A CONVERSATION WITH CHUCK Chuck Crisco RE. SALVATION & UNIVERSALISM
Robin Starbuck : Chuck, I wonder if you could clarify an issue: Could you tell me which, if any, of these three sentences is accurate:
■ Salvation for everyone came at the cross but that generation of people in Jerusalem in AD70 were not included because THEY adamantly clung to Old Covenant law. …?
■ Salvation for everyone came at the cross but that generation of people in Jerusalem in AD70 were not included because God/Jesus/Father was acting according to Old Covenant law. …?
■ Salvation for all began at AD70. …?

Chuck Crisco: Great question Robin Starbuck. Depends on which use of the word salvation one is using. If you mean was everyone included in Christ at the cross, and was everyone spiritually “saved” as in Eph. 2, the answer is absolutely. Paul’s use of “saved” in that chapter says it happened for every human being where we were ALL included and joined to Christ so that his new life became humanities new life, his resurrection, ascension, being seated, etc. was objectively everyones WHEN it happened to Christ. When he says, Saved by grace, through faith, and that not of yourselves” he is talking about Christ’s faith, not ours. Christ’s faith was God’s gift to us. He included us in Christ so that Christ’s faith counted on our behalf. (in chapter 4 he says that is ONE faith (meaning Christ’s) regarding forever-heaven, etct.
BUT those who did not believe, stayed under the old, even though they were objectively free from it.
So when you see passages that seem to talk about many are called but few are chosen, or “few there are that find it”, those ALL refer to the fact that God promised he would save (different use) a remnant of Jews out of that last old covenant generation. He promised to rescue some from the coming wrath OF THE LAW on the city, and the system.
But it is sort of like us saying today that you are saved and “going to heaven” BUT there is a tornado coming that will destroy your city, or maybe your cult church. So God sends Jesus to save HIS people (the Jews) from THEIR sins (that would cause them to stay in the city). But while he has forgiven them… they ignore it and run headlong into the judgment that was promised.
I know that is not a perfect illustration. But because we don’t differentiate between the two (saved from the wrath of the Law that was coming) and saved- eternal going to heaven, all inclusive adoption of all humanity into the God-head… where he takes away the sin (singular, not plural, meaning the power that separates) of the whole world, people don’t know the difference often.
Did that make sense, or does that just cloud it up even more? Have you read this article?
http://www.anewdaydawning.com/…/which-saved-are-you…

Sonny Floyd Cutler: So good, pastor!

Robin Starbuck: Your very thoughtful and informative response, Chuck, did in fact clear up a number of things for me and left me wondering more than ever how we, as educators, can change the world’s screwed up notion of what universalism is and isn’t. It’s almost as vulgar as the unfortunate adjective I used! I’ve read your blog with great interest several times, searching for a way to force people to understand that we are not what their heavy, religion-laden, and wrong notions of the “U” word are. We just want everyone to celebrate their total God-given freedom now. But if they don’t believe it exists, then it almost doesn’t for them. I’m especially interested in ESL people and how to usher them through that paralyzing ‘U’ block. It’s really a beautiful word with a beautiful, all-inclusive meaning. Thank you again, Chuck Crisco for your kind response. May I copy and share it?

Sonny Floyd Cutler: I asked chuck what the “u” word meant a few weeks ago because I’ve also heard it defined as many things. I guess that’s why I don’t like labels. Someone’s perception of Universalism might be different than mine.

Robin Starbuck You may not like labels, Sonny, but I HATE labels! Lol. They’re so cruel and … well …. wrong!
Nathan de Vries: Funny to label labels wrong [tongue emoticon!]
Robin Starbuck: Lol ol
Robin Starbuck: BTW, the link that I was trying to establish between my original 3-part question and the need to rescue universalism is that if any of the 3 choices above were accurate, it would show that NOT ALL were included, ergo, no universalism!