Conservative Universalists Christians?

I could not get the link to work, even by copying and pasting. However, the subject is quite interesting.

Some believe that C.S. Lewis was a universalist. I think Eastern Orthodoxy teaches something like the above -- a "burning off" time in hell, but eventual salvation (not quite as creative as Roman Catholicism's purgatory). As you said, there is no doubt that such beliefs are contrary to Scripture. And I think we can probably agree that we would separate from such beliefs (not allowing such teaching in our churches or working with such proponents in a group venture). Others, like John Stott, have gone so far as to teach annihilation of the lost (and thus not universalism).

But can one accept Christ as Savior (to be saved from sin now and a temporary hell) and still be saved? I think clearly so. The whole idea of salvation is primarily to be saved from sin and God's wrath for the primary purpose of being reconciled to God.

I would love to believe that these evangelical universalists are right and that we are wrong. Unfortunately, Matthew 25:46 teaches eternal punishment (in contrast to eternal life). If one is temporary, so are both! Would that they were right!

Dear Carol,

IMO, you are right to separate from these conservative universalists. We can regard them as brothers, but their teaching is contrary to the plain sense of Scripture. It can be hard to make a judgment call between the confusing or less important (I would put the rapture question in that category) and the clear, blatant, and obvious. Since Jesus spoke of hell about as much as he spoke of heaven, we cannot simply shrug off a brother who denies an eternal hell.
"
Just as we separate from truly saved people (at least in our opinion) who believe the Bible is mostly true but deny inerrancy, so we must not allow such teachings to be propagated in our churches, nor should we join a church with such beliefs. I would personally limit my fellowship, though I would not necessarily be harsh with them.

False teaching is not a "one size fits all" category, so I myself advocate graduated and varied forms of separation. I still read and recommend John Stott's commentaries, for example, even though he believes in annihilation (at least the lost have eternal consequences in his scheme, but then again no misery). I think these sorts of beliefs are on the rise as evangelicalism begins spawning a new version of liberalism, a doctrine at a time (which is what makes it different from the traditional liberalism of the early 20th century that tended to deny ALL the fundamentals).

The problem, here, is attempting to qualify any and all who might be persuaded by this view, as unsaved without regard to the time, place or nature of their own faith. The bible goes as far as declaring that believers can and do act as agents of the Evil One or enemies of the cross at varying times and in varying ways. The issue, as well, is not determining whether they are believers or not but whether they are appropriate for fellowship (which always has in view the beliefs and practices of that person or group).

So each case must be decided on its own merits seeing that you are qualifying these errant people as having a biblical faith regarding their own salvation, hence you are not free to qualify them corporately as not having been saved. Some may and some may not be saved.

It is rather common and very likely that in cases like these, many of these people have come to a saving knowledge of Christ and have, in their post-salvational indoctrination, come to an erring view through varying means. Rarely (if ever) do people learn of and are persuaded of such doctrinal positions in the process of their coming to personal knowledge and faith in Christ as Savior. Again, very often these are errant views taken up after one is born again. But I am not saying it is so in every case, again, each case must be examined on its own merit.

But you are right, that if one does communicate to others that after their physical death or after their ultimate judgment at the Great White Throne and are cast into what is described as a lake of fire for eternity, that after some period they can be rescued and turn to faith in Christ, they are communicating incorrect. And it might be fair to say that such a view implies something about the gospel that is not contained in the gospel, namely that it is available to those who have accepted to be judged on their own merits. But this view does not question or distort the person of Christ or the work of Christ in its essence to provide salvation. Rather it displaces the correct context of the gospel's availability.

Hard to improve on what Ed said. Carol, my comment re "judging" was only meant to say that it is a tough issue NOT that this false teaching deserves no attention. OK?

Sadly it is not a new issue. It reminds me of the RCC's "pergatory." It is grevious to watch evngl. slide into liberalism.

Peace and joy