The impact of the false inclusion doctrine

PART ONE OF TWO POSTS

Since the church’s inception, controversies involving sexual related issues have defied the spiritual resolve of the church and its leadership (ref 1 Cor 5).  Today, with the advent of instant, accessible information, these controversies have multiplied exponentially and impacted the church’s ability to conduct balanced outreach.

GCM Watch and other ministries have documented repeatedly how the social and political demands embedded within homosexual activism has challenged the church like no other issue before it.  While some have drawn inferences to the issue of accepting blacks and women, there remains nonetheless, a fundamental and striking difference.  Gender and skin color are immutable traits, whereas sexual conduct is not.

Under the umbrella of heresy and apostasy sits the inclusion doctrine. The contemporary inclusion theory really began in the world as diversity and somehow transmorphed itself into a religious ideology. Given its origin, it doesn’t work in the Kingdom paradigm because the Kingdom  (of God) is intentionally exclusive; allowing entrance only to those who have been washed, sanctified and justified by the blood of Christ.  Jesus taught an radically exclusive doctrine with himself as the prime example (ref John 14:6). While John 14:6 does not prohibit anyone from approaching Christ, it does prohibit anyone from going forward from that point should they reject him upon discovery.

„The two tables

Inclusion is probably one of the most loaded euphemisms of our time. Ironically, inclusion applies to exclusive list of  of sexual aberrations which are now declaring themselves “acceptable” on an as is basis.  Acceptable not just to society (and all life is worthy of respect) but acceptable to God and his church. Acceptable not just to attend a church, but to govern and lead it.  While all are welcome to attend church, all are not qualified to lead and govern. Thus, our conflict.

Inclusion is a regentrified expression of universalism, an old doctrine which was rightfully branded heretical and rejected by the early church fathers.  Synergizing it (in a religious context) with homosexual rights, has given it new life.  Religious homosexuals and their allies believe that everyone is equal in the church based on such scriptures as John 3:16. While true in its broadest application its artfully mixed with a substantial amount of lies. What’s more, the motivation for the lie accounts for the aggressive nature of the doctrine.

Inclusion supposes that Jesus rejects no one and accepts everyone “at the table”. True, but the question isn’t does Jesus reject people, but what is the table.  This analogy and usage of the table is drawn from the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15-23.

01-Supper-at-Emmaus The inclusion doctrine ignores two critical about the table parable: one is in the passage, the other in a supporting passage. First, the setting for the parable is “the Kingdom of God” (vs 15). Secondly, we find that no unrighteous will inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, if the table is set in the Kingdom perspective, no one who is unrighteous will be present to eat its fare.  All are welcome to come to the table, but this coming represents what Paul taught was being “washed, sanctified and justified” in the name of the Lord Jesus by the spirit of  God (1 Cor 6:11) after arriving at the table. True spiritual equality is only attained once a person has,  through repentance, been cleansed from their sins and declared righteous by a holy God. Yet, religious homosexuals exempt themselves from repentance by declaring that their “orientation” is natural not requiring any change.

The table is transported by inclusionists out of the kingdom of God and reset in a socio-political-religious kingdom. Here’s the main problems with inclusion and their table of equality:

  1. Inclusion mixes a partial truth with a sinful motive
  2. Inclusion does not acknowledge man’s sinful nature and his need for repentance
  3. Inclusion  treats grace as deserved rather than unmerited

Armed with this information, homosexuals then challenge the church. Please note that the challenges cut sharply at the foundational beliefs of the church such as sin, repentance, justification and redemption.  This,  in turn has prompted an increasing number of churches to redesignate themselves “welcoming and affirming”  a fast track accommodation to those who are “denied” a seat at the table.

The doctrine of inclusion relies heavily on what I call replacement allegory. Replacement allegory is a theological trick which gives the individual the unrestricted freedom to remove real or apparent contradictions between Scriptures and current beliefs.

You can read more about that here in Bishop Yvette Flunder’s retelling of wilderness story in Exodus.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The impact of the false inclusion doctrine

  1. I read this online the other day in an article.

    TRUTH BECOMES SACRIFICE

    1. absolution is out and relativism is in.

    2. obedience is out and pragmatism is in.

    3. teaching is out and dialogue is in.

    4. thus saith the Lord is out and consensus of opinion is in.

    5. using scripture to judge right and wrong is out and unity of
    tolerance is in.

    6. the narrow way is out and the broadway is in.

    This about sums up what’s going on in the church

  2. Jesus Christ Himself opposed inclusion personally in His dealings with His apostles. The best example: the Last Supper. Notice that Jesus Christ did not get into the real meat of His words and actions until AFTER Judas Iscariot was gone. Jesus Christ TOLD Judas Iscariot to leave. He said “what you have to do, go and do it quickly” meaning YOU MUST LEAVE NOW. And then, when the ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM THAT DID NOT HAVE HEAVEN AS THEIR FUTURE (PRE)DESTINATION LEFT, THEN JESUS CHRIST WENT ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF JOHN 13:31-17:26! Now of course, John 14-17 includes Jesus Christ’s prayer for unity. The “diaprax” people that you excellently speak of love to point that out. BUT WHAT THEY PURPOSEFULLY IGNORE IS THAT JESUS CHRIST’S PRAYER FOR UNITY ONLY CAME AFTER JESUS CHRIST WAS ALREADY GONE! Why? Because of the TRUE MEANING AND CONTEXT OF THE OFTEN MISAPPLIED 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

    We are taught that this verse applies PRIMARILY to MARRIAGE. IT DOES NOT. THAT VERSE APPLIES TO CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. (Of course, marriage between believers is a form of Christian fellowship, but those who only apply this verse to marriage do so because they wish to avoid the broader intent of the verse. It leads to ridiculous things like Billy Graham type ecumenists saying that it is wrong for a Baptist or Pentecostal to marry a Muslim, but OK for them to serve on missionary boards with or take communion from Catholic priests. While a Christian man or woman may convert their Muslim spouse into Christianity, having Catholics on your board or taking part in the Catholic “transubstantiation” ritual is an endorsement of Catholicism as being a legitimate expression of Biblical Christianity!)

    So if Jesus Christ taught and practiced 2 Corinthians 6:14 by telling Judas Iscariot to get lost before He proceeded with His vital instructions to the apostles (and through them the church), if Jesus Christ didn’t “practice inclusion” with Judas Iscariot, we should not practice inclusion with the descendants of Judas Iscariot and the other anti-Christs in the homosexual movement or any of these other God hating Bible rejecting movements.

  3. Thats an excellent and very accurate observation about Jesus-Judas! Jesus practiced an exclusion to the point of denying people deliverance. Reference the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7. Jesus only relented when her faith far exceeded her request. In other words acceptance is on his terms, not ours. In every case where he encountered with someone outside of his people (John 1:21), it was clear they had to engage him on his terms. None of them came to him telling him they deserved some “seat at the table”. In fact, most times it was a plea for his mercy.

    Inclusion religion is about as arrogant and pharasaic as it gets.

  4. gcmwatch:

    Yep. In addition to that Canaanite woman (I read about it just last night in Matthew!) there were other people who got upset that Jesus Christ wanted to preach to them. They only wanted Him to perform miracles and heal them and were uninterested in following and obeying Him, and if I recall correctly stated that He was obligated to heal them because they were Jews and He was a Jewish prophet. When Jesus Christ replied that Elijah kept alive a Gentile woman during a famine while Jewish women starved, they got angry and rejected Him!

    Jesus Christ never bent over backwards to try to “include” anyone. Quite the other hand, He did the opposite. He only joined Himself to those who believed in Him and were willing to obey Him.

  5. Touche’ lapreghiera. @Job, excellent, excellent! I too was just reading that this past weekend! Once the “crowd” saw that Jesus’ teachings were “exclusive”, the “crowd” began to grow thinner and thinner! Feed us, repeat the miracles that you did for the other folks, perform for us they cried. Oh but when they were actually challenged to live according to Jesus way,thus the broad road got broader and the narrow road more narrow! Is it not any different than what we are seeing today! My my my!
    Yes, preach on my brother’s, preach on!

  6. Inclusion. Just another label for rebellion, arrogance and pride. “Inclusion” is just what sinful, rebellious humans want to hear. Just like those of Jesus’ time, they’re all for you when you dish out the fish and the loaves but watch out when you start making demands regarding holiness and righteous living. “Inclusion”, in other words, is just another word for humanism.

  7. People of the Book: As long as we follows Jesus’ example of honoring his Word…He will take care of the rest and not allow His Word to return to Him void.
    Jesus never compromised His message to receive the approval of the crowd. He never did anything trying to anticipate a good pat on the back or a welcome into someone’s home.
    Jesus never played politics for what it could get him. Jesus and His message stood alone and were empowered by God to be a stumbling block to those who would not believe Him to be the promised Messiah.
    When you compare the stance of Jesus with many of today’s pulpiteers who are watering down the gospel for the sake of approval or expediency or to be welcomed into certain monied or
    political circles, you will only then understand why Jesus told the rich young ruler what he said and that was: no need to compromise my message..if you do not like it…walk.
    God is sovereign and we miss that aspect of his glory. We sometimes think that we are an invaulable cog that God needs to
    advance His kingdom. Wrong! God can raise up the stones to testify to Him if so needed.
    Hopefully, what that does is humble us to realize that apart from the Vine, we can do nothing of significance in the flesh that impresses God.
    When a false gospel is preached…e.g. Your Best Life Now…you know that it is a another gospel that God does not approve of since it is contra to his Word of dying out to self. Your Best Life Now glorifies the efforts of mankind to improve their self image and to “motor along” in this life as if there is no judgment for the deeds done in the flesh.
    The false gospel of that we are “little gods” (Copeland/Hagin/
    Dollar/Price…etc) also denigrates the Word of God since it too
    states that we can alter our realities to suit our fancy and that
    obeying God is optional and as “little gods” we can reign and rule
    in our own kingdoms and not submit to the Kingdom of God.
    Although God desires all to come to repentance, He is not watering down the requirements so He can get big numbers. That is for the seeker sensitive churches to dilute the Gospel message and make you feel that you can pick and choose your method of reaching God as you so desire.
    God’s standards are not relative but firm and fixed.

Comments are closed.