Grace is inclusive but inclusionism is not grace
One of these claims is not like the others. See if you can spot the difference…
“Believe and be saved” ~Jesus (Mk 16:16, Luk 8:12)
“Believe and be saved” ~Paul (Acts 16:31, Rom 10:9)
“You are saved. Believe it.” ~Inclusionism
Do you know the difference between the gospel of grace and the doctrine of inclusion? Do you need to know? Yes, because one is good news and the other is not. The gospel of grace is the best news of all time but the doctrine of inclusion is a counterfeit to be wary of.
What is inclusionism?
The idea of universal inclusion comes in several shapes and sizes and it has been around for some time. The Mormons, for instance, hold to a doctrine of inclusion, but not all inclusionists are Mormon. Some inclusionists believe in the resurrection; others do not. But all inclusionists, by definition, agree that…
Jesus died and rose again not as one of us but as all of us and as a result everyone is as righteous and holy is he is. Everyone – whether they believe it or not – is included in Christ and is now saved and seated at the right hand of God.
You may ask, “Isn’t this universalism?”
It is not. Universalism says everyone will be saved but inclusionism says, “Everyone was saved – they just don’t know it yet.” This is not universalism because inclusionism doesn’t assume everyone will stay saved. “Persist in unbelief and you could yet lose your salvation.” In other words, you’re in until you’re out. Because of Jesus you were born inside the kingdom but you could yet find yourself ejected from the kingdom.
This is back to front. When it comes to the kingdom, you’re out until you’re in and then you’re in for good. God doesn’t kick his kids out of the family.
Of course, when I say things like this I am accused of elevating first Adam above last Adam. Since the two-Adam thing comes up a lot, I will address this point separately in another post.
Junk food at the table of abundance
Forgive me for being blunt, but the doctrine of inclusion is theological candy-floss. It’s insubstantial fluff that looks pretty and tastes good but, as we will see, is not good for you.
Since inclusion has become something of a hot topic you need to be able to recognize it. This is tricky because the language of inclusion is our language – it’s the language of grace. Grace is inclusive. Grace is universal. Grace is offered to everyone.
But while grace is inclusive, inclusionism is not grace. It is ungrace. Allow me to illustrate by comparing the two messages side by side:
| The gospel of grace | The inclusionist message |
| Jesus loves you and wants to share his life with you forever. Receive his love and you will cross over from condemnation to new life. In union with Christ your future is secure because those who come to him will never be cast away. | Jesus married you against your will but that’s okay because once you get to know him you’ll love him. But if you decide you don’t want to spend eternity with him, he’ll kick you out of the kingdom. So get with the program and start smiling. |
I admit, this is an unflattering caricature of the inclusionist message. You’ll find nothing so clearly stated in their writings. That’s because inclusionists tend to be vague when it comes to unpacking the implications of universal inclusion. On the surface inclusionism appears as a river of truth flowing with the language of grace. But drink the water and you will surely taste the ungrace that robs people of their freedom and security.
Big claims, I know. But stick with me because in this short series of posts, I will give you tools to help you to; (a) recognize the doctrine of inclusion, (b) distinguish it from the gospel of grace, and (c) decide what you want to do with it.
Please understand that my heart is not to play doctrinal policeman. This isn’t about getting our doctrinal ducks in a row. We’re all learning and I don’t claim to have it all figured out. But it seems to me that in the market for ideas, you are not being given a fair choice.
Since I started writing about this inclusion stuff, I’ve received messages like this: “I call myself an inclusionist, but what you are saying about inclusionism is horrible. I don’t believe that. I’ve never even heard that before.” That’s probably because you’re getting your theology off Facebook. If you’re only getting sound-bites you’re not getting the full story.
When I became aware of inclusionism a few years ago, I was intrigued. I went to the original sources. I read the books, heard the preachers, and approached the loudest voices because I wanted the full picture. I asked a lot of questions. And I discovered the trailer is nothing like the movie.
My concern is that when you hear about inclusionism you may not be getting all the facts. My purpose is to present a more complete picture so you can make an informed choice.
The dangers of inclusionism
I’ll be honest – I have strong views on this subject. I consider universal inclusion to be as gracious as a home invasion. I’m sorry if that shocks you, but inclusionism is shocking. Strip away the borrowed grace clothing and what remains is an appalling portrayal of God’s love and our freedom.
I might be wrong about inclusionism and if so, I will apologize. But if I am wrong, the damage will be minimal – the gospel will still be preached. But if I am right about the dangers of inclusionism, the damage could be catastrophic. That’s what we risk when we tell the lost they are safe and sound and when we tell the saint that their salvation is contingent on maintaining their beliefs.
Perhaps you have already bought into this idea of universal inclusion. If so, I hope you kept the receipt! You have been sold a dodgy car. After we take it for a drive through the highways and byways of the new covenant, its shortcomings will become obvious to you. You’ll want to cash in that clunker.
For now I simply want to remind you that the gospel Jesus revealed and Paul preached invites a response to God’s grace. When I’m talking to people who have never met Jesus, I don’t tell them, “You’re already in a relationship with him, you just don’t know it.” Instead, I use the same inviting language Jesus used (Mt 11:28, 19:14, John 5:40, 6:37, 44, 65, 7:37), and the apostles used (Acts 3:19, 20:21, 26:20). I say, “Believe the good news and come to Jesus.”
Faith is not a work, it’s a response and, one way or the other, everybody responds. Some look at Jesus and smile; others frown and turn away. The inclusionist is like the mall photographer saying, “Everybody’s smiling,” but they are not and it’s silly to pretend they are.
As always, the gospel of grace is our standard. It is the only message we have been commissioned to preach (Mark 16:15) and it is the only message that reveals the God’s saving power to a lost and hurting world (Rom 1:16). Any other message – no matter how appealing – ought to be rejected as an inferior alternative.
[Have you encountered inclusionism before? Are you interested in how it relates to grace? If so, would you drop me a brief note below? I’m trying to gauge the level of interest in this subject. I think it’s a big deal, but that may be just me.]
—–
Check out other Inclusion articles.
Escape to Reality is a reader-funded website. Become a supporter on Patreon (USD) or Donorbox (other currencies) today.
Escape to Reality 
Paul, there are just so many verses which deal with: You must be saved…, the argument is an emotional one. One will never win (though not the goal) with an emotional arguer. They deny they are, but the issue is they do not want to face others as lost. This is the real issue: who gets to make the rules. God vs. god.
I’m new to the saved by Grace concept, and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way. But, if we are not saved until we choose to believe, then doesn’t that diminish what Jesus accomplished on the cross? Wasn’t the whole point that in doing so, the entire world was saved by His actions, not ours? If we weren’t all saved by His work on the cross, and can only be saved by believing, then isn’t believing a work (which then diminishes grace)?
For example, if I read a story in the newspaper, it doesn’t matter whether I decide to believe it or not, because that doesn’t make what actually happened any less true. When Jesus died on the cross, someone either believing it or not does not make it any less true. It happened whether one chooses to believe it or not. Therefore, in saying that one has to believe to be saved … isn’t that making a work out of something that already happened (and is true)?
Salvation by Grace by definition implies that it is fully granted by God, and nothing we do has an impact, but isn’t the act of believing a work by us? I’m sorry, I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I just find this very confusing.
Borris, the work of saving you was accomplished on the cross and cannot be improved upon. There is nothing you can add to God’s perfect gift. But if you reject the gift then you won’t have the gift. People don’t like do divide and draw lines yet Jesus said he came to bring division and people “will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luk 12:53). It’s not that Jesus loves some more than others for he loves the whole world. But people divide themselves by their response to his love.
The gospel is true whether you believe it or not, but it won’t benefit you unless you believe it. This is the message of Hebrews 4:1-2 and many other scriptures. There are some misconceptions about faith. Some consider it a work but true faith is a rest.
Amen Borris. It’s all about His testimony not our testimony. “It is Finished”
So this means that Adam and Eve did not choose to sin, though sin already existed if you want to go with the logic that because of Jesus’s finished works we do not have to choose to receive salvation. Does this mean that they never fell like the bible claims, or that they were already sinners because sin existed prior to their existence. Maybe God had a bad day and forced them to become sinners. Paul almost must not have gotten the point because he grieved about his brothers, the Jews who did not believe, wishing that he could take their place because they loved the law more than God which would lead the to their demise. Jesus must not understand the gospel either because he said the Holy Spirit goes about convicting those who do not believe of sin. It is interesting to note that the only people who declare something to the effect that it is not necessary to believe, are those who have already chosen to believe by faith to receive Jesus as their savior.
Dear Thomas, the Holy Spirit goes about convicting those who do not believe of sin, notice sin here is singular not sins. And the one sin it means here is the sin of disbelieving in Jesus Himself.
John,
Thanks. I understand that the single sin that Holy Spirit convicts us of is that of unbelief in Jesus, specifically what he alone accomplished, and that does not contradict my statement. My statement was that Holy Spirit goes about convicting us of sin, which yes is only unbelief. My only point was that there are those who believe everyone has eternal life regardless if they believe it to be so or not. Eternal life itself being defined by Jesus as eternal fellowship with our Father. I cannot agree with this when you see the hearts of Jesus, Paul and others who are torn for those who do not believe. Adam chose to sin, which is unbelief and we must choose to believe in Jesus in order to participate in his life. Your testimony agrees with what I was trying to point out as well. I agree there is no magic prayer but a surrender of one’s self at some point to the reality of Jesus as Lord. And I do believe that just as we can not earn salvation we can not work our way out of it. Thanks for sharing your testimony.
Thank you, your word has strengthened some light. I like your statement “Adam chose to sin, which is unbelief and we must choose to believe in Jesus”, and yes and this will reverse what the first Adam did. Although the second Adam is much greater, still “choose to believe” is required.
Dear Paul, I was born again when I was in the Sunday School during my Primary school, I remembered my great desire to read about Jesus at the age of 12, I loved Jesus very much. But I had never recited the standard “sinners’ prayer” at all. Then in the middle school till university, I backslide and joined the secular world. I did drugs and crimes until the law of my country in Singapore caught me and put me in jail. I was supposed to serve death penalty for my crime but God released me miraculously serving only 6 months (this is my testimony). After the release, it is obvious God has been leading me to be a pastor, and now I am pastoring a church with the Radical Gospel of Grace. My experience certainly showed that 1) I was born again not by reciting the sinners’ prayer, but by love desire for Jesus. 2) God never let His child be lost, once saved forever saved, He’d still come to help at the point of my hopelessness.
That’s a wonderful testimony John. Thank you for sharing.
I’m very interested. As you noted above, I too, along with the others, have found the inclusion teaching very vague. Yet nevertheless deceptive. As you, I consider this other gospel a very big deal.
Very interested – Please go on, I have friends in the “Inclusionist” movement, and am interested to learn more about it, and what the bible says about grace.
Already did. Check out the articles listed under inclusionism in the E2R archive. You can also find some detailed study here.
This is very important to me. I came across this and srarted believing it, but it confused the heck out if me. Some of the big underground grace guys have been teaching this and thats how I came across it. They dont exactly come out and say thry are teaching it. Frankly it caused much confusion and doubt of everything I believe and consequently anxiety showed up in me. Thank you so much for your work.
Your blogpost is interesting – congrats. It is also one sided – contempt. Your blog is set up not for open discussion but for teaching and students questions and responses. This assures you of never losing control over the conversation. Your post conveniently ignores compelling evidence from the other side and uses hale verses to support your own side. If you want to set yourself up as an expert on matters spiritual, you have succeeded. If though, you want to be the funnel for a balanced diet of Scripture, you have failed. I would gladly engage you in a managed discourse in a public forum, but you would either not engage, claiming you already had all the truth you ever needed, or dismiss the suggestion as giving too much credibility to heresy, and when engaged you would resort to straw man arguments half verses and popular modern christian concepts. Face it Jan. You lack the courage of your convictions.
Who is Jan?
Have you got something to say other than your one sided, dictating, unsupported, spiritually arrogant, unbalanced, cowardly, comment. This just to let you see yourself, now have you got something to say.Probably not as you seem to have said all there is to say about what your view is.How is this mirror treating you.
Dear Paul
Your thoughts and insights are a blessing to countless number of people. Recently I shared your blog to a church member and he is so blessed and is being transformed. Thank your for your ministry. Keep posting for there is a world of people who are caught in religion who needs to be set free.
Thank you, Andrew.
my pastor of 10 years….who was always a strong grace preacher…..recently and subtly began preaching universal salvation (I don’t think anyone realized it til the end when he came right out and said everyone was going to heaven)…now I have 2 years worth of confusion in my head!. Thanks for the article.
I know this is an old post, but I have been studying up on inclusionism lately. I found these two things intriguing.
“”You are saved. Believe it.” ~the Inclusionist ”
““Everyone was saved – they just don’t know it yet.”
Interesting because that’s what healing ministries tell the sick.
“You are already healed. Believe it”.
“Everyone was healed, you just don’t know it yet”.. or “Everyone was healed, you just haven’t received.”
If it’s wrong with salvation, then perhaps it’s wrong with healing too? I have found those who believe in those healing doctrines are more likely to make the leap to inclusionism because the framework has already been set for them.
God bless
As far as I’m aware, the healing ministries that say that only say it to those who have received the gift of God’s grace in Jesus Christ (ie: Christians) whereas inclusionism says you are saved even to those who don’t know Jesus or who even reject him. A popular book on the subject is Andrew Wommack’s You’ve Already Got It which is explicitly addressed to Christians. If you wish to learn more about the differences between inclusionism and the gospel, I recommend this recent article and these study notes.
Inclusionism is not truly inclusive without accommodating those who choose to reject the Father’s love.
New to your site and reading all about…well…what I can at the moment. I have never heard of this junk theology called inclusionism. Glad I haven’t but glad to know whats out there. Thx for sharing. God bless.
Hey Paul. Ive been reading your posts for a while and really enjoy them. I am an A/G missionary, but am emphatic about grace and the finished work. I bave also been closely connected to John Crowder and recently sleny time with him, Steve McVey, and C. Baxter Kruger. There are parts of their message I value highly, but I see to many people swallowing Inclusionism as the best representation of God and his relationship to humanity. If anything, the fact that the inclusionist message strips us of free will is what seems most wrong about it. It seems like a reformatted extreme calvinism which seems to lean towards a hellless eternity, so eventually also being universalism. Obviously we cant have a conversation on a comment section like this, but I did want you to know that I am very interested in navigating this and understanding more. I will continue to read your other posts on it and appreciate all of your help.
Paul, for the most part, I agree with you. However, you talk about the idea that “you’re in until you’re out” being pushed by inclusionists. I’ve actually heard one theory that everyone is permanently in, but being “in” for eternity would be hell for someone who has rejected God. In other words, those who love God will love eternity with Him, but it would be hell for those who don’t. This doesn’t discount everything you said, but I just wanted to present another angle to the conversation.
I have heard this too and find it fairly typical of inclusionistic double-talk. “Hell is not real; it just feels real.” Telling the patient the pain is all in his head is rarely unhelpful.
But worse than the tricky mumbo-jumbo is the realization that inclusionism undermines, even reverses, the gospel call. Jesus and the NT writers frequently invited people to come or enter the kingdom – see the many “come” scriptures listed in the article above. But inclusionism says, “No, you don’t need to come because you’re already in and coming sounds like a work anyway so you’d best not come at all.” It is a perversion of the gospel.
Hi Paul,
I’m sure you know that at the moment of Christ’s death, He didn’t just cancel sin – He purchased Humanity, once and for all time. The Bible says in Romans, “that while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly”. Wasn’t everyone ungodly? So who wasn’t included? Who did Christ NOT purchase?
Phil
This is the same comment you posted elsewhere, so I’ll give the same response. Why do you think we were purchased? It’s an odd metaphor. Makes us sound like Christ is in the business of buying slaves. He redeemed us; didn’t buy us. He satisfied all claims against us with his blood, so that we might be free. No one is excluded from this except those who stubbornly refuse to leave the prison.
I appreciate your response. What is this ‘prison’ you speak of?
That’s a metaphor for the captivity of sin. The scriptures speak of being captive or in bondage to sin (Rom 7:14, Acts 8:23). “I’ve spent a long time in sin’s prison” (Rom 7:14, MSG). The good news is that Jesus redeemed us or, if you like, he purchased our freedom. But I would not say that he purchased us.
I come to Christ willingly, in response to his love. To suggest he bought me or my love makes my skin crawl.
You talk about inclusion like it was a dirty word. All it means is that I treat everyone the same. All are equal in my eyes. No one is better or worse, higher or lower than anyone else. I see everyone I meet as ‘raised in Christ’ – a ‘New Creation’ whether they choose to believe it or not. I tell people that I meet, regardless of their present condition, that “Heaven is in their future’ and there is just nothing they can do to avoid it. Christ made the decision on our behalf over 2,000 years ago. They’re trapped by the love of God in Christ.
There’s nothing wrong with inclusion – it’s a beautiful aspect of God’s love for humanity. My problem is with the teaching that says humanity is righteous and seated in heavenly places with Christ. There is no scripture to support these claims. Telling people they’re been trapped by a God they have not met sounds creepy to me. Love and entrapment are not two things that go together.
Like you, I don’t believe that He bought our love. That would be creepy. My love isn’t for sale to anyone, including God. But I have no problem with being bought by His blood.
If you love inclusion – what are we all included in, if it isn’t His righteousness?
The love of God excludes no one. Like sunshine, it shines on all of us, whether Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, strong or weak. But to say this makes the unrighteous righteous is bizarre. The same sunlight that melts ice hardens clay.
We are only righteous in Christ, and not all are in Christ. The light of God’s love has come into the world, but some prefer the darkness. This is why Paul speaks of certain people being in Christ before he was (Rom 16:7).
How can you say that not all are in Christ? Paul said in 1 Corinthians, “when one died, all died.” That can only mean that at the moment of Christ’s death, all of Humanity died in Him. He also said that by one Man’s righteous act, all will be made righteous.” God is not a separatist or a bigot. When the middle wall of separation was brought down (Ephesians 2) He brought us all together as “One New Man in Christ”.
Clearly the Apostle Paul did not share your view for he plainly says others were in Christ before he was (Rom 16:7).
I answer your question in this article.
Paul,
The letter is good reading. So Christians must come to the realization that they have all died in Christ? They are a New Man in Christ! All things have become new. Everything old has passed away. That’s great! Yet Christianity teaches that your ‘old man’ is still alive. It didn’t really die at all. It continues to harass the believer until his dying breath. How much sense does this make?
It is certainly true that most Christians don’t know they have died with Christ.
Paul, I have two more questions.
Do you personally believe that your ‘old man’ still tempts, distracts and harasses you, or are you sold on the fact that your ‘old man’ is really dead and gone? Do you personally believe that the devil was humiliated, defeated and destroyed, never to bother you again – or is he still constantly nipping at your heels the way Christian leaders claim?
My answer to your first question is in the article I linked to above (TL;DR: you died); my answer to the second is found in this picture.
My tendency is good intentions. But I would rather be in the room of love and grace.
But is it really love to take choice away from people? God never has. That was a misunderstanding written by a human preacher a long time ago. Choice is woven throughout all of the scriptures. Without choice we are just robots that God programmed to be His toys.
Love says choose me I did everything for you but I also love you too much to make you a robot.
Yes that is what I am trying to say. Thank you.
By the way, if I wanted to preach holiness the way the apostles did where can I look? Here on E2R of course! I haven’t been doing that. for whatever reason, I’m learning and believing. Well at least believing.
God has made man in His image. Trouble ends when man tries to alter free will of man. God have us the gift of free will and we can be His gift to choose to serve Him as submitted people of God!