The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Another Simple Argument Favoring Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

Here is another simple syllogism (i.e., the third of three), using biblical evidence, to support the notion that all will be saved.

Premise 1: All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Premise 2: All will call on the name of the Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11)

Conclusion: All will be saved.

A major assumption in this argument is confessing that Jesus is Lord (from Philippians 2:10-11) is a sufficient condition of calling on the name of the Lord (from Romans10:13). That is, in this argument, it is assumed that one cannot confess that Jesus is Lord without also calling on the name of the Lord.

Biblical references

“WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." (Romans 10:13)

“so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11)

2 Likes
#2

I really like that particular syllogism and even consider it conclusive, given major assumptions.

1 Like
#3

I think this is mentioned 3 times in the bible since Paul is quoting the OT & it’s in Revelation. But Paul may have added “under the earth.”

1 Like
#4

Here are the three relevant references I could find.

“I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” (Isaiah 45:23)

“For it is written,
‘AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.’” (Romans 14:11)

“so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11)

The first reference from Isaiah has God speaking, so the reference is not to Jesus specifically. The second from Romans refers to the first, so it, too, refers to God, not to Jesus specifically, I believe. So these two would not fit logically into the syllogism, which focuses on calling on the name of Jesus.

That’s why I used only the Philippians reference, which unambiguously states a confessing to Jesus.

I found no similar reference in Revelation.

#5

Rev 5.13 is similar

#6

Thanks for that.