Creeping Universalism

[RisingSpirit]

What is

[FONT=QuicksandBook, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]creeping universalism?[/FONT]​

 

[lukelandon]

I think so it is a welfare state in Australia.

Forming LLC | Operating Agreement LLC | Articles of Incorporation

Florida LLC formation

<a href="http://www.coomberlaw.com/business-organization/">Florida LLC formation</a>

 

[RisingSpirit]

New Pew Survey: Creeping Universalism or Mere Christianity?

Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions — not just their own — can lead to eternal life.​

This result was derived by the Pew Survey from a forced choice of two statements presented to those who had said they had a religion: My religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life, or Many religions can lead to eternal life.

For Christians, choosing the second choice is mere Christianity, consistent with the greatest 20th century Christian apologist C. S. Lewis. Children who have read the Narnia series will have learned in The Last Battle that the pagan Calormene soldier was credited with worshiping Aslan all along even though he did not know it.

Lewis also stated this more explicitly in Mere Christianity on page 64:

But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those that who know Him can be saved through Him.​

and on page 209:

There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might say he still believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points.

------------------------------------
---------------
------
--
-

I found this page at : Perpetua of Carthage: New Pew Survey: Creeping Universalism or Mere Christianity?

This might answer what happens to those that never heard of Jesus.
​

 

[hedrick]

New Pew Survey: Creeping Universalism or Mere Christianity?

Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions &#8212; not just their own &#8212; can lead to eternal life.​

For Christians, choosing the second choice is mere Christianity, consistent with the greatest 20th century Christian apologist C. S. Lewis. Children who have read the Narnia series will have learned in The Last Battle that the pagan Calormene soldier was credited with worshiping Aslan all along even though he did not know it.

Just to be clear:

* universalism says that everyone will be saved. Christian universalism normally assumes that after death everyone comes to be Christ's, possibly after some additional process of punishment or learning.

* saying that people of any faith can be saved is "inclusivism." I don't believe C. S. Lewis was a universalist. That is, he thought some non-Christians could be saved, but not that everyone would be saved.

* I'm not aware of a specific "ism" for people who think that all religions lead equally to God, but that seems to be increasingly common as well. It doesn't seem logically possible, but that doesn't necessarily stop people.

The article pointed to by the link seems to confuse the last two alternatives. I'm reasonably sure that Lewis would not say that all religions are alike. I *think* his position (and the classic inclusivist position) was that some members of other religions could be saved because they had been following Christ in spite of the errors of their religion.

"Creeping universalism" is the perception among many that an increasing number of people are becoming universalists. This could be said either of Christianity in general, or of Presbyterians. However I'd guess that inclusivism is more common. That's certainly true of the PCUSA. I'm not familiar with survey results from more conservative Presbyterian churches. (Of course the number ought to be zero in a church that is committed to the Westminster standards, but the "creeping universalism" perception is that this idea is showing up even where standards prohibit it.)

 

[RisingSpirit]

​

Question
I have heard that Billy Graham has stated something to the effect that a person did not have to believe or even know the name of Jesus Christ to be saved, for if all they had available to them was the Muslim religion or Hinduism, or Buddhism and believed with all their heart that it was true, then God would save them without their knowing anything about Christ--not even His name. Is this true?
Answer
Sadly, this appears to be very true. I believe what you heard has been the result of a TV interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller. Here is an article with the transcript of the interview. By the way, in a recent tape by John MacArthur, of Grace Community Church, he contacted the Billy Graham Association and they confirmed that Billy Graham has "always believed what he revealed in the interview."

I found this post at :

Question - What Billy Graham Believes about Salvation.

 

[RisingSpirit]

... I'm not familiar with survey results from more conservative Presbyterian churches. (Of course the number ought to be zero in a church that is committed to the Westminster standards, but the "creeping universalism" perception is that this idea is showing up even where standards prohibit it.)

Federal Vision got the PCA in so much trouble, they had to include reports in their manuals that they don't support FV ( or maybe yet ). FV was born out of a fringe group within PCA and it sounds like PCUSA are going through the same thing with Creeping Universalism. The Link I provided in the OP looks like it come from Episcopalians so I guess it's a little more widespread than I thought.
I found out Creeping Universalism through letters stating on of the reasons the new ECO Presbyterian denominations are leaving PCUSA. In some letters from the PCUSA states that not every church has to ordain homosexuals and only up to the locals to ordain them but that sounds fishy.
I still like Hedricks points he made a long while back that one really doesn't have to create a new denomination just because of disagreements.
"A house divided shall not stand" sounds worrisome to me.

Whom God has given to Jesus based on His Own Pleasures sounds like the Elects don't have to really know how they got to Heaven.

Sounds like new denominations are running rampant claiming they know who the elects are by some sort of observations. I'm not sure about the "Holding another accountable" is what makes a Christian.

 

[hedrick]

It's not necessarily creeping in the PCUSA. A lot of us think the tendency in the last few decades has actually been slightly in the conservative direction, except for homosexuality.

The PCUSA has done internal surveys of members for quite some time, but only the most recent are available online. So I don't have evidence of whether universalism is spreading.

You're right that no church will be compelled to elect elders they don't want. That's a basic principle of Reformed government. At least in the Central NJ presbytery, back when ordination of women was an issue, there were churches that didn't ordain female elders. While Presbytery wasn't happy about it, no compulsion was used. At least not when I was there, which is now a couple of decades ago.

However that's not the real problem. In 1975, Walter Kenyon, a candidate for pastor, was asked whether he would ordain a woman in his congregation if they elected her as an elder. He said no, but he would find a colleague to do the ordination. That was not considered acceptable, so he wasn't ordained. The most serious danger is a replay of the Kenyon case involving homosexuality, not forcing churches to elect gay elders or accept gay pastors.

 

[ButterflyPoette]

It is sad that churches are becoming so liberal these days. They think of it as a love message, that it doesn't matter what our lives are like, what god we believe in, we are all saved if we are spiritual.
It is totally against the Bible and truth.

 

[RisingSpirit]

It is sad that churches are becoming so liberal these days. They think of it as a love message, that it doesn't matter what our lives are like, what god we believe in, we are all saved if we are spiritual.
It is totally against the Bible and truth.

I would like to know what "written in the heart" really means. If faith is embedded in the hearts of the elects, then that would mean one may know Jesus in a different form other than common description of Jesus in modern language. Other religians may be talking about the same man without using the popular name, Jesus.

Liberal may mean non stone age or the new version of old fashion.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I've noticed that many claimed that PCUSA isn't a true church due to them not believing that Jesus is God or something like that. That was ten years ago. I did find such old claims but I never could confirm it. When I go to a PCUSA, today, I always, and always have, found them confessing that Jesus is the way or Jesus is God or at least worship Jesus. I noticed the same thing happened regarding the homosexuals. When the votes were like 1 yeses and 4 nays on ordaining homosexuals 8 years ago, many quickly went against the church.
While the PCUSA changed the book of Order from married as male/female or singleness ordination, they changed it to whomever is happy to preach the Word as if they were called to minister. 20 years from now when everyone gets used to the "always have been sinful society", the book of Order still would mean to whomever is called and happy to share/preach the Word as leaders of the Churches.
At the same time, I found that a church can be created out of just a few people and the few elects an elder to lead a church. So that makes apostolic accession not true and and church can be created out of the blue. Forget the claims of "My pastor was ordained by this or that pastor and made him more qualified than your pastor". Perhaps a group or least two people don't need a leader as preacher or need to be ordained. Perhaps a calling is the same as being ordained.
So the PCUSA's changes in the ordination section in their book of order does or does not state homosexual can be ordained. It can mean anyone even a man with a live in girlfriend or one with a mistress, more than one wives or more than one husband, female or male, one with both sexes or simply a male that does know what he is doing. He is just happy to preach the Word. Thats what the book of order tells me.
I believe too much gossip can get people in trouble. We're almost doing what the media tells us to do.

Advertising can be the dictator.

 

[desmalia]

Thanks for this thread. I actually came into this section looking to discuss this very issue. I work at a Presbyterian church in Canada (PCC), which is most closely associated with the PCUSA. What I'm seeing here is a growing movement towards a Unitarian style of belief system. Not that all religions are the same, but that there is a basic harmony between all religions and that all should be embraced equally (particularly Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christian Science, and a few others). I suspect there could eventually be a split in the church where I work over this issue. Some people are very excited to move further in this direction, while some hold that Jesus is the only way to the Father. I was curious if this same sort of tension is happening in the PCUSA or even the PCA as well.

 

[Mandalin]

I think Universalism is progressive led, and neo-pagan, new age ideas are running rampant.

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

If faith is embedded in the hearts of the elects, then that would mean one may know Jesus in a different form other than common description of Jesus in modern language. Other religians may be talking about the same man without using the popular name, Jesus.
.

This doesn't make sense.... Since we know Jesus by what the word teaches us about Him.... We know the difference between right and wrong - truth and lie -because of the word..... No other religions lead you in the same truth (of salvation) that Jesus of the bible does... No matter what name they use.
The word liberal really means false teachings!

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

The rcc is always pushing universal salvation for all.... Muslims are your brothers (who deny Jesus is the Christ).....


Universal salvation is simply a lie!


The devil then has people thinking they are ok without the blood of Christ....

Only by His blood and His blood alone is their remission of sins!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for this thread. I actually came into this section looking to discuss this very issue. I work at a Presbyterian church in Canada (PCC), which is most closely associated with the PCUSA. What I'm seeing here is a growing movement towards a Unitarian style of belief system. Not that all religions are the same, but that there is a basic harmony between all religions and that all should be embraced equally (particularly Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christian Science, and a few others). I suspect there could eventually be a split in the church where I work over this issue. Some people are very excited to move further in this direction, while some hold that Jesus is the only way to the Father. I was curious if this same sort of tension is happening in the PCUSA or even the PCA as well.

Yes, this has been going on in the PCUSA for decades. When I was a child growing up in a PCUSA church in the 1960's I was taught a form of Calvinistic universalism which went that God had predestined His elect to be saved and that because God is love and his children are, by nature, innately good because they are made in His image, He has elected all of mankind to salvation. My home church was directly across the street from the PCUSA seminary (Dubuque) so this theology was prevalent both in our church and in the seminary. Across town another PCUSA church rejected this theology and eventually left the PCUSA and joined the PCA.

About a year ago a good friend shared a book authored by a revered early conservative twentieth century Presbyterian theologian (Machin comes to mind, but I honestly do not remember). He held a post-Millennial view of eschatology. To my great surprise he concluded that at the end of the Millennium all will be saved. So, universalism within Presbyterian theology in the U.S. has fairly deep roots and has been divisive.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for this thread. I actually came into this section looking to discuss this very issue. I work at a Presbyterian church in Canada (PCC), which is most closely associated with the PCUSA. What I'm seeing here is a growing movement towards a Unitarian style of belief system. Not that all religions are the same, but that there is a basic harmony between all religions and that all should be embraced equally (particularly Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christian Science, and a few others). I suspect there could eventually be a split in the church where I work over this issue. Some people are very excited to move further in this direction, while some hold that Jesus is the only way to the Father. I was curious if this same sort of tension is happening in the PCUSA or even the PCA as well.

First, let's get terms straight. Unitarianism means not believing in the Trinity. There is very little real unitarianism in the PCUSA. There's a reason for that. All of the major strands of liberal theology are strongly Trinitarian. I have noticed a tendency in PCUSA doctrinal statements to downplay the traditional terminology (three persons with one essence) and use Scriptural terminology. Similarly for the Incarnation: recent doctrinal statements tend not to speak of two natures and one person, but to use Scriptural terminology, such as the Word made flesh, or the fulness of God being present.

What you seem to be asking about is not unitarianism, but universalism. There is a fair amount of universalism, but not of the type you describe. You're describing a position that the differences among the major religions ultimately don't matter. I don't claim to know every member of the PCUSA, but that's not a position I'm hearing. The problem is that the religions you mention are just too different. Some, it seems to me, have pernicious implications. There are two other beliefs that are related to it that I do hear:

* That people can encounter God in any religion. This is really inclusivism, the idea that non-Christians can be saved. This is the current position of the Catholic Church and quite likely at least half of Protestants. But it doesn't quite mean that all religions are right, just that God can save members of any religion (or none), in some cases in spite of their religion.

* Universal reconciliation. This is the idea that after death, God will reconcile everyone to himself. This doesn't mean that there is no sin, or that all religions are OK. It simply means that when we finally see God face to face, everyone will accept him as Lord, and repent. Everything about us that was not built on him will be purged (1 Cor 3:12 ff).

I do accept inclusivism, though not in quite the common form that I've just described. I'm not convinced of universal reconciliation, because I think Jesus' statements about judgement are inconsistent with it.

 

[desmalia]

First, let's get terms straight. Unitarianism means not believing in the Trinity. There is very little real unitarianism in the PCUSA. There's a reason for that. All of the major strands of liberal theology are strongly Trinitarian. I have noticed a tendency in PCUSA doctrinal statements to downplay the traditional terminology (three persons with one essence) and use Scriptural terminology. Similarly for the Incarnation: recent doctrinal statements tend not to speak of two natures and one person, but to use Scriptural terminology, such as the Word made flesh, or the fulness of God being present.

I am aware of the differences between Unitarian and Universalist, and that is why I chose the word Unitarian. From what I understand, the doctrine of the Trinity has become fairly negotiable in the PCUSA (it has in the PCC, anyway) over the years, so that's not a factor here.

What you seem to be asking about is not unitarianism, but universalism. There is a fair amount of universalism, but not of the type you describe. You're describing a position that the differences among the major religions ultimately don't matter. I don't claim to know every member of the PCUSA, but that's not a position I'm hearing. The problem is that the religions you mention are just too different. Some, There are two other beliefs that are related to it that I do hear:

* That people can encounter God in any religion. This is really inclusivism, the idea that non-Christians can be saved. This is the current position of the Catholic Church and quite likely at least half of Protestants. But it doesn't quite mean that all religions are right, just that God can save members of any religion (or none), in some cases in spite of their religion.

* Universal reconciliation. This is the idea that after death, God will reconcile everyone to himself. This doesn't mean that there is no sin, or that all religions are OK. It simply means that when we finally see God face to face, everyone will accept him as Lord, and repent. Everything about us that was not built on him will be purged (1 Cor 3:12 ff).

I do accept inclusivism, though not in quite the common form that I've just described. I'm not convinced of universal reconciliation, because I think Jesus' statements about judgement are inconsistent with it.

Yes, they do seem to be so different that it makes no sense. It's certainly not as simple a say, Rick Warren's increasing "unity" with Islam. This is a lot broader, since it includes vastly different religions. However, what I'm seeing in some of the PCC churches is not just a simple universalistic idea of all being saved in the end, nor just people worshiping Christ in their "own religions style". It's more of an effort to bring practices of other religions into the church and to unite in "ministry" activities, and essentially treat members of these religions as brothers and sisters united in faith. There is no need for them to leave their current religion because it's just as valid as Presbyterian. Of course, the area where I live has a large and growing Baha'i influence. So perhaps that's a partial factor.

Edited to add: I realize that not all PCUSA churches are the same. Nor are all PCC churches. They can vary in doctrine and practice quite widely at times. My comments were just relating to the general trajectory of those denominations since the PCC often takes its cues from the PCUSA.

 

[hedrick]

I am aware of the differences between Unitarian and Universalist, and that is why I chose the word Unitarian. From what I understand, the doctrine of the Trinity has become fairly negotiable in the PCUSA (it has in the PCC, anyway) over the years, so that's not a factor here.

It's hard to know what is going on throughout a church with millions of members. A couple of decades ago there were people who wanted non-traditional terminology, because father and son were seen as male-centric. I haven't heard that in at least 10 years. But unitarianism? That's not something I'm aware of, and I'd think I would have heard about it. I just searched the archives of The Layman (an online publication by conservatives that are disgusted with the PCUSA) for "unitarian", and don't see any claims as far back as 2008 of actual unitarian doctrine. You'd think they would have picked up on it.

It's more of an effort to bring practices of other religions into the church and to unite in "ministry" activities, and essentially treat members of these religions as brothers and sisters united in faith. There is no need for them to leave their current religion because it's just as valid as Presbyterian. Of course, the area where I live has a large and growing Baha'i influence. So perhaps that's a partial factor.

The PCUSA certainly respects other religions. I've seen odd worship services at the GA that include non-traditional practices that not everyone thought of as proper (though nothing from religions such as Islam or Hinduism - it's more new-agey, and in one case where GA was meeting in an area with a lot of American Indian culture there were Indian influences). We'll engage in joint activities when our goals agree. I've been in churches that did pulpit exchange with both Jewish and Muslim congregations, but that did't indicate that the churches thought there was no significant difference, or that we were in any danger of Muslim influence in our ideas. (Obviously Christians have Jewish influence pretty much by definition.)

As I've noted, the PCUSA is generally inclusivist, meaning that members of other religions may be saved, but that's pretty common among Christians. It's not the same thing as saying that all religions are equal. I saw a recent survey in which something like 75% of members and elders agreed with a statement like "to address the world's problems, we first need to tell them about Christ."

These kinds of things differ a lot by region and congregation. You'll find the kind of things you describe in the PCUSA. It's just not common among most congregations. If the PCC is largely as you describe, I think it's gone further than the PCUSA.

There was a time when people claimed that the PCUSA was getting increasingly liberal, and would eventually become identical to the Unitarians. But I haven't really seen any trend in that direction, and the claim was probably alarmist to begin with. Our theology has been pretty constant for decades. Acceptance of gays has certainly increased, but the theological and exegetical justification for that has been around for decades. It doesn't indicate any real change in the denomination.

----------

But creeping universalism in the sense of an increasing interest in universal reconciliation, may well be true. There's increasing concern about the ethical implications of hell, not just in the mainline churches, but among evangelicals. That doesn't seem to be the issue you're interested in, though.

 

[desmalia]

Thank you for your comments, Hedrick. They are very helpful.

 

[Petruchio]

* That people can encounter God in any religion. This is really inclusivism, the idea that non-Christians can be saved. This is the current position of the Catholic Church and quite likely at least half of Protestants. But it doesn't quite mean that all religions are right, just that God can save members of any religion (or none), in some cases in spite of their religion.

It's funny how the Catholics (at least the ones I've been dealing with) have dealt with Pope Francis' comments on atheists of good will. In my debates with them, they tend to simultaneously deny that Francis said atheists can go to heaven, while teaching that atheists (or any non-Christian) of 'good will' can go to heaven. It's truly a repulsive and anti-Biblical point of view. Unfortunately, it does seem to be "creeping" in on the mainsteam of Protestants as well, if it hasn't already entered the door and taken up residence.

I think the comparison between these sorts of people with the Unitarians is probably due to the fact that both groups have the same "feel" to them, though the comparison fails in a direct point by point analysis. That is, they both have little regard for the authority of scripture, and an over-regard for mankind in general. They do not believe in original sin (at least in practice), and that man is inherently evil; and they certainly do not like the idea of a sovereign God. They believe themselves righteous, and so they push these views which only serve to puff themselves up. Their theology is wholly illogical, anti-Christian and certainly worthy of the fire.