Evangelism Handbook

One of the legends surrounding the Taj Mahal concerns the death of the favorite wife of the Emperor Shah Jahan. Devastated at losing her, the king determined to honor her by constructing a temple as her tomb. The coffin was placed in the middle of the construction site. An expensive, elaborate edifice began to rise around the coffin. As the weeks became months, the Shah’s passion for the project surpassed his grief.

One day during the construction, a wooden box was discovered. The emperor ordered the workers to throw the box out; after all, it was only in the way. Shah Jahan had no idea that he had ordered the disposal of his wife’s casket, hidden beneath layers of dust and time. The very person for whose honor the temple was built was forgotten.² Tragic? Yes. But the same thing can happen to us. Without maintaining a focus on theology, founded on the Word of God, we can forget why we evangelize in the first place.

Christianity is founded on the conviction that the God of creation has revealed Himself to humanity. The gospel rests not only in the simple statements of faith—God is love; we have sinned; Christ died and rose again for us and will come again; and through repentance and faith we can follow this Christ—but also in the reality of these statements. We must ground our evangelism not only in a verse or two in Romans but also in the whole counsel of God’s Word, even as our mission comes from all Scripture, not only the Great Commission passages. The grand drama of redemption—creation, fall, redemption, consummation, and all related to it—must be heralded in a world that decreasingly knows the story.

The record of God’s self-revelation is found in the Bible; most specifically and finally, God has revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus. This chapter seeks not to prove this reality but to demonstrate how such a conviction relates to the task of evangelism. The tendency today is to discover a method that works, then find a Bible verse to prove the method is OK. We need evangelism that is grounded in Scripture.

One cannot adequately practice evangelism apart from a firm biblical base that is rooted in history and founded on a clear theology. At the same time, theology is incomplete without a view toward mission. In a movement, there is no room for practitioners who do not understand the “why” of their driving force. Likewise, in a movement no room exists for a person who speculates on theology without having to live and breathe a life of committed engagement and embodiment of the vision and mission. Paul demonstrated throughout his life and writings of the New Testament, a distinction between theologian and practitioners is a false dichotomy. Thus, there is a need to keep evangelism and theology together.

This is true for several reasons:

1. Evangelism and theology must be kept together to avoid extremism. Wrongly interpreted and applied, some have used the Bible to lead many people into cults and other heresies. Evangelism keeps theology tied closely to Scripture. Linking evangelism and theology avoids certain aberrations. Evangelism divorced from theology leads to superficial Christianity. It produces Christians who are ten miles wide and one-half inch deep. Without a doctrinal base, we may eventually forget the very purpose for which we preach! We need to present truth, not some watered-down, cheap imitation of the real thing. We need to give people the life-changing, God-inspired gospel without corrupting the message. Theology without evangelism leads to dead orthodoxy. Vance Havner said you can be straight as a gun barrel and just as empty. There are conservative churches across America that are ineffective and spiritually dead. They have the right doctrine, but their practice is far from the biblical standard. In fact, theology without an evangelistic priority means we haven’t really understood theology.

2. Theology and evangelism must remain linked because the Bible always weds theology with practical matters like evangelism. In the book of Acts, we read sermons filled with doctrinal content. At the same time, the testimony of the believers, their faith in action, played a vital role in their mission. Paul’s letters often emphasized doctrine and practice, and we recognize Paul as both a theologian and an evangelist.

3. People who have been used of God have generally kept theology and evangelism in unity. Not every great leader in church history was a noted theologian. But at key points in history, when God raised up individuals to play strategic roles in the furtherance of the Christian faith, almost without exception those leaders were adept theologians and active evangelists. Martin Luther, although he was a theologian, called himself an evangelist. John Wesley, so pivotal in British history, was an Oxford man whose sermons were filled with doctrinal content and evangelistic themes. Jonathan Edwards was one of the brightest minds ever produced in America. His writings contain some heady doctrine, but he also played a critical role in the conversion of multitudes in the First Great Awakening.

There has been an unfortunate focus in the Western Church on experiencing faith to the neglect of valuing strong doctrine. “Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you in this last book,” C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity. “They all say ‘the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion.’ ” To such objections he replied: “I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. . . . I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available.”³

While all doctrines relate to evangelism, this chapter will examine crucial subjects related to the evangelistic task. Entire volumes are dedicated specifically to the theology of evangelism.⁴ Central issues are considered below.

Nothing cuts the cord of evangelism faster than a lack of respect for the teaching of the Word of God.⁵ I will not argue for the uniqueness and authority of Scripture here; other writings have done that well.⁶ I simply note that the uniqueness of Christianity begins with its Holy Book. The Bible makes the bold assertion, without giving any significant defense of its position, that it is the one-of-a-kind self-disclosure of the only true God—the Lord of history. Most significantly, it reveals to us what we must know about Jesus, the Son of God, our Savior. There are enough extrabiblical accounts of the life of Christ to demonstrate that he lived, but a person must come to the Scriptures to find any significant information about God’s final self-revelation.

The Bible gives us objective, verifiable information about God and our relationship to Him; however, it is fundamentally a book of faith. The Bible does not tell us everything we want to know about reality, but it does tell us what we need to know! I do not mean to imply that the Bible’s historical or other factual information is irrelevant or inaccurate. But a person must do more than read the Bible and admire its majesty. One must encounter its primary Author to truly understand the words of life. One must live the Bible.

The Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of God. It is wholly trustworthy and accurate. Of course, one can hold to a high view of Scripture and not be evangelistic. One can claim a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture but deny its sufficiency. But a person is hard pressed to come to the Bible with a heart of faith and not see the obvious implications and commands of God to proclaim the gospel message.

However, a more insidious affront to scriptural authority has sapped the life of the modern church. This is the invasion of liberalism, which questions the uniqueness of Scripture. Those who have followed this path in modern history have been anything but evangelistic. The findings of modern scholarship, including higher criticism, have to some degree helped our understanding of Scripture. The key is found in the presuppositions one takes to Scripture. In other words, the interpretation of the Bible is as critical as the view of Bible’s authority, but the two are not easily separated.

Any discussion of theology must center on the doctrine of God. Drummond said it well when he noted, “evangelism begins in theology, not anthropology.”⁷ Unfortunately, most modern books on evangelism begin with the need of people—not the sovereignty of God. Most errors related to evangelism are made at this point. While we must understand contemporary culture to communicate the gospel effectively, we must not begin at that point to develop our theology. Starting with the doctrine of man emphasizes relevance, which is important; but more critical is starting with the doctrine of God, which emphasizes significance.

2. God is One—in three persons. The God we serve is uniquely one God who has manifested Himself in three persons. The Trinity is the granite from which the monument of evangelism is carved. In God’s plan “the Father was to send His Son into the world to redeem it, God the Son was voluntarily to come into the world in order to merit salvation by His obedience unto death, God the Holy Spirit was to apply salvation to sinners by the instilling of renewing grace within them.”⁸

3. God is holy. The attributes of God relate to evangelism; the urgency of evangelism is tied to the character of God! He is holy, and we are not, so we stand condemned. If we could see God face-to-face, our immediate impression would be to stand in awe of the holiness of God. That attribute would transcend all others. Think of Moses’ encounter with God in Exodus. He did not jump a pew; he removed his shoes. Think of Isaiah and the cry of the seraphim, “Holy, holy, holy” (see Isaiah 6). Move to the New Testament and John’s vision of God in Revelation where the heavenly chorus responded with “Holy, holy, holy” (Rev 4:8). The biblical words for holy, both the Hebrew word qodesh and the Greek hagios, have essentially the same meaning: “to be separate, distinct.” God is not the same as us. In fact, there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God than to the love of God. Yet God is not only holy, just, and wrathful; He is also love.

4. God is love. While God is holy, He offers us a personal relationship with Him that we don’t deserve. Drummond is right in noting that agape love is the central motif of the New Testament. However, the love of God and the holiness of God must be held in balance. We cannot evangelize biblically without both—His holiness and His love. Without God’s love, we become mean-spirited. A pastor friend was eating at McDonald’s while he watched his six-year-old son play in the playland. He was shocked to see his son putting another little boy in a headlock! He rushed outside to rescue the frightened little lad and sternly reprimanded his son. The son looked at his dad with a confused expression. “But Dad,” he replied, “I was trying to tell him about Jesus, but he just wouldn’t listen!” In contrast, without a view of God’s holiness, we refuse to confront people with their need for him. We become soft, even sentimental, toward others. We must keep a balance between conviction and compassion in our evangelism.

We can think of Christ in terms of the person of Christ—who He is—and the work of Christ—what He has done. He is the God-man, the unique, only begotten Son of God. Historically, two extremes have hindered the understanding of who Jesus is. On one hand, the Docetics emphasized the deity of Jesus, denying He ever became man. He only appeared to be human. On the other hand, the Ebionites said Jesus was just a man, denying His deity. Historically, liberalism has typically fallen on the side of the Ebionites, while conservatives at times have minimized the humanity of Christ.

The work of Christ includes His virgin birth, sinless life, death and resurrection, reign in heaven, return, and eternal reign. Most specifically, it concerns the work of Christ on the cross for our salvation. This relates specifically to soteriology, and raises the issue, what is the gospel?

What Is the Gospel?

More than a few today question the validity and veracity of the gospel proclaimed by the words and life of contemporary Christianity. One example:

So what is this good news? The refined and civilized version goes something like this: Jesus died and rose from the dead so that you can live a life of endless comfort, security, and indulgence. But really this is a bit too developed. Usually it’s more like this: if you’ll simply confess that you’re a sinner and believe in Jesus, you’ll be saved from the torment of eternal hellfire, then go to heaven when you die. Either case results in domestication. One holds out for your life to begin in eternity, and the other makes a mockery out of [this] life. The call of Jesus is more barbaric than either of these. It is a call to live in this world as citizens of an entirely different kingdom. In its primitive state the good news could never be separated from the invitation of Jesus to, “come, follow Me.” He never lied about the danger or cost associated with becoming a follower.⁹

Another way of looking at how we see the gospel is to examine churches that tend to take an aspect of the gospel and emphasize it to the neglect of other components. One extreme will look familiar to the conventional church:

In the more modern churches, the triumph of the resurrected Jesus was stressed to emphasize victory, so that being a Christian basically meant you were on the winning team with Jesus and therefore you were a real winner. What they overlooked was the incarnation of Jesus . . . they ignored the fact that Jesus humbly entered into culture to identify with and effectively reach lost people steeped in various kinds of sin. This oversight allowed people to triumphally parade their victory over sin and sinners but failed to call them to humbly incarnate as missionaries in culture to effectively reach lost people. Christians with this mindset can easily come to see themselves as winners and lost people as losers and consequently are often despised by lost people, who find them smug.¹⁰

Conversely, many other churches are more akin to the so-called postmodern churches focusing almost exclusively on a vegetable-munching hippie Christ’s humble incarnation in culture to hang out with sinful lost people, particularly the poor and marginalized. In this mindset, being a Christian means being a nice person who loves people no matter what their lives are like by trying to identify with their cultural experiences and perspectives in a non-judgmental and empathetic manner. What is lacking, however, is the understanding that when we next see Jesus, He will not appear as a humble marginalized Galilean peasant. Rather, we will see the exalted, tattooed King of Kings coming with fire blazing in His eyes and a sword launching from His mouth, with which to make war upon the unrepentant. Until the day of Jesus’ second coming we are not merely to relate to people but also to command them to repent of sin and bend their knee to the King before they are grapes crushed under His foot in the winepress of His fury.¹¹

Another mistake we must avoid is explaining the gospel in terms of the most simplistic understanding of its message. True, the gospel message can be understood by a child, but it encompasses a vastness beyond the understanding of theologians. Keller noted the balance:

“The gospel” is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life—individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think “the gospel” is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as life goes on.¹²

Keller saw the need to avoid truncating the gospel too much or making the gospel only about initial conversion. The great idea, the wonderful story of the gospel starts in the mind of God, moves through creation, recognizes the fall, sees the providence of God, centers on the work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection, and looks for future consummation of this life and the hope of heaven in eternity. It is indeed more than the A-B-Cs alone.

My colleague and theologian Pete Schemm noted Jesus Himself is the gospel. What does that mean? In summary, he stated:¹³

4. Fourth, each of these first three observations help to explain what Paul explicitly defines as the gospel in 1 Cor 15:1–4. Here Paul defines “the gospel” in this way: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1,3–4 ESV).

Ken Keathley, also a colleague and professor of theology, reminds us that salvation, while individual at one level, is related to the body of Christ as well:¹⁴

Think of your salvation testimony as a melody being played on a quiet instrument—a clarinet or oboe, perhaps. You play the tune for the Lord and to anyone and everyone who will listen. Now imagine that one day, while engrossed in the joy of playing your simple song, you are joined by an enormous, massive orchestra. And not just an orchestra of dozens or even hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands—and a choir that is even larger. . . . Their sudden appearance is overwhelming. What’s more, you realize that they didn’t really join you. Rather, it becomes clear that your melody is actually part of a much larger movement of music—a piece marvelous in its intricacy and genius. At that point you realize that your salvation isn’t just about you; your redemption is part of a plan that encompasses heaven and earth. . . . The Bible makes much of what the Gospel means for individual Christians and the corporate church, and we should too.

Keathley noted key points of the gospel:

1. The Gospel is “the good news of the Kingdom” (Matt 24:14). The Gospel must be understood within the grand narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation. . . . The Gospel declares that Christ has begun to establish his Kingdom and will return to fully reign over his dominion. All Creation looks forward to that day (Rom 8:22–25).

2. The Gospel is the good news of victory—over Satan and death. Pictures of Times Square packed with thousands celebrating the end of WWII have become iconic of the giddy relief felt when dark days give way to victory. That is nothing compared to the worshipful celebration of the redeemed (Rev 5:11–14). By his death, burial, and resurrection, Christ made an open spectacle of our implacable enemies (Col 2:15). On our behalf he defeated death and the Devil (1 Cor 15:54–57; Heb 2:9–15) and established his supremacy over all things (Col 1:13–23).

3. The Gospel is the good news of forgiveness of sins. In his discussion of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15, Paul emphasizes that Christ died “for our sins.” The Gospel is the good news that at Calvary Jesus became our substitute and suffered the wrath of God on our behalf. The blood of Christ is both our propitiation and expiation. It both pleads on the behalf of and cleanses the one who trusts him as Lord and Savior.

4. The Gospel is the good news of reconciliation (Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:18–21). The Gospel announces that God has reconciled himself to us in Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the true “good news of peace” (Rom 5:1; Eph 6:15). In sum, the Gospel is the joyous news that God, by and through his Son, acted to redeem all things—including us—to himself. This is the Gospel of Christ (Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; Gal 1:7; 1 Thess 3:2;).¹⁵

At the heart of the gospel message is the atonement. The atonement of Christ is the centerpiece of Christianity. Throughout history, a variety of views of the atonement have been debated. While these views help to explain the wonder of the cross, the key word in understanding the atonement is substitution. Drummond says it best: “If all the other theories are facets of the jewel of atonement, substitution is the core stone from which all the facets are cut.”¹⁶ This term is held in contempt by modern liberal scholarship, but the idea of a sin substitute is evident throughout Scripture.

The key question in Christianity is, Why the cross? Why did Jesus die? Erickson offers these five implications of the substitutionary death of Christ:

While many terms in the New Testament emphasize the work of Christ to save us, Paul gave a clear view of the work of the cross in Romans 3:21–26. He used three terms in this passage that reflect the work of Christ. Redemption bears the idea of one who is a slave and whose freedom is purchased. Justification is a forensic term, used in the courts. Jesus’ death declares us “not guilty.” The expression sacrifice of atonement looks back to the Old Testament temple service and the idea of shedding blood. Jesus purchased our freedom from the slavery of sin, declares us not guilty, and has washed us clean—glory to His name!

The conditions of salvation are very clear in Scripture. These are repentance and faith. If there is a missing word in evangelism today, it is repent. One of my students told me he served with a pastor who said he never preached repentance because it made people nervous. Such preaching makes sinners nervous! That’s like the preacher who said he never preached about tithing because it made people nervous. Yes, it makes thieves nervous.

A noble desire to be seeker sensitive may cause some to shy away from repentance. But to minimize repentance is to preach a crossless gospel. Notice the following:

The Greek word metanoia translates as “repentance.” It means a change of the mind in a deep manner—a change in one’s heart, mind, and purpose. This word is often confused with two other New Testament terms, metamellomai, which means to have regret or remorse, and lupeo, which means to have sorrow.

We have misunderstood the difference between sorrow and repentance. My little girl Hannah says, “I’m sorry, Daddy” every time I catch her doing something wrong. If I say, “Hannah, why did you take that crayon and write on the wall?” she looks up at me with her sad, big blue eyes and says, “I’m sorry, Daddy, I didn’t mean to!” Baloney! Of course she meant to. It was not an accident—at least not the fifth or sixth time she did it! What do people think of when they think of repentance? Being sorry? Grieving? Regretting? That’s not what the New Testament word means.

Look at 2 Cor 7:8–10. In v. 10, all three of these words are used in the same passage. Verse 8 says, “Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us” (NIV). Paul was talking about a time, described in 1 Corinthians, when he had to rebuke the church.

But he went on to remind them about salvation in v. 10: “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret” (NIV). Notice that godly sorrow leads to repentance. Godly sorrow is the conviction of the Holy Spirit that leads to repentance unto salvation.

Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation not to be regretted, but the sorrow of the world brings death. You can be sorry about your sin before God and still spend eternity in hell. You can die in your sin if you don’t get beyond “I’m sorry I did wrong.” There has to be a desire in our lives that results in this message: “God, I want to change, I want to repent.”

What we believe about salvation is crucial because our soteriology will determine our evangelism! For example, the hyper-Calvinist believes God has chosen who is saved and damned, so evangelism doesn’t matter. On the other extreme, some emphasize an “easy believism” that stresses human work to the neglect of God’s work to save. Many people suffer from a weak soteriology that underestimates the sinfulness of sin and, therefore, minimizes the majesty of God’s grace.

We must constantly remind ourselves that God owes us one thing—hell. Yet He has lavished His love on us through Christ! Jesus’ work on the cross sets us free from the power of sin and death. He did not die just to make bad people good but to make dead people live (see Ephesians 2). A conviction about a great salvation leads to a passion for evangelism.

Both the doctrine of man, anthropology, and the doctrine of sin, hamartiology, are closely linked. God created man to bring Him glory and pleasure. But it is impossible for a lost person to bring pleasure to God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed, sin entered the human race (see Genesis 3; Rom 5:12–15). We are at enmity with God.

We are born with a sinful nature. Augustine said that it is impossible not to sin. Sometimes this nature is referred to as “the old man” or “the flesh.” When we are saved, the old nature, our sinful nature, is not eradicated. Instead, God came into us with His own nature. We were born with a sinful nature; we are born again with the nature of God. The Bible calls this a “new man.” Second Peter talks about being partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). What happened to the old nature? Romans 6:2 tells us that it is dead. Romans 6:6 says our old nature was crucified with Christ, and yet we still struggle with sin. Positionally the sinful nature is dead, but experientially we still wrestle.

The doctrine of sin, or hamartiology, is greatly neglected in our day. In the Old Testament, the most common word for sin is chata, meaning “to miss the mark.” The main New Testament term, hamartia, has essentially the same meaning. This idea of missing the mark reminds us that the central issue is not the quantity of sin but the reality of sin. If a person hangs over a great abyss by a chain, only one link must break to bring his death. One need rob a bank only once to be called a bank robber, commit adultery once to be an adulterer, and murder once to be a murderer. All people have sinned. The central issue is not, “Have I sinned less than others?” Instead, we need to ask, “Is sin existent in my life?” The key is sin, not individual sins. We must also remember that it is not simply individual sins that we commit that separate us from God. Rather, it is the sin nature within us—our rebellion that has caused the breach between us and God. Individual sins are symptomatic of a deeper problem.

There are other terms for sin. Pasha carries the idea of rebellion (Isa 1:28). Awah, “twisting,” means intentional perversion. Rasha means to act wickedly. In the New Testament, paraptoma signifies trespass, parabasis means transgression (Rom 4:15), and asebeia refers to ungodliness (Rom 1:18). The root of sin is unbelief. Unbelief is a volitional act (see John 3:19).

If you were involved in a church in the 1970s, you probably remember the eschatological fervor associated with the Jesus Movement. The most popular saying at that time was “one way!” The second biggest saying was “Jesus is coming soon—are you ready?” The eschatological chorus, “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” was the signature song of this movement. I know many people who came to Christ during those days out of concern that they would not be ready when the Lord returned.

Eschatology motivates the witness two ways. First, the hope of heaven and the glory to come motivates the believer to invite as many as possible to join in this eternal worship of the creator. The imminent return of Christ was one of the motives for evangelism in the early church, and it should be for us as well. Jesus declared that the gospel must be preached all around the world, and then the end will come (see Matt 24:14). The Lord Jesus tied evangelism to the end of the world and the coming of Christ. In fact, one could make the case historically for a tie between one’s eschatological views and one’s passion for the gospel. Green argued that a conviction about the imminent return of Christ had no small role in the witness of the early church: “The supreme spur to holy living and dedicated missionary work was this consciousness of the imminence of the end, of the limitations on the opportunities for evangelism, of the ultimate accountability we all have to God.”¹⁸ He added, “It is hardly surprising, therefore, that not only in the first and second centuries, but in later periods of the Church, missionary zeal has often flowered most notably in circles which held a strongly realistic hope and likely expectation of the coming kingdom.”¹⁹

A second motivation from eschatology is the reality of hell and judgment. Sadly, many today, including those in the church, either ignore or even deny this essential biblical truth. According to Wells, this relates both to our faith and our practice:

It is not that the elements of the evangelical creeds have vanished, they have not. The fact that they are professed, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure of the historic Protestant faith is still intact. The reason, quite simply, is that while these items of belief are professed, they are increasingly being removed from the center of evangelical life where they defined what life was, and they are now being relegated to the periphery where their power to define what evangelical life should be is lost. . . . It is evangelical practice rather than evangelical profession that reveals the change.²⁰

As a result, other views beyond the historic Christian understanding of divine judgment and hell have been offered as more suitable for the modern day. Universalism is the belief that ultimately no human being will be lost. Some people are universalists because they believe all humanity is intrinsically good and thus will be “redeemed.” Others argue that Christ’s death was necessary but that His death was for all humanity—period. What then is the historical, biblical position? Explicit faith in Christ in this life is necessary for salvation. American culture is decidedly favorable toward universalism.

Why is this view becoming so popular? Beougher notes several reasons:

Earlier forms of universalism emphasized the goodness of man and held that he is too good for God to damn; more recent forms affirm that God is too good to damn man. Some people don’t espouse these views explicitly but wish they were true. Some universalists actually make their argument from Scripture, emphasizing

Of course, a plethora of texts illustrate the uniqueness of the gospel and the reality of eternal judgment. More dangerous for evangelism is a practical universalism in churches. We live as if all people are saved. On the other hand, it is just as bad to live as if we don’t care whether people are lost.

Pluralism is the view that salvation can come through a variety of religious traditions. That is, devout people, whether Hindus, Buddhists, or Christians, will be saved. John Hick says there is a Copernican revolution in theology, in which we must move from Christocentrism to Theocentrism.²² Therefore, Hick says, Christian distinctives must end.

The problem with pluralism is that even pluralists, though emphasizing tolerance, are not willing to accept any religious system. Some systems, such as the Peoples’ Temple of Jim Jones, fail to be good enough. Ronald Nash notes that “pluralists have not identified a criterion to mark the line between authentic and inauthentic ‘responses to the Transcendent’ clearly enough to make it work on a broad scale.”²³

Further, pluralism fails to note the obvious contradictions in any serious examination of religious systems. Compare the eightfold path of Buddhism, the five pillars of Islam, and the book of Romans, for example. The most pressing problem for pluralism from the Christian perspective is the obvious and clear declaration that Jesus Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). The problem with these philosophies is that they ignore the claims of Scripture, and they reduce all religions to meaninglessness—all have exclusivistic tendencies.

What does the New Testament say about hell? The Greek term Gehenna is used 12 times to refer to hell. The term eternal is used 64 times with heaven and seven times with hell. It takes no hermeneutical genius to understand that both are considered eternal. Part of our problem today is that we make God after our personality.

Another view that undermines the biblical conviction of divine retribution is annihilationism. All people are resurrected, according to this view, but the impenitent will ultimately cease to exist. Let me offer this counsel on this difficult issue:

Why is this critical? Because that which is neglected by this generation is rejected by the next.

Perhaps the greatest theological threat to the church today is inclusivism, or the belief in a wider hope for those who have not heard of Christ. Evangelicals are increasingly adopting such views. J. D. Hunter in Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, found one of three evangelicals held to a wider-hope view of soteriology—that people who have not heard the gospel can be saved apart from its message.

“Inclusivists agree with pluralists that God’s salvation is not restricted to the relatively few people who hear the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ,” Nash wrote. “Inclusivists agree with exclusivists that God’s universally accessible salvation is nonetheless grounded on the person of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work.”²⁴ Clark Pinnock and John Sanders are recent advocates of this position.

The so-called “optimistic hermeneutic” of inclusivists makes a distinction between Christ’s ontological work (what he did, necessity of the atonement) and epistemological work (what we need to know about the cross). It gives a salvation role to general revelation.

Consider the following story to illustrate this problem. Two young women from southern California spent the day Christmas shopping in Tijuana, a Mexican border town several miles below San Diego. After a successful day of bargain-hunting, they returned to their car. One of the ladies glanced in the gutter and noticed something moving as if in pain. As they bent down and looked closer, the two women saw what appeared to be a dog—a tiny Chihuahua—struggling for its life. Their hearts went out to the pathetic little animal. Their compassion wouldn’t let them leave it there to die.

They decided to take it home with them and do their best to nurse it back to health. Afraid of being stopped and having the dog detected by border patrol officers, they placed it on some papers among their packages in the trunk of their car. Within minutes they were back in California and only a couple of hours from home. One of the women held the sick little Chihuahua the rest of the way home.

As they pulled up in front of the first woman’s home, they decided she would be the one to keep and tend the little orphan through the night. She tried feeding it some of her food, but it wouldn’t eat. She patted it, talked to it, cuddled it, and finally wrapped it in a blanket and placed it beneath the covers on her bed to sleep beside her through the night. She kept feeling the dog to make sure it was OK.

The next morning the woman decided to take it to an emergency animal clinic nearby. As she handed the weakened animal to the doctor on duty, he quickly interrupted her and asked, “Where did you get this animal?”

“We were shopping in Tijuana and found this little Chihuahua in the gutter near our car.”

“This is no Chihuahua, young lady. What you brought home is a rabid Mexican river rat!”

What appeared to be harmless to these two young women proved to be extremely dangerous.²⁵ The ontological reality that a rabid Mexican rat endangered them made a difference only when they had it shown to them epistemologically!

We must never allow culture to dictate to us the character of God. In the kinder, gentler culture in which we live, conviction is touted as a vice, while tolerance is seen as a virtue. God has become so sentimentalized that He has lost His sovereign nature, even in the church. Many scholars, even from within the evangelical camp, are espousing views of the judgment of God that would have been considered heretical in previous generations. We are too easily swayed by our own humanness; we too quickly underestimate the greatness of God.