In light of my most recent post (before this one of course!), i thought i would give you a quote that a staff member of an apologetics site said regarding soteriology:
“Every view of soteriology limits atonement, unless you are a universalist.
The question becomes, is it limited in scope (i.e., who it is for) or is it limited in effectiveness (i.e., it can fail to save some for whom it was made).”
What i appreciate about this quote is that this participant (whose screen name is “Love Supreme”) understands that to attempt to perform theological reflection it is a necessary part of the undertaking to “limit.” In fact, i would go further than him and claim that even to be a univeralist is to limit in some fashion, in the sense that it severs certain passages and concepts (eg hell, necessity of atonement) from their traditional classical theological moorings. Since all doctrines are supposed to (roughly) cohere with each other, to be a univeralist is to (as i see it) significantly compromise other aspects of doctrine.
In doing theology one cannot help but have certain starting places or points of emphasis. This is actually a good thing, since i can learn from others and even adapt my paradigm in ways i would neve see on my own, if i’m willing to let myself examine their view with integrity. Here is where doing theology in community, can really bless the body of Christ.
Hopefully we can be grateful for our differences, and approach them with charity and humility, seeking to come closer to the Triune God, who isn’t bound, or afraid of, the limits we put on Him when we seek truth.