Today, Neil has another great post up called Recycled Heresy: Universalism.
One blogging commenter caught my eye. His screen name is "Erudite Redneck."
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by his comment. He seems torn between belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and belief in Universalism. He wrote:
Erudite Redneck, on December 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am Said:
Universalism does not always mean there are other ways than Jesus. The stripes of Universalism I know about, in fact, argue precisely that Jesus, alone, saves — and that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God through Him. That, they say, is the Good News, and that makes sense to me: “You’re saved!” is great news. “You’re going to hell” is not. The aim of preaching the Good News to people now is so they can have life and it more abundantly now — and so they can take part in advancing the kingdom, which is way more than gaining intellectual assent of people to sets of facts and assertions and beliefs about God: It does mean to go about doing good in Jesus name.
I am not quite a Universalist, but the older I get, the more I think, and read, and meditate, the closer I get to it. Indeed, one can find strains of Universalist thought in the Bible, just as one can find lots about hell. One can pick and choose the ideas one can pick and choose from the Bible.
I decided to visit his blog to get a better idea about his personal beliefs. This post immediately caught my eye:
The Prayer of Confession:
Lord of Life, there are many different approaches to the life of faith, and we must be able to choose which one to follow. There are songs of war, sung in the name of God, and there are songs of peace, sung in the name of the same God. Or are they the same? What sort of God has been revealed to us by Jesus of Nazareth? Are all versions equally valid? Are we Baptizers, following John, or are we disciples of The Way, following Jesus? Make no mistake, they are not the same. Choose therefore, this day, whom you shall follow. Amen.
I'm not sure what this means. But if I didn't enjoy a good mystery, I would have gotten off this path a long time ago.
Most of the message of modern Christianity seems to be more like what John's turn-or-burn call to repentance than Jesus's example, and message, of love and self-emptying.
Jesus insisted that John baptize him. Why?
If not to signify His own repentance, then to signify a wholesale repentance from bargaining with God, whether by demonstrating piety or sacrificing animals -- or even by repenting, I think, because repentence itself can become a bargaining chip, can't it?
What do y'all think?
He seems very confused.
The following is my reply over at Neil's blog. It is just a small attempt to help this guy away from his confusion.
Erudite Redneck,
You wrote: “Universalism does not always mean there are other ways than Jesus. The stripes of Universalism I know about, in fact, argue precisely that Jesus, alone, saves — and that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God through Him.”
Where in the Bible does it say that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God through Him?
I do not see any “strains of Universalist thought” in God’s Word. What Bible are you reading?
Discernment and Scripture knowledge is the key to recognizing truth from error.
“Universalism” may appeal to the emotions and senses. Those who believe in the concept may even be quite sincere. However, they are sincerely wrong in their beliefs. Why? Because the true Gospel doesn’t teach universalistic beliefs.
Christians who are “taken in” by such a temptation are not “advancing the kingdom.” They could actually be doing the complete opposite!
What are we to do when we find a Christian brother or sister in error while sharing the Gospel?
They are to be corrected.
Where do we go for this correction? God’s Word. It is always the plumbline of Scripture that keeps us going in the right direction when sharing God’s Word correctly, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and what is necessary to enter into the kingdom of God.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Quote: “The point again is….the plumbline of scripture is the only test for a believer, a ministry, and a church. Whenever you veer from viewing scripture the way it was intended, as Holy, and as profitable for wisdom, and correction, you end up serving a different God, a different Lord, and ultimately a different christianity.” - blogger Steve Adkins
See also An examination of the doctrine of universalism and how it is dangerous and wrong at CARM.
Posts
6 comments:
I think he's confused about his beliefs too, I know I was confused about his beliefs when I got done reading that, but, thankfully, I wasn't confused about mine.
On my own blog I had written about Romney's religion speech, so it's geared toward that, but I think it is relevant to this topic, and it captures my feelings on this quite well: "Where I took issue with Romney's speech was something that he said, which is nothing new. He implied that all religions are equally valid. This is something that you hear a lot today, but I have to say, no they are not, and no, that doesn't make me a bigot either. I am well aware that everyone has the right to believe and adhere to any religion that they so choose, and as I said earlier, that is a good thing, but that doesn't mean that I have to see their religion as equal to mine, or, even valid at all as far as that goes. After all, how can I claim to hold fast to my own faith, and then say that some else's religion is equal to it? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." [John 14:6] So, if Jesus is the one and only way to Salvation, how can I then say that a religion that teaches something different from that is equal? I can't. It's not bigotry, it's faith. So, the fact that Romney is a Mormon may have no bearing on my vote, as he has the right to be a Mormon, and I wouldn't be voting for his religion, but that doesn't mean I have to endorse Mormonism as equal to Christianity, and I won't."
So, we can't embrace universalism, while still clinging to the truth of God's Word, the two are totally incompatable. 99% true is 100% false.
Another really good post related to the subject of orthodoxy:
I am of Cephas: Orthodoxy by Association
Excerpt:
Quote:
We all have to recognize that we have this inherent weakness within us. There is this great temptation for us to say, as did the Corinthians - “...‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Knowing this, we must be on guard concerning such man-centered tendencies by looking to men like Paul, who did not seek the favor of men (Gal. 1:10) but was willing to stand up to and lovingly confront Cephas when he stood condemned before the brethren (Gal. 2:11-21).
You see - Christ and His truth are more important than our heroes and buddies.
In today’s generation many suffer from this problem. They try to establish the legitimacy of a theological movement by means of defending its supporters. In fact, just after posting This is an Emergency, I received the following e-mail message where I was rebuked for questioning the theology of Brian Mclaren and especially N.T. Wright:
“...and then...you go on to take a cheap shot on n.t. wright. are you kidding me? there's not a more admirable theologian on the planet. the man has been studying justification before you could even spell the word.”
Lovely. This is a fine test for sound doctrine - popularity and old age. This is a clear case of a person who has side-stepped a discussion over Scripture by rendering a defense of a man - who’s aged and popular. In the case of Mr. Driscoll, I have seen some rather interesting battles along a similar pretense of popularity. For some, the Emerging Conversation is utterly legitimized by this man’s association with it. For others, they will point to theological heroes of their own who are publicly endorsing Mr. Driscoll with the formula of: MD + PPP (popular pastoral-personality) = GOOD. It is almost as if people feel compelled to treat popular movements like a light switch - they’re either entirely ON or OFF based upon who’s supporting them. /Unquote
A pastor who is Biblically based in Christian Orthodoxy will not be offended by those who present the plumbline of Scripture when something is said that could be questionable. I have known many pastors who have urged their congregations to call them out if, and when, something being said in not Scripturally sound!
This blog owner is a pastor and author, too!
Here is a link to a review of one of his books entitled "All Nations Under God."
Excerpt of the review:
Beasley is pastor of Pilgrim Bible Church in Winston Salem, North Carolina. He was trained at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley California and has been a pastor since 1994. In that time he has seen waves of attack fall upon the doctrine of the atonement, surely one of the most important doctrines in Scripture. There is much at stake in this battle, for "without this important doctrine, Christ's sheep will become spiritually malnourished, emaciated, weak, and filled with despair... The end result is that many in the church are weakened, disoriented, distracted; many are busy fighting battles which offer no real victories for anyone" (24, author's emphasis). "The purpose of this book," he writes, "is quite simple: to give glory to God our Savior and thus foster a greater love among the church of God for the One who purchased our pardon--the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. The means to this very important end will consist of delving into the joyful celebration of Christ's victorious work of atonement" (25).
Beasley begins by defining the atonement, teaching what is often missed in such discussions: that the greatest purpose for which we have been redeemed is so that we could be presented as a gift from the Son to the Father. We are saved first and foremost by the purpose of God and for the glory of God. Thus we are a reason, not the reason that Christ died for us. He discusses the intent versus the extent of the atonement, but premises the discussion on the statement that "Christ's sacrifice on the cross bore no failure, but was an immutable victory accomplished by the Son, for the Father" (31). The cross was, then, a complete and total victory, and a victory of the Son's love for the Father even more than a victory of God's love for us.
An entire chapter of All Nations Under God is dedicated to applying this doctrine to the life of the believer. This was a strong chapter and one that proves that Beasley believes this is an issue that is not to be relegated to the academy and is not an issue that is purely theoretical. Rather, this is an issue that, if ignored, can lead to dire consequences to individual believers and to Christianity as a whole. Conversely, if Christians turn to Scripture and trust what the Bible tells us about the atonement, it will lead to stronger individuals, a stronger church, and God will be honored.
Just as I have often said, the "Cross of Christ" is central, and essential to sound doctrine! The atonement is the focal point of Christian faith. We are to beware the Crossless Gospel!
Often, we can recognize leftist heresy because they either downplay, ignore, or eliminate the need for repentance through faith in Jesus Christ via the atonement accomplishment of the Cross.
Christine said: “Discernment and Scripture knowledge is the key to recognizing truth from error.” I agree.
“Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.” Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar (see PRO 30: NKJV & NIV).
The Bible is God’s written Word from Genesis to Revelation. His Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (see PSA 119:105). Praise His Name. (ss)
Hi Matt,
You make very valid points in your comment. Especially this:
"After all, how can I claim to hold fast to my own faith, and then say that some else's religion is equal to it? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." [John 14:6] So, if Jesus is the one and only way to Salvation, how can I then say that a religion that teaches something different from that is equal? I can't. It's not bigotry, it's faith."
"Bigotry" is an over-used word when it comes to those who battle against genuine Christian faith. When a person has a religious belief that is not supported by Scripture, in order to counter it (usually ends up being a feeble attempt, btw), they must convict the true believer with "bigotry" in order to ease their own reprobate consciences when wiling in their particular "error."
Correcting such errors is not bigotry...it's applying discernment from God's Holy, inerrant Word!
Matt wrote: "So, we can't embrace universalism, while still clinging to the truth of God's Word, the two are totally incompatable. 99% true is 100% false."
This is where absolute truth comes in. There can only be one truth. Those who wish there to be more than one truth are guilty of relativism.
Mathematics demonstrates that there are absolutes. 2+2=4 every time; no matter how many people would desire to change it and "make their own desires equal" to believing that it could equal "5." The reality that it can only equal "4" is the blaring truth of the matter. Other disciplines regarding truth may not be so apparent upon first glance. But God's Word is the plumbline that reproves and corrects any errant thinking.
As this book title suggests, Relativism - Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air such a belief can, and should be refuted every time.
If you haven't read this book yet Matt, I highly recommend it!
Hi Christine - thanks for the link and your excellent comments! I added the CARM link to my post as well.
Christine, Thanks for the book title, I've written it down, so, don't know when I might get to it, but I should someday.
Matt
Post a Comment