If what I am calling \u201cthe\u201d emerging question is as central as I think it is \u2014 and that question is \u2018what about those who do not know about Jesus Christ\u2019?, then the entire \u201cin vs. out\u201d issue is immediately raised as well. The 4th and 5th chps of Terry Tiessen\u2019s Who Can Be Saved?<\/em> deal with two questions: Who needs to be saved? and Whom is God Trying to Save? If what I am calling \u201cthe\u201d emerging question is as central as I think it is \u2014 and that question is \u2018what about those who do not know about Jesus Christ\u2019?, then the entire \u201cin vs. out\u201d issue is immediately raised as well. The 4th and 5th chps of Terry Tiessen\u2019s Who Can Be Saved? […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476,1736,425],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-emerging-movement","category-missional"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nLet me give Tiessen\u2019s answers briefly, ask a question or two for our conversation, and then put a little flesh on his answers.
\nWho needs to be saved? Everyone \u2014 since all are guilty of and corrupted by sin.
\nWhom is God trying to save? Elect.
\nIs the shape of these questions too individualistic? Even if those questions are shaped too individualistically, do the central issues remain? If his view is correct, is the decline of missionaries (as evangelists) something that needs immediate attention? Or, in your view, does it matter if someone hears about Christ? What advantage is there for those who have? Do all need Christ?
\nNow some flesh on huge questions and I apologize to Tiessen that I have to summarize him so briefly.
\nTiessen believes in original sin in that all humans \u2014 every last one of them \u2014 infants to adults \u2014 all across the globe \u2014 are both guilty and corrupt. Every human being inherits original sin; God chose (for whatever reason) to sum up all humans in Adam and Adam\u2019s sin is ours. All our guilty before God for Adam\u2019s sin and all are corrupted in that each person has an inclination to sin. Therefore, everyone needs the salvation in Christ.
\nThe definitive verse is Romans 5:12: \u201csin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all sinned.\u201d This sense that we are all in Adam and we inherit Adam\u2019s sin flows straight from this passage.
\nQuestion that arises here for many of my students: What if the Adam\/Eve \u201cstory\u201d is mythic rather than real? What does that do for the notion of original sin? (I\u2019ve heard that scientists do know the DNA of the original parents.)
\nChp 5 gets into a Calvinist theory of God\u2019s intent, and I think I can summarize it this way: Jesus is the only Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12 etc); how we describe what \u201csave\u201d means varies by metaphors (sacrifice, new creation, reconciliation, victory etc); this gets him into the major issue.
\nIf the work of Christ is effective, and if Christ died for all, then his work of redemption is effective for all. That spells universalism<\/em>. Since the Bible has a particularistic theme, then Christ did not die for all; he died only for the elect. God\u2019s intent was to save the elect. That spells, not universalism, but particularism<\/em>. Tiessen believes in the latter. It is not reductionistic to say that many think one must choose between these two options.
\nThe alternative, usually Arminian, view is that Christ\u2019s death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect\/those who respond in faith.
\nWe addressed some of this with Olson\u2019s book, but I cannot accept the near-universal Calvinist claim that if one gives the final decision to humans (the work of Christ is sufficient for all but only those who believe receive its benefits), then somehow humans contribute to their salvation. The reason I don\u2019t accept that is because of the Bible\u2019s emphasis on human responsibility, the summons to believe and obey.
\nFurthermore, I believe the intent of God is to provide a sacrifice for all: that is what 1 John 2:2 says: \u201cthe atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.\u201d (Tiessen understands this to mean the exclusiveness of Jesus\u2019 atoning sacrifice for the redemption of any who do believe.)
\nTiessen\u2019s next chp deals with to whom God reveals himself \u2014 as Tiessen works out his thesis of accessibilism.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"