This is something I posted on another forum in response to the question, "Do do people in different religions worship the same God?"
I think that there's only one God, and that He is "the One of Whom it is impossible to conceive any greater," to paraphrase theological language. So anyone seeking/worshiping God in terms of the Ultimate, is seeking/worshiping the only God there is. So how can we say "they worship a different God"? I think we can only say "Their conception of God is different." As Christians, I think we can also say (hopefully with some humility, recognizing our own imperfect grasp of spiritual truth), "I think their conception of God is wrong, based on God's revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ." But I'm not sure we, in our human limitations, can say, "I'm certain that they're not worshiping the real God."
I make a distinction between beliefs about God and belief (as in trust) in God. I know Romans 10 says that the goodness and nature of God are proclaimed through nature when there is no other gospel preached, and I believe that when Jesus said "I will draw all men unto Me" He indeed meant all. So I think the real question (which we cannot ever answer with our own limited knowledge) is "who is responding to God's drawing by putting trust in One who is the greatest they can conceive? I think Christians do need to take into account Christ's words that "no one comes to the Father but through Me," But couldn't that mean that because Christ has come, redemption is available to all through Him, regardless of what they do or don't understand of Christian doctrine?
The question for Christians, then, is, why preach the gospel? I believe the gospel is about far more than just going to Heaven. The gospel Jesus actually preached was not, "Repent and believe that I am the Son of God who died for your sins, and you'll go to heaven." It was "The time has come (which meant, "The Messiah is here!"-- with the implication "and I am He") and the kingdom of God is at hand, so repent and believe in this good news!" The gospel includes the spreading of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the reign of God here on earth (and in the new earth which is coming) in the hearts, minds and lives of Jesus' disciples. We can't be His disciples without knowing His name and His gospel. Jesus told the Apostles to "go make disciples." It may be possible for a 5th-century South Pacific islander (for example) who never heard the gospel to go to heaven through Jesus Christ without any mental understanding of the doctrines of Christianity-- but the kingdom of God cannot be spread that way.
Christian Inclusivism
Moderator:Metacrock
Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Christian Inclusivism
I agree with most of what you say. I think it's a find statement. It does make me think. are we just universalists now?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Christian Inclusivism
I'm not a universalist because I think it's possible to reject God, or to refuse to respond to God's drawing. I'm an annihilationist instead-- I think that those who do choose evil will in the end be destroyed, not subjected to eternal, conscious torment.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Christian Inclusivism
KR Wordgazer wrote:I'm not a universalist because I think it's possible to reject God, or to refuse to respond to God's drawing. I'm an annihilationist instead-- I think that those who do choose evil will in the end be destroyed, not subjected to eternal, conscious torment.
I'm not a universalist either, becuase I don't think either of us are attributing salvation to any mechanism other than Jesus, but we just don't limit the availability of that mechanism in the way that our tradition has historically limited it. I didn't think you were one either. I just wanted to explore ideas around that question.
I feel like I brushed off your post and it was really good and deserved more response.I was just burdened with a lot of stuff.
I agree with that. It seems notion of God as being itself really can't be trumped in terms of expansion and there's nothing greater or bigger or more infinite. If one can speak of "more infinite."I think that there's only one God, and that He is "the One of Whom it is impossible to conceive any greater," to paraphrase theological language. So anyone seeking/worshiping God in terms of the Ultimate, is seeking/worshiping the only God there is. So how can we say "they worship a different God"? I think we can only say "Their conception of God is different." As Christians, I think we can also say (hopefully with some humility, recognizing our own imperfect grasp of spiritual truth), "I think their conception of God is wrong, based on God's revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ." But I'm not sure we, in our human limitations, can say, "I'm certain that they're not worshiping the real God."
I make a distinction between beliefs about God and belief (as in trust) in God. I know Romans 10 says that the goodness and nature of God are proclaimed through nature when there is no other gospel preached, and I believe that when Jesus said "I will draw all men unto Me" He indeed meant all. So I think the real question (which we cannot ever answer with our own limited knowledge) is "who is responding to God's drawing by putting trust in One who is the greatest they can conceive? I think Christians do need to take into account Christ's words that "no one comes to the Father but through Me," But couldn't that mean that because Christ has come, redemption is available to all through Him, regardless of what they do or don't understand of Christian doctrine?
I like that distinction between "beliefs" about and "in." A lot of people can't understand that. a lot of people just think the difference in one god and another is personality.
that's a good point. the Gospel in the Gospels is about the kingdom (at least in some of them). It's the Gospel of the Kingdom not the Gospel of going to heaven. The Kingdom symbolizes all that is good, God's will, harmony and divine purpose in creation, salvation from being lost, healing. It's not the gospel of choosing one personality over another.The question for Christians, then, is, why preach the gospel? I believe the gospel is about far more than just going to Heaven. The gospel Jesus actually preached was not, "Repent and believe that I am the Son of God who died for your sins, and you'll go to heaven." It was "The time has come (which meant, "The Messiah is here!"-- with the implication "and I am He") and the kingdom of God is at hand, so repent and believe in this good news!" The gospel includes the spreading of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the reign of God here on earth (and in the new earth which is coming) in the hearts, minds and lives of Jesus' disciples. We can't be His disciples without knowing His name and His gospel. Jesus told the Apostles to "go make disciples." It may be possible for a 5th-century South Pacific islander (for example) who never heard the gospel to go to heaven through Jesus Christ without any mental understanding of the doctrines of Christianity-- but the kingdom of God cannot be spread that way.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief