Thoughts on Reconciliation: Introduction
March 26th, 2007 | by Scott |Toward the end of last year I did a lengthy series on non-violence and Christianity. It received tremendous feedback and, although we did not reach complete agreement, the discussion was overwhelmingly civil and productive. Each of us that participated were stretched and challenged by the discussion.
Although there is more that I want to say on non-violence, I believe that my position is fairly well staked out. I am opposed to war and the idea that violence can be redemptive. Again, I realize I may be among the minority but I can argue and defend my position from a conservative and scholarly approach to Scripture.
However, that discussion led me further in my study on entrenched doctrines. For years I had questioned the nature of hell, salvation and God’s love. But I resisted any serious wrestling because I wasn’t ready to understand that maybe I was wrong. That maybe what we have taught and believed about salvation and hell relied on misinterpretations. But now, although I know there is a great amount of risk involved, I want to look at the nature of salvation, or soteriology.
I believe that now is a great time for a discussion such as this as I am encountering more and more people in the evangelical world wrestling with these issues.
Let me begin this study by using a paraphrase of the beginning of my nonviolence study. I am not a universalist. At least I don’t fall in the camp of what people traditionally view as universalism. My views and understandings are far more nuanced than that. Just as pacifism conveys a meaning that is misleading, so does universalism. Allow me to coin my own term: I am a Redemptive Reconciliationist.
Leading into this discussion let me make several clarifying comments as both a disclaimer and an establishment of common ground:
1. I believe in hell.
2. I believe that unrepented sins produce dire consequences.
3. I believe that God’s Sovereignty, His desire that no one should perish, and our free will are not incompatible.
4. I believe many passages that describe the horrors of hell are for believers who will be held accountable for how they engage the lost, the marginalized and the least of these.
5. I believe that God’s justice is bound up in His love.
6. I believe that a Redemptive Reconciliation approach is consistent with a conservative view of Scripture.
In the coming weeks I want us to look anew at the passages in scripture that deal with ideas such as eternity, heaven, hell, punishment, salvation, God’s love, and God’s justice. I will probably reserve this to Monday’s post. I ask several things of you in return:
1. Be civil as always. These are controversial ideas. But I am convinced that we can provide an atmosphere that we can discuss these with brotherly love.
2. Be open-minded to differing opinions. If you can’t handle a discussion on these matters then please skip over these entries.
3. Agree to disagree. Godly men and women can draw different conclusions.
4. Don’t mistake my posts as statements of certainty. I am working through this myself.
5. Please participate in the discussion. But limit it to the topic at hand. If we are discussing God’s love don’t jump ahead to a singular passage about hell.
6. Be patient with me as the moderator. I am on shaky ground.
I am not an academician. I hope that this will be an accessible discussion for us as we wrestle with some weighty topics. There are far loftier minds than mine that I will rely on including Gregory MacDonald, Thomas Talbott, Gerry Beauchemin, and Richard Beck. I also hope my long-time friend Jeff Richardson will be a leading voice in this discussion.