The Gospel Coalition

“And the younger son arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion.”
- Jesus, “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:20)

The crucial moment in Jesus’ story occurs as the son approaches his hometown. Jesus tells us the father saw his son while he was still a long way off. This implies that the boy was probably at the edge of town, ready to head down the main street (which was usually the road that almost everyone in the village lived on). The father had been watching diligently, hoping to see some glimpse of his son.

Earlier, the younger son had wished his father were dead. He had publicly humiliated the family’s name and honor, sold off the precious inheritance and deserted the village. He had foolishly squandered all the money, and then wound up working for a pagan and craving even pigs’ food.

Through it all, the father has not stopped loving his child. He hopes to see their relationship restored. He dreams of them talking again, laughing, spending time together. His eagerness to see his younger son again impels him to the front of the yard where he stares into the distance to see if maybe his boy is on his way home.

Jesus has given us a breathtaking picture of the nature of God’s love for us. Despite all the pain we have inflicted upon God through our willful rebellion, our Father stands ready and willing to take us into His arms again and accept us as His children. He is calling us home again, to enjoy His fellowship, to be a part of His family, to worship Him as King and Lord. He proved His love through the sacrifice of His only Son. We prove our love by returning to His arms and obeying His commands.

Is the Father waiting for you?

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

I love politics. You never know what may happen next!

Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.

We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.

We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather’s moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.

We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.

We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.

We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.

We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.

-St. Francis of Assisi

“Man never could or would have invented a gospel which would lay him low,
and give to the Lord God all the glory and praise.”

- Charles Spurgeon

A second way in which inclusivism capitulates to the current culture is in the position’s unbiblical descriptions of “saving faith.” Today’s world tends to see “faith” as a purely subjective emotion, divorced from objective content and made efficacious by the intensity with which a person exercises belief. Inclusivists tend to see “faith” in the same way as the culture, preferring subjectivity and thereby implicitly denying the importance of faith’s objective content.

Pinnock affirms that “God really cares about faith and not theology, trust and not orthodoxy.” He also upholds what he calls the “faith principle.” The “faith principle” teaches that salvation comes from satisfying the conditions of Hebrews 11:6. Faith as trust saves, not knowledge. Pinnock says, “According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology,” and then adds, “The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.” The inclusivist downplaying of doctrine and theology virtually empties “faith” of all its objective content. What is important is trust in whatever god or whatever light has been given, not a correct understanding of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Pinnock’s proposal runs into problems once one grapples with the fact that historical Christianity affirms a very clear understanding of the identity of “God.” Pinnock naively celebrates the similarities between Christianity and other religions without noting that the very nature of “God” is radically different in the religions he gushes over.

Alister McGrath agrees with Pinnock that cognitive knowledge alone is not regarded as salvific. But McGrath helpfully points out that Christianity’s understanding of God is particular and cannot be harmonized with the notions of “divinity” in other religions.

McGrath affirms that even the notion of “salvation” itself differs considerably from one religion to another. He also exposes the naïve way in which Pinnock uses terms that mean quite different things to different people. The object of faith is indeed important, not just the presence of a generic faith that expresses itself in sincerity alone.

Ronald Nash holds in balance the two necessary aspects of saving faith. First, saving faith must be directed to the right object. Faith that is defined exclusively in subjective terms of generic “trust” and vague “dependence” will lead future generations to the doorstep of Schleiermacher and introduce us to a rerun of classical liberalism.

Secondly, Nash claims that “the proper object of faith must be approached with… sincerity and genuine commitment.” Evangelicals do not affirm a mere “mental assent” to certain key doctrines as salvific. Biblical faith finds its expression in both the objective content of the Christian gospel (the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and the subjective feelings that indicate true heart transformation (trust and sincerity).

Missiologist David Hesselgrave wisely warns against pitting the subjective and objective aspects of faith against each other. “Like hydrogen and oxygen in water, they go together.” The downplaying of creedal faith is one of the characteristics of the current culture. Inclusivism too quickly adopts the cultural definition of “faith” as sincerity and then promotes a “saving faith” that is a generic trust in whatever spiritual light may be available.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Tony Kummer’s humility-soaked post: Why I Have No Right to Write Tom Wright Off

Sermon Writers Guild Goes on Strike! Sermon reruns expected in Spring of ’08.

Georgia Baptists blast bloggers.

For God So Loved Himself? Is God a Narcissist?

Why Tim Challies Needs Doctrine. He’s “ruined for anything else.”

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: (You guessed it…) Trevin Wax Interview with N.T. Wright (Full Transcript)

In the upcoming weeks, I plan on blogging through Piper’s The Future of Justification. Hope you’ll join in the conversation.

Mayflower, a historical novel by Nathaniel Philbrick, documents a time of American history that is often hidden behind myth, legend and political correctness.

Mayflower first tells the story of the earliest Pilgrims to come to the New World and then lays out the history of the English-Indian wars fought by the Pilgrims’ descendants. Philbrick’s description of the early Americans is as compelling as it is accurate – fairly portraying the early settlers and their quest for survival and then for settlement.

I appreciated Mayflower for its evenhanded portrayal of the early Pilgrims and the Native Americans they befriended. In a day of increasing political correctness, most Americans tend to one of two extremes when thinking about the Pilgrims. Some mythologize and glorify the Pilgrims and their motives. Others demonize them for disrupting the “peaceful” life of the American Indians.

The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Philbrick does not shy away from the religiosity of the early settlers. Neither does he shy away from the deceptive craftiness of some of the later Indians. He criticizes the actions of Pilgrims and Indians alike, weaving into his narrative fascinating stories of unity, betrayal, and community.

Most American history focuses on the 1700′s and the quest for American independence. Mayflower goes back even further, telling the story of the American forefathers’ ancestors and the early American settlements. What is perhaps most fascinating about Philbrick’s account is how the debates over religion and national identity in the U.S. today were already present on the Mayflower. From the beginning, the Pilgrims included religious and non-religious in their midst – and the debate over what kind of society should emerge was just as controversial then as now.

Pick up Mayflower. Read the story of courage, community, and war. Learn about the earliest Americans. Trust me – you won’t be able to put the book down.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Inclusivism represents a capitulation to the current cultural climate first by its adoption of Western individualistic notions of “fairness” and then its subsequent contention that God’s actions should necessarily correspond to these notions. The inclusivist argument begins with an emotional appeal to humanity’s innate sense of “fairness.” Even the much-revered C.S. Lewis (though more agnostic about the fate of the unevangelized than a self-professing inclusivist) succumbed to the temptation of judging God according to human standards of fairness.

“Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”

Clark Pinnock takes Lewis’ notion to the next level by seeking to prove that salvation must be available to all human beings. “If God really loves the whole world and desires everyone to be saved, it follows logically that everyone must have access to salvation.” For Pinnock and other inclusivists, it is “unfair” for some to have access to God’s salvation while others perish without ever hearing the gospel. Therefore, salvation must either be accessible through general revelation (the created order) or through a post-mortem opportunity for decision.

Pinnock’s inclusivism is difficult to defend because of his “open theist” view of God. According to Pinnock’s version of open theism, God cannot and does not know the future decisions of the free creatures he has made since his foreknowledge would necessarily impinge upon human free will. But it is here that Pinnock’s open theism contradicts his inclusivism. How can Pinnock so forcefully announce that God will offer the news of his salvation to every unevangelized person in the world? If God does not know the future, God himself does not know if this feat can be accomplished, much less Pinnock.

Furthermore, Pinnock’s view is driven by his notion of fairness, one that depends heavily upon the American ethos of individualism, free choice, and equal opportunity. For Pinnock, it is unthinkable that a loving God would present some with the opportunity to accept or reject his salvation, but not others. This picture of God conflicts with Pinnock’s Western notions of fairness and equality. Therefore, Pinnock brings in the universality axiom: God’s salvation must be accessible to every human being regardless of their knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Though the inclusivist position may seem attractive on the surface, it falls apart under the weight of its own appeal to fairness. For this essay’s present purposes, let us concede for a moment the inclusivist statement that God’s salvation is accessible to every human being. Even if this affirmation were true, a question begs to be asked: is salvation accessible to every human being equally?

Consider a Buddhist child growing up in the United States in a Buddhist family that has emigrated from a Buddhist country. The Buddhist family moves next door to a Baptist family. The Baptist child places her faith in Christ, as God uses the testimony of a godly heritage and a nurturing church to bring her to faith. The Buddhist child hears the gospel, but the cultural and familial pressures of Buddhism prove too great for her, and she rejects Christianity and remains a Buddhist. Both children heard the gospel. Salvation was accessible to both, and yet the inclusivist charge of “unfairness” can still again be leveled against God because salvation was not equally accessible. According to the inclusivist position, the Buddhist child will be punished after death for her rejection of the gospel. Yet considering the circumstances that God in his sovereignty placed her in, it is difficult to imagine her doing otherwise (apart from the Holy Spirit’s power of conviction). The inclusivist position does not “justify” God’s fairness; it only exacerbates the problem.

Other similar charges can be leveled “against” God’s fairness. Is it not unfair that a person who lives sixty years may have more opportunities to hear the gospel than the person who dies in a car accident at the age of thirty? Is it not unfair that the child who is born to hypocritical Christian parents rejects the Christian faith while the child born into a warm, authentic Christian family places saving faith in Christ?

The inclusivist position fails to show how the accessibility of salvation resolves the issue of “fairness.” In fact, inclusivism fails to show how God must be held accountable to this notion of fairness in the first place. Carl Henry gives us a healthy reminder.

“To accuse God of misconduct, to fault him and disparage his electing grace, is to forget that God himself is the standard of truth and justice and love. Scripture nowhere derives its doctrine of truth, justice, and love from heathen sources. The perversion of truth, justice, and love is what makes humans heathen. God’s fairness is demonstrated because he condemns sinners not in the absence of light but because of their rebellious response. His mercy is demonstrated because he provides fallen humans with a privileged call to redemption not extended to fallen angels. He continues to extend that call worldwide even while some rebel humans spurn it as unloving and unjust and prefer to die in their sins. All are judged by what they do with the light they have, and none is without light.”

Later, we’ll look at inclusivism’s capitulation to culture by adopting world’s definition of “faith.”

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Curtis Chang’s Engaging Unbelief: A Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas seeks to answer the challenges of postmodernism by applying the methodology of two giants in church history.

Chang demonstrates the rhetorical effectiveness of Augustine’s City of God (400′s A.D.) and Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles (1260 A.D.) by showing how each theologian confronts the epochal threat of his generation. Chang outlines their apologetic strategy as follows:
 1. Enter the challenger’s story.
 2. Retell the challenge’s story.
 3. Capture the story in the wider story of Christianity by exposing the challenging story’s “tragic flaw” or inadequacy.

Though Augustine and Aquinas faced different threats (Augustine’s was a culture turning hostile to Christianity and Aquinas’ was the rapid expansion of Islam), Chang argues that both utilized this method of apologetics. Of course, Chang does not leave us with history alone; he then shows how Christians can confront the arrival of postmodernism the same way.

Chang’s book is not an easy read. Even as a student who loves church history, I found some of the historical details unnecessary. It would have been more helpful for Chang to intersperse advice for our current challenges within the biographical chapters, instead of simply bookending those chapters with the practical.

Still, there is much to be commended in Chang’s work. He correctly identifies many of the problems of postmodernism, one of the features missing from many in the Emerging Church discussion.

Though he occasionally falls too far into the culture he is trying to reach (Is filmmaking really the key to reaching postmoderns? Is inerrancy a doctrine that can only arise in a modernist context, etc.?), Chang manages to strike a good balance between condemning everything about postmodernism and baptizing postmodernist thought in Christian lingo.

I would love to see a rewrite of this book because the world has changed substantially since it was published in 2000. Our collision with radical Islam on September 11 makes Aquinas’ confrontation with Islam all the more compelling. And as our world continues to slip into a post-Christian state (with evangelicals waking up to the fact that there are two kingdoms that should not be confused) we would be wise to take another look at Augustine’s testimony.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Not a week goes by that someone in their 20′s or 30′s asks me the perennial question: “Is Jesus the only way to God?” I believe that the question of Jesus as the only way to God is the defining question for our generation. 

America has quickly become a pluralist society. The number of religious options for American citizens has grown considerably in the past two hundred years, and immigration ensures that this trend will continue in the future. Often tethered to American pluralism is a philosophical pluralism that relativizes all religious truth claims and fights vehemently against any religious “monopoly” on truth.

Though evangelicals have largely avoided the philosophical pluralism that plagues the mainline denominations, several prominent evangelical scholars have begun espousing a “middle way” between the exclusivist claims of traditional Christianity and the relativistic doctrines of today’s pluralism. Over the next few days, I will seek to define this evangelical “inclusivism” and then show how evangelical inclusivism represents a capitulation to the current culture by adopting Western individualistic notions of “fairness,” by emptying saving faith of its biblical content, and by sharing the culture’s high view of human goodness.

Defining Inclusivism

In evangelicalism, no monolithic movement of “inclusivists” exists. Each inclusivist scholar will define and describe the inclusivist position with different nuances.

Yet, most inclusivists will agree with the basic points of Clark Pinnock’s proposal. Pinnock is a leading proponent of evangelical inclusivism who believes that Christians should take seriously the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. God’s presence in the whole world indicates that God’s grace is also at work “in some way” among all peoples.

The inclusivist position rests upon two axioms: particularity and universality. Regarding particularity, inclusivism differs from pluralism by stating clearly that salvation is found only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Regarding universality, inclusivism differs from exclusivism by claiming that God intends his salvation to be available to all humans everywhere. These two axioms lead Pinnock and other inclusivists to “entertain the possibility that religion may play a role in the salvation of the human race, a role preparatory to the gospel of Christ, in whom alone fullness of salvation is found.”

Inclusivists join with exclusivists in proclaiming that God’s salvation is always grounded on the person of Jesus Christ and the work he has accomplished for human redemption. Inclusivists also stand with exclusivists against universalism (the belief that all human beings will be saved) due to the frequent biblical references to hell and punishment.

But inclusivists are quick to agree with pluralists that God’s salvation must not be and cannot be restricted to only those who hear the gospel and consciously put their faith in Christ. After all, the practical implications of such a restriction would necessarily mean that the vast majority of human beings who have lived never even had an opportunity to believe in Christ and are therefore doomed to hell.

Though inclusivists claim to offer a “middle way” between pluralism and exclusivism, John Hick, a well-known pluralist who rejects Christ’s divinity, the inspiration of the Bible and other essential Christian doctrines, claims that “Pinnock’s inclusivism represents an enormous advance on Christian exclusivism.” Hick’s enthusiasm for the inclusivist position indicates the proximity of the inclusivist and pluralist views. Exclusivists tend to be much more reserved in their appreciation of evangelical inclusivism.

The inclusivist affirmation of salvation for people apart from conscious faith in Christ is what separates the inclusivists from exclusivism and this crucial difference will be the main focus of the remaining posts in this series. Stay tuned.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog