Is There Harm in teaching Universalism?

[Guest]

It's amazing to me how upset some people get at the idea that God will be able to do what scripture says He is willing and able to do.

[Guest]

Rick,

If those scriptures are intended to reflect negatively on those who teach universal reconciliation, I would appreciate hearing how you think they do so. The connection certainly is not obvious.

[_Rick_C]

edited

[Guest]

Danny,

What I have written, I have written. BTW, I was not offended or upset by your questions regarding my mother. Everyone of course wants the best for their loved ones. But since God did not make me a co-judge, and knows the heart better than anyone, my confidence will rest in His righteousness. There is not one person who will be with Him in paradise who "deserves it". Not one! My mother included! Maybe now you see why
I am dead set against CU. There is an inference of thought within CU's theology that implies we "deserve" salvation. Your "mall" analogy is self evident to my claim. I do not and will not follow a theology which panders to the emotions. Even though CU "sounds" Christian in many points, when you follow the evidence, the road is "wide". I pray for you and those who are being decieved by this "doctrine of demons".

[Guest]

Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad to know I did not cause offense.

The bedrock of Christian Universalism (IMHO) is God's relentless, all-prevailing, irresistible, eternal love. What makes us deserving of anything, is the fact that we are His creations and the recipients of His love, as demonstrated in Christ.

I see a basic difference in how you and I perceive God: You seem to see Him as fundamentally against mankind, whereas I see Him as fundamentally for mankind. You see separation, I see reconciliation. I suppose a theology of hope and peace is emotionally appealing, but that doesn't make it any less true. The Gospel is, after all, "tidings of great joy."

What I have written, I have written.

Does this mean you're not going to answer my questions? I think I've gone out of my way to answer yours.

[_Rick_C]

This new FBFF folder (or board) is for:
"Which of the alternative views of hell is the true teaching of scripture?"

In other words, this is where the views can and are discussed/debated.

I'm done for now (debating)....

In the future I may write an Essay under "Misc. Essays By Participants".
If I do, and I am glad this forum has that folder; I will simply give my IMOs and let them sit. If the debate 'comes there' ... I'll just refer folks back here....

No need to reply to me about this here.
Thanks, (Steve, for the Misc. Essays folder).
Rick

[Guest]

A question for CU's:

if a person was to ask: "Don't many paths lead to God?"

How would you respond?

I am asking this because i was thinking about ramifications if CU is true. Hindus, buddhists, satanists, for that matter, will all ultimately be with Jesus. presumably a hindu who hasnt heard anything about jesus would need to spend very little time being "corrected" before they see the light that they had never been properly presented with.

How do we tell them that their way is all wrong, if truthfully they will end up where Christians will be?

And regarding Acts 4:12-- Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.--- does a CU simply add an implicit "during this life" to the end of this verse? You might say that Jesus is in fact the only name that will bring reconciliation, but Peter seemed to be preaching rather urgently that they had to accept Christ NOW. i am not a greek expert. but the english wording of the sentence, particularly the part i underlined, seems to put some requirement on people in this life-- i.e we MUST be saved by calling on Jesus. If CU is true, this is not a true statement, unless you push the acceptance of Christ past the point of physical death. I realize that you believe that this is indeed possible, but gee whiz, the verse doesnt say anything about that.

TK

[Guest]

Though your question is directed to CU's, I thought I would jump in, since the subject interests me also.

As far as I know, Christian Universalists do not see Christ as any more dispensable for salvation than anyone else does. There is a need to follow Christ NOW—in order to avoid the future judgment, and also simply to be pleasing to your Creator. I am not sure why that would make following Christ optional to anybody.

It is true that universalists believe in an opportunity to embrace Christ after the point of death, and thus to be saved. The verse you quoted does not mention this, just like it does not mention hell or judgment (or the second coming of Christ, or the Trinity, or justification by faith alone). It is asking too much to require one verse to contain the whole of biblical theology. What it DOES say would be as agreeable with the beliefs of Christian Universalism as with the views of eternal torment or annihilationism.

As for other religions, none of them can save anybody, since there is no credible, God-approved redemption scheme in any of them. However, that doesn't mean it would be impossible for Jesus (the only Savior of the world) to save people in various degrees of ignorance—which ignorance might even involve people fooled by some false belief systems.

There might be certain religions that encourage humility and self-abasement more than others, which, as you say, might render their adherents "closer" to the kingdom than others (requiring a smaller step to get all the way in). Most of us recognize, for example, that certain things in Judaism (a non-Christian religion) might well prepare someone to become a believer in Christ (Jesus told a Jewish scribe that he was "not far" from the kingdom). I would have no reason to believe that Judaism is the only non-Christian faith about which this could be said.

[Guest]

Steve already answered while I was writing this, but here it is anyway...

A question for CU's:

if a person was to ask: "Don't many paths lead to God?"

How would you respond?

I am asking this because i was thinking about ramifications if CU is true. Hindus, buddhists, satanists, for that matter, will all ultimately be with Jesus. presumably a hindu who hasnt heard anything about jesus would need to spend very little time being "corrected" before they see the light that they had never been properly presented with.

How do we tell them that their way is all wrong, if truthfully they will end up where Christians will be?

Question: Do many (or all) paths lead to God?
Answer: No, all but one lead away from God. It is only through Jesus that we can have relationship with God. It is only through Jesus that we can be changed to be the people that God wants us to be. It is only through Jesus that we can please God. All other routes are destructive.

An adherent to CU preaches the gospel because -
1) In this life, people without Christ are lost, trapped in sin and ultimately unhappy.
2) Turning to Christ in this life and allowing the Holy Spirit to change is a better choice than to face the fires of correction in the next.
3) Above all, Christ, as the Lord of all, is worthy to recieve the wages of His suffering.

As others have already said, preaching the Gospel isn't only about helping people avoid hell. It is about changing this earth now so that God's will is done here as it is in heaven.

And regarding Acts 4:12-- Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.--- does a CU simply add an implicit "during this life" to the end of this verse? You might say that Jesus is in fact the only name that will bring reconciliation, but Peter seemed to be preaching rather urgently that they had to accept Christ NOW. i am not a greek expert. but the english wording of the sentence, particularly the part i underlined, seems to put some requirement on people in this life-- i.e we MUST be saved by calling on Jesus. If CU is true, this is not a true statement, unless you push the acceptance of Christ past the point of physical death. I realize that you believe that this is indeed possible, but gee whiz, the verse doesnt say anything about that.

There is nothing in this passage nor in the preaching of the apostles that disagrees with CU, as I understand it. Peter is compelling his audience to understand that it is only through repentance and faith in Jesus that a person is saved. He is, of course, urging them to accept Christ now, as every second they delay means compounding regrets and sin and a rejection of God's will in Christ. CU agrees that now is the time for salvation and that people are saved only through Christ. This verse is agnostic on whether or not CU is true nor does the idea of CU contradict the meaning of Peter's statement.


I think that the following two assumptions are often the colored glasses through which many who are opposed to CU read the scripture:

1) Physical death eternally cements one's rejection of Christ.
2) Being "saved" is primarily about avoiding Hell.

Dave

[Guest]

As for other religions, none of them can save anybody, since there is no credible, God-approved redemption scheme in any of them. However, that doesn't mean it would be impossible for Jesus (the only Savior of the world) to save people in various degrees of ignorance—which ignorance might even involve people fooled by some false belief systems.

There might be certain religions that encourage humility and self-abasement more than others, which, as you say, might render their adherents "closer" to the kingdom than others (requiring a smaller step to get all the way in). Most of us recognize, for example, that certain things in Judaism (a non-Christian religion) might well prepare someone to become a believer in Christ (Jesus told a Jewish scribe that he was "not far" from the kingdom). I would have no reason to believe that Judaism is the only non-Christian faith about which this could be said.

It still seems to me that being "saved" can be understood in different ways. It seems that most people attach its meaning to living with God for all eternity. While I agree that this can be its meaning, I think that it can also be understood to mean delivered from sin and its consequences in this life. We have had several personal testamonies in this debate which show that indeed salvation has a profound positive impact on the lives of those who have become disciples. I think that it is very possible that many of the verses which speak of salvation through faith are refering to the "this life" aspect of salvation more than the after-life aspect.

I bring this up because we are discussing other religions as it relates to salvation. There are many religions which espouse very similar teachings as Christianity which lead their followers away from sin and unto righteousness. I am NOT saying that these religions provide another way of salvation, just that they are not all bad, and are good in some ways.

Here is something to consider in this regard.

John 16:8
And when He [the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

When the Holy Spirit was poured out He began the task of convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. Notice it says "the world." This applies to everyone IMO. When people of all faiths sin they are convicted by the Holy Spirit. Those who respond favorably to this conviction (repent) are obedient to Chirst. So, my point is this: I believe it may be possible to find salvation (this-life aspect) through obedience to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Even though people of other faiths have not heard the Gospel (by ear), everyone "hears" the Holy Spirit at work in their heart, and their response can be either through obedience unto life or disobedience unto condemnation.

This concept can also find some support from the prophet Joel who said that the Spirit would be poured out on "all flesh." And again, in Jeremiah Chapter 31 when we are told that that there would be no need to teach your neighbor or brother to know the Lord because "all shall know Him from the least to the greatest." In this way the New Covenant is a Universal Covenant with all flesh.

I realize that the Jeremiah passage was spoken "to the house of Israel" but we know that the New Covenant is not restricted to Israel of the flesh, right?

I think I just got way off topic.

Todd