Comments on: pluralism

By: Thoughts on Pluralism | themattscott

Thoughts on Pluralism | themattscott — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:23:09 +0000

[...] April 13th, 2009 Goto comments Leave a comment I could say 2.0 here, because I have posted on this topic before, but that would be too much of a steal from Adam’s blog series, so we’ll just [...]

By: Terrible Blogger | themattscott

Terrible Blogger | themattscott — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:22:19 +0000

[...] into the Emerging sphere. It’s interesting that I was assigned this book considering my previous post on pluralism, though re-reading that post I can see how my views have changed over the past eight [...]

By: J.Horne

J.Horne — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:30:51 +0000

Matt, I’m wondering primarily what biblical evidence you draw from to hold to a more Universalist approach (particularly the whole “decision after death” thing)? As a Calvinist, I disagree on many levels (as you probably guessed), but some of your thoughts are so left field I am genuinely curious as to what prompted them.

By: blake

blake — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:02:10 +0000

no worries man. i’ve been pretty busy myself. i think it’s good to still be working through it. in fact, i think we should always be working through it. your emphasis on the present is admirable too. sometimes i wonder how much thought (if any at all) is actually but into the practicality of doctrines — like those concerning eschatology and soteriology and so on — for persons’ praxis in the here and now.

my main concern (and i’m not saying you hold this position) is when that is taken too far, resulting in christian triumphalism and even worse, christian religious imperialism. now, personally, i have problems with the word pluralism myself because it has a certain connotation, like you bring up, that anything goes or that all religious beliefs are basically of the same value and worth.

i’m just worried about the larger implications of any particular religious metanarrative — because all religious narrative are culturally and socially conditioned — and what tends to happen when that thought is pushed its full breadth.

if that makes sense at all.

By: Matt Scott

Matt Scott — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:47:07 +0000

Wow, I’m an awful blogger, how could I let that question sit out there for a nearly a week?
You’ve got the essentials of how I view the issue, that’s a broad swath way of looking at it. Honestly, I’m still working through it, I’m just not as focused on eschatology/soteriology as whats going on in the here and now. (Again sorry for the length between the question and answer).

By: blake

blake — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:57:04 +0000

hmm. apparently i’m “blakeq” now. i’m tired.

By: blakeq

blakeq — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:56:09 +0000

i’ve had a hectic weekend and haven’t had a lot of time to make follow ups like normal. i apologize.

no worries dude. i just wanted to get a feel for where you were at. i enjoy this kind of dialogue.

so if i’m understanding what you’re saying correctly: everyone will end up in heaven (or whatever, it is) but because jesus is the only way, salvation is made universally possibly through him regardless of whether persons claim to be christians.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:41:39 +0000

@Andrew- That’s embarrassing point, but your right. I either have ignored, or forgotten the second part. It appears I’ll have to wrestle with those passages.

If only this were as easy as I was taught. Thanks for pointing out the error though!

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:29:41 +0000

Hi Matt. In both places where Jesus talks about wide and narrow gates, he explicitly links the notion of the narrow gate with not many people finding it, or not many people managing to go through it. And indeed, he says that the other way leads to destruction, whereas the narrow way is the way of salvation. Now, those terms aren’t necessarily aligned with what you’re talking about, but the topics appear similar enough that I want to make an automatic link.

I think there’s a lot to be said for celebrating truth with all who find it, and that many will find the way of Christ without knowing him, or being able to articulate the gospel in the way that an Evangelical would. And the passage in Luke 13 seems open to all sorts of meanings, so I don’t want to hold onto one too tightly. I like your “narrow as in particular” rather than “narrow as in inaccessible” interpretation, but I don’t think the text allows it.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:53:24 +0000

obviously, they aren’t christians, but still in some way attain salvation. how so?
Well, I’d say that the choice isn’t made final here on Earth, or at least here in this life. I would qualify myself as a universalist more than an inclusivist, and I do draw a distinction between the two.

And I hope I’m not stepping on your toes taking a somewhat contrary position to your own, I just felt like I needed to state out my opinion on the whole deal.