Skip to main content

How Many Will Enter Heaven?



Check out this quote I found online:

"[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?"

There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe).

Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his teachings from his audience or the culture of the time. Jesus was not talking to us when he said this, but to a crowd in first-century Israel.

And to them, he was right. For many years after Jesus said this, few entered into the kingdom. Threat of torture, death, defamation, as well as numerous rumors about Christians (e.g. they were cannibalistic, incest-practicing atheists) kept Christians in the minority.

However, Christianity grew after all. Pretty soon, it was the official religion of many states. Soon, a country (America) was founded largely on Christian precepts. Clearly, the gospel was going out to more than a few. And soon (I believe) the whole world will be Christianized.

With the "few enter" attitude, the apostles would have much reason to doubt the thousands that came into the Church at and directly following Pentecost - "Oh, I'm sure most of these are not genuinely converted." Additionally, what was the early church to make of the spreading of the gospel both East and West - they're all false believers too? Compared with then, there are tons of Christians today. Should we limit the number to about the number of Christians that existed at the time Jesus said this? Perhaps we should cap it off at a certain number (say, 144,000?). Obviously, this is absurd.


This is hard for me to say, because just last year I was teaching the same thing to my High School S.O.S. group. However, I think the Bible makes a lot more sense if we view the kingdom as a growing, conquering force rather than a remnant of only the really really committed believers.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I believe you are missing the point, Deric. There is no "super-class" of believers. There is simply "believer" or "unbeliever".

According to you, I should not look to see if someone is professing Christ (Rom. 10:9) nor should I look at their actions (7:17), but instead, I should simply take their word that they are Christian.

How then do today's different denominations harmonize? Shall I tell you some things Luther said of the Catholic church? Are you really saying that the different denominations are Christian, even though they defer on many (if not most) fundamental elements of those faiths?

Am I correct in assuming you do not believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture of the church and that your are an amillenisalist?
Unknown said…
Thanks for your comment, Chandler.

I think we are talking past each other. I agree with all of your points, so let me clarify what I am trying to say.

First, I do not believe there are any super-class believers. My point here was that those who believe that a really small percentage of people actually get into heaven have to limit those people who look like super-Christians. Let me put it this way. If you've got a room of 100 professing Christians, but believe that only 10 are actually going to heaven, you're going to pick the 10 "most Christian" Christians. You and I agree that this is absurd, but this is the forced result of those who believe in only a small fraction of true believers.

I don't even know where you got your next point. I believe just as much as you in professing Christ and showing forth fruit. Here we are talking past each other. If somebody professes orthodox Christianity and is living a repentant lifestyle, I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of that person's belief. I think you would agree with me on that.

Next, I never made the claim that all 80% are really Christians. I am simply saying that it is possible (and consistent with biblical teaching) that 80% or even 100% of the world's population could one day be Christian. In fact, the Bible is pretty clear about the expansion of God's kingdom into all regions of the earth.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about those denominations which "defer on... fundamental elements of those (which? I don't know) faiths." Like I said previously, if they are orthodox, I take them to be a genuine part of God's Church. This doesn't mean they have to have their eschatology right, or that they have to believe in Limited Atonement, or that they have to practice one type of baptism over another.

And finally, you are correct in that I do not believe in the rapture, but you are not correct in assuming that I am an amillennialist.
Anonymous said…
Post-mil?
Unknown said…
That best describes where I'm at, but I'm still pretty stupid when it comes to eschatology (except for the premil, pretrib view, which I grew up with), so I might switch back and forth until I study the subject. It seems to me that premil theology is too Platonic (and too novel).
Unknown said…
Actually, Mathison has a book on Postmillennialism that I want to read. But I really want to get into the Viewpoints series book on eschatology put out by Zondervan. Do you know of any more helpful books on the subject? I already have "Things to Come" by Pentecost, as well as "Are We Living in the End Times" and "Revelation Unveiled", both by Tim LaHaye. Finally, I have a commentary on Revelation written from a Premil, Pretrib perspective. Phew! In other words, I've had my share of Premil theology (unless you know of a better book than any I've mentioned).
Anonymous said…
I agree that one could argue that pre-mil eschatology is "Platonic", in a sense (after all, the whole New Testament was written in a Hellenistic world that post-dates Plato by some 350 years). But then again, if one argues against it on that ground, one would also have to argue against the apostle Paul's understanding of the resurrection, the whole book of Hebrews, etc. as well. My suspicion is that Plato was on to some truths (through general revelation) that did not originate with him.

At any rate, Sproul has a book on preterism that I'd like to check out, although I personally find preterism untenable for Biblical Christians.

I understand your aversion to a pre-trib rapture schema, but I'm not sure I understand what you find unbiblical about pre-mil eschatology in general. Both Paul and Jesus seem to me to speak pretty plainly about the degeneration of the world's spiritual state prior to Christ's return. Have you considered a post-trib return of Christ as a possibility?
Anonymous said…
(John Piper has some excellent, though by no means exhaustive, sermons on his website concerning post-trib [www.desiringgod.org]).
Unknown said…
Thanks, Jeremy. I'll check that out. Maybe you can talk to me about post-trib stuff when I get back, sense I've never looked into it before.
Anonymous said…
I'm game!
Anonymous said…
"Update": Deric, I've just finished reading Wayne Grudem's section on eschatology from his 1300-page tome, "Systematic Theology" (this is a major textbook in many Evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges). Although Grudem argues for the post-trib perspective (or, as he would refer to it, "Historic Premillennialism", which I'm partial to), it seems to me he does a fair job of representing pre-, post-, and a-millennialism and discussing all of their strengths and weaknesses.

Here are others I'm looking into (my goal is to avoid sensationalists): "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views" by Robert Clouse; "The Church and the Tribulation" by Robert Gundry; "A Commentary on the Revelation of John" by George Eldon Ladd; and, as you mentioned, there are two or three in the "Viewpoints" series edited by Stanley Gundry.
Unknown said…
Thanks Jeremy. I have Grudem's work, so I'll check it out. I'm also interested in one called "The Millennial Maze."

Popular posts from this blog

Sunny California

I'm settled into a church family's house here in Valencia, and boy is it great. I like listening to my pastor talk about theology. He is also a wonderful counselor, and has been helping me work with some of my personal problems (yes, I know it's hard to believe, but I do have problems). Here is his blog site, if anybody is interested: The Craw . Also, here is the website of my church, along with its blog: Saint Andrew's Community Church , The Chronicles of Saint Andrews . In the meantime, I have been reading The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Mathison, who also wrote Given For You . Both of these books have had an enourmous impact on me, and I strongly encourage all of you to get out and read The Shape of Sola Scriptura , particularly if you've ever struggled with the authority of the Bible, and how it squares away with church tradition. The thesis is that most evangelicals treat the issue of the Bible and tradition wrongly, particularly those in radically reformed chu...

On the Biblical Mandate to Respect Authority

The SC choir chaplain brought up a passage in 1 Peter at the beginning of this week regarding submission to authority. It led to interesting conversation, and I'd like to reiterate part of that conversation here. 1) It is important to remember that the early churches who passed around these letters had a very practical use for them. The early church could have easily been stomped out had the early Christians been too anti-government. True, the church was persecuted. True, the church did get into trouble with the government. However, remember that the persecution happened for short bursts of time (historically speaking) and only in isolated areas. It was by no means universal persecution. Additionally, when you look at other early Christian documents, you see more injunctions to work with the rulers. And why not? The early church needed all the support it could get, while not compromising, of course. If they were all outspoken government radicals, they would not have lasted long. 2)...