Universalism & Inclusivism

[RBerman]

Often times many confuse who the audiences are, and why certain things are being said. In one example Paul Praises the Romans.. In that their faith goes throughout the world, and he is talking to the Roman Church.. But he's not talking about the Roman Christian convert in his comments, but the Roman itself.. Their Faith ruled the civilized world not the Christian Roman convert.. He is confirming Christ comments at Capernaum on the Great Roman faith.

That's the first time I've heard the proposition that Paul is generally praising Roman society for its success in dominating the Mediterranean area with martial law. Here's the actual text in question:

Romans 1:1-12

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

I really don't know how you can read that and think that the "faith proclaimed throughout the world" is Roman society in general, rather than faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Or perhaps I misread your claim?

The world outside of Israel had no scripture for it is the property of Israel alone.. It is their archive and history of their origins and their personal relationshiop with THEIR GOD... Many don't understand that it was Israel who was under the judgment of hell fire because they needed redemption... The gentiles was a Law unto itself by faith and his conciences was his Guide and Paul confirms that.. As written in the scripture..God has so put it in the world that we will be without excuse..

The Gentiles are "without excuse" in the sense that they too are under judgment of hellfire despite not having received the Torah, because the principles of Torah are part of the human heart anyway, so those who violate Torah don't get to claim that they acted in ignorance and thus are not liable to judgment. That's why Paul can conclude, "we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (Romans 3:9,19)

He didn't say he put in in the scripture that we will be without excuse... No one understands all of the scripture and division usually starts when some ignore the existing leadership in preference of ther own understanding... Universalism isn't the inclusion of all but justifies a faith who's consciences works to preserve the soul.. Adam brought a Curse because of his transgression and that curse was redeemed through Christ blood.. CHrist redeemed the Adamic Man.. The gentiles weren't the descendents of Adam the israelites were.. Adam's prupose was to do what the church now does through Christ the redeemer of all because faith existed before one word of scripture was ever written...

Sometimes division starts when "existing leadership" goes astray, ignoring God's Word in preference of their own understanding. Leaders are just men. There's nothing magical that protects them from error. But you seem to be confusing universalism and inclusivism. Universalism is the universal inclusion of all. That's why it's called "universalism." Inclusivism, on the other hand, is what you seem to be proposing: Some men are good enough to satisfy God's expectations of them. There's another name for that: Pelagianism.

[maudman]

That's the first time I've heard the proposition that Paul is generally praising Roman society for its success in dominating the Mediterranean area with martial law. Here's the actual text in question:

Romans 1:1-12

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

I really don't know how you can read that and think that the "faith proclaimed throughout the world" is Roman society in general, rather than faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Or perhaps I misread your claim?



The Gentiles are "without excuse" in the sense that they too are under judgment of hellfire despite not having received the Torah, because the principles of Torah are part of the human heart anyway, so those who violate Torah don't get to claim that they acted in ignorance and thus are not liable to judgment. That's why Paul can conclude, "we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (Romans 3:9,19)



Sometimes division starts when "existing leadership" goes astray, ignoring God's Word in preference of their own understanding. Leaders are just men. There's nothing magical that protects them from error. But you seem to be confusing universalism and inclusivism. Universalism is the universal inclusion of all. That's why it's called "universalism." Inclusivism, on the other hand, is what you seem to be proposing: Some men are good enough to satisfy God's expectations of them. There's another name for that: Pelagianism.

Hello Rberman..

No you aren't mistaken what I have said or presumed I meant..

Your Just not reading or presenting all that is written or talked about in scripture.. You're just picking certain scripture and not all the scripture that can be quoted.. So many present things to re-enforce thier presupposion on or toward inclusion... YOu see you presume to know what Paul is talking about.. You see Paul is Praising those Roman Converts for putting their Roman Faith in CHrist.. Faith isn't something you get from believing in Christ as so many Priotestant believe... It is something you already have and each man is given it by measure from Birth as a Gift of God.. Romans representing Christ is what Paul is rejoicing in because their faith is all over the place in the Roman Culture not just the things you pick and chosse about their culture to justify your Presupposion.. One example given of a particular Roman according to Christ had more faith that of any in Israel at Capernaum of which one example is given by Christ.. Romans had no scripture only the Jews had scripture and the only thing Romans knew of a Christ messiah was a threat to their percieved threats.. Abrahams faith was considered his righteousness before any scripture had ever been written.. Universalism can be expressed just as we express abortion is wrong and not just for Christian.. Or CHrist died so all could be judged... Universalism accounts for all but not all recieve the same rewards.. Universalism is very general and is confused with other things as all are equal in all things and that isn't what universalism means...

It has nothing to do with the rewards that some shall have because Univeralism doesn't genralize works.. ... I mean rewards..

Peace and Godbless RBerman

Edited to add.. Universalism points to certain works that all cultures have and that these works can be expressed as a form of righteousnes with God and that Sin being the works of some as long as not satanic will have their penalty as does others works... Universalism simply recognises that which God had preordained as Good before sin entered the world through Adam.. Sin came by the heraring of the Law as the Lord spoke or commaned.. There was no sin before then..

[RBerman]

Your Just not reading or presenting all that is written or talked about in scripture.. You're just picking certain scripture and not all the scripture that can be quoted.. So many present things to re-enforce thier presupposion on or toward inclusion... YOu see you presume to know what Paul is talking about.. You see Paul is Praising those Roman Converts for putting their Roman Faith in CHrist.. Faith isn't something you get from believing in Christ as so many Priotestant believe... It is something you already have and each man is given it by measure from Birth as a Gift of God.. Romans representing Christ is what Paul is rejoicing in because their faith is all over the place in the Roman Culture not just the things you pick and chosse about their culture to justify your Presupposion.. One example given of a particular Roman according to Christ had more faith that of any in Israel at Capernaum of which one example is given by Christ.. Romans had no scripture only the Jews had scripture and the only thing Romans knew of a Christ messiah was a threat to their percieved threats.. Abrahams faith was considered his righteousness before any scripture had ever been written.. Universalism can be expressed just as we express abortion is wrong and not just for Christian.. Or CHrist died so all could be judged... Universalism accounts for all but not all recieve the same rewards.. Universalism is very general and is confused with other things as all are equal in all things and that isn't what universalism means...

I simply don't see these things taught in Scripture. As a Roman Catholic, surely you have the discernment to say that your viewpoint is not based on Scripture, but rather on the teachings of your leaders, which you consider sufficient.

It has nothing to do with the rewards that some shall have because Univeralism doesn't genralize works.. ... I mean rewards.. Edited to add.. Universalism points to certain works that all cultures have and that these works can be expressed as a form of righteousnes with God and that Sin being the works of some as long as not satanic will have their penalty as does others works... Universalism simply recognises that which God had preordained as Good before sin entered the world through Adam.. Sin came by the heraring of the Law as the Lord spoke or commaned.. There was no sin before then..

Universalism teaches that good or evil earthly works are irrelevant, because everyone is ultimately saved. Inclusivism teaches that good earthly works and generally moral attitudes cause God to save some who reject Christ. God was giving commands very shortly after God created Adam, in Genesis 1. And even without the commands, God's law was still written on Adam's heart from the moment of creation.

[maudman]

I simply don't see these things taught in Scripture. As a Roman Catholic, surely you have the discernment to say that your viewpoint is not based on Scripture, but rather on the teachings of your leaders, which you consider sufficient.



Universalism teaches that good or evil earthly works are irrelevant, because everyone is ultimately saved. Inclusivism teaches that good earthly works and generally moral attitudes cause God to save some who reject Christ. God was giving commands very shortly after God created Adam, in Genesis 1. And even without the commands, God's law was still written on Adam's heart from the moment of creation.

That is what its all about in the human condition is that some can't see things in scripture.. Yeah Adam had been given two simple commands.. You may eat and you may not eat.... But man was created male and female on the sixth day when God created man and told to go fourth a mutiply Adam wasn't in the seven day creation week but after.. ... There has been so many rewritings of it and there are different things that come from it because of people levels of understanding? .How do you know you have it all? or can have a complete confidence that God has given that to you.. Scripture teaches God gives different Gifts what is yours?

If Adam isn't the first man ever created? And man existed before Adam.. To truly understand universalism is to understand things not seen or accepted in traditional theology because of things believed as to the right meaning of things in scripture... To understand it in context with things not often considered traditional theology.. Who have you trusted that you can confidently say you have all the truth.. Are you saying you don't have leadership? Do you completely ignore the work that proceed us in just having the scripture handed down generation after generation and reinterpreted over and over again?

If I say Adam is the first man ever created.. It probably ""wouldn't"" mean the same things as if you said it... Because of Context.. Universalism teaches that God's grace and mercy extends to all but doesn't address the issue of whether any or all will accept it.. It's why suicide as in Judas is a point of contention because he rejects or ultimately refuses to seek the forgiveness... It teaches that we should hate the sin not the sinner but it doesn't say what God's Final judgment is.. Although we believe that Whatever it is? God will have done all that is in his will that none shall be lost... It doesn't say what none is because the true context is God's...

Peace and God Bless

[RBerman]

That is what its all about in the human condition is that some can't see things in scripture.. Yeah Adam had been given two simple commands.. You may eat and you may not eat.... But man was created male and female on the sixth day when God created man and told to go fourth a mutiply Adam wasn't in the seven day creation week but after.. ... There has been so many rewritings of it and there are different things that come from it because of people levels of understanding? .How do you know you have it all? or can have a complete confidence that God has given that to you.. Scripture teaches God gives different Gifts what is yours?

If Adam isn't the first man ever created? And man existed before Adam.. To truly understand universalism is to understand things not seen or accepted in traditional theology because of things believed as to the right meaning of things in scripture... To understand it in context with things not often considered traditional theology.. Who have you trusted that you can confidently say you have all the truth.. Are you saying you don't have leadership? Do you completely ignore the work that proceed us in just having the scripture handed down generation after generation and reinterpreted over and over again?

If I say Adam is the first man ever created.. It probably ""wouldn't"" mean the same things as if you said it... Because of Context.. Universalism teaches that God's grace and mercy extends to all but doesn't address the issue of whether any or all will accept it.. It's why suicide as in Judas is a point of contention because he rejects or ultimately refuses to seek the forgiveness... It teaches that we should hate the sin not the sinner but it doesn't say what God's Final judgment is.. Although we believe that Whatever it is? God will have done all that is in his will that none shall be lost... It doesn't say what none is because the true context is God's.

Your point appears to be that one's view of the historicity of the Bible (e.g. the creation of Adam) affects one's theology. I agree. If you feel justified in ignoring the Bible based on your belief that "there have been so many rewritings of it" then there's really not much for us to talk about, because I trust the Bible.

[maudman]

Your point appears to be that one's view of the historicity of the Bible (e.g. the creation of Adam) affects one's theology. I agree. If you feel justified in ignoring the Bible based on your belief that "there have been so many rewritings of it" then there's really not much for us to talk about, because I trust the Bible.

It's not that I feel justified in ignoring anything I don't.. For the majority of human history only a few has had scripture translated in a language they could understand, and even fewer had access to it.. Much less understanding things in a culture they were never part of.. How can you trust what you can't understand?
I have limited trust in the bible because I can't completely trust myself to grasp everything it is about.. When we make statements about what we say the bible means we are trusting people not the bible.. Beliefs are handed down generation to generation.. When people brake away from one group to another or start something new altogether it has always been over what some say things mean.. Right or Wrong..

Maybe it would be better to say that we trust that God knows what he's doing and we hope were in his plans? The bible justifies God not us.. Understanding its contents is for reason not all are noble in doing..

Peace and God Rberman...

[RBerman]

It's not that I feel justified in ignoring anything I don't.. For the majority of human history only a few has had scripture translated in a language they could understand, and even fewer had access to it.. Much less understanding things in a culture they were never part of.. How can you trust what you can't understand?

Understanding is not all-or-nothing. I feel comfortable that we understand Biblical cultures enough to read the Bible with understanding. There are occasional things that we miss, but those are the exception, not the rule.

I have limited trust in the bible because I can't completely trust myself to grasp everything it is about.. When we make statements about what we say the bible means we are trusting people not the bible.. Beliefs are handed down generation to generation.. When people brake away from one group to another or start something new altogether it has always been over what some say things mean.. Right or Wrong. Maybe it would be better to say that we trust that God knows what he's doing and we hope were in his plans? The bible justifies God not us.. Understanding its contents is for reason not all are noble in doing.

You are mixing up your trust in the Bible (that what it says is true) with your trust in your own interpretive abilities. It's fine to recognize that you're imperfect and thus may misunderstand the Bible. But then again, you can just as easily misunderstand men. Surely you don't let your imperfect interpretive abilities prevent you from assigning meaning to all the things that you hear people say all day long. You go with what you do understand, and you're prepared to make adjustments if new evidence shows that your original understanding was incorrect. Do the same with the Bible. Read it. Try to understand it. Believe it. Be ready to look at it afresh when need be.

[maudman]

Understanding is not all-or-nothing. I feel comfortable that we understand Biblical cultures enough to read the Bible with understanding. There are occasional things that we miss, but those are the exception, not the rule.



You are mixing up your trust in the Bible (that what it says is true) with your trust in your own interpretive abilities. It's fine to recognize that you're imperfect and thus may misunderstand the Bible. But then again, you can just as easily misunderstand men. Surely you don't let your imperfect interpretive abilities prevent you from assigning meaning to all the things that you hear people say all day long. You go with what you do understand, and you're prepared to make adjustments if new evidence shows that your original understanding was incorrect. Do the same with the Bible. Read it. Try to understand it. Believe it. Be ready to look at it afresh when need be.

Hello RBerman,

I don't disagree with any of your comments..

It's just I don't think there is much else to learn from the bible That isn't already known by the church.. Others may feel differenty... The apostles knew most every things that was needed and that understadning was passed down in an oral tradtion as well as a written one in some cases.. Very little was written considering the history of a work involving 6000 years or more... If the CHurch feeds with milk and meat then surely it possessed that which was sufficiant.. Plus most don't have the same bibles as others.. Catholic bible has more books and that would mean to most others that some don't have all the bible.. Of course you can claim corruption or it doesn't matter if you want...
I guess my point would be that I posseess a spirit that desires to do the things that have nothing to do with that knowledge but how it receives it i Guess.. And not only that..But that the things that have to do with the spirit.. The bible can't help us there because that is a gift from God when it's Holy.. Too why is the bible a book for most of its history a book for a very small group of people, and written in a language only they truly understood... In prophecy and prophetic vision that is significant.. Its understanding is for those who have been appointed by God to understand.. The bible is clear about the gifts God has given.. And not all have the same gifts.. Most are limited in what they can understand in the context that is required..

In my opionion People have been taking the same approch to bible study as they have with imperical knowledge.. They ignore that Gods will is involve and assume their abilities is all that is needed ignoring that (In the Bible) such knowledge is a gift and ignore the premesis on which a gift is given.. Even when understood (perls) weren't to be cast before swine... I just think thiere is a whole lot more to all this but I don't disagree that if one fits within certain peramiters some things you say are applicable.. God didn't need a bible to save the world and he doesn't need one to resurrect it.. To me that is the big difference.. Universalism accounts for things that many ignore and inclusivism is for those to whom God has given greater accountability.. That is why I say it is Both... That is why only certain things are taught because the greater judgment lies with those who have recieved the Greater knowledge.. If not done right? The judgment is worse with the greater knowledge.. That is the example in the Scripture..


Peace and God bless..

[Cerebrum123]

God's law was still written on Adam's heart from the moment of creation.

Personally, I would say that it wasn't there until after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that that knowledge is passed onto us through being descendants of Adam and Eve.

[RBerman]

Personally, I would say that it wasn't there until after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that that knowledge is passed onto us through being descendants of Adam and Eve.

It's not a topic the Bible treats specifically either way. But it seems to me that the very fact of Adam as God's creation implicitly puts Adam under God's authority. Of course, it's a moot question since God did in fact personally deliver commands to Adam. Even before he ate, Adam was told that it would be evil to do so.

[Cerebrum123]

It's not a topic the Bible treats specifically either way. But it seems to me that the very fact of Adam as God's creation implicitly puts Adam under God's authority. Of course, it's a moot question since God did in fact personally deliver commands to Adam. Even before he ate, Adam was told that it would be evil to do so.

True, but I personally think that if that event had never happened(not saying that's actually possible) that we would have to be told not to do either by God, or by someone else. The first thing the serpent said to Eve basically questioned whether or not God actually gave that command, and suggests that she had been told by Adam, instead of directly by God. Anyway, I was just saying what I personally believed about the issue, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

[RBerman]

I don't disagree with any of your comments. It's just I don't think there is much else to learn from the bible That isn't already known by the church..

Yes and no. I don't expect to discover any new general principles from the Bible. But those principles do find new expression in each new circumstance across time and space. Some cultures need to hear, "You must forgive as you have been forgiven." Some need to hear, "You must be holy, as God is holy." Some need to hear, "You shall not murder." Some need to hear, "Six days you shall work." And so on.

The apostles knew most every things that was needed and that understadning was passed down in an oral tradtion as well as a written one in some cases.. Very little was written considering the history of a work involving 6000 years or more... If the CHurch feeds with milk and meat then surely it possessed that which was sufficiant.

I don't know many people that would look to the Dark Ages as the model for their ideal church. Yes, the church survived through times of low literacy and limited availability of the Bible. Man can survive on 500 calories a day too, but it's not what we aim for.

In my opionion People have been taking the same approch to bible study as they have with imperical knowledge.. They ignore that Gods will is involve and assume their abilities is all that is needed ignoring that (In the Bible) such knowledge is a gift and ignore the premesis on which a gift is given.. Even when understood (perls) weren't to be cast before swine... I just think thiere is a whole lot more to all this but I don't disagree that if one fits within certain peramiters some things you say are applicable.. God didn't need a bible to save the world and he doesn't need one to resurrect it.. To me that is the big difference.. Universalism accounts for things that many ignore and inclusivism is for those to whom God has given greater accountability.. That is why I say it is Both... That is why only certain things are taught because the greater judgment lies with those who have recieved the Greater knowledge.. If not done right? The judgment is worse with the greater knowledge.. That is the example in the Scripture.

I don't know which "people" you're talking about who ignore the premise on which the Bible is given. It's not a question of whether God needs to use the Bible. The fact of the matter is that God gave us the Bible as a gift, and God's gifts are good, and worthy of being used. Universalism may "account for things that many ignore," but it doesn't account for the message God has told us in the Bible: We are saved by calling on the name of Jesus in faith. Those who do not call on Jesus' name will not be saved. You are correct that greater judgment results when one disobeys greater knowledge, but that's not a reason to avoid proclaiming the Word of God as we have been commanded to do.

[maudman]

Yes and no. I don't expect to discover any new general principles from the Bible. But those principles do find new expression in each new circumstance across time and space. Some cultures need to hear, "You must forgive as you have been forgiven." Some need to hear, "You must be holy, as God is holy." Some need to hear, "You shall not murder." Some need to hear, "Six days you shall work." And so on.



I don't know many people that would look to the Dark Ages as the model for their ideal church. Yes, the church survived through times of low literacy and limited availability of the Bible. Man can survive on 500 calories a day too, but it's not what we aim for.



I don't know which "people" you're talking about who ignore the premise on which the Bible is given. It's not a question of whether God needs to use the Bible. The fact of the matter is that God gave us the Bible as a gift, and God's gifts are good, and worthy of being used. Universalism may "account for things that many ignore," but it doesn't account for the message God has told us in the Bible: We are saved by calling on the name of Jesus in faith. Those who do not call on Jesus' name will not be saved. You are correct that greater judgment results when one disobeys greater knowledge, but that's not a reason to avoid proclaiming the Word of God as we have been commanded to do.

Hello Rberman..

I would think the Dark ages would be a great place to study and learn about the Church.. I mean what better example is those who remain faithful in such times..
I think that is how some theology gets turned is how some think some things are more important for their own important reasons.. Not to sound to anti Bible or the studing of such things...Often many turn to it or other things for comfort.. RCC don't ignore the Person or the people.. We don't seperate their holyness from the Bible.. As Christ stated: He that has done it to the least of these my bretheren has done it unto me.. Christ Put the person on a personal level with God.. Those who believe in him and does the will of the father are his Mother and Brother and sister as written... My brother is my brother no matter what he reads..IN the natural order not everyone is my brother or sister but they aren't anyless loved by God.. In one parable we're the labors not the harvest...

To many Jews to call on him was to be saved because to ultimately reject him was something much worse.. It's not like saying those before Christ are all condemed and that isn't what CHrist taught about Sodom at Capernaum.. No scripture even existed and The Lord God only visited Abraham.. There are things done for particular reasons and there are things said for particular reasons... Basic theology will always get in the way of bible study.. People have been condition to think a certain way and when works are ignored like even the publicans tried and were seen in greater favor then some religious scripture totten scribes and Pharisee.. The only ones to go around quoting scripture in there time and it brought the greatest Critisims of Our Lord.. If those who had scripture had it all wrong? That should be a warning for those who think they can just pick it up and read it like a science book..

Peace and God bless Rberman..

[hedrick]

I don't see that inclusivism is works based. The point isn't the people can be justified by works. I'd guess that agnostics who are saved (the main category I know personally) would be some who do good because it is good, understanding that they're imperfect and don't expect any reward for what they do.

I tend to see Jesus' work as objective. That is, I think his death actually set up new possibilities. I also think that we've got many people in the US (I can't speak for other cultures) who are living in accordance with large parts of Jesus' teachings without quite being able to accept God's role. I still trace the good parts of their lives back to Jesus. It seems to me that the most problematical cultures currently are those who know least about Jesus and are most resistant to the Gospel. I think it's important to evangelize them, as the current cultures seem sufficiently toxic that they're likely to be producing far fewer people who can hear God than a Christian culture would.

I'm also concerned that as the influence of Christianity recedes in the US, we're going to see more and more self-destructive people. I wish I could be a universalist, but I can't. I think people can destroy themselves, and I think the Gospel is important. But I'm not sure it's quite so simple as all Christians being saved and all non-Christians being damned.

[maudman]

I don't see that inclusivism is works based. The point isn't the people can be justified by works. I'd guess that agnostics who are saved (the main category I know personally) would be some who do good because it is good, understanding that they're imperfect and don't expect any reward for what they do.

That seems noble but really that might be a little off to me.. No one is justified by Works.. But rather rewarded for their works... As the Apostle tried to justify themselves to CHrist..Saying; " We have forsaken all to follow you" Christ reply: no one has forsaken everything to fallow me for nothing" No one does anything for nothing.. The reasons are just less emperialistic...

I tend to see Jesus' work as objective. That is, I think his death actually set up new possibilities. I also think that we've got many people in the US (I can't speak for other cultures) who are living in accordance with large parts of Jesus' teachings without quite being able to accept God's role. I still trace the good parts of their lives back to Jesus. It seems to me that the most problematical cultures currently are those who know least about Jesus and are most resistant to the Gospel. I think it's important to evangelize them, as the current cultures seem sufficiently toxic that they're likely to be producing far fewer people who can hear God than a Christian culture would.

I'm also concerned that as the influence of Christianity recedes in the US, we're going to see more and more self-destructive people. I wish I could be a universalist, but I can't. I think people can destroy themselves, and I think the Gospel is important. But I'm not sure it's quite so simple as all Christians being saved and all non-Christians being damned.

Its easy for things to get confusing in this world and maybe in particular our times.. With everyones Problems in our homes.. But those things are the things that bring people down because they aren't helpful in a works based manner.. I don't mean works as in people spouting what they believe and convinceing others they need to be as they are.. People have other problems that are about their literal survival and what people believe won't change that situation..

But hear is something for folks to ponder.. The reaason you have Incusivism and Universalism is because there are actually two things going on in the truth of a very few statements in scripture.. Gods plan was both in a manner of speaking... That God loves universally for Inclusiveness... What does it really mean to love your enemy?