WILL MOST OF THE HUMAN RACE GO TO HELL?
Will
Most People Finally go to Hell? Will Most of the Human Race go to
Hell?
Many
of my fellow evangelicals would answer this question in the affirmative, but I
have long maintained that, in adopting this position, they are only focussing
on certain Scriptures whilst being quite prepared to ignore many others.
Here is my article of 2000 which has stirred up such amazing interest during the last few years! I may say that it remains the case that very, very few have ever come to me and said things like, "I hate to say it but you have got this massively wrong because....." On the contrary, I have been surprised by the admissions from reformed Calvinists that I make a very valid point and that this really does highlight a weak and undiscussed area of reformed and evangelical theology. I could never have suspected that so many reformed Calvinist evangelicals would contact me with an admittance that I have highlighted a weak area of their theology!
Since I am effectively re-releasing this article with this 2004 edition (although the original article remains on the 'net'), I am just making one or two slight alterations; and yet my article remains substantially the same.
Museltof
2004.
We are going to take a look here at Calvinistic Restrictivism,
or, the belief that the majority of the human race will finally go to hell.
Yes, we are going to dare to take this question on!
It is a logical conclusion of much Reformed theology that few are going to be
saved and, certainly, some Scriptures can be produced which appear, at least
initially, to back this up. On the other hand, there are also quite a welter of Scriptures which appear to show that this
cannot be the case! These Scriptures are, we believe, too often ignored. Your
writer remains more Reformed than anything else, and I certainly stand more
with Calvin than Arminius, but there are serious and
fair questions here which many have put to me and I really feel that one should
address them! It saddens me that a few Reformed friends may distance themselves
from me after this feature, but I really think that we need to boldly face up
to weaknesses in certain areas of Reformed theology, just as we are happy to
praise its strengths. It is a very long article, largely written in 1998.
IS it only the few who will finally be saved? Calvin, following Augustine,
certainly thought so and this approach has spread to affect most of what is
loosely known as conservative evangelical theology. This Calvinistic approach
is known by such names as 'the fewness doctrine', 'Restrictivism'
and 'Exclusivism'. It is the teaching of 'Limited
Atonement', the third of the 5 points of Calvinism. Let us, here and now, give
away a strong clue to one of our final conclusions; We
say that Limited Atonement is correct, but only during this age of the Church,
not correct as an eternal reality! If one is only able to see 'Limited Atonement' as an eternal reality (probably the position of most strict Calvinists), then it is incorrect, since it fails to take account of too many Scriptures! Fascinated? Then read on!
Limited Atonement, as conceived by the strict Calvinist has, of course,
Scriptures which would appear to bear it out. It is a concentration on the
'little flock' and the 'Remnant of Israel' who are alone to be delivered.
However, I have long noticed that in order for this Restrictivism
to be maintained, other Scriptures have to be either ignored or have Calvinist
'control beliefs' brought to them. This can amount to things being imposed upon
the Scriptures which might be foreign to them, and is the practise of eisegesis (putting things into the Scriptures rather than exegesis;drawing things out!) The
truth is, there are also quite a welter of Scriptures which I shall call
'universalistic scope' Scriptures. No, one does not feel that they amount to a universalist message (all will be
saved) but they certainly appear to point beyond Restrictivism.
(Few, or. very few will finally be saved).
Yet it cannot be denied that Restrictivism has a
certain consistency to it and it has certainly been the basis of much missionary
endeavour. The approach has often been, 'the majority of mankind are certainly
bound for hell unless one can reach them with the gospel before they die.'
Actually, of course, this is not a strictly Calvinist line since that line of
thought would say that the majority of mankind are bound for hell no matter
what the missionary might do!
The Protestant Reformers, as is well known, identified strongly with Augustine
whom they saw as perhaps the last to strongly uphold the Pauline conception of
grace. They thus revisited the bishop of Hippo, but Augustine had also embraced
certain errors, including a very legalistic approach to baptism. Indeed, the sacramentalist view of the church was also developed by
Augustine and so the Reformers knew that they could not take all of Augustine.
In his earlier life, the great theologian had embraced Manichaeism, the dualistic and fatalistic cult with strong
eastern elements and he finally emerged from it only through a Neoplatonist route! Indeed, many feel that he did not escape
entirely unscathed, for there would, thereafter, be a strongly fatalistic
streak to his theology. Again, whether or not we agree, it has been suggested
that Calvin also took some of this. Predestination of the Elect is biblical as
long as it does not become divorced from the veracity of our decision whether
to believe. To arrive at a truly biblical approach, we have to hold these two
aspects of election in an exact tension. We believe, and then joyfully discover
that our decision is backed up and, indeed, eternally written in heaven!
However, we must always avoid the Arminian error of
saying that God only chose us because He knew we would believe - this is
obviously in conflict with the teaching which we discover in Ephesians. This
puts us in control and has God awaiting our decision, which must be wrong! No,
God alone is the elector and yet our human choice remains a meaningful choice.
This is the only way to faithfully describe the biblical position. Thats the Predestination of the
Elect - however, Double Predestination is plainly unbiblical and goes beyond
what the Scriptures clearly reveal! This 'dreadful decree' states that just as
some are ordained for salvation, others (the majority) are ordained for hell;
but this teaching is only reached by taking a leap of logic; but it is human
logic. The Bible never finally crosses its 't's nor dots its 'i's on
this matter. Hell is held up as a continual deterrent, but sometimes it is only
those who explicitly reject Christ who appear to be going there, while, at
other times, it is the wicked in general who are apparently in real danger of
its peril. The issue of what happens to the unevangelized
is never specifically raised nor is the fate of those who die in chilhood, and yet - as those who have received the Holy
Spirit - we can surely see the principles which will come into play.
Now, to return to the teaching of Restrictivism, it
is true that some Reformed people, like A.A. Hodge, had a very optimistic view
of the numbers who would finally be saved, but this was because of their postmillenialism (the Church will finally convert the whole
world before Christ returns.) Few hold to postmillenialism
today and we have to proceed here in the light of current realities.
It is time to state some specific objections to Restrictivism;
If this teaching is correct, and if indeed - at the
end of time - hell has countless millions of inhabitants, while comparatively
few will have been saved, this calls the final victory and triumph of Christ
into question! And yet, we are told in the Scriptures that 'of the increase of
His government there shall be no end'! Would this also not stand Romans 5:18-20
on its head?
"Therefore, as through one man's offence judgement came to all men,
resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free
gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's
disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will
be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense
might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin
reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal
life through JesusChrist our Lord"
Time and again, I have observed the extreme Calvinist's discomfiture with this
and similar Scriptures; lamentably, one has also witnessed the immediate
attempt to bring 'control beliefs' from outside the context of this Scripture
into play! May we request the reader to read those three verses again -
carefully - and to ask whether this can possibly fit in with Restrictivism in which only the few are finally saved? We
see in these verses a picture of the complete victory of Jesus Christ, but
could that be a complete victory if the great kidnapper, Satan, had succeeded
in closing the door to salvation to most of this world's population? Really,
this is Plutarchian dualism; That is, that God and
Satan cannot overcome each other and will continue to have their domains since
neither is strong enough to finally defeat the other! But we are bound to
reject this as being wholly unbiblical.
Yes, the Scriptures regularly reveal a hell but the approach is to continually
warn of its danger rather than to pontificate on a so-called
anti-elect, or the reprobated masses, who are certainly going there! Now that
some of us are well-seasoned in the faith, we should be prepared to think about
some of these things rather than rush to Calvin (though usually a hyper-Calvin)
for answers. After all, today we are aware of things which the great Reformer could
not have been. He, looking ahead from the 16th century, may well have believed
that within a few years of the Protestant victory, the whole world would have
been successfully evangelized, with every soul
becoming aware of the name of Christ! Today, we know differently; we now have
little doubt that most of those who have lived of all time, lived and died
without even hearing the name of Christ!!
Again, we tend to look on the Church and the Elect as exactly the same thing,
but we should perhaps occasionally pause to remind ourselves that this is never
biblically spelled out! Sometimes one grows a little weary with the eagerness
of some hard-lined Reformed people to despatch almost everybody to hell! I seem
to find rather more than the odd scriptural hint that the Elect of God and the
Church are not absolute parralels!
I also happen to believe that if Calvin
were alive today and knew what we know, he might well reconsider one or two
things which he stated. Let no one doubt that, despite saying this, I remain a
firm admirer of the great man.
Also, surely the New Testament shows God to be ever willing to go after the
'lost sheep'? And we are encouraged to consider God's care for us to be
superior to a human parent's care for their children, but what human parent
would ever eternally exclude his/her children from their presence? Some would
say that these are just emotional factors, but where did such emotions as love,
joy, concern and forgiveness come from?
Now, as we know, the Bible reveals some sort of grading not only in heaven but
in hell too. Not all will suffer the greatest punishment, neither will all receive the greatest reward, this might be relevant
when we consider the Elect as the Church who are probably more or less
synonymous with 'the little flock'. Obviously, the Church is never going to be
numerically huge at the present time, so any consideration of 'universalistic
scope' Scriptures would appear to be extra to the specific Church. Revelation
21 is intriguing here; If the New Jerusalem is a symbol of the Church which it
certainly appears to be (Rev 21: 2,9) then just who
are the nations who will thereafter walk in the light of it? (
Of course, many reformed evangelicals will have a problem when I speak of those "not particularly wicked"
because of the very black and white picture which we evangelicals tend to have between the recipients of God's grace and the unredeemed.
We evangelicals arrive at this picture because of our insistence of having neat, tidy, 'all questions answered' theologies, but can we always say that the Holy Bible is always as clear-cut and sharply defined on this issue as our systematic theologies?
Apart from such Scriptures as John 3: 16-17 and 1 John 2: 2 which suggest
Christ's saving efficiency goes beyond the parameters of the Church per se,
there are another group of Scriptures which suggest that those who have
suffered unreasonably during this life will be saved, indeed we tend to forget
the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is such a Scripture! We have such
statements as this,
"Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to
you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall
mourn and weep"
(Luke
Some such New Testament statements appear to be surprisingly unconnected to
Christ, and yet we know that such people will only be saved through Him. There
is no other entry into heaven; this is the position of Inclusivism,
rather than Exclusivism (only those who clearly
commit themselves to Christ during this life can be saved)- the third possible
position, Pluralism, states that all religions lead to God and have their own salvific efficacy - we are bound, as Christians, to reject
this position. But to briefly return to Revalation
22, we may note verse 15 with its reference to those who will never enter the
city;
"...dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral..." etc etc., but this would appear to be a back-projection to all
of us in this age of the Church as a serious warning and as a deterrent, for it
would appear that that such people will have gone out of existence by that
future point. But we cannot help but be intrigued by this chapter which, even
allowing for obvious symbolism, seems to reveal the presence of 'nations' still
in apparent need of further healing after the New Heavens and New Earth have
become a reality! This tends to be an uncomfortable area for many evangelicals,
since we have this sharp dichotomy between those who have received the grace of
Christ, whom we say have no further need of healing,
and those outside of that, whom we see only destruction for. But let us just
honestly ask the question as to whether the biblical revelation is quite as
sharply and clearly drawn as our neat little theological patterns?
Now that we have returned to Revelation 22, let us note verse 17, for this
amounts to one of the strongest 'universalistic scope' Scriptures in the whole
Bible! Why? Because it pictures the 'Spirit and the Bride' offering salvation
to all! Let us never forget that the Bride is symbolic of the Church;
"...whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely"
Where is Restrictivism now? it
has gone.
Of course, it could be said that this too is back-projected and applies to our
present Church age, but this does not appear to be the case because of those
limited scope salvific Scriptures such as John 6: 44,
65 which certainly DO apply to our Church age. At present, only those 'whom the
Father draws' can come to Jesus, whereas here we see that the door is open to
'whoever desires.'!!
So maybe we should just occasionally consider that our neat little theological
packages may not contain the complete revelation of God. Certainly we see here
indications of, perhaps, a lower class of non-Church saved people who will need
further healing from the Tree of Life with its fruits and leaves. It is very
hard not to think of Isaiah 9: 7 here;
"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end..."
As John Sanders says in 'No Other Name', page 218,
"...is it credible that He would have created millions of people without
any hope of salvation? The One who prayed, 'Father, forgive them; for they do
not know what they are doing' - Luke
It is very hard to disagree with this.
Of course, one of Calvin's original devices for preaching Limited Atonement was
through the Church's great similarity with
Inclusivists point out other biblical texts too which
showed God showing favour to non-Israelites at times. Several such occasions
are mentioned, even though only in passing, in Deuteronomy 2. (See verses 5,9,19,21-22.)
Again, indicative - that even under the Old Covenant - non-Israelites were not
entirely cut off from God. Yes, without question,
Sanders picks this point up well in his book;
"The first covenant mentioned in the Bible is one made between God and the
human race, not God and
('No Other Name', p,218-219.)
It could be said, perhaps, that following the influence of Augustine, Calvin
had tended to 'close down' this wider scope of salvation. Indeed, it is very
interesting how this primarily affected the western Church and the Eastern
Orthodox tradition has always remained more 'open' on the matter of salvation.
There are several further associated questions which I now need to tackle, and
I propose to tackle them in the form of question and answer. I have thought of
some of the objections to the viewpoint which one has outlined and so we will
continue in a question and answer format. The reader too can contribute to this
by E Mailing questions though it might be wise to see if I have covered any
particular question first.
QUESTION; BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN PREACHING HELL, ALL OF THOSE MISSIONARIES
HAVE GOT IT WRONG?
ANSWER;
Absolutely not and I would not want this point to be misunderstood! The
preaching about hell has biblical authority! The problem has been in
theologians being unafraid to go a little beyond what the Scriptures clearly
say and sometimes preaching a message which has an incorrect balance. But hell
has to be preached for it has strong deterrent value. Let us be clear; the
Bible warns that some - perhaps many - are in real danger of hell. Where we go
wrong is in drawing conclusions according to human logic and not according to
plain biblical teaching. To say that most of the human race is going to hell is
flawed because it casts serious doubt on the ultimate victory and triumph of
Christ.
QUESTION; IS INCLUSIVISM, RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVISM, PART OF THE GOSPEL TO BE
PREACHED?
ANSWER;
No! We can be quite sure about this. If it were part of the very gospel
message, it would have been made much clearer. The gospel concerns what
happened upon the cross and the redemption which that has made available. The
Trinity too is not part of the gospel, but we find it revealed and it adds to
our undestanding of God. Inclusivism
says that many are finally going to be saved, not a few, and it is inevitable
that some - or many - of these did not personally accept Christ during their
lifetimes, yet they will only be saved through Him. This should not sound so
incredible since this applies to those saved during Old Testament times. Let us
be clear about this; the moment one agrees that the Old Testament men and women
of God will be saved, yet only through a Christ they had not heard about, they
are upholding Inclusivism! We can go this far but
must be wary of Pluralism; that is that all religions lead to God. We must
reject this. John Sanders has expressed this well. He said in one of his books
that 'Christ is ontologically necessary for our salvation but not necessarily
epistemologically necessary.' In other words, one will not always have to know
all the details, yet without Him there is no salvation.
But Exclusivism is bound to uphold the belief that
the majority of the human race will not be saved.
QUESTION; WILL GOD REACH THE UNEVANGELIZED DECEASED THROUGH 'POST MORTEM
EVANGELIZATION'?
ANSWER;
I have a problem with this concept although I know that it has gained some
prominence during the last few years. I cannot say that it is definitely wrong
that converts will be made after they have died since we do not have all
knowledge and God will surely have some surprises for us! Having
said that, there are problems with the idea. The people that I am
talking about are already saved, already included within the scope of Christ's
sacrifice, although they will need further instruction on the work of Christ.
They are saved now through a positive response to that light which they did
receive in this life; Romans 2: 11-16 seems to show that this will be enough
for their evaluation. These people would have accepted Christ, so no further
evaluation on that score would appear to be required. Post-Mortem evangelization, as proposed by such theologians as Clark Pinnock, would seem to be totally inconsistent with the
following Scriptures; Eccles 9: 4-6, 10, Isaiah 38: 18, Luke 16: 19-31, 2 Cor 6: 2 and Hebrews 9: 27.
QUESTION; BUT JUST WHO ARE THESE 'BELIEVERS'? - AND IF GOD WILL ACCEPT THEM
WHILE NOT HAVING BEEN CHRISTIANS, DOES THIS NOT SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T NEED TO
BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CULTS, SECTS & FALSE RELIGIONS?
ANSWER;
This would be absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw!
The Bible regularly shows that correct doctrine is important and that we should
always strive for 'the faith once delivered' - and we are not even to wish 'God
speed' to those who preach a perverted gospel! This would include those cults
and sects which talk about Jesus but have changed the definition of the gospel!
Of course, some confusion could arise if Inclusivism
were part of the gospel but, as already pointed out, it is not. But we maintain
that Inclusivism should ideally be part of the
understanding of all those who have matured in the knowledge of the faith. It
will enable us to reach out to those who reject the Christian message since
they cannot accept a God who will consign millions to hell who, in many cases,
have already suffered enough in this life. We say that the Bible, while saying
less than we would like about this problem, nevertheless infers in many cases
that many such people still have hope. Again, even many strict Reformed people
believe that God will save every child who dies before the age of
accountability, as well as the mentally handicapped; we agree! But here they
are actually backing up Inclusivism! And if God will
apply the sacrifice of Christ to such individuals who never knew the name of
Jesus, why should He not also apply it to countless thousands of others who
also never knew the name of Jesus and have led miserably short lives in abject
poverty and ignorance through no fault of their own?? We believe that a huge
number of such people will be found to be entered in the Book of Life, and will
be invited to partake of the leaves and fruit of the Tree of Life. Yes, some of
these may have subcribed to what we know are false
religions, those religions could not save them, but they will have been
faithful to as much light as was available within that religion. While avoiding
all dangers of lapsing into Pluralism, we might do well to consider what C.S.
Lewis said of the three great principles which tend to be present in all
religion, in his book 'The Problem of Pain';
a. The experience of the 'numinous' - a fear and dread of
something beyond the natural world and which is more powerful than it. Both fear and joy somehow being part of this.
b. The principle of what Kant called 'oughtness'; a
sense of right and wrong and guilt when we fail to do the right which is never
far from us.
c. The principle of ultimate accountability and a judgement to come. This is
said to pervade all religions.
Even from ones reaction to some of these principles - insufficient though they
are - God can start to evaluate ones response to Christ!
But what does all this tell us of cults etc.,? They
are not entirely cut off from God, but have an imperfect knowledge of Him -
yes, a seriously imperfect knowledge, yet they will have far more light than
those following animistic religion in
Having said all of that, we should strive for as much understanding as we can
and should oppose the entry of error into the Body of Christ - none of that is
altered one iota!
QUESTION; BUT AREN'T LIBERALS INCLUSIVIST? ARE MUSELTOF LIBERAL?
ANSWER;
To answer the second part of this question first; We are definitely NOT
theological liberals! In fact, I have spent a great deal of time personally
going into churches and chapels which have been much affected by liberal
theology, striving and encouraging those present to cast aside liberalism and
to take a personal walk with Jesus Christ! At Museltof,
we accept that famous comment that liberal Christianity is really a different
religion - can't recall who said it - was it J. Gresham Machen?
We see it as one of our main roles to warn nominal Christians that just a loose
notion of Christ as a 'Great Teacher' and little more than that has no power to
save! No, I am not contradicting myself in saying that, while also saying that
we believe that on the Day of Judgement many will be saved who never heard the name
of Jesus; After all, liberal Christians have heard the name of Jesus!
Now some liberals might accept Inclusivism, yet many
others accept universalism (all will be saved)- but
our objections to Exclusivism are unconnected to
liberal theology, we say why are such a large group of 'universalistic scope'
Scriptures not taken account of? (Again, in saying 'universalistic' in this
context we mean looking beyond Exclusivism, we do not
refer to universalism.)
QUESTION; SO ARE WE SAYING THAT 'LIMITED ATONEMENT' IS WRONG?
ANSWER;
As regards this age of the Church, it is certainly correct; few are becoming
Christians and those that do are 'the little flock'. But we say that the error
is to see that as an eternal truth. There are certainly another group of
Scriptures which have a universal breadth (I am going to list just a few of
these at the end of this treatise.)
Again, the point could be raised that I am saying that General Revelation can
save (General Revelation describes what we can know of God purely from nature
and from ourselves, but lacking any information about Christ, which is 'Special
Revelation')but I am not really saying that, only
Christ can save.
QUESTION; IF INCLUSIVISM IS CORRECT, WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL?
ANSWER;
It is the Great Commission to preach the gospel because God wants the message
of what Christ has done to be broadcasted. As Christians we have no right to
say, 'For my part, I don't think that I will preach it' That
is just disobedience. But why preach it if we believe that some will be saved
without this knowledge? Well, that is in God's capable hands, not ours. To be
sure, as a loving God, He will have a method of dealing with the unevangelized which is going to be rather more loving than
just shoving them all into hell! But that is not an area of our concern, except
that we should note that there is hope - yes, real hope - for those people. But
people are going to be blessed by becoming Christians right now in this life
and almost certainly will have a higher position in the kingdom. By learning
about Jesus right now people can start to avoid sin and to make their lives
much more meaningful, yes, Christians, in a real sense, enter God's kingdom
even now. They then join in the endeavour of preaching the gospel.
No, missionary activity and zeal should be in no way impaired by Inclusivism!
QUESTION; SO WHERE DOES PREDESTINATION COME INTO ALL OF THIS?
ANSWER;
What (comparatively little) the New Testament says about predestination is in
no way affected by any of this. The term applies to the Elect of God
and to their eternal calling, it is simply that we cannot confine this group to the visible Church. Double Predestination is not
biblical as even an increasing number of Reformed people are starting to allow.
And even with the predestination of the Elect we have to be cautious in order not
to get out of 'sync' with the biblical approach. As mentioned earlier, we must
hold the concept of eternal election together with the full validity of our
decision and choice. After all, the Bible says only a tiny bit about eternal
election and predestination, but countless Scriptures tell us to choose! But as
regards eternal election, God obviously knows His own Elect and, indeed, as
Calvin pointed out, He (God) ordained them to life from the foundation of the
world. The problem develops when we start to approach Election entirely from
God's point of view; we really cannot do so since we are not God! Before long,
an unbiblical fatalism can rear its head - but this was never a biblical
approach but, rather, a pagan one!
It is a distortion to say, as some do, that if God chose us, He forced us to
become Christians, so where is our choice? Then they say,
He has forced the rest to go to hell and not to know Him. This is a massive
distortion - I hope that all of our readers can see that!
At some point we are going to have to discuss Romans 9-11, since it is now quite widely accepted that Calvin misunderstood Paul here; an example of an essentially honest man getting a little carried away with his enthusiasm to find a favourite doctrine upheld in a text which is essentially unconcerned with it. Paul is discussing in those chapters the
fact that God's choice in the kingdom of mankind has nothing to do with the
merit of man. He rules as He wills upon the earth, but there is always a
purpose to it. Paul talks about God's 'hardening' of Israel, it is God who
decides where and when He will raise up specific people and nations to fulfil
His purpose, and He may raise some to glory and some to ignomony.
But the focus in these chapters is on THIS WORLD all the time. Paul is simply
not discussing Eternity or Eternal Life here, He is not saying that either Esau
or the Pharaoh of Exodus are going to go to hell and that they are ordained for
that; he is discussing this present life. We are assured that God is in control of all things which happen upon this earth and He raises up the right people at the right time to fulfil His grand purposes, He is well able to 'soften' the heart of some or to 'harden' the heart of others. Although this is now well understood,
it is disappointing that many Reformed writers will still go straight to the
Calvinist explanation of these verses.
So, Evangelical Inclusivism (we really must
separate ourselves from forms of Inclusivism, and
especially Universalism which do not come from an evangelical foundation) is
very encouraging, it shows that Christ's triumph really will be a complete
triumph! Only a few will probably finally go to hell, and we can proclaim
Christ's complete victory - according to Romans
'THOSE WHO SUFFER NOW WILL BE REWARDED' TYPE SCRIPTURES IN BOTH TESTAMENTS;
Ps 12: 5, Ps 34: 6, Ps 35: 10, Ps 37: 14-17, Ps 72: 4, 12-14, Prov 17: 5, Prov 19: 1, 17, Ps
126:6, Prov 21: 13, Prov
22: 16, Prov 28: 6, 11, Matt 5: 3-12, Luke 6: 24-25,
Luke 16: 19-31. (There are more than this; these are the ones which tend to
quickly come to mind).
NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES WHICH REVEAL A BROADNESS OF SALVATION GOING BEYOND
'THE LITTLE FLOCK';
Matt 25: 31-46, Luke 15: 2-32, John 1: 9, 29, John 3: 16-17, John 6: 33, 51,
John 12: 31-32, Acts 10: 1-35, Acts 14: 16-17, Acts 17: 23-28, Roms 2: 6-16, Roms 5: 15-20, Roms 11: 12, 15, 2 Cor 5: 14, 19,
1 Tim 2: 4,6, 1 Tim 4: 10, Titus 2: 11, Hebs 2: 9, James
1: 27, 2 Peter 3: 9,
1 John 2: 2, Rev 20: 12, Rev 21: 24, Rev 22: 2.
Museltof, 2000 (Updated 2004)
© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace
2000, 2004. If you want it on your own website please do the honourable thing
and come to us for permission first. It is forbidden to excerpt this article
without our permission. Thank you. We really regret having to use copyright
warnings but unfortunately a few unscrupulous people have already stolen our
material word for word and claimed it as their own.
The reader may also wish to
read two related articles:
AN
EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVIST DEFENDS EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM
TO EVANGELIZE THE LOST - WHY WE SHOULD DO IT
MUSELTOF COUNTERCULT AND APOLOGETICS