Hi Everybody,
If you only had a paragraph or two, what would be your (or your favorite) argument for universalism?
God is love. Love never fails. QED. 
Cheers
Johnny
(That’s not my argument, it’s smiling at Johnny’s.)
I believe that God shows judgement followed by restoration in nearly all of the old testament, with a few exceptions, but not many. Jesus fills a few gaps in the NT about that, ie Sodom and Gomorrah. If God promises post mortem mercy in the OT, it seems impossible to believe that the NT overturns that character of God with a portrayal of Him dishing out eternal punishment all of a sudden, particularly when ignoble death is the worst that is promised in the OT. And in fact, we see no nonambiguous reference to eternal punishment in the NT, and quite a lot of support for the idea of future restoration, yet again. We see God portrayed as a forgiver, and Jesus as the saviour of all men from their sins. the pattern of the metanarrative fits Universalism, imo.
The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
I think it depends on the situation. My general purpose favorite is the one Tom Talbot presents in his book – consider these three statements:
- God is all powerful and will save all whom He loves.
- God is all loving and loves all people.
- Some people will be eternally separated from God.
You must deny one of these statements. Which one will it be?
Calvinists accept #1 & #3. They must explain away #2, even though the evidence for #2 being true is, imo, overwhelming.
Arminians accept #2 & #3. They must explain away #1, even though the evidence for #1 being true is, imo, overwhelming.
Universalists accept #1 & #2. They must explain away #3. IMO, the evidence for #3 isn’t overwhelming at all.
(Proceed to answer objections and demonstrate why the evidence for #3 is not as powerful as the person may have thought.)
Hi Cindy,
I partially see the force of the argument, but maybe I completely misunderstand it.
Doesn’t it seem tendentious to affirm the 3 pts, for those are the very points that are Biblically (I am assuming this is an argument as to what is the most reasonable way to read the Bible) contentious? Very few Calvs are going to affirm 2, nor agree that there is anything like equal Biblical evidence for it. They argue that the “alls” are not what they seem. Now, while you and I might find that sort of reasoning/exegesis weak, it would nonetheless be presumptuous to assert, at the outset, that the Bible equally affirms pts 1,2,3. (For, let’s b honest, most univs don’t think that 3 has virtually any Biblical support, but of course Cals and Arms are largely unconvinced by our exegesis - they think we are eisegeting). Am I misunderstanding this?
Now, where I think the arg has force is the sort of knee-jerk reaction by many evangelicals to universalism as heresy (I think Talbott explains this, and maybe this is the point of the points and I am being dense here) is unfounded, for while a Cal may disagree with an Arm, and vice versa, neither one regards the other (maybe in a few cases) as heretical, but both think the universalist is a heretic or wrong. Again, the argument assumes a sort of equal Biblical playing field, and lacks some of the possibilities, for annihilationists might want to qualify 3; however, as long as a Cal/Arm/Anni was willing to concede at least superficial evidence for univ, then they might have to rethink their prejudice to it, since they likely think that the other views they don’t hold are just mistaken, as opposed to heresy, but maybe both Cals and Arms think 3 is just undeniable (that is, there is no Biblical counterevidence, though even on that view, they have to significantly qualify 1 and/or 2 to sometimes logical absurdity , as with the Cal “alls” defense).
Hi Prince
With respect, I think perhaps you are missing the power of the so-called ‘Talbott triad’. Which is that the Bible, on a plain reading appears to teach all three statements, but it is logically impossible to affirm all three simultaneously. Reject either 1 or 2 and you reject the foundational doctrines of either Calvinism or Arminianism.
Yes, each of the three statements is contentious in the strict sense of the word. But on that basis pretty much everything in the Bible, every doctrinal belief from original sin to the trinity to the atonement is contentious also. Calvs believe Arms are mistaken in their beliefs, and vice versa. But affirming the truth of Universalism does not introduce a new degree of mistakenness to the equation, it merely presents the logical synthesis of ‘orthodox’ belief.
I reckon .
Cheers
Johnny
That is the whole force of the argument. NO ONE affirms all three points. It is logically possible to affirm only two of them. The two that one affirms indicates whether he is a Calvinist, Arminianist, or Universalist.
Exactly. Probably no Calvinists affirm 2, since they believe God loves only the elect. But they do affirm 1 and 3. That’s what identifies them as Calvinists.
Yes, I’m in agreement with Paidion and Johnny. You can’t affirm all three – you have to make a choice, and imo one should make the best choice one can, based on the overall evidence of scripture.
Oops. 1 would be uncontroversial to a Calvinist (as opposed to 2). Yet, while 1 and 2 might be controversial depending on whether you’re an Arm or a Cal; few Cals or Arms think that 3 is controversial (that is, they think there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence for 3). So, a universalist construal, on their lights, isn’t possible, b/c, in their opinion, 3 can’t be rejected, only 1 or 2. This is just to reiterate that, to me at least, the argument would have the most force if there was anything like an equal or near equal probability of the sets 1,3 (Cal), 2/3 (Arm) 1/2 (Univ.) (Please check to see I haven’t messed up the numbers again , but I think my pt is clear), but, of course, that is just what Cals and Arms deny, and, I think, most univs. deny that there is equal probability for 1/3 and 2/3 to be T compared to 1/2.
To me, this argument best convinces the Biblically agnostic or undecided, for to the agnostic does it appear that all are equally T. If I am mistaken and probabilities aren’t relevant to the argument, please let me know, but if, for example, 3 has only like a 2% chance of being a rejected by a Cal; and only 2% chance of being accepted by a univ., then I don’t see the force that it would have, accept for an agnostic or somebody undecided soteriologically. Hence, my tongue-in-cheek post the other week about needing a robot to read the Bible, b/c it doesn’t seem that anybody is unbiased enough to give these true probabilities, though I think the argument is right that those are three Biblical principles that should have superficial support to the honest reader.**
Hi, Myshkin 
It seems to me that there’s probably little point in arguing for universalism if your goal is to persuade a convinced opponent. If it’s your goal for the debate to be available to other people who might be more likely to be swayed, then that’s probably a reasonable goal. If you merely want to exercise your grasp of the issues, again, that’s probably okay so long as neither of you is harmed by the exchange. Maybe you desire to be challenged and make certain that YOU are not missing something – that is, you yourself are open to being persuaded – again, fine.
The point, imo, of Talbot’s Triad, is to point out that there is very convincing scriptural evidence for both #1 and #2, and (off the presented grid), there is also very convincing scriptural and logical evidence for a #2a corollary: that God (if He loves all people) wills all people to be saved – and a #1a corollary: that God (if He is all powerful) will accomplish whatever He wills. There is, in fact, only very weak evidence for #3. We believe #3 because of the way scripture has been translated and because of the long teaching of it by the church. (And incidentally, the biased translations are probably a corollary of the long teaching of the church regarding ECT.)
That said, ANY argument is for those who are willing to be persuaded by convincing evidence, whether scriptural or philosophical or of some other sort. For those who are settled in their belief, something more powerful than argument will be needed if they’re to be moved. Fortunately, while it’s our duty to be prepared to give an answer to those who ask the reason for the hope that lies within us, conviction is the Holy Spirit’s job. 
A very good thing, as we certainly aren’t capable of it.
Love, Cindy
The God Who will save all is more glorious than a deity who either:
A) wants to save all, but can’t, or
B) could save all, but can’t be bothered to do so.
Jesus Christ is risen and lives with death behind him. Hence there is no power in heaven and earth that can prevent the triumph of his love.
Two strong claims exist in the Bible, claims that can serve as premises in a powerful argument.
** Premise 1: God desires that all be saved.**
Premise 2: God accomplishes all that He desires.
Conclusion: All will be saved.
Supporting biblical verses for premise 1
1 Timothy 2:4, [God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9, The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but [wills instead] that all should come to repentance.
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end. . . . For the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone.
Supporting biblical verses for premise 2
Job 42:2, I know that you [the Lord God] can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
Isaiah 46:10b and 11b, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . . I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.
Isaiah 55:11, So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
May I respectfully suggest that most of the above proposals share a common flaw: the absence and nonnecessity of Jesus Christ. Something is terribly wrong when we find that we can argue for, and believe in, universal salvation without needing the crucified and risen Jesus Christ or without needing the ecumenical doctrines of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. Perhaps one might respond by saying that the above arguments presuppose Christ, etc., and yet it’s not clear to me that they do. A biblical unitarian could equally advance them.
Well, as biblical support for the conclusion that all will be saved, the conclusion listed in my last post, I could have mentioned the role of Jesus, as described in Philippians 2:10-11: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Some critics–blatantly ignoring the phrase to the glory of God the Father, who we know desires that all be saved–claim these verses say nothing about all being saved because the confession may be just a statement of acknowledgement! But that’s not at all what the relevant Greek word for confess conveys in the Bible. The biblical references to exomologeō, which is the word translated as* confess* in these verses, are all at least slightly positive and some are clearly uplifting, conveying the hope of salvation. Here are the references.
Romans 14:11,* For the Scriptures say, “As surely as I live,’ says the LORD, ‘every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess and give praise to God*.’”
Matthew 3:5, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:5, And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Act 19:18, Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices.
Romans 15:9, And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.
James 5:16,* Confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much*.
Revelation 3:5, He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Further support for the conclusion that all will be saved, but through Jesus, are these verses.
1 Corinthians 15:22, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Romans 5:18, So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Clearly, Jesus is pivotal to the salvation of all and is presupposed in the conclusion of my last post.
Minor quibble -
That is imo a caricature, and untrue at that. But this is not the place for the discussion so I will leave it at that.
Of course it’s a caricature, Dave, but that doesn’t mean it’s (totally) untrue.
Okey-dokey!