Can a Christian
be a universalist?
Is it
possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no,
others will say yes. My position (Matt Slick) is that it is
possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said
"possible". But, to be clear upfront, I believe universalism to be
a heresy and I would never say, "Universalists are Christians."
Nevertheless, let's say that there is a man who
was not a Christian who believes that everyone will be saved. This
man is on his death bed in a hospital and is visited by the hospital
Chaplin. The Chaplin gives him the gospel about Jesus being God in
flesh, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, the need for repentance
from sin, trusting in Christ, etc. The man honestly receives
Christ and then dies shortly thereafter yet he never repented of the
error of universalism. Is he saved or should we say, "Sorry, even
though you trusted Jesus as your savior, believed he is God in flesh,
died for your sins, and rose from the dead, but because you also believe
everyone will be saved, you are going to hell."? Would anyone
condemn a person to eternal fire for simply believing that everyone will
be saved? I cannot see that as being the case.
There are essentials of the Christian faith.
I have developed a "doctrine grid"
where I have tried to arrange essential and non-essential doctrines into
an easily understandable system. The essential doctrines are
essential because the Bible says they are. Let me give you two
examples. In John 8:24 Jesus said,
"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in
your sins." This is an essential doctrine because it
has a penalty of damnation for denying it. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:14 says that "if Christ
be not raised, your faith is in vain." Here too we see an
essential doctrine because there is a condition of condemnation upon its
denial. So too with the other essentials (justification by faith,
monotheism, and the gospel) that the Scripture declare to be essential.
See my doctrine grid again.
The question is whether or not universalism in itself
denies any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Though I
consider universalism to be a dangerous and false belief, I cannot
automatically pronounce condemnation upon a person who acknowledges the
essentials of the Christian faith and also affirms universal salvation.
I don't because I don't see the scriptures doing it. Would I
consider someone who holds to both the essentials and universalism to be
inconsistent and confused? Absolutely! Should they repent?
Yes!
But, should we pronounce the judgment of condemnation
upon a person for believing a doctrine that the scriptures have not
stated is an essential? For those who would say yes, then are you
not elevating the non-essentials to the level of essentials? It
would be like a person condemning another to damnation because the
latter believes in pre-trib rapture (or post, or mid, or non-cessationism).
Since the scriptures do not pronounce judgment of condemnation for a
rapture view or a view on the gifts, then neither should we -- and
neither should we concerning predestination, election, millennial views,
which day to worship on, charismatic gifts, etc., if others hold views
different than we do on these issues.
People can be saved in varying degrees of theological
error. There are regenerated people who do not understand
predestination, don't accept election, don't understand federal
headship, are clueless about imputation, Christ's eternal priesthood,
covenant, etc., yet they are regenerated. They simply haven't
learned those doctrinal truths yet. Are they condemned for not
rightly understanding these very important biblical teachings? No,
because the ones I just listed in this paragraph are not declared to be
essential doctrines by the Bible.
In fact, I did not know that Jesus had physically risen
from the dead until two years after I became a Christian. I knew
he had risen, but I didn't know how.1 How is
that possible? Well, I wasn't taught it or I missed those sermons.
But, once I heard the truth, I believed it. Would anyone say I
wasn't saved until I believed Jesus physically rose from the dead even
though I had received him and trusted him to forgive me of my sins?
I certainly hope not. The truth is that I believed in the physical
resurrection of Christ because I was saved. I did not
become saved because I believed he physically rose. Likewise, for
the Calvinists, does regeneration occur when we understand proper
doctrine? Or is proper doctrine the result of regeneration?
Remember, we are saved in (and from) our sins as well as our errors and
God graciously and patiently works correction in us.
Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he
erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because
the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he
will repent and reject it.
Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and
knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught
the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance"
doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration
of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian. It is these
issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But,
let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people
who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's
position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the
true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is
"possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency.
That is my position.
Now, am I saying that all universalists can be
Christian? Not at all. Do I defend universalism? No.
Do I think that universalism is a serious problem that undermines the
gospel? Yes, I do. But, I can see a scenario where a
universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is
possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the
confusion and error of universalism. I do not see how believing
that all will be saved automatically disqualifies a person from being
saved. I don't, because I don't see the scriptures doing it.
But, if someone says it does disqualify them, then they would need to
demonstrate that from scripture.
____________________
Note
-
8-23-05
I have been criticized for this position.
Therefore I thought I would add a bit of information for further
clarification. When I was first saved the gospel was preached to me
and I received Christ as my savior. I called upon the name of the
Lord. I sought the Lord Jesus and asked him to forgive me of my sins
and I put no reliance on anything in me in anyway. The Lord saved me
and he washed me clean. But, I did not continue to go to church
because I was not a church-goer. I had gone to that church that
night to see a film and ended up receiving Christ. No one sought me
out afterwards and no one tried to disciple me. As a result, in my
ignorance and drifting, I did not attend a church. I wandered
for about two years until the Lord put upon my heart to get close to
him. It was at this time in a Bible study that I learned that Jesus
had risen physically from the dead. For the best of my recollection
I believed that he had risen, I just don't remember knowing that it
was a physical resurrection. When I was taught the physical
resurrection of Christ from Scriptures I immediately accepted it.
But, there are those who are saying that I was not
saved because of this. My response is that I did not get saved
because I believed in Christ's resurrection. I believed
because I was saved. I do not affirm doctrinal regeneration. But, I
do very much believe that a true Christian will not deny essential
doctrines and because the Holy Spirit is in him, when presented with
the truth he will accept it, as did I.
|