Creeping Universalism

[tulipbee]

....We don't disagree on this matter at all. In fact, if anyone disagrees with it, it is the "Inclusivists," or, rather, the crafty Universalists, who infect the body of Christ and destroy all Gospel preaching.

​

I had a reason to physically and mentally desire what the Bible had to say about the personal me at the age of three or five. I'm now in my 50's. During the extreme early search for answers, I grew up with extra sensitivity on everything I could find on what I was seeking and had extra time for my researches. Like Blind Grasshopper in Kung Fu, he was able to catch an arrow by using his ears. He grew up with extra sensitivity but that doesn't make him dangerous. I'm not blind but I have other reasons and ended up sitting and eating with the head of the largest Buddhist sects in China as well as well known Teachers of Japanese Zen and Catholic monks. I've had my searches in thoughts from India as well as the rest I could get my hands on.
So yes, I'm not surprised that I talk dangerous as a Christian in common society of stubborn folks that never made efforts to seek the truths. So, yes, Luther, Zwingli, and Arminius were Inclusivists while Calvin was an exclusivist but thats their opinions and well, you're right, , I fine-tuned my own opinion which does make me dangerous to the Fundies but monks understood me and I read between the lines in the Bible. I may not be permitted to stretch the truth I believe here at CF so I only understand your closed channels are in a far different state than my opened channels. Testing the spirits are already done on my end. It's been on auto. And I'm only observing God arranging physical and spiritual circumstances around you according to His Own Will and let that be. God got me where I'm at without any non-existent personal choices of my own. I observe and follow. No choices made there. It would be impossible if free will choices could have been made. Theres nothing about me here so theres no me-ism involved.

To make a long story short, never hearing of Christ at the death bed doesn't mean thats the end of the life of the Elects. Theres more after the death of an Elect.

Most men don't understand spirit and Spirit being formless. No one here wants to talk about formless but I teach it, weekly, cause I'm told to make truth known to Fundies that don't know it. Emotions do cause cancer. Let's not get emotional about ourselves.

Spiritual life isn't over at death, its the beginning. Jesus is there as well but most here claims God doesn't have power to save as He sees fit based on His Own private Wills without the help of men or imaginations.

.......................... Imaginations don't save, God does.............................

 

[Petruchio]

Imaginations don't save, God does

But imagination is what you need, if you are believing things that are not written in the scripture.

Like Blind Grasshopper in Kung Fu, he was able to catch an arrow by using his ears.

Unless God gave him those ears, then he wouldn't have been able to so much as even understand the Gospel, and therefore would be damned.

He grew up with extra sensitivity but that doesn't make him dangerous. I'm not blind but I have other reasons and ended up sitting and eating with the head of the largest Buddhist sects in China as well as well known Teachers of Japanese Zen and Catholic monks. I've had my searches in thoughts from India as well as the rest I could get my hands on.

Except for MAYBE the Catholic monks, they're all on their way to hell because they do not believe in Jesus Christ.

So, yes, Luther, Zwingli, and Arminius were Inclusivists while Calvin was an exclusivist

Maybe we're not using the words in the same way. Luther, for example, believed in double predestination and the bondage of the will, just like Calvin who came after him. So how is one an inclusivist, and the other is not?

but monks understood me

But do those monks understand that they will never be able to make it to heaven by being monks? As Luther ironically noted:

“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

To make a long story short, never hearing of Christ at the death bed doesn't mean thats the end of the life of the Elects. Theres more after the death of an Elect.

No, death really is the end:

Heb_9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I'm reminded of a Catholic fellow who argued that Osama Bin Ladin could be in heaven, and he asked me "Do you know what was going through his mind before he died?"

To which I answered, "A bullet?"

 

[tulipbee]

...So how is one an inclusivist, and the other is not?...

Calvin, later, became more 'open' on salvation.

....Except for MAYBE the Catholic monks, they're all on their way to hell because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. ...

Your agony and bitterness towards the Catholics or anyone will put you on temporary hold after death. After death, you'll go back one step til you find a way one step forward. If you keep taking one step backwards all the time, it might take you 32,053+ years to find that step forward towards the Heaven's Gate. You ought to make that step forward while you're alive. Don't worry, you'll make it to Heaven but the enlighten ones will be far more mature than you in the Kingdom.

Jesus will tell you, "Sorry it took so long. You had had to learn the hard way. Your mansion is next door to Hilter's. Welcome, Home, Petruchio, welcome home. "

​

 

[tulipbee]

​

Dr. Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

Dr. Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time."
"What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is."
​

 

[Petruchio]

Calvin, later, became more 'open' on salvation.

Your link doesn't say that. It just says "Calvin may have become more open" to it, and provides no evidence for it, and then paints Calvin's views as being abhorrent to Christianity and unhistorical, and himself as an enemy. And, furthermore, your link isn't exactly credible. It's a website that is denying Limited Atonement, which makes me wonder why you're posting in this forum.

Your agony and bitterness towards the Catholics or anyone will put you on temporary hold after death. After death, you'll go back one step til you find a way one step forward. If you keep taking one step backwards all the time, it might take you 32,053+ years to find that step forward towards the Heaven's Gate.

Is this Purgatory now? Luckily for me, Christ paid the penalty for my sins. Where's your source for this? It's not in the Bible. Is it Roman Catholic tradition? Or Buddhism?

Jesus will tell you, "Sorry it took so long. You had had to learn the hard way. Your mansion is next door to Hilter's. Welcome, Home, Petruchio, welcome home. "

No, this is outright Mormonism at this point, or derivative thereof, a denial of hellfire, and a doctrine of universal salvation after a period of punishment, and it is not Christianity. You will not find these vile doctrines within the scripture.

 

[hedrick]

Maybe we're not using the words in the same way. Luther, for example, believed in double predestination and the bondage of the will, just like Calvin who came after him. So how is one an inclusivist, and the other is not?

See Luther's commentary on Romans, A Study in Romans Unit One. Look for "One could ask the question whether the Gentiles" a few paragraphs after the start of commentary on 2:12. It certainly looks like classic inclusivism.

Double predestination doesn't either require or prohibit inclusivism. It says that God elects those who will be saved. He could choose to elect non-Christians or not.

 

[Petruchio]

Double predestination doesn't either require or prohibit inclusivism. It says that God elects those who will be saved. He could choose to elect non-Christians or not.

Well, it appears the definition of "inclusivism" is rather nebulous, as the other "Inclusivist" in this thread is a Universalist. Though maybe they meant the same thing all along, and I just got confused. And as far as I can tell with you, you are one also, a universalist that is, but maybe you hold that it is so with certain conditions. Perhaps, the right form of politics or holding to the correct sentiments, like the perverse Ghandi, which you imagine are special to the grace of God, though knowledge of Christ apparently isn't, despite both faith and instruction being promised to all the elect (John 6).

If Universalism is true, even with conditions, so that maybe a Hitler is left out, then double-predestination and limited atonement are undone, as well as Sola Fide, since faith in Christ is not necessary to be saved at all, but only correct sentiments, or maybe not even those, as the other fellow put Hitler beside me in a future heaven, after we get out of the Mormonic/Catholic purgation in 30 thousand years! (Though, he puts me out despite me having faith in Christ, which, in a way, double destroys Sola Fide.) The elect is just about everyone, in that case, with maybe only a really wicked few being predestinated to damnation, namely orthodox Christians, or perhaps just predestinated to spend a little extra time in the Mormonic outer-darkness, gnashing our teeth over our foolish desire to convert men to Christianity!

As for Luther, he is with me when he says that there is no salvation outside the Church. His speculations, and that is all they were, dealt only with the possibility of there being some saved among the Gentiles before the time of Christ, or, at best, those who had never heard of Christ at all through no fault of their own. And not all of them, but only a few, perhaps a Socrates, who he imagines may have received some knowledge of the divine, a rare and lonely recipient of grace, though without our clarity. In other words, as he describes them, the "invincibly ignorant," which he defines elsewhere as:

"... when one knows nothing of the laws described, whether human or divine," though this ignorance does not actually excuse them, as he goes on to say, "they are held innocent by worldly-wise people; but in Divinity they are not so, for St. Paul saith 'They are all gone out of the way,' and Death passed upon all men, for all have sinned; that is upon all, yea, even upon little children and sucklings." (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, tr. by H. Bell, Ch. 9)

This puts out any notion of your atheists or Hindus getting out of hell, since he would describe them as willfully ignorant, as having heard the Gospel but refused it, or else being guilty of "gross ignorance," that is, of not desiring to know the truth, or of "willful ignorance," as he describes all the Roman Catholics in that same chapter who "sin against the known truth" that was preached to them, though they refused to believe it.

But as for that notion of Socrates getting into heaven, an extraordinary case of one having received grace and received some vision of the divine, and therefore was a members of the church, though separated from the Jews; this I would also deny, since it is nothing more than speculation, and therefore I find it vain, and is nowhere taught in the scripture which only says that they are all under sin, yea, even little children and sucklings.

 

[tulipbee]

.... You will not find these vile doctrines within the scripture.

Vile? You just set yourself back another 75,000 years.

You can put BRB on your tombstoneS.

​

 

[hedrick]

Well, it appears the definition of "inclusivism" is rather nebulous, as the other "Inclusivist" in this thread is a Universalist. Though maybe they meant the same thing all along, and I just got confused. And as far as I can tell with you, you are one also, a universalist that is, but maybe you hold that it is so with certain conditions. Perhaps, the right form of politics or holding to the correct sentiments, like the perverse Ghandi, which you imagine are special to the grace of God, though knowledge of Christ apparently isn't, despite both faith and instruction being promised to all the elect (John 6).

Every analysis I’ve seen uses inclusivism in the same way: it means that it is possible that some non-Christians may be saved, though if they are, they are still saved through Christ. Luther’s explanation is typical. I don’t know whether Luther held it consistently or not. Inclusivism is not univeralism.

This position is fairly common, having been held also by Zwingli and Wesley. Surveys suggest that most Christians accept it at least in the case of unreached people.

Romans 2 implies it. Wikipedia has a larger list of quotes, Inclusivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, some of which are more convincing than others.

If Universalism is true, even with conditions, so that maybe a Hitler is left out, then double-predestination and limited atonement are undone, as well as Sola Fide, since faith in Christ is not necessary to be saved at all, but only correct sentiments, or maybe not even those, as the other fellow put Hitler beside me in a future heaven, after we get out of the Mormonic/Catholic purgation in 30 thousand years! (Though, he puts me out despite me having faith in Christ, which, in a way, double destroys Sola Fide.) The elect is just about everyone, in that case, with maybe only a really wicked few being predestinated to damnation, namely orthodox Christians, or perhaps just predestinated to spend a little extra time in the Mormonic outer-darkness, gnashing our teeth over our foolish desire to convert men to Christianity!

Double predestination is not undone. Indeed it is confirmed, given all the Scriptural statements about God wanting all to be saved. Limited atonement becomes a non-issue. At least in the US, universalism arose among liberal Reformed folk. I think the idea that God is in charge of who is saved is more likely to lead to universalism than the idea that we are responsible. After all, the concern is normally that a loving God wouldn’t allow anyone to be damned. Almost all answers reduce to something similar to the free will defense. That’s harder in a Reformed context.

Note that I don’t hold this position, because I think Jesus implies that not everyone is saved.

…
This puts out any notion of your atheists or Hindus getting out of hell, since he would describe them as willfully ignorant, as having heard the Gospel but refused it, or else being guilty of "gross ignorance," that is, of not desiring to know the truth, or of "willful ignorance," as he describes all the Roman Catholics in that same chapter who "sin against the known truth" that was preached to them, though they refused to believe it.

I’m not so sure we can judge who heard the Gospel accurately enough or gave it enough thought that they can be said to have willfully rejected it.

Many non-Christians think they have heard (and in some cases may actually have heard) that Christianity is both idolatrous and tritheist. I think it’s hard to say that they are rejecting the truth.

I can even construct situations where I believe one might be damned by accepting Christ. Suppose you are a Jew, in an area where Jews are being persecuted. You have certainly heard about Christ, but about you know about him is that his people hate God and his people. If someone accepted it out of cowardice, I think you can make a good case that they have rejected God.

But as for that notion of Socrates getting into heaven, an extraordinary case of one having received grace and received some vision of the divine, and therefore was a members of the church, though separated from the Jews; this I would also deny, since it is nothing more than speculation, and therefore I find it vain, and is nowhere taught in the scripture which only says that they are all under sin, yea, even little children and sucklings.

Of course it’s a speculation. I would never teach that any particular person is saved. Inclusivim says merely that there seems to be reason to think that it it possible for non-Christians to be saved. The doctrine wouldn’t even exist except as a response to exclusive claims.

 

[createdtoworship]

Every analysis I’ve seen uses inclusivism in the same way: it means that it is possible that some non-Christians may be saved, though if they are, they are still saved through Christ. Luther’s explanation is typical. I don’t know whether Luther held it consistently or not. Inclusivism is not univeralism.

This position is fairly common, having been held also by Zwingli and Wesley. Surveys suggest that most Christians accept it at least in the case of unreached people.

Romans 2 implies it. Wikipedia has a larger list of quotes, Inclusivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, some of which are more convincing than others.



Double predestination is not undone. Indeed it is confirmed, given all the Scriptural statements about God wanting all to be saved. Limited atonement becomes a non-issue. At least in the US, universalism arose among liberal Reformed folk. I think the idea that God is in charge of who is saved is more likely to lead to universalism than the idea that we are responsible. After all, the concern is normally that a loving God wouldn’t allow anyone to be damned. Almost all answers reduce to something similar to the free will defense. That’s harder in a Reformed context.

Note that I don’t hold this position, because I think Jesus implies that not everyone is saved.



I’m not so sure we can judge who heard the Gospel accurately enough or gave it enough thought that they can be said to have willfully rejected it.

Many non-Christians think they have heard (and in some cases may actually have heard) that Christianity is both idolatrous and tritheist. I think it’s hard to say that they are rejecting the truth.

I can even construct situations where I believe one might be damned by accepting Christ. Suppose you are a Jew, in an area where Jews are being persecuted. You have certainly heard about Christ, but about you know about him is that his people hate God and his people. If someone accepted it out of cowardice, I think you can make a good case that they have rejected God.



Of course it’s a speculation. I would never teach that any particular person is saved. Inclusivim says merely that there seems to be reason to think that it it possible for non-Christians to be saved. The doctrine wouldn’t even exist except as a response to exclusive claims.

if it's not exclusive to faith in Christ it's universalism, regardless of who it is inclusive to. IMHO

exclusivism according to bakers encyclopedia of christian apologetics:

"This is based on the logical law of excluded middle (either A or non-A, but not both). This law states that, if A is true, then all non-A is false (see LOGIC; FIRST PRINCIPLES).
Religious exclusivism affirms that only one religion can be true, and all others opposed to the one true religion must be false. Several terms related to religious pluralism must be distinguished: pluralism, relativism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. Pluralism is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate....Exclusivism (on the other hand) is the belief that only one religion is true, and the others opposed to it are false."

Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (238). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[Petruchio]

Romans 2

Romans 2 is not your friend, if you recall. Let's not insert little assertions you have no intention of defending here.

Double predestination is not undone. Indeed it is confirmed, given all the Scriptural statements about God wanting all to be saved. Limited atonement becomes a non-issue. At least in the US, universalism arose among liberal Reformed folk.

This sounds like complete confusion. How do you reconcile the predestination of the reprobate to damnation with "limited atonement" becoming a non-issue? In order to deny Double predestination, one customarily makes limited atonement a non-issue. This certainly isn't the reformed view, and if God wants all to be saved in the context of His secret counsel, then all will be saved, and so double predestination is undone, and your words are just a jumble of heterodox confusion.

I suggest you recheck the forum guidelines, by the way:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7423440/

Note that I don’t hold this position, because I think Jesus implies that not everyone is saved.

Which makes me wonder why you even mention it! Just to fill up the page? But at least, if you don't even believe it, then I don't have to respond to them. But as for "implies," that's a pretty soft word considering Christ says it directly. You're going to have to be a lot stronger in your language if you expect me to believe you're not a creeping Universalist, just afraid to stand up for yourself.

I’m not so sure we can judge who heard the Gospel accurately enough or gave it enough thought that they can be said to have willfully rejected it.

We are told in the scripture that NO one "accurately" understands it but by the Holy Ghost, since the carnal mind is an enemy of God, and cannot see or know anything that is spiritual. This is Christianity 101.

You also fall back into suggestions of free-will, after seemingly rejecting it, by saying "giving it enough thought" as if it isn't God who reveals these truths to the person like an arrow to the heart.

This, again, is not Reformed thought.

I can even construct situations where I believe one might be damned by accepting Christ.

But all your constructions stand upon the proposition that God doesn't save anyone, but that we are saved by our own free-will assent of the mind without the Holy Ghost. You know not the power of God, so you are full of inventions.

 

[hedrick]

if it's not exclusive to faith in Christ it's universalism, regardless of who it is inclusive to. IMHO

What is this? The humpty-dumpty theory of definitions? Universalism means that everyone ends up saved. Inclusivism means that only some people are saved, but that salvation is not necessarily restricted to Christians.

 

[Petruchio]

What is this? The humpty-dumpty theory of definitions? Universalism means that everyone ends up saved. Inclusivism means that only some people are saved, but that salvation is not necessarily restricted to Christians.

What he's getting at, I think, is the sophistry implicit within this "Inclusivism," or Universalism with some conditions. In practice, it saves everyone, except for maybe the "really" bad, which is an entirely subjective judgment. Ghandi, for example, is someone whom you say would be saved, even though he was a pervert. Thus you save him only because of certain correct sentiments you perceive him having. We can reasonably conclude that everyone who shares in those sentiments would, in your view, likely be saved, even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. Once you remove the exclusivity of faith in Christ, all you really have is an anti-intellectual feel good theology, perfect for modern day liberalism, but not so for Christianity.

 

[createdtoworship]

What is this? The humpty-dumpty theory of definitions? Universalism means that everyone ends up saved. Inclusivism means that only some people are saved, but that salvation is not necessarily restricted to Christians.

true, but in many religiouns this is the case. But you are correct.

inclusivism is just as false as universalism. One has the universal religiouns as true, and the other has the universal salvation of all people. They are mildly related. I can see why someone would confuse the terms.

 

[tulipbee]

What is this? The humpty-dumpty theory of definitions? Universalism means that everyone ends up saved. Inclusivism means that only some people are saved, but that salvation is not necessarily restricted to Christians.

Thanks for clearing this up and that returns to reformed. Memorize it folks.

 

[hedrick]

inclusivism is just as false as universalism. One has the universal religiouns as true, and the other has the universal salvation of all people. They are mildly related. I can see why someone would confuse the terms.

Who said anything about all religions being true? Religions aren’t alike. Some may come from an experience of God, but are missing the key to his plan, which is Jesus. Some seem more like a perversion of religion. They can't possibly all be true.

Inclusivism doesn’t assert that all religions save. It asserts that God saves, and way possibly choose to save some who are part of non-Christian religions. They would love God and neighbor and repent when they fail. Likely they would experience Christ. Perhaps they belong to a religion that knows of Jesus, and have a sense of him that goes beyond what their religion teaches. Perhaps they know of him without knowing his name. This is all conjecture.

But the point is that inclusivism doesn’t teach that all religions are alike, or even that all of them are helpful.

 

[tulipbee]

...Inclusivism doesn’t assert that all religions save.

Most Fundies ask me how I know I'm Elect like they need an answer for proof just for themselves. They won't be satisfied til they get some evidence that the Elects believe through works or a model of something. Works prove to the Fundies that the elects really do believe but it is always been God that saves according to His Own Will and not ours.

They seem to miss the most simple points.
|
|

​

Jesus loves and forgives us a lot more than we think while it almost appears to be universialism to hard workers. The thankful hopeful Inclusivist Calvinists are glad that there might be a lot more Elects going to Heaven than they think while Arminians/Romans/Cults are jealous and don't think that many should be Elects due to their appearance or evidence by works and divide the house among themselves to build new denominations while thinking their mansions in Heaven will get crowded.

|
|
The Fundies must remember that some of
the non-Christians will simply take
the gift as God knew they would.

​

 

[tulipbee]

There are a lot more beaches in Heaven than
some think but the Fundies don't think theres room
for any more of God's Chosen people.
​

 

[Petruchio]

Most Fundies ask me how I know I'm Elect like they need an answer for proof just for themselves.

Probably the first step would be to see whether you hold to the same Gospel as that of the Apostles:

Galatians 1:7-9 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

If you don't, then you're not a member of the elect, but are one of those whom we are commanded to not even wish "God speed" to, because you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ:

2 John 1:9-11 "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

 

[createdtoworship]

Who said anything about all religions being true? Religions aren’t alike. Some may come from an experience of God, but are missing the key to his plan, which is Jesus. Some seem more like a perversion of religion. They can't possibly all be true.

Inclusivism doesn’t assert that all religions save. It asserts that God saves, and way possibly choose to save some who are part of non-Christian religions. They would love God and neighbor and repent when they fail. Likely they would experience Christ. Perhaps they belong to a religion that knows of Jesus, and have a sense of him that goes beyond what their religion teaches. Perhaps they know of him without knowing his name. This is all conjecture.

But the point is that inclusivism doesn’t teach that all religions are alike, or even that all of them are helpful.

I think you misunderstand inclusivism, or at least pose a differing view of it.

inclusivism is not universalism as you rightly stated. But inclusivism is in fact similiar to pluralism IMHO but I may be wrong. What do you think?