It’s not surprising that some Arminians now espouse postmortem salvation. If you begin with an Arminian premise, then there’s an inexorable logic to that next move.
In the traditional Arminian view, this life is your only opportunity to be saved. Once you die, that’s a lost opportunity.
Yet it’s perfectly obvious that, in this life, every human being doesn’t have the same opportunity to believe the Gospel. Opportunities to believe the Gospel are quite inequitable.
Many people never have a chance to even hear the Gospel. On the other hand, some people hear the Gospel at one time or another, but come from a background which is highly prejudicial to the Gospel. They grew up in a very legalistic church. Or they were brainwashed by secular humanism. Or they were indoctrinated in Islam. And so on and so forth.
So even if they happen to hear the Gospel, they don’t hear it with the same pair of ears as someone who was raised in loving Christian home. It’s hard to overcome a well-entrenched bias. And even if you can, you’re operating at a handicap. Others don’t suffer from your handicap.
Likewise, some people attend an evangelical church with fine expository preaching. Others attend a church in which they don’t know enough to know what they’re missing. It’s a vicious circle. The preaching which they’re used to hearing is so deficient that they have no standard of comparison.
In addition, some people have lots of leisure time to study Christian literature. Other people have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
So, if you define a “fair chance” the way Arminians define it, then it’s absurd to suppose that everyone has a fair chance in this life to believe the Gospel. The range of impediments and disparities is stark. Hence, the Arminian deadline is a very arbitrary deadline–given the egalitarian assumptions which underwrite the Arminian position.
As such, extending the “grace period” into the afterlife is a necessary equalizer–necessary given the Arminian premise. It tries to level out the vast spiritual inequities in the here-and-now.
And, of course, it’s a short step from postmortem salvation to universal salvation. Everyone will be saved sooner or later–whether in this life or the life to come.
The only equally logical alternative is Calvinism. For Calvinism never predicated salvation on equal freedom of opportunity. Calvinism never took the position that God would be unjust to deny someone a “chance” to be saved.
This idea of offering salvation in the afterlife has been plain to me as I searched to understand God's plan for us. I would waffle with the Roman Catholic idea with being judged according to the light that was given. I now claim the statement that Jesus, our God, said that "It is finished." It is the work of the Kingdom that Yeshua did -- He rescued us! A people He knows individually, completed in the past, the time of His human life!
ReplyDeleteWhy should I go back to my speculations, when such details have been given in the bible?
It is true that I do not know everything. I have much to learn.
Steve how does the possibility of post-mortem salvation imply the necessity of universalism?
ReplyDeleteMG SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve how does the possibility of post-mortem salvation imply the necessity of universalism?”
That’s not what I said. I said it was a short step from one to the other.
Once you cross the first line (from premortem to postmortem salvation), it’s much harder to draw a line between postmorem salvation and universal salvation.
It also raises the question of the circumstances under which an individual can give the Gospel a fair hearing. How ideal or optimal must those circumstances be to eliminate prejudicial factors?
That’s a pressure point in Arminian theology.
Sorry, your comment "Everyone will be saved sooner or later–whether in this life or the life to come." confused me, making me think you saw an implication relation.
ReplyDeleteIt seems easy to differentiate postmortem particularism from universalism. Perhaps some people postmortem do not repent, and are therefore eternally punished. Indeed, perhaps they cannot repent, because of character development. If their wills are fixed in evil, then they can't repent.
One response the non-Calvinist can give is that everyone doesn't necessarily require an equal opportunity--just a sufficient opportunity. Maybe God has overriding reasons for permitting some people to have less of an opportunity than others.
MG SAID:
ReplyDelete"One response the non-Calvinist can give is that everyone doesn't necessarily require an equal opportunity--just a sufficient opportunity."
True, but that glosses over the complications of explicating what constitutes a "sufficient opportunity."