How to help a "Christian Universalist?"

[simon]

I think Viclyn raises an interesting point that I certainly have also encountered when she says that her new acquaintance "isn't sure about the validity of The Bible". When people say this they quite often stump well meaning Christians who are so used to proof texting that they are not sure where to go next! I'm not sure recommending Christian books is necessarily helpful as they too tend to proof text a bit too much (although Philip Yancey, Rob Bell and Steve Chalke are probably all exceptions who really get to the heart of the gospel).

My personal approach in such a situation is a) get to know the person but then b) discuss the topic in a fairly rigorous manner as two equals trying to "find the truth". If you are confident that your opinion is correct then you have nothing to fear. I would invite this person over to dinner and then over a glass of wine discuss the issue (who knows you might learn something as well)!

Just quickly, regarding Phil and Sambekzx's comments - the gospel does indeed transcend culture, however in the words of John Stott contrasting fundamentalists with Evangelicals:

As for biblical interpretation, fundamentalists seemed to suppose that they could apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. In doing to they ignored the cultural chasm which yawned between the biblical world and the contemporary world... however, evangelicals struggle with the task of cultural transposition, in which they identify the essential message of the text, detach it from its original cultural context, and then re-contextualize it before applying it to our situation today.

ie we must always be aware that the bible was written in one culture and we are applying it in another. That doesn't make the bibel less relevant, but does warn us that we need to be careful in our interpretation and also in assuming that our interpretation is the ONLY interpretation.

Simon

[Sambekzx]

Originally Posted by simon

ie we must always be aware that the bible was written in one culture and we are applying it in another. That doesn't make the bibel less relevant, but does warn us that we need to be careful in our interpretation and also in assuming that our interpretation is the ONLY interpretation.

I can agree with this, but you seem to use this reasoning to state that there is salvation for someone who has never put their faith specifically in Jesus Christ? That, I think is beyond any interpretive dispute.

Romans 10:9-15

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

No matter what culture you come from, I think the words above cannot be interpreted any other way.

[simon]

Sounds like its time to start a bible study on the many meanings of the word "saved". The only problem is that might get us into eschatology, which (with the possible exception of whether Christians should carry guns in church :-)) is about the most contentious theological topic around!

I still prefer to leave salvation questions to God and instead try to focus on how I treat others - whoever they are!

Simon

[Sambekzx]

Simon, I like your heart of compassion. May God use that in His wisdom.

Turning to the topic (which, thanks to people like me, is really a hijacking of the original topic), whatever debate there may be concerning the meaning of "saved," it is a distinct topic apart from the method of being "saved."

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Simon, the Gospel is this, so succinctly summarized by Paul in 2 Corinthians 15:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The Gospel is very simple. So simple is it that it is like a razor that divides with the slightest of pressure applied. Sometimes, our minds want to find some way to broaden the scope of salvation, to somehow "increase" God's mercy (if that were even possible) by dulling the blade, introducing gray areas and shrugging our shoulders saying, "only God knows." It is true, whether someone has accepted the offer of salvation IS solely in God's providence, but He has made it painfully clear what the terms of His offer are. That offer, that contract, is what we are to preach to the ends of the earth.

I hope that verses like these spur us all to the immediacy of the world's need for hearing God's offer of salvation.

Edit: The Gospel is foolishness to the world. I read something mockingly summarizing it as "you must believe in a 2000 year old Jewish zombie who can levitate into the sky." What utter ridiculousness from the face of it! But the Gospel is spiritually discerned, not discerned by human rationale.

[simon]

I'm happy to accept those bible verses, but you didn't really address the question of what salvation / being saved actually means.

For instance it is perfectly possible to accept Acts 4:12 but still take the line that people don't have to "know" that it is Jesus who saved them. A good analogy would be the difference between taking a white pill that you haven't a clue what it is but it makes you better anyway, and being a scientist who takes the exact same pill but knows exactly what it is and how it works. Both individuals are made better by the same medicine working in the same way however the levels of knowledge are completely different. I think the same applies to some people who have never had the chance to be "educated" about Jesus (e.g. young children as well as people from different cultures).

Similarly how are we to view salvation itself? Is it pie in the sky when we die or is it an ongoing process? If it is pie in the sky what sort of pie is it - will there be physical bodies and which "me" will be resurrected - me at 20, 30 or 60? What about people with neurodegenerative diseases - will they be resurrected before the disease? What about young babies - will they be suddenly made older but with experiences?

I haven't the answer to any of the questions in the above paragraph. All I can do is trust that God knows and heaven/after-life will be a surprise in many ways. I am willing to remain open about both the details and who will be there. All I can do whilst I am on this earth is treat others with respect and meet them where they are at with love, not judgement.

[Sambekzx]

My last response on this because I'm learning that forums are a bad place to conduct debates.

1. I intentionally avoided trying to define the "what" of "salvation." So, I don't have much to say to your question about our physical state during the resurrection at this time and whether salvation is a process or a "pie in the sky." As I said before, the "what" of salvation is distinct from the "how" of salvation.

2. Your pill analogy primarily deals with the "how" of "salvation" (the "what" is an implied assumption that the pill will cure the disease). Your pill analogy still requires the patient to ingest the drug. And to do that voluntarily (this is key), the patient still must know that there is a pill to ingest and agree to his need for THAT specific pill, even in the midst of his ignorance of the pharmacodynamics of the pill or the name of the pill.

In the same way, salvation must come by faith (ingesting) in Jesus (the pill) for the propitiation of our sins (need for the pill). Perhaps there is room for the actual Hebraic name of "Yeshua" and all its permutations in other languages to be unknown (otherwise, how would the OT patriarchs and prophets have had salvation?). But you must have faith that a specific person died in your place for your sins and that person is God, himself.

Living by a moral code alone does not save. Trying to emulate Jesus' life on earth alone does not save. Not even acknowledgement that Jesus existed, that he died for sins, and that he is God is enough. You must bet your eternal fate (in poker terms, go "all in") on these things.

No other religion or philosophy preaches this. Nothing else under the sun has said "God died for your sins" and to place your eternal security on that. It is nonsensical in Buddhism because Karma has no redemption for wrongs, offensive in Islam because Allah would never debase himself in human form and be killed, and ridiculousness in every other religion or mode of thought because they hinge on man trying to be "good" based on his own effort, not grace bestowed from on high. This Gospel of Grace is unique and unapproachable from the ground up. It is truly revelation from God.

And it just so happens that these fundamental items of faith are never presented to the world without mentioning "Jesus." Because the very concept itself is so foreign to man and would never spring out of his imagination, the only way we would ever have had it on the brain is through the telling of the account of Jesus.

That is why, realistically speaking, if you haven't heard the name Jesus, you haven't heard the Gospel at all, in any form. No Gospel = no salvation. It's a hard truth, but it's why we as Christians cannot fritter our lives away on pointless endeavors. There is a world out there who needs to hear this.