I'm not going to make any claims on Dr. Robinson's claims here, but I think if we are all saved (actually not something I hold to at the moment), then we are also in essence, saved from sin itself. Potentially that through faith, we are continuously changed so that abuse will not happen? Like the change is going to come to us all, but to Christians and with faith, we have the power to bring the healing gospel to all people. But that might take time. At least that's just a thought
Ie, faith will change us, and eventually all will have faith maybe. Not actually a proponent of this, but I am just thinking of ways that might be answered
Adding on to what another commenter posted, I have two questions:
1. If Jesus has already saved everyone, irrespective of works to merit said salvation or even our consent to receive said salvation, then what is the impetus, the motivation, the power that changes us to become conformed to the image of Christ, as Paul states? Not saying we ought to do good IN ORDER to be saved. I also think that's wrong. But I'm curious how you would frame your reasoning for why we ought to be conformed to Christ AKA live as He does and do as He did.
2. If everyone is already saved, how are we to make sense of and view ongoing evil, both out of the church but especially IN the church? Wouldn't this put us back in the same issue as Justification Theory where the wrongdoer is off the hook since, after all, God loves him and already saved him?
3. If everyone is ALREADY saved, how, if at all possible, do people end up not in eternal relationship with Christ, as many NT authors explicitly and implicitly suggest? If God saves us all and will eventually bring us with Him into the "new heaven and new earth" apart from ANYTHING we do, is not this just Calvinist predestination all over again with some universalism sprinkled in? God ends up not respecting our freedom?
I love reading your articles! I went to listen to Apocalypse Here YouTube and listened to the podcast on Christian Universalism. This is my first time hearing of such depth on this topic and was wondering if you were going to write about it in the future? Honestly, I am having difficulty reconciling how it fits with beyond JT you've shared particularly in the area of justice (and injustice) as you've posted in human trafficking/slavery posts. I suspect it's Christian Universalism is theology that you see in the Global South (speculating). I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on NT Wright's views on Justification and Universalism: https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/4.2_Wright.pdf.
Ok. But, joke or not, it's pretty important and significant to be claiming that Paul and Matthew don't agree with each other. And/or that everyone is going to be saved. Those are not small claims. It seems weird to just abruptly end the article with those issues unresolved. So, joking aside, are you claiming these things? Will you be clarifying in the future?
I'm not speaking on behalf of Dr Robinson, nor do I claim to know how'd she answer. But I think in the realm of biblical scholarship, there a number of people that say the message Matthew says Jesus preaches is completely different than Paul's interpretation of the message of Jesus.
And by extension from that, Dr. Robinson has addressed me (I believe in the previous post) and said something along the lines of, the book of Romans was meant for the gentiles (most of us), and Matthew wasn't written or addressed to the gentile, but to the Jews. So different message to different people group. I don't ascribe to this, but can see where it comes from
So, I actually don't think Matthew is being hyperbolic at all! I think there's every indication Matthew is serious! Plus, the idea that you could keep the law "perfectly" (because atonement is part of the law) is very well attested in early Judaism.
I'd grant that if it was Matthew speaking for himself, but isn't it supposed to be Matthew quoting Christ directly right there? Which is a bit different than Paul giving his own personal opinion/interpretation of a point of morality and identifying it as such.
Even if we take it as Christ speaking seriously as recorded by Matthew, would it be reasonable to suppose that, sure, he's speaking into the religious framework of the time and putting his point in terms of that framework in order to have his meaning at least vaguely understood... but as someone whose identity and agency and understanding and purpose isn't actually limited by that framework, is it possible that Christ himself seeks to subvert it?
So, there is no unmediated Jesus in the Gospels. It's all through the Gospel writers. And I think that Matthew wrote that down because he thinks Jesus said it and it is consistent with his theology.
All indications are that Matthew takes Torah seriously and the "higher righteousness" -- following Torah in the exacting way Jesus interprets it -- is the identifying trait of the community.
Yup, that all makes sense, and I agree. I just think Paul's "I think God wants something like this" and Matthew's "I think Jesus said something like this" are somewhat different claims, and the latter makes it rather interesting to speculate what Christ might have *actually said*/intended.
I was also curious about what a "historical Jesus" view of this would be. Obviously we have no direct access to Christ's words as Dr. Robinson mentions above, but don't most historical Jesus scholars agree Jesus probably intended his followers to be Torah observant? I could be totally off about this btw.
So what is the coherent theory of change here? If we are all saved what keeps church abuse from happening?
I'm not going to make any claims on Dr. Robinson's claims here, but I think if we are all saved (actually not something I hold to at the moment), then we are also in essence, saved from sin itself. Potentially that through faith, we are continuously changed so that abuse will not happen? Like the change is going to come to us all, but to Christians and with faith, we have the power to bring the healing gospel to all people. But that might take time. At least that's just a thought
Ie, faith will change us, and eventually all will have faith maybe. Not actually a proponent of this, but I am just thinking of ways that might be answered
Adding on to what another commenter posted, I have two questions:
1. If Jesus has already saved everyone, irrespective of works to merit said salvation or even our consent to receive said salvation, then what is the impetus, the motivation, the power that changes us to become conformed to the image of Christ, as Paul states? Not saying we ought to do good IN ORDER to be saved. I also think that's wrong. But I'm curious how you would frame your reasoning for why we ought to be conformed to Christ AKA live as He does and do as He did.
2. If everyone is already saved, how are we to make sense of and view ongoing evil, both out of the church but especially IN the church? Wouldn't this put us back in the same issue as Justification Theory where the wrongdoer is off the hook since, after all, God loves him and already saved him?
3. If everyone is ALREADY saved, how, if at all possible, do people end up not in eternal relationship with Christ, as many NT authors explicitly and implicitly suggest? If God saves us all and will eventually bring us with Him into the "new heaven and new earth" apart from ANYTHING we do, is not this just Calvinist predestination all over again with some universalism sprinkled in? God ends up not respecting our freedom?
Hi Laura,
I love reading your articles! I went to listen to Apocalypse Here YouTube and listened to the podcast on Christian Universalism. This is my first time hearing of such depth on this topic and was wondering if you were going to write about it in the future? Honestly, I am having difficulty reconciling how it fits with beyond JT you've shared particularly in the area of justice (and injustice) as you've posted in human trafficking/slavery posts. I suspect it's Christian Universalism is theology that you see in the Global South (speculating). I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on NT Wright's views on Justification and Universalism: https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/4.2_Wright.pdf.
This link is broken, can you repost?
What is the terrible news? I guess you will tell us in a follow-up article?
It's a joke. Basically that the Matthew passage really just doesn't fit with Paul! And, that's okay! Matthew gets to have his say.
Ok. But, joke or not, it's pretty important and significant to be claiming that Paul and Matthew don't agree with each other. And/or that everyone is going to be saved. Those are not small claims. It seems weird to just abruptly end the article with those issues unresolved. So, joking aside, are you claiming these things? Will you be clarifying in the future?
I'm not speaking on behalf of Dr Robinson, nor do I claim to know how'd she answer. But I think in the realm of biblical scholarship, there a number of people that say the message Matthew says Jesus preaches is completely different than Paul's interpretation of the message of Jesus.
And by extension from that, Dr. Robinson has addressed me (I believe in the previous post) and said something along the lines of, the book of Romans was meant for the gentiles (most of us), and Matthew wasn't written or addressed to the gentile, but to the Jews. So different message to different people group. I don't ascribe to this, but can see where it comes from
...You really want to leave us with the supposition that the infamous Matthew passage wasn't hyperbole/sarcasm for the purpose of illustration? ;)
So, I actually don't think Matthew is being hyperbolic at all! I think there's every indication Matthew is serious! Plus, the idea that you could keep the law "perfectly" (because atonement is part of the law) is very well attested in early Judaism.
I'd grant that if it was Matthew speaking for himself, but isn't it supposed to be Matthew quoting Christ directly right there? Which is a bit different than Paul giving his own personal opinion/interpretation of a point of morality and identifying it as such.
Even if we take it as Christ speaking seriously as recorded by Matthew, would it be reasonable to suppose that, sure, he's speaking into the religious framework of the time and putting his point in terms of that framework in order to have his meaning at least vaguely understood... but as someone whose identity and agency and understanding and purpose isn't actually limited by that framework, is it possible that Christ himself seeks to subvert it?
So, there is no unmediated Jesus in the Gospels. It's all through the Gospel writers. And I think that Matthew wrote that down because he thinks Jesus said it and it is consistent with his theology.
All indications are that Matthew takes Torah seriously and the "higher righteousness" -- following Torah in the exacting way Jesus interprets it -- is the identifying trait of the community.
Yup, that all makes sense, and I agree. I just think Paul's "I think God wants something like this" and Matthew's "I think Jesus said something like this" are somewhat different claims, and the latter makes it rather interesting to speculate what Christ might have *actually said*/intended.
I was also curious about what a "historical Jesus" view of this would be. Obviously we have no direct access to Christ's words as Dr. Robinson mentions above, but don't most historical Jesus scholars agree Jesus probably intended his followers to be Torah observant? I could be totally off about this btw.