- Martin Luther
... but I'm not sure about this book's premise.
I posted this a couple of days on my personal blog. Since then I've read about half of this book, and I've got mixed feelings about it so far. But more on that later ...
Most folks, myself included, tend to gravitate toward one theology or way of thinking without really exploring alternative ideas. Sometimes the lack of exploration is because one is so firmly rooted in their way of thinking, and its truthfulness, that they feel (perhaps rightly) that there's simply no reason to waste time reading about different views. Other times, though, it can be simple apathy, laziness, and even arrogance. When I look back on my time on earth, I hope to say that my reasons for not boldly searching out other positions were not arrogance or laziness.
When I was about 16 I walked into a Christian bookstore and bought a copy of a slick new book called The Sign by Robert Van Kampen. The book outlined Van Kampen's Pre-Wrath Rapture theology. After devouring the tome I promptly dropped my Pre-Tribulation beliefs in favor of what I thought was the more logical and scripturally sound Pre-Wrath position. (For the record, I still think the Pre-Wrath position is more logical and scripturally sound than the Pre-Tribulation position.) Much to the chagrin of certain relatives (for example, one of my aunts), I became an outspoken advocate of my new position, defending it against the popular Pre-Tribulation notion whenever I was given a chance.
While I'm not a student of pop-eschatology anymore, I think my initial willingness to abandon my then denominational distinctive (Pre-Tribulation theology) in favor of what I believed was a position more true to Scripture, helped solidify a willingness in my mind to, well, change my mind about theological distinctives. I'm not talking about the essential tenets of the faith, so I move forward, and pray that the Spirit guides me.
Furthermore, I think it's sad that too often someone does something like dismissing Calvinism without having ever listened to a teaching on Calvinism or read a book about the theology of monergism and its various streams. The same can be said for Arminianism.
I said all that to say I'm dipping my toe a bit further into the pool of Christian Universalism with my latest borrowed book (thank the Lord of inter-library loan!): If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. I'm sure the read will be, at least, interesting.
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4789.
I actually think universalism is logically plausible on the basis of a certain type of Calvinist thought--after all, if grace is irresistible, why couldn't God simply overpower everyone's resistance in the end? And indeed, he could; but I continue to believe that in the end, he honors the decisions of those who insist on rejecting him. Scripturally, I think we have to, because universalism makes Jesus a liar; but I also see the reason in it, that a loving God wouldn't condemn anyone to Heaven who didn't want to be there.
I think Universalism goes totally against Christ's words and warnings. However I think our approach as to who gets to enter the Kingdom should be more nuanced - Christ Himself mentioned that many who think they will enter have never known Him and many who had no clue will find that they have known Him all along.
My understanding is that Philip Gulley's dalliance with Universalism got him dropped from a previous publishing company.
Ask yourself, if Christian Universalism is true, then why do we need a savior?
I think the one thing that concerns me here is that I've seen people let them be led around by every wind (er ... that was tactless of me) I mean, I've seen people demonstrate the truth of Solomon's proverb that the first (or most recent) to state his case seems right, until they got so confused or disgusted that they just walked away.
If you view salvation through the irresistible-grace paradigm, it follows that if God is fully good then all will be saved. But irresistible grace v. ineffectual grace are not the only options. Grace means Christ, after all.
Take care & God bless
WF
I finished the book yesterday and I can confidently say that both the authors are complete heretics. That's no joke and no understatement. I'll blog about it within the next few days if I can find some spare time.
George MacDonald was a universalist and a Christian. C.S. Lewis referred to MacDonald as his "master" in the faith though he didn't agree with MacDonald's universalism. IMO it's possible to be wrong on that topic and still be a Christian. But it sounds like these authors are both wrong and heretics outside the boundary of orthodox faith.
can we change the term "Christian Universalism" to something else? That may help me be more open minded about it.
That term makes me thing about Granola, open-toe sandals, and Buddhist Monks and Muslim Cleric guest speakers giving the sermons at church.