1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 1Co 6:10 nor covetous, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor abusive people, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Has God told us everything in His divinely inspired and living Word? Or has He, as the Mormons would be the first to agree with, left out systematic and important parts that relate to our very salvation? The question is not an easy one to answer simply because a simple yea or nay answer opens up a can of worms, which most Christians are content to steer very clear of. What God has done however is given us enough information in the Scriptures to ensure that we know our way to salvation, anything less would find us serving a tyrannical and uncaring deity. For the sake of argument let us give the inclusivist the benefit of the doubt when they claim that God has not told us everything essential to salvation. Let us assume that God either forgot to mention in His book of life and law that on the day of judgment; those who dedicated their lives to His service, avoided things forbidden and spent a lifetime walking His straight and narrow, will be lumped unceremoniously with the adulterers, murderers, rapists, child porn sellers, witches, psychics and even idol worshippers. It would take supreme arrogance and pride for any human being to claim that they totally and fully know all the ways of the Lord and all things have been revealed to them. After all the Bible does say ‘“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” Says the Lord.’ (Isaiah 55:8). In this at least one finds that there may be some substance to the inclusivist claim that God may have an unrevealed plan to save all of humanity. However as with every coin, this one also has a flip side. If we are to believe that there are things in the Bible that are not “revealed” to us concerning salvation, the law and ultimately the very judgment of God, we also have to take the beliefs of other sects and cults into consideration. For example the Mormons believe that the Bible is incomplete and Joseph Smith through divine revelation completed God’s Word. While we dismiss this claim out of hand as being absurd, and denounce Mormonism as a cult, the inclusivist argument that there are unrevealed portions of the Bible serves as a strong supporter for the Mormon claims. Should we, as evangelical Christians, begin to believe that God has not clearly and definitively drawn out a road map of salvation for us or that this master plan is incomplete, we give immediate validity to claims by many religions cults that in fact they have the completed version of the Bible and hence legitimize their assertions. Taking another example, the Catholics who believe that Mary (whom they also claim is the mother of God) is co-redemtrix along with her son Jesus. While they have no solid Biblical proof to back up this doctrine, one cannot show them in error if indeed we believe that the Biblical message of salvation is incomplete. It is quite possible that God has in fact made Mary a co-forgiver of sins in some other unrevealed portion of His Word. The examples are unending.. But the question the inclusivist promoters need to ask themselves is whether we really want to stake a claim that God’s Word is not all revealing when it comes to the critical area of salvation? If there is no final (and complete) yardstick by which to judge then we have no grounds by which to condemn ‘Extra-Biblical’ revelation. After all, some of them may even be right. Another interesting point brought up is that exclusivism puts God in a box, by claiming He has revealed all in His word. One key word that continues to be left out is “essential”. Does exclusivism put God in a box by claiming that He has revealed all that is “essential” (to salvation) in His word? Or here is an even better question... What is the key focus of this inclusivist/exclusivist debate, God (in all His glory) or Salvation? Because by equating the two, one is forced to admit that since God cannot be put into a box, neither can we put the route of salvation into a box. A stance that is altogether faulty and Biblically incorrect. The bottom-line is while God cautions us against attempting to put Him into a container; the Bible itself puts salvation into a very definite package. ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of the law’ (Deut. 29:29)
If we take a look at that quote again and remove the last ten words, we have a sentence that shows us that God indeed has some secret things, which may not be revealed to us. However if we complete the sentence the distinction is clearly drawn between that which is revealed and that which is hidden that we may do all the words of the law and in keeping the law be blessed (saved). God has kept certain things a secret but those, which are essential to salvation, belong to us and our children forever, so that we may find salvation. I could argue day and night against the very doctrine that the inclusivist preaches, and show over and over again where their arguments are both Biblically faulty and dangerous. However one of the things I noted was that the inclusivist, in keeping with the trend of teachers teaching unsound doctrine, will quote (usually out of context) over and over again the same Bible verses, which they claim support their theories. Lets look at some of those verses and see just how strongly they support the theory that being a Christian in this lifetime is unnecessary for salvation. Matt 25: 31-46: A favorite verse of the inclusivist, because of Jesus’ reference to the separation is the sheep and the goats. According to the inclusivists’ the fact that the sheep are surprised at being allowed into heaven, and that Jesus will praise them for their good works is a definite sign that these are not Christians, rather are unbelievers (atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Hindus, Muslims, etc) who are allowed into heaven solely on the basis of their good works. And while I would be the first to admit, that to the undiscerning eye it seems to makes a strong case for inclusivism. However if one digs a little deeper, there are major problems that arise when attempting to use these verses to justify inclusivism. Inclusivists persistently focus on the sheep, yet blatantly ignore the second group present for the judgment … the goats! So just who are the goats? Inclusivism believes that only those who blatantly reject the gospel of Christ will be condemned to hell, all others will somehow find their way into God’s heaven. With this in mind it seems an easy assumption that the goats must be those who out right reject the gospel of salvation. Unfortunately the Scriptures do not agree with this concept of the goats. Lets look at where Jesus addresses the goats (the rejected ones who, one assumes, are on their way to hell) … “ For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me. Then they also will answer Him, saying ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘ Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go into everlasting punishment …” (Matt. 25:42-46a).
From this portion it is evident that the goats are condemned because of their lack of ministry to the sick, the hungry, the stranger and the prisoner. Couldn’t not the goats then turn around and say, “but Lord you never told us that we had to do these things”, leaving the Lord with little or no excuse for condemning the unknowing to the pit? As non-Christians, the rest of civilization is under no obligation to walk the Christian way of life, which includes the charity and hospitality that are so evidently important to the Lord. And while there are plenty of non-Christian people who do a great deal for society, looking at the greater pictures shows that the scales are very heavily tilted towards the side of those who wouldn’t give time of day to their fellow man. The Bible gives no indication of the size of either flock and one cannot in good faith assume that one is numerically greater than the other based purely on these verses. Which again leads on the same question … precisely who are the goats? And for that matter who are the “sheep”? What the herd is not is a gigantic mass of civilization segregated for salvation on the basis of good works or lack thereof. A much more plausible answer is that the gathering the Lord is addressing is in fact the gathering of the “small flock” or the Church. No one can deny that even among the small flock there are those who are sheep, demonstrating their faith every day by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner etc. And then there are the goats who were so caught up in their own world and their own salvation that they never took the time to reach out and demonstrate their love and compassion to those in need. Christianity is not about finding one’s own salvation and letting the rest of the world rot away in misery as is clearly demonstrated in James 2:14-18 “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way faith by itself if not accompanied by action is dead. But someone will say ‘You have faith; I have deeds’. Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do” (emphasis added). And in verse 20 “You foolish man, do you want proof that faith without deeds is useless?”
What the reader should note is that the sheep are not demonstrating surprise that they are going to heaven, rather they are demonstrating surprise that their good works, done for man, are seen by the Lord as good works done to Jesus. Also the goats are equally surprised that their lack of charity and humanity are seen as acts against Jesus and that this non-action of theirs has condemned them to hell. A non-believer would neither recognize Jesus as Lord, nor would they care if their actions were for or against Him in any way. They have no accountability to Jesus, and hence what they do in this lifetime should be of little or no consequence to a God whose commandments they never knew. The goats, on the basis of their knowledge of the Lord’s voice and the fact that they know they should have been serving Him (but failed) can only be seen as the dead/Sunday only Christians; a phenomenon that is way too common today Luke 15:2-32: A Combination of stories used by Jesus to illustrate the importance of each human being to God and how vitally important repentance is. The popular parables about the widow and her coins, the lost sheep and the prodigal son are well known to the average Christian reader. The first story of the shepherd who leaves his 99 sheep to go and search for the one lost one and his joy/celebration when he returns home triumphant with the lost sheep on his shoulders. Not only does this story not support inclusivism, it out right opposes it. Jesus says “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). Yet according to inclusivism, it makes no difference whether a person repents or not, why then would there be such a great celebration in heaven when a sinner repents? Because a sinner who does not repent, is like the lamb that refused to be found and eventually ended up condemned to death (in the sinners case eternally). The second story follows the same principle of great joy and celebration when the lost is found. When the widow finds her lost coin she celebrated, as do the angels when a lost soul returns to the Kingdom and repents. The third story and perhaps the most well known is that of the prodigal son; a young man who eager for adventure demands his inheritance and sets off to (what he thinks will be) a grand adventure. Soon penniless, eating pig swill to survive and nothing more than a washed up bag of bones he decides to return to his fathers house, believing that life as a servant in the company of his family is better than his present existence. So he returns … we’ve all heard the story many times. How the inclusivist uses this story to demonstrate their point is beyond me, especially when it so clear shows that ONLY WHEN the son RETURNED was the Father able to re-establish him in his rightful place and the house rejoiced. Had the son never returned he would have ended up dead by the pigs he was fed to keep; in the fathers own words “… for your brother was dead and is alive, was lost and is found”.
Luke 19:10 ‘For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” … And had He not come there never would have been the opportunity for the lost to be saved. There would have been no pathway for the prodigal son to return to his father’s mansion. However the fact remains that like the prodigal son, we too have a choice in whether we want to return or not, whether we want to be found or not … and should we choose not to return to the mansion, we will continue to be dead in a pig sty somewhere. John 1:9 ‘That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world” … however the book of John does not stop at 1:9, neither does the chain of thought revealed in 1:9, rather it goes on in verses 10,11 and 12 which say “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. (Emphasis Added) John 3:16-17 ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.’ (Emphasis Added) Who – so – ever – believes- in – Him (Jesus); in the very quote that inclusivists use to make their belief sound Biblical, the Word draws the distinction between the saved and the condemned. ONLY those that believe in Jesus shall not perish but have everlasting life. Also one should note that the Bible says “but that the world through Him might be saved”, meaning that through Jesus there is a possibility of salvation for the world, it does not say ‘through Him the world will be saved’. Take the whole quote together and one realizes that the Bible is saying, “There is an option of salvation for the world through Jesus; only those who believe in Him will have everlasting life”. If that isn’t clear enough the Book of John goes further in verse 18 ‘He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Combine that with Rom. 10:13-14 ‘For “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?’ and one begins to understand the desperate need to spread the gospel, a need that the inclusivist doctrine negates. John 4:42 ‘Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the savior of the world.” These are the words of Samaritan villagers with whom Christ had just spent 2 days, preaching to and teaching them. These villagers are in essence the first non-Jewish Christians, confessing the Messiah and acknowledging His role a savior. In no shape, form or fashion does this verse suggest that non-believers will be in heaven. These Samaritan villagers are, by their own confession, believers and hence to use them as an example for inclusivism is ludicrous. John 6:33 ‘For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ And, as usual, the message does not end there, rather it continues in verse 35 ‘And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”’ (Emphasis Added) It goes even further in verses 53 and 54 ‘Then Jesus said to them “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”’ (Emphasis Added) John 12:31-32 ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am raised from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself.’ Jesus was raised from the earth three days after His crucifixion and subsequently people of all nations, people of all ethnic backgrounds and cultural heritage have been drawn to Him and been saved. By using the words “all peoples” Jesus does not negate the need for repentance, rather is merely showing that salvation is available to all nations and people through Him. If we are to believe that Jesus meant all people are automatically saved because of the resurrection, then one has to believe that Jesus was lying when He said things like “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18 (Emphasis Added) Acts 10:1-35; Speaks of the first gentile to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, of Peters dilemma and how God showed him that “What God has cleansed you must not call common”. Cornelius, a pious man who worshiped God and did good works was visited by an angel who had him send for Peter, who would subsequently teach Cornelius and his household about Jesus, making them the first Greek/gentile converts to Christianity. Once again inclusivists have defeated their own purpose in using this story... Cornelius was already a pious man who did good works, which should have in and of itself (according to inclusivism) been sufficient to grant him and his family a place in heaven. In fact the Bible goes further, telling us that he had found favour with God and that his prayers and alms had come as a memorial before the Lord. Why then, did the angel direct Cornelius to seek out a more than reluctant Peter? Could it possibly be that the alms and pious prayers of Cornelius, while being pleasing to God, were not sufficient for salvation and God in His fairness knew that Cornelius deserved to have salvation? … And why He had an angel direct Cornelius in Peter’s direction, while He Himself went to Peter and showed the apostle that even a gentile should be preached to, thus bringing the bearer of the ‘Good News’ and the one who had to be saved together? God knew that the only way to salvation and hence into heaven was by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Cornelius deserved salvation and hence Peter enters the equation. This story does not prove that everyone is going into the kingdom; rather it shows that without knowledge and acceptance of Jesus, pious prayers and good works are not enough to enter the kingdom of heaven. Acts 14:16-17: ‘who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness”. Will someone please explain to me what this has to with the message of salvation? Acts 17:23-28: Is the story of Paul in Athens demonstrating to the Athenians that in their paganism they had built an alter to and ‘Unknown God’. He then tells them who they were worshipping without knowing and the altar to the unknown God is in fact an altar to Yahweh. He tries to show them that in their inept groping to find God, they have missed the fact that He is closer at hand than they would imagine. Nowhere however does Paul tell the Athenians that this worship of this unknown God will guarantee them passage into heaven. Should this have been the case Paul would have been encouraging idolatry, the very thing for which God destroyed Israel over and over again in the Old Testament. Instead Paul was in Athens trying to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, an exercise that would have been pointless had he (Paul) believe that merely the worship of this “unknown god” was adequate to allow the Athenian population into the Kingdom. Verse 34 tells us that “some men joined him and believed”. Rom. 2:6-16: It is interesting that the Inclusivists should choose to use this series of verses to promote their belief. Verses that are particularly interesting to note among these are verse 12 and 13 ‘For as many have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and as many have sinned in the law are judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.” (Emphasis Added) Also verse 16 ‘In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” There are two things that particularly stand out about this selection of verses. The first being that they are taken completely out of context (when used to ‘prove’ the case of inclusivism); one should realize that Paul is writing particularly to fellow Jews admonishing them for their pride in their knowledge of the law. Totally contrary to the inclusivist doctrine Paul is in fact telling the Jews that it is the doing of the law, not just the knowledge of the law that will get them into heaven. The second thing that stands out is that in verse 16 Paul says all men will be judged on the weighing scales that are Jesus Christ. A scale that cannot tip in your favour if you do not accept Him as Lord and Saviour. Rom. 5:5-6: Over and over again the point brought up again in Rom. 5:5-6 has been hammered home by the inclusivists that God so loved the world that He gave His Son for everyone to have salvation. And no one is disputing that fact; in fact every so-called exclusivist in the world would agree with this basic and fundamental Biblical truth. But what exclusivists will not do is compromise on every other verse in the Bible that shows that while salvation is an OPTION for the world because of Jesus Christ, it is not AUTOMATIC. Inclusivists by pointing again and again to verses that show Gods love in sending Jesus to save the world, hope to isolate the last two words in that statement (the world) and use it to somehow show that this automatically means that most beings on this planet are saved and has no choice what so ever in the matter. A position, by the way, which makes the Bible irrelevant and pointless. Inclusivists take away man’s choice, making him a robotic slave who will be in God’s kingdom regardless. Somehow this position runs contrary to the free choice awarded to Adam in the garden of Eden and makes God a master puppeteer who has no interest in us loving Him of our own free will, rather only desires to fully populate His heaven with people who never gave second thought to who He was in the first place. 2 Cor. 5:14-15 ‘For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him that died for them and rose again.’ The words died for all are used again in this sentence, hence it finds its way into the favorite quote list of the inclusivist teacher. So what else does Paul say in 2 Corinthians 5? Verse 17 ‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.’ And then Paul rebuts the doctrine of inclusivism in verses 18 and 20. 2 Cor. 5:18 ‘Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation’ … (a ministry that is pointless from the inclusivist point of view) and 2 Cor. 5:20 ‘Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as thought God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christs behalf, be reconciled to God’. Paul is saying that God is using us to plead with people on His behalf to be reconciled to God, through Christ. God is PLEADING with humanity. How foolish if the majority of humanity is going to be saved anyways. Eph. 1:10 ‘that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and are on earth – in Him.’ (Emphasis Added) God will gather together all things that are IN CHRIST; nowhere does say “and also those who are not in Christ, have not heard or do not believe”. Col. 1:20 ‘and by Him to reconcile all things to himself, by Him, whether things on earth of things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross’ Further reading in the same chapter should lead the reader to Col. 1:23 ‘if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard …’ (Emphasis Added) and then on to Col. 1:28-29 ‘Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.’ (Emphasis Added) Jesus it would seem is working through Paul to try and warn every man, and to encourage those in the faith to stay steadfast, when apparently there is no need because (according to inclusivism) Christ on the cross automatically relieved the entire world of the burden of sin and the consequences of that burden. 1 Tim. 4:10 ‘for this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe’. Of course God is the Savior of all men. There is no salvation but through God’s only Son Jesus Christ. Without His sacrifice there could be no such thing as salvation for ANY man. However this verse cannot be used in support of inclusivism for one very simple reason… it says Jesus is the Saviour of ALL men, which, on the surface, seems to support universalism not inclusivism and this is contrary to the whole tenor of scripture. God is potentially the Saviour of all men through Calvary, but actually the Saviour of only those who believe. Titus 2:11 ‘For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men’. And it goes on in the very next verse (12) to say ‘teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in the present age’ (Emphasis Added). Again one is forced to ask, what of those who are neither encouraged by their religion nor by their conscience to live soberly, righteously, and in a godly manner? James 1:27 ‘Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world’. A letter addressed to fellow Christians exhorts them to visit the orphans and widows in trouble and to stay unspoiled by the world. It has nothing to do with the salvation of the world, and in fact would seem to suggest that a Christian may become spotted by the world resulting in his/her religion being impure and defiled before God and the Father. Could James possibly be telling Christians to be careful to exclude themselves from the secular world? And if so, why bother if we are going to be rubbing shoulders with them (the secular world) in heaven? 1 John 4:14 ‘And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.’ Of course he also goes on to say in verse 15 ‘Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and He in God.’ And then further on in the same book the author says … 1 John 5:11-12 ‘And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.’ (Emphasis Added) Rev. 20:12 Talks about the judgment of the dead according to their works. The verse specifically mentions that “books” were opened besides the book of life, evidently listing every event of the lives of those being judged. And when the judging (on the basis of works from the various books) was done, anyone whose name was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of burning sulfur. Revelation 20 does not mention how ones name appears in the book of life, nor does it attempt to shed any light on what the judgment of works is about and hence is irrelevant to the debate between inclusivism and exclusivism. Rev. 22:2 ‘ In the middle of the street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month, the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ And reading further down into the same chapter we find verse 14 and 15 ‘Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolater and whoever loves and practices a lie’ The righteous in Christ, the saved, the small flock will have access to the tree of life, everyone else will be outside the city in the lake of burning sulfur. The Bible could not be more clear. While it is true that God has not revealed all to us. (The Bible is silent on topics like the fate of children who die before they can come to an age of understanding and that of the mentally handicapped) The facts that we do know strongly outweigh those that we don’t. When it comes to salvation, with the above mentioned exceptions, the answers are very clear. Only those who know and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will be in heaven. Any other belief makes a mockery of Christianity in general and the Great Commission in particular. (See the other article on Inclusivism) Inclusivism, as has been demonstrated above can find no authority in the Bible. To prove its case, careful reading has been done to select out of context and isolated verses that seem to indicate a broader salvation for the entire planet, regardless of accepting Jesus Christ or not. Careful reading of the scriptures used by teachers of doctrines such as inclusivism and a study of the context in which the verse is written clearly reveals the lack of Scriptural base for these teachings. It has been said that theologians who accept, with little joy might I add, the fact that the vast majority of humanity is not going to be in heaven, have misread the Word and have been deficient in their handling of the Scriptures. Let me point out here that it does not take a theologian to read and understand the Word of God, but what it does take is COMPLETE reading of the Scriptures and cannot be done when one chooses to carefully pick and choose what one wants to read. To quote some verses and carefully ignore others, is tampering with God’s word and is very strictly warned against in both Deut. And Rev. Inclusivists have a long way to go if they are even to begin proving that their doctrine has any basis in truth. Take away their so called biblical base, by exposing the selective reading and showing the verse after verse after verse in the Bible that talks about only those who chose Christ having salvation and one totally demolishes any fragment of proof they might have. Leaving them with only the weak finger pointing argument that exclusivism is bleak and condemning. Christianity isn’t about happy/feel good, its about saving souls and helping people escape the bleak reality of hell, which is why the great commission is so vitally important. Inclusivists have no reason to preach the Good News. So called exclusivists (or restrictivists) are on a desperate mission to get bring as many as possible into the “small flock” … and that in a nut shell is the difference. | 
Index To 
