The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Carlton Pearson was a televangelist that was very influential in the Florida evangelical Christian community. He was mentored by Oral Roberts, spent time at ORU, and was eventually seen as a legitimate voice because of her poise and manner.

His ministry collapsed, however, when Pearson got a "revelation" from God that hell doesn't exist. He began preaching what he called "Inclusion", the theory that everyone goes to Heaven and that there is no hell. Pearson says that people create their own hell here on Earth by the lifestyles that they live, and therefore have no worries of "weeping, wailing, or gnashing of teeth" because he cannot wrap his mind around how a loving God would send people to this place. Pearson says his "experience of God was not that way."

Pearson's teachings immediately drew controversy. He began loosing the influence he had built, and within time, he lost his Higher Dimensions Worship Center because his congregation fled. His alliance with the College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops and the Church of God in Christ dissolved, and he was eventually declared a heretic by both groups.

Anyone familiar with Pearson's "Inclusion" doctrine?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Gotta be pretty bad on the level of heresy when even TBN rejects you. :lol

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

It's called "universalism", been around for centuries if not millennia.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

One could even argue it goes back to the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve decided that God didn't really mean they "shall surely die".

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Where in Florida?

Was that when he was in the Everglades with the Miccosukee? or maybe when he was in Merritt Island Florida training with NASA?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I like the good old seclusion doctrine better.

Had an individual tell me recently that he hated religion due to it being so much focused on separating people. I told him that makes sense. Everyone who is into something excludes the other. It is natural. Boston Red Sox fans believe that their team is the best and therefore exclude all other teams. Die Hard Harley enthusiast believe in that one brand of motorcycle and wouldn't be seen on any other brand. Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal, lines drawn, boundaries created. Agreeing to disagree just doesn't even come into their mind. It's all normal function of the human experience. Yet, inclusionists try hard to make a system where everyone is able to join. Be part of the group, while it may sound good in theory it always fails in practice. One church believes in tithing, while another one does not, one is able to pay their bills, keep their lights on, while the other one has to conduct meetings on a park bench. Yet, the two couldn't come together because of that one point. They believe in 3/4s of teachings but on that one point they can't get together. Is that just religions? No, it is in everything. I hate GM, despise Chrysler products even though they have great paint jobs, everything else about them is horrid. But that is just me. We are all different, and we tend to search for sameness in others. We want to be liked, we want to be loved. Therefore we seek out those who agree with us. Yes, look for those who agree with us. Anyone who disagrees with us we slowly (or quickly) place distance. It's all totally normal, it is normal behavior. To agree to disagree only works when the things we disagree on are never mentioned, in a religious group, a marriage, a business partnership, in government. Can we all just get along? Sadly, no. We try, we try our best, but over time Jack is going to tell Jill, she can go fetch her own pail of water. Or Jill telling Jack she is sick and tired of him busting his crown. She will no longer come tumbling after him. Common ground, vs agreeing to disagree. coming to common ground means work, debate, hurt feelings, frustration, hair pulling contests at time, but when done, refusing to hold a grudge. Things no one likes, because its miserable hard work. A doctrine of inclusion is just wishful thinking, and wanting to please all of the people all of the time. But you can't. You just can't please everyone all the time. In my studying of religions I found that not one of them (in their true forms) are inclusionists. They all have rules, regulations, and by nature of being a religion...legalist? Only the devotee, the very devote, win the door prize of any religion. The slacker, or part timer may have to get reincarnated as a house fly, or end up burning in fiery torments, or wandering through levels of untold torments. Two paths, always two paths, two choices, it's just a normal circumstance of how things are.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

When are we going to eat at Gators?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I'm supposed to be heading your way soon. I just need to get the dates together and I'll be in your front yard. :thumbsup

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I’m not really familiar with his inclusion doctrine, but I would say from your description that it is classic universalism as Esaias has said.

I have thought about this subject in reference to the Old Covenant versus the new, and I’d like to share my thoughts. Maybe someone will get something out of it that’s worthwhile.

Under the old covenant (Mosaic Covenant) access to the holiest place (Holiest of Holies) was increasingly restricted the closer a person got. In other words it became increasingly exclusive. I may not get it exactly right, but Gentiles could only come so far, Hebrews could come closer, then the women could come only so far, then men, and Levites, priests who were Levites, and of course, ultimately the high priest who only was allowed to enter the holiest place and only once a year. As you can see it was increasingly exclusive the closer you got to God.

So when we juxtapose that with the New Covenant, we have the situation described in Hebrews below.

Hebrews 4

[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Not only was the salvation to the Gentiles news to the Hebrews, but the doctrine that a common Hebrew could go boldly before the throne of grace was new to them as well. I think we sometimes overlook the fact that Hebrews was written to the Hebrews and we read it and study without applying that perspective.

So the exclusivities that were commonly accepted for Hebrews AND Gentiles were totally shaken up with the advent of the New Covenant. Paul mentioned that the partition between Jew and Gentile was removed. It was no doubt harder for Jews to get used to than Gentiles. Remember . . .

Acts.10

[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

They of the circumcision (the Hebrews, or Jews) were astonished! They were not merely surprised, but were astonished that the Gentiles were given the gift of the Holy Ghost. They thought it was reserved for them . . . Exclusively.

So there was a lot going on, a lot of changes were taking place, a lot of traditions were being disrupted and MANY were not happy about it. They were jealous, they were threatened, they felt insecure. In fact, when you think about it, it is only because of the fact that the Gentiles spoke in tongues as the Hebrew Christians did that they accepted that they were eligible to be baptized. And this is the church. The Hebrew non-Christians were mostly not willing to accept Christians, whether or not they were Jews.

So, what does this mean to the church today? I think that we sometimes are too willing to apply Old Covenant principles to New Covenant times. Pastors are considered by some to be the replacement for the Levitical priesthood. The church building is considered by some to be the temple. Sacrifices are largely considered to be financial. If you think about it there are many traditions from the old covenant that should be left there, but we insist on dragging them forward, giving the cross a wide birth, and plopping them down in the big middle of the New Covenant, regardless of the fact that they are conspicuously out of place.

We justify being exclusive by the OLD covenant, we even quote the Old Testament when we do so. SOMETIMES we focus on the exclusive attributes of the old covenant instead of . . .

Rev.22

[17] And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Of course there is the proverbial ditch on both sides of the road. We all agree (probably) that the doctrine of Carlton Pearson is the epitome of the blind leading the blind. Both the leader and his following are destined for the ditch. But we shouldn’t overreact and be too exclusive either. That’s just the opposite ditch on the same road. IMO we are in more danger of being too exclusive across the board, than we are in being like Carlton Pearson. Both ditches should be avoided. Paul said it like this . . .

Rom.14

[4] Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

It ALMOST sounds like some of the saints were being a bit TOO exclusive. Sorry for the long post. What do y’all think?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Also need to change the fuel injector in my Ford. :heeheehee