Here's another post on the "Wider Hope" discussion over at the BHT.
Ogc SE 1.4 Lite cs 1.6Spencer's Universalism: First, as always, thank you, JackH. I love to hear the classic teaching of the church expressed by Jack. He does it so well. Peter Kreeft has written several books with Socrates as the representative of the Christian point of view. Socrates Meets Jesus is a great one. The RCC has this whole issue much more prominent in their theology than Protestants, but they do not approach it the same way as I do. Augustine had some things to say about this, as did many who meditated on John 1, and the wider meaning of the Logos for salvation.
OK. I am a universalist in some ways. I believe in universal depravity, including for Indians before 1492 (politically incorrect date, so sue me), the mentally handicapped, children, etc. Phillip: That is what I mean by, "If anyone deserves to go to hell I do." I have nothing of merit in me. In that regard, I am a universalist.
I am a universalist in believing that anyone, anywhere, anytime can be saved. I do not believe this sentence: "No one living in America before 1492 could be saved." I believe anyone who exercises true faith (which is a gift) towards as much of God as they truly understand (which is also a gift) can be saved by grace (which is a gift) and solely by the merits of Christ alone. (Who they may know or not, depending on if preaching/teaching were possible or clear or understandable.)
Bill misunderstands my "wide door" description, I believe. I am referring to the fact that all Christian preaching is very imperfect and incomplete, and ultimately, the Kingdom is build by God's sovereign grace, and is not limited to places where preachers get it right and the congregation understands everything that is said. The pathetic state of Gospel presentation in most of the world (such as here in Clay County, Ky) is not a hindrance to the God of the Bible, who gives the gift of true saving faith to children, idiots, pagans, and the poor people who have to hear terrible preaching like that in the hollers and hills of Eastern Ky.
I am a universalist, in that I believe the merits of Christ- the cosmic Logos- are sufficient to save everyone. Those who may not know Christ by name or know him correctly, may still be saved, if they place their faith in what they DO TRULY KNOW about Christ, by God's grace, which may be very, very little. You guys have GOT to stop saying that I am advocating some kind of sincere belief in the tenets of other religions. I AM NOT. The exclusivist texts quoted by Bill and Alex do not say that only those whohear of Christ and understand 85% or more of who he is can be saved. (Many cannot hear, and when they hear, do not understand, or what they hear is mangled badly.) These texts says there is no other name by which anyone is ever saved. All who are saved- from Abraham to today- are saved the same way: By Christ alone, through faith alone, through grace alone. Abraham wasn't saved by special revelation. Show me a text that says Abraham was saved by special revelation. Abraham. Melcheziwhat'shisname. Enoch. They were all saved JUST LIKE ME AND YOU and are held up in the New Testament as examples of faith FOR ME NOW. That's the point of using Abraham in Romans, and talking about those who are saved by faith apart from the law. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Enoch walked with God, and God took him. (Not the gods of their culture. THE God.) I believe this happened. I believe it can and does happen now, as persons, by God's sovereign grace, place their faith (gift) in what light they do have about the true God, from whatever source God may have placed in their lives.
Really dudes, I don't want to convert you, but I first started thinking of this years ago as a youth minister when a church member with a severely retarded son brought the boy to be baptized. I vigorously opposed it at the time, made a kind of butt of myself as the zealous young defender of the faith. My pastor baptized him anyway, and I was horrified. At the time, I thought it was about the Gospel, etc. I was dead wrong. It was about God's awesome saving mercy in Christ. It was about the marvelous GIFT of salvation.
Be careful, guys, when you imply that God cannot save people who cannot understand because of mental limitation, historical/cultural circumstance or otherwise not understanding enough. That "enough" is the problem. We are not saved by right proclamation or some checklist. Grace, through faith, by Christ. Think about it. Same with saying only good preaching to smart-enough people is necessary. I don't think you really want to go down that road. It leads right to the hyper-Arminian camp, and that is why I am sorry Dr. Piper has decided to read the Bible like a dispensationalist on this issue. He apparently thinks that we need a certain amount of "wretched urgency" to fuel missions. I think he has forgotten the glory of the Redeemer and, as he occasionally tends to do, is making a place for human zeal and comprehension.
Posted by at August 23, 2003 07:14 PM