are not saved from punishment now, does not mean all people will not be saved from sin eventually. See also extensive analysis of 1 Peter 3 and 4 – post-mortem evangelists aren’t the ones ignoring scripture there!

Re: Matt 7:23, notably said to people empowered by the HS to work miracles in Christ’s name, and who know enough to call Him by the divine double-title “Lord Lord”. Contexts indicate their problem was that they were expecting exclusive salvation and exclusion of everyone else!

Re: Luke 7:50, if the gracious faith of Jesus (against a doctrine of works-salvation) leads someone to cooperate with Jesus and be saved thereby, that hardly counts as an argument against the notion that Jesus will lead all people to cooperate with Him eventually and so be saved from their sins. It doesn’t even count against the notion that everyone can and will eventually earn their salvation (instead of salvation by grace) by convincing God to save them eventually thereby! (Though I’m assuming Paul Ellis, the great Grace teacher, doesn’t mean a salvation by works instead of by grace. I have seen grace emphasizing teachers flip around to insisting on salvation by works in order to defend exclusionary non-salvation, though.)

Re Luke 8:13, believe and be saved. Ditto: either this is purely works-based non-salvation, or it counts nothing against the theory that Christ leads all to believe and be saved eventually.

Re Luke 11:13, counts as no evidence against our Father in heaven leading everyone eventually to ask for and receive the HS.

Re John 3:18 (and 3:17), the Son may not have been sent the first time to judge the world, but do I really have to be the one to quote scriptures, including from GosJohn, about God (including the Son personally) authoritatively judging the world??? Because I can, and do, and part of my scriptural argument for universal salvation comes from keeping the intentions of the Father and the Son in actively and punitively judging those who do evil in mind.

Re John 5:24, not the slightest evidence against all sinners eventually coming to hear and believe, crossing over from death to life. In fact, the contexts strongly argue that this is the whole point to the Son judging even those who “do the bad things” in the general resurrection to come. Notably, I’m not the one skipping over Christ being active judge of evildoers here. :wink:

Re John 5:40, I agree God (including the Son and the Holy Spirit) woos us with love, but we get a lot of actions from God we didn’t volunteer first for, too – to give one very pertinent scriptural example, God acts to woo us while we are still in our sins and before we can ask for such courting ourselves. Impenitent sinners don’t volunteer to be judged and punished either by God either, but it happens. (I expect from past experience PE is reaching for a rape metaphor here, to contrast “wooing with love” with “involuntary union”. Considering we’re talking about the foundational ground of our existence leading unrighteous persons into righteousness, any criticism of that by rape metaphor is insultingly irresponsible at best.)

Off for an eye exam, more tomorrow maybe. Most of the remained can be replied under the category “this does not even slightly count against everyone doing this or this happening for everyone eventually.”

Nick, I’m just going by the definition given in the OP, since like I said, I didn’t know what it meant:

The thing I would disagree with here is the "everyone is now reconciled, etc. Even in the view of the ultra u’s, there is usually a Lake of Fire reconciliation in which the sins are removed in some way and burned in the LoF, or a death-moment reconciliation or similar. The reconciliation cannot occur until the individual comes to God to be reconciled. God doesn’t need to be reconciled to us – scripture never says that. It’s we who need to be reconciled to Him. To me, it’s clear that, for example, Idi Amin was not reconciled to God (to our knowledge) in this life – let alone that he was reconciled all his life in the midst of his atrocities, etc. It’s my understanding from reading the above definition, that it would require that all people alive today are in fact presently (and always have been, since we were born after the crucifixion) reconciled to God, justified, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Spirit.

So, for me that definition doesn’t work. If it were described differently, then maybe I’d sign on, but I do think there’s a point at which a person decides to turn around and follow the Messiah. Sanctification and justification occur when we identify with Christ, but after that there’s a journey in which that sanctification and justification mature in our lives – and a process in which we are constantly filled by the Spirit and eventually learn to walk in the Spirit. If you have to start out in a state of realized completion, none of us are going to make it.

But I guess my frustration with this is that I can’t argue against his fifty points because I more or less agree with them, and I certainly don’t believe this thing (whatever it is) that he accuses me of believing. The hardest part of the whole situation is that when you argue with these folks, they typically either CAN’T hear what I’m saying because they already KNOW what I believe and that I am WRONG for believing that. Yet I agree that IF I DID believe the thing they’re accusing me of, I would be wrong – but I don’t believe it. And then they go on arguing with me as though I believed it. It can go on for months, and I swear these people never read a word I actually say to them. They only read what they KNOW that I WILL say to them. AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!! :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

Well, I would say that over 99% of people who are aware of the teaching of the universal reconciliation of all people to God believe we are inclusionists, that is, they think we believe that everyone will automatically go to heaven after they die because of Christ’s sacrificial death.
Indeed, I would guess that the MAJORITY of people who call themselves “universalists” believe precisely that. It is for that very reason that I do not accept the label “universalist”.

Consider the largest universalist organization in North America—the Unitarian-Universalist Church. Are they not inclusionists? Anyone can join their church, including atheists. And why not? Everyone is going to heaven, so why not accept as a member anyone who wants to be a member?

Okay, I finally did personally read the post in question and I see now how there could be some doubt as to whether Paul Ellis is even talking about us. That might be because I sort of harassed him about this post: escapetoreality.org/2013/09/19/f … ign=buffer

Unless he’s changed his mind, he does equate his “inclusionism” with Christian universalism, and though I have told him (typical) that this is NOT typical of what we believe, he still appears to think he knows better. Clearly he hasn’t done a lot of research since our conversation. Though he doesn’t specifically name universalism in this post, people are going to equate the two. :imp:

Paidion, yes – you’re right. (I just saw your post.)

The thing is, a lot of people have tried to change the “name” of what we believe, and it’s not that easy to do. Even if you call yourself a “blessed hopist” or whatever, people are going to listen to you for a couple of minutes and they’re going to put you in a box. “Oh yes, you’re one of those Unitarians.” But I told him SPECIFICALLY that we are CHRISTIAN universalists and Christian universalists don’t believe that.

If he wants to talk about this stuff, he needs to realize that there are UUs and then there are a whole lot of people who are not UUs. He lumps us all together in the same bucket. If there weren’t a growing number of CUs “dirtying” up the church with our “heresies”, no one would be talking at all. Nobody used to talk about universalism when it was just this marginal church – Unitarians or something – who meet in the small town 12 miles north of here. They have pot lucks every week and they have about 32 in the pews on a good week. That’s not worth worrying about. The worry comes from books like Rob Bell’s (which was great, but which hardly laid out the things that most CUs believe)

It is US he’s targeting here, not the Unitarians. He possibly thinks we ARE Unitarians, but if he does, he’s just plain wrong. And I told him so, but it didn’t seem to register. Maybe I wasn’t specific enough. I’ll go back and clarify.

Actually, the author does refer to a link in the post, that explains his idea of universal inclusiionsm. Look at sub-heading “What is inclusionism?”.

Am I understanding correctly that this ‘inclusionism’ would be different than ‘inclusivism’?

From what I’ve understood, ‘inclusivism’ is the idea that although salvation is only achieved through Christ (as exclusivism affirms), a saved person might not (yet) explicitly understand those details of his or her saving faith, which is in response to whatever degree of light, Love, etc. the Creator has revealed to him or her. You know – Abraham having his faith to obey and leave Ur ‘credited as righteousness’, even though he didn’t yet know the explicit details of how Christ would achieve salvation for all who follow in such faith.

Or is this the same idea being referred to as ‘inclusionism’ here?

I googled this and came up with this link regarding “inclusionism.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson
Apparently this guy, Carlton Pearson, believes that hell IS this life (a contention I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with entirely. I know that some of the hellish things I’ve gone through in this life have certainly refined me and changed the way I feel about certain unloving practices. I just think that for some of us, hell is likely to continue in the age(s) to come. It takes as long as it takes to persuade people to let their sin go, and if we’re not ready to “play nice with the other children,” then we’re not ready for the fellowship of the blessed.

So, I take it that Pearson has called his doctrine “inclusionism,” and perhaps that’s what Paul Ellis is referring to. Pearson has since joined the Unitarian clergy, and good for him if he feels that’s where he belongs.

It isn’t just, honorable, or truthful however, to equate the doctrine of one person (who eventually decided he belonged with the UU church) with a whole diverse movement. You can’t look at one charismatic church leader and assume that every Christian universalist believes what that leader believes – or indeed, whether they’ve even heard of said leader.

Here’s what I found on “inclusivism,” which (according to Wikipedia at least) is not the same thing at all as “inclusionism.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusivism I’d explain it here, but really it’s kind of complex and maybe it would be better to just read the link. I might summarize badly if I tried, and give the wrong impression. I think probably that most if not all of us would agree with this doctrine to one degree or another. Most of the church probably would, with the exception of dedicated fundamentalists. While, IMO, Carlton Pearson’s doctrine is too simplistic and doesn’t really work if you think – inclusivism is much more nuanced and supportable.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches a form of inclusivism since Vatican II. It had its roots in the Anonymous Christian by the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner. There’s a good article by an evangelical entitled An ‘evangelical inclusivist’ defends evangelical inclusivism .