Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2008

Being dogmatic.

At some point, after saying goodbye to the institutionalism, as I saw NOT being dogmatic is a fashion among liberals, I foolishly tried to follow them. I tried to be 'liberal', tolerating and accepting by being non-dogmatic. I thought biblical doctrines weren't that fashionable, especially when we hear stuff like 'Oh..don't be too dogmatic on that'.

If doctrines weren't that important, why did Apostle Paul write 14 Epistles?

At the same time, I don't want put some big theological words out there and see everything in life through the eyes of a 'theologian'. That is not my point.

I am still not dogmatic (and don't want to be) in so many issues of daily life but when it comes to SALVATION, I have to be dogmatic. There is no other way we can understand what salvation truly is. I have observed among those who practice Christianity, evangelical Christianity, only a very few percentage truly knows what 'Salvation' really means. For some, it's being in 'nirvana', for some it is escaping hell and for some it is getting our sins forgiven, for some it is a way to achieve sinless perfection, for some it is finding God in 'everything', for some it is charity, social activities and good works. But, what truly is salvation in the light of New Testament and how can we explain that without being dogmatic?

Is it time to get back to some of the fundamentals of Christian faith?

I am seeing the stuff like, universalism, Calvinism etc and I truly think all these theologies are the result of a poor understanding of the fundamentals of Biblical Salvation in the light of Gospel.

No matter how beautifully we can build, if the premise (foundation) is not right, we miss the point, right?

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Universalism

After reading some of the discussions around ‘The Shack’ and ‘Divine Nobodies’ over in Joel’s blog, it appears to me that the issue brought up by many is the issue of Universalism.
Though I am not an expert on Universalism, I can kind of figure out it as a belief that everybody is saved (some how). It wouldn’t take a whole lot of time to figure out from Bible that the idea of universal salvation is simply not true.

I am not going to do a detailed bible study on this other than quoting couple of key verses.

Argument 1:

Does God love all? Absolutely!
Didn’t Christ die for all? Absolutely!
Isn’t it the death of Christ what provides forgiveness? Yes!
So, if Christ died for all and He loves all, didn’t He provide forgiveness for all? Yes!
So, aren’t we all saved? NO!

Why?

Because salvation is not getting our sins forgiven.

So, what is salvation?

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! -Romans 5:10

We are saved through His life, not through His death. But the death (shedding of blood) was needed for providing forgiveness; which is a prerequisite for salvation. Unless we are cleansed of all the sins, He is not going to impart His life to us. Jesus died to take away our sins and rose from dead on the third day to give us salvation (life); and that happens when we put our faith in Him and in what He did for us. (John 1:12)

Argument 2:

Aren’t all people created in the image of God? No!

Why?

Because Bible says so.

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
“you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature”

According to the Bible, we are born into this world spiritually dead. As a dead person, what we need is life. In the entire history of humankind, there is only one person who claimed that He can give us life, that is Jesus (John 10:10). When we receive His life (by putting faith) , we are re-created (born again) by God to be indwelled by Him, there by restoring our true humanity (which Adam originally had before his fall).

The books:

I have greatly enjoyed both the books in discussion (I am half way through Divine Nobodies as of now). Do I agree with everything in those books? Probably not. But I think it is okay because those books are not meant to be doctrinal books anyways. The only reason I didn't include some of my negative comments when I did a review on 'The Shack', that I didn't want to discourage anyone from picking that book. Both books have more positives than negatives. I would very well agree with Wayne about any book: "I never view a book as all good or all bad. It’s like eating chicken. Enjoy what you think is the meat and toss what you think are the bones."