Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro Flame
Anyone familiar with Pearson's "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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
It's called "universalism", been around for centuries if not millennia.
|
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?
Linear Mode
