These days, many Christians seem to think that Jews and Muslims, and sometimes other non-Christians can be "saved" even though they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or otherwise accept Christianity.

What is the theological basis for this?

There's no theological, biblical precedent for it. But it does indicate that some people see the moral failings in their god & his 'good news' crap, and are clearly embarrassed enough to want to correct this. Thus they convince themselves that their god is good really, and wouldn't send everyone to hell. They're yet to make that leap to a proper ethic of rejecting an evil god, but it's progress, of a kind.


Edit: typo

I don't know if there is any scriptural or theological basis in Christianity for that belief, but there is in Islam:

5:69 Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

I'm not sure if there are any "Sabaeans" still around. Still, makes you wonder why Muslims make such a the big deal is about their's being the "true" religion.

Money ? Theologians like money.

As the donation-giving of Christianity changes to a smaller and older demographic then it becomes necessary to expand the possible market by being more inclusive. The price and strictures on salvation get trashed. Things that would get you killed a few years back are now ignored.

There's hesaps of theological basis for it, because theology consists of coming up with bullshit to support the notion of whichever god you believe in.

There's no Biblical basis, but that never stopped anyone. A great many 'Christians' don't really place much stock in what the Bible says anyway. Not that that is news to anyone who has been paying attention.

Just off the top of my head.


• In the book of Revelation there are 144,000 Jews (12,000 from each tribe of Israel) that will be saved. They aren’t followers of Christ, but they serve God. (It’s highly subject to interpretation; I’m giving the version we believed.)
• In addition Jesus spoke of the poor man (a Jew) in heaven seeing the rich man in hell.
• Elijah went straight up to heaven.


So Jews get to go to heaven despite being non-Christian.

chairman bill wrote:There's no theological, biblical precedent for it. But it does indicate that some people see the moral failings in their god & his 'good news' crap, and are clearly embarrassed enough to want to correct this. Thus they convince themselves that their god is good really, and wouldn't send everyone to hell. They're yet to make that leap to a proper ethic of rejecting an evil god, but it's progress, of a kind.


Edit: typo

There is theological precedent for it, though! Keep in mind, the idea of the bible being the sole source of doctrine in Christianity is no older than the reformation! The orthodox church has had ideas of salvation available outside of the church for ages, and even then, there is biblical hints at something like that, which they may use to support their stance; biblical support of these include John 10:16, I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd., and Psalms 145:18, The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.. There's lots of other verses that can likewise be read to support a rather wide soteriology, e.g. He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? - nowhere is "and believe in his Son" mentioned among those requiements, etc.

Theology up until the reformation wasn't exclusively built on top of the Bible, even though a lot of people seem to think the Bible is the sole authority in all kinds of Christianity.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Theology up until the reformation wasn't exclusively built on top of the Bible, even though a lot of people seem to think the Bible is the sole authority in all kinds of Christianity.

It's bizarre to see non-believers use this line: in effect, they're validating the claims of fundagelicals!

Not that the Bible is set against universal reconciliation. Yes, Jesus was fond of consigning his enemies to Gehenna, but there's also Paul's startling claim in Romans 11 that "all Israel" will be saved: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." As noted by that colossus of late-20th Century Pauline scholarship, E.P. Sanders, Paul also spoke about punishment and damnation. In short, he was inconsistent, as he wasn't a systematic theologian, but a charismatic preacher.

The theology behind universal reconciliation is more corporate than individual: that, as everything comes from God, everything must at the end of time return to God, so God will reconcile all things back to himself. It's a strand of theology that reaches back to the earliest church: and as the Paul example illustrates, its only a strand, and was never the normative position. But it's as authentically Christian as anything is.

I think Byron is right, although I haven't got the references to hand, that there has always been a strand of Christian universalism, that everything and everyone will in the end be reconciled with God.

You can also see it today in some branches of Eastern Orthodoxy, which argue that God loves everyone, and that hell actually consists of God's love (which is an excruciating pain for some).

It has many interesting ideas in it, for example, atonement can be seen as at-one-ment, which is the ancient derivation of the word, that in the end, all will become one with the One.

Of course, it has also been condemned severely by various churches and theologians.

Of course, it has the bizarre consequence that Christianity (and Christ) are themselves not needed! But then some universalists have argued that Christ 'is all and in all' (Col. 3: 11).

Again, it's not that dissimilar from Islam, where it is believed that everyone is born Muslim, and most people just go astray at some point. That's when someone accepts Islam later in life they are called "reverts" rather than "converts".

Gregory of Nyssa (335 - 394) is one of the early universalists, and he wrote this:

For it is now as with those who for their cure are subjected to the knife and the cautery; they are angry with the doctors, and wince with the pain of the incision; but if recovery of health be the result of this treatment, and the pain of the cautery passes away, they will feel grateful to those who have wrought this cure upon them. In like manner, when, after long periods of time, the evil of our nature, which now is mixed up with it and has grown with its growth, has been expelled, and when there has been a restoration of those who are now lying in sin to their primal state, a harmony of thanksgiving will arise from all creation, as well from those who in the process of the purgation have suffered chastisement, as from those who needed not any purgation at all.

(The Great Catechism).

But some Orthodox theologians dispute his universalism, and say he has been misinterpreted, although I think all the Gregory specialists affirm it.

nunnington wrote:But some Orthodox theologians dispute [Gregory of Nyssa's] universalism, and say he has been misinterpreted, although I think all the Gregory specialists affirm it.

Ditto Origen, although TBF, he did wax awfully esoteric at times.

Your observation that, "Of course, it has the bizarre consequence that Christianity (and Christ) are themselves not needed!" is, I suspect, why so many Christians loathe the idea of universal reconciliation, even above their frustration at "sinners" -- those goddamn intellectuals, beatniks, uppity atheists and everyone else subject to envy and resentment ... oh, and murders, rapists, that sort, nearly forgot about them -- not getting what's coming. Love Wins, where Rob Bell (nearly) argues for universalism, has provoked howls of protest from evangelicals. Christianity Today even quoted someone as saying, in effect, if the "lost" get into heaven anyway, why bother?

Speaks volumes about some believers' priorities!

Shrunk wrote:Again, it's not that dissimilar from Islam, where it is believed that everyone is born Muslim, and most people just go astray at some point. That's when someone accepts Islam later in life they are called "reverts" rather than "converts".

Yes, the traditional Christian universalism has been unequivocally on Christian terms: you get Christ whether you want him or not. It's all so imperialistic.

The fluffy modern version is that Christ is just one way to God; or, if you prefer, just one way of perceiving God's love-in-action.

I prefer the fluffy version, tho' I respect the theological reasoning of old school universalism.

Saved from what, precisely?

Byron wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Again, it's not that dissimilar from Islam, where it is believed that everyone is born Muslim, and most people just go astray at some point. That's when someone accepts Islam later in life they are called "reverts" rather than "converts".

Yes, the traditional Christian universalism has been unequivocally on Christian terms: you get Christ whether you want him or not. It's all so imperialistic.

The fluffy modern version is that Christ is just one way to God; or, if you prefer, just one way of perceiving God's love-in-action.

I prefer the fluffy version, tho' I respect the theological reasoning of old school universalism.

Yes, that's a good point. Old skool universalism had it that Christ was everywhere anyway, so you couldn't avoid him! In fact, I have heard people argue today that if Gandhi is with God, then he must have discovered Christ somehow, which seems like backward logic.

New skool universalism is very different, and even the Pope seems to be saying that Islam is another way to God, well, I think he is.

nunnington wrote:Yes, that's a good point. Old skool universalism had it that Christ was everywhere anyway, so you couldn't avoid him! In fact, I have heard people argue today that if Gandhi is with God, then he must have discovered Christ somehow, which seems like backward logic.

If they're saying that, they're applying Reformation psychological understandings to a different context: for old timer universalists, it was all so much more corporate and ontological. Christ paid the ransom/ won the victory -- ah, Christianity before Satisfaction/Substitution, how we miss thee -- and all benefited from it. Their acceptance wasn't here or there, any more than you'd need to accept the Sunrise for the Sun to rise.

Of course, there's all that stuff in Paul about accepting Christ. Read it a certain way and everything changes.

New skool universalism is very different, and even the Pope seems to be saying that Islam is another way to God, well, I think he is.

I love that the Catholic Church says that Hell's existence is a dogma, but no one ever said that people were in it: salvation on a technicality!

Doubtdispelled wrote:Saved from what, precisely?

Sin brought by the Law, if you take Paul's line.

This is one of the many reasons why I prefer the phrase "universal reconciliation": it's not explicitly stating that you're saved from anything, just that you're going to come home to your creator at the end of times. More Prodigal Son than altar-call.

I think a common liberal view today (trying desperately to avoid substitutionary atonement), is that we are separated from God, just by being individual egos (a nod to Eastern religion, there), and salvation is at-one-ment, that is the reconciliation and unification of the disunited. But it is also quite an ancient view, I think. I think gospel of Thomas has it, errrm, here we are,

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

(saying 22).

I'd rather die in battle & go to Freya's field (Fólkvangr), or Odin's hall (Valhalla). Heaven. No thanks.