Question 5: Will Everyone Go to Heaven

I like to rephrase the question, “Who will be saved,” by asking, “Do all dogs go to heaven?” (I think most people like dogs, so this is a good way to begin)

The first response would be to say Yes, all dogs go to heaven! None are excluded! All will be welcomed! There are no exceptions to this rule of grace. Everybody goes to the party. This perspective follows the idea of universal grace in which Christ welcomes all and no human being is left behind. Everyone is saved. Even hell, if there is a hell, becomes the last great place of redemption. Hell is not a place of eternal condemnation. This is the universalist view that I will be examining in greater detail.

All dogs go to heaven, except dogs that bite! Dogs that choose to do evil are exiled from heaven, condemning themselves to hell. They could have had heaven, but they have chosen hell because of their evil deeds. This perspective follows the idea of universal grace in which Christ welcomes all, but it also allows for freedom within moral choice to determine one’s eternal fate. God does not condemn anyone to hell, but allows us to condemn ourselves to hell.
This view I call the moral view. People who do good will find salvation and the people who behave badly will not. Jesus tells a story like this in parable form in Matthew 25:31-46 when he says that God will separate the sheep from the goats. The sheep are the people who have done God’s will and the goats are the people who have not.

All dogs that submit to their Master go to heaven! Dogs that choose to love and obey their Master will have all sin and evil exorcised from them. Their Master will rid them of the evil ways of their sin, saving them from the judgment of hell and for the eternity of heaven. This perspective follows the idea of universal judgment in which Christ knows that all are condemned to be damned unless a Savior rids them of their evil. Christ is Savior and will eradicate all sin and evil within them. This view I call the evangelical view. In this view, salvation is not dependent on our actions, because our actions are never going to be good enough to get us into heaven or earn God’s love. Our salvation is dependent upon us making a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Everyone who has made a confession of faith will find salvation and those who have not, spend eternity separated from God’s love. The main place this theology is presented is in the work of Paul. In Romans 10 he says, “If we believe in Jesus with our hearts and confess that he is Lord, then we shall be saved.”

We cannot know for sure which dogs will go to heaven! The Master works in mysterious ways therefore some dogs may get to heaven without our knowing how. The important thing is the Master is fair. The Master knows every dog and all dogs will get a fair opportunity to know the Master. This is the optimistic view. This is the view held by C.S. Lewis and others that our salvation may not be entirely determined in this life. God offers grace beyond death and we can still find salvation is Jesus Christ after we die. This kind of view is expressed by Peter in 2 Peter when he says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

No, only my dogs go to heaven! Only my dogs have been elected to receive the redemption of heaven. Some dogs have it and some dogs don’t. This perspective follows the idea of universal judgment in which Christ knows who is elected to be redeemed and who is condemned to be damned. Everything is predestined. Only the elect will be saved, spared from hell and saved into heaven. Heaven is not for everyone. There are some who are predestined for hell, while others for heaven. Only the elect will go to God’s heaven. The predestined view takes into account the moral and evangelical views, but then adds to it that God elects certain people for salvation and the rest God leaves to their state of depravity. Only those people who have been chosen by God before the foundation of the world can accept Jesus as their savior and follow God’s will. Because the non-elect have not been chosen, they will continue in their state of sin and never accept Jesus into their life and never live according to God’s will. Hints at this can also be found in Paul’s writing that “those whom God foreknows are predestined to be conformed into the image of God’s Son.”

Question 4: Is Jesus the only way to heaven continued

Critiques of Pluralism

I want to begin our discussion of pluralism by examining three points from Gulley and Mulholland’s book If Grace is True. I believe these points will also be compatible with those of John Hick discussed a couple days ago. They argue that if every person will be saved, we cannot believe Jesus is the way of salvation, thus negating the divinity of Christ. This is the point where I question the integrity of their theological speculations.

If you believe God loves and will save every person, you can’t claim redemption as an exclusively Christian experience…. I still claim Jesus has a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I am no longer convinced this requires his divinity.

My first critique is not that pluralism asks us to redefine the meaning of the trinity, the atonement, or the resurrection, but that in redefining these terms pluralism has claimed that Jesus is not divine. Instead, they argue that Jesus had a special relationship with God. However, this same statue applies to other religious teachers such as Muhammad, Buddha, etc. In the name of religious tolerance, pluralism has lost the significance of Jesus. Sometimes it even appears that Jesus is presented as the bad guy. We are too afraid to talk about our love for Jesus because we are afraid of offending someone.

The second critique of pluralistic universalism comes from Jerry Walls, in his book Heaven, the Logic of Eternal Joy. In critiquing the view of John Hick, he puts it like this, “[A view such as this] requires Christians, as well as adherents of other religions that make exclusive claims, [such as the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and the Trinity] to give up what is distinctive to their faith and accept a generic substitute in its place.” Pluralism not only forces Christians to surrender the things that we hold dear to us, but those people who belong to other religions are forced to give us a belief in those things they hold to be exclusive. For example, Islam would have to believe that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet and that the Koran was just another religious self help book. I am not sure about you, but I do not see Muslims choosing this option.

In an e-mail, a friend told me that pluralism did not ask people to give up their beliefs. In fact, I think pluralism tries to convey the message that it accepts the beliefs of everyone. However, I believe its attempt fails. For example, in order for me to embrace pluralism, I would have to give up believing that Jesus is God and that the he is the only way to heaven. If a Muslim accepted pluralism, they would have to give up believing that Muhammad was the greatest prophet and believe he was on equal ground with all the other religious leaders in the history of the world.

The third critique is that Hick and other pluralist claim that we cannot know God for certain so we cannot judge which religion is the best revelation of God, so we should accept all of them. In stating this premise, pluralism is stating a truth claim about God, yet they do not believe we can know the truth about God. At best, they must conclude that we do not know that God is unknowable. Instead, pluralism is claiming to have an even greater knowledge than any of the world religions, since they claim no one religion gets it all right.

A fourth critique comes from the book Mere Christianity and is directed at Hick’s claim that Christians are no more moral than adherents of other religions. C.S. Lewis argues that we cannot judge the morality of Christianity for two reasons. (1) We cannot know for sure who is a Christian and who is not. He says that some people are not Christians yet, but are on their way while others claim to be Christians, but are moving in the opposite direction from God. (2) He also says that some people have better moral dispositions than others. For instance, one person, X, may have a bad moral disposition to begin with and when she accepts Christ, her bad moral disposition does not immediately erase. Person Z may not be a Christian, but may have been born with a good moral disposition. When you compare persons X and Z, person Z may appear to be more moral because this person was born this way. Instead of comparing X to Z, we should ask, “What kind of person would X have been without Christ?" Lewis argues that moral disposition does not change the fact that both X and Z need Jesus.

I want to suggest that this is not to say that Christians are superior in claiming that Christ is the only way of salvation. The gospel tells us that the entire world falls short of beign the people God wants us to. My claim is that Jesus Christ is superior in that he is the way, the truth, and the life. It is an exclusive claim in that Jesus is the means of salvation, but it is an inclusive claim in that Jesus’ offer of salvation is to the entire world.

Question 4: Is Jesus the only way to heaven continued

Critiques of Pluralism

I want to begin our discussion of pluralism by examining three points from Gulley and Mulholland’s book If Grace is True. I believe these points will also be compatible with those of John Hick discussed a couple days ago. They argue that if every person will be saved, we cannot believe Jesus is the way of salvation, thus negating the divinity of Christ. This is the point where I question the integrity of their theological speculations.

If you believe God loves and will save every person, you can’t claim redemption as an exclusively Christian experience…. I still claim Jesus has a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I am no longer convinced this requires his divinity.

My first critique is not that pluralism asks us to redefine the meaning of the trinity, the atonement, or the resurrection, but that in redefining these terms pluralism has claimed that Jesus is not divine. Instead, they argue that Jesus had a special relationship with God. However, this same statue applies to other religious teachers such as Muhammad, Buddha, etc. In the name of religious tolerance, pluralism has lost the significance of Jesus. Sometimes it even appears that Jesus is presented as the bad guy. We are too afraid to talk about our love for Jesus because we are afraid of offending someone.

The second critique of pluralistic universalism comes from Jerry Walls, in his book Heaven, the Logic of Eternal Joy. In critiquing the view of John Hick, he puts it like this, “[A view such as this] requires Christians, as well as adherents of other religions that make exclusive claims, [such as the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and the Trinity] to give up what is distinctive to their faith and accept a generic substitute in its place.” Pluralism not only forces Christians to surrender the things that we hold dear to us, but those people who belong to other religions are forced to give us a belief in those things they hold to be exclusive. For example, Islam would have to believe that Muhammad was not the greatest prophet and that the Koran was just another religious self help book. I am not sure about you, but I do not see Muslims choosing this option.

In an e-mail, a friend told me that pluralism did not ask people to give up their beliefs. In fact, I think pluralism tries to convey the message that it accepts the beliefs of everyone. However, I believe its attempt fails. For example, in order for me to embrace pluralism, I would have to give up believing that Jesus is God and that the he is the only way to heaven. If a Muslim accepted pluralism, they would have to give up believing that Muhammad was the greatest prophet and believe he was on equal ground with all the other religious leaders in the history of the world.

The third critique is that Hick and other pluralist claim that we cannot know God for certain so we cannot judge which religion is the best revelation of God, so we should accept all of them. In stating this premise, pluralism is stating a truth claim about God, yet they do not believe we can know the truth about God. At best, they must conclude that we do not know that God is unknowable. Instead, pluralism is claiming to have an even greater knowledge than any of the world religions, since they claim no one religion gets it all right.

A fourth critique comes from the book Mere Christianity and is directed at Hick’s claim that Christians are no more moral than adherents of other religions. C.S. Lewis argues that we cannot judge the morality of Christianity for two reasons. (1) We cannot know for sure who is a Christian and who is not. He says that some people are not Christians yet, but are on their way while others claim to be Christians, but are moving in the opposite direction from God. (2) He also says that some people have better moral dispositions than others. For instance, one person, X, may have a bad moral disposition to begin with and when she accepts Christ, her bad moral disposition does not immediately erase. Person Z may not be a Christian, but may have been born with a good moral disposition. When you compare persons X and Z, person Z may appear to be more moral because this person was born this way. Instead of comparing X to Z, we should ask, “What kind of person would X have been without Christ?" Lewis argues that moral disposition does not change the fact that both X and Z need Jesus.

I want to suggest that this is not to say that Christians are superior in claiming that Christ is the only way of salvation. The gospel tells us that the entire world falls short of beign the people God wants us to. My claim is that Jesus Christ is superior in that he is the way, the truth, and the life. It is an exclusive claim in that Jesus is the means of salvation, but it is an inclusive claim in that Jesus’ offer of salvation is to the entire world.