The quote is taken from an evangelistic role-play the author made up and put in his website. Here is the immediate context:
"But I still struggle with how I should view those who have other beliefs. I'm not sure I am ready to condemn them as wrong. I know some very good Buddhists. What is their destiny?"
I would take her to Romans 2:6-10: "God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."
What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say "he can't save them." I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: "There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved."
The statement alone is heresy. The context doesn't add or take away from the meaning.
It's liberal to want to know the context of what was said??
I thought that was a conservative position.
Or maybe it's only a conservative position when a liberal takes something which a conservative said out of context.
Again, as 2 Timothy 4:3 says, people will turn away from sound doctrine and turn aside to all sorts of myths. People like that are coming out of the woodwork. :rolleyes:
??? I thought you believed in extending more grace to namecallers. I guess you got YOUR lil' feeler hurt too easily. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Already did. On the surface, it should like a statement inconsistent with scripture, but it's wise to know the context of what was said before accusing someone of heresy.
You seem to think that wanting to know context makes one a liberal.
Whassupwiddat???
Wait I know.
Hakeem.
No wait.... Abdulah.... No.... Maybe.... Carl Barth.... John Knox.... Steven Hawkins... Charles Darwin.......
I'm all out of guesses.