After studying the scriptures and arguments for and against Christian universalism I have to say that a good case can be made for it’s rational permissibility. For the scriptures can be taken this way or that way depending on one’s starting point and assumptions on this issue. Our starting point, assumptions, and emotional biases will cause us to explain away those passages that seem to contradict our position. We simply cannot get the view from nowhere. Reason is situated, located, embodied in this person at this time and in this place. It is moved by our biases and emotions to attend to this sort of evidence and to ignore that sort of evidence. From what I can see, if you want universalism to be true then, yes, “the evidence” is perfectly clear and there is much of it. If I believe in bigfoot I see lots of evidence for bigfoot. The trouble is with the prior conviction and how it creates an epistemological filter, literally creates the evidence you want to see. It’s called confirmation bias. And to suggest that universalists, alone, are unaffected by this universal feature of human psychology shows that universalists are naïve. Can we show that universalists are in an epistemically superior position? I don’t know. We don’t have belief independent access to all the factors that condition our acceptance or rejection of all the relevant evidence. I wish the Bible and universalist arguments could do more than establish the belief that Christian universalism is rationally permissable, but I’ll settle for rational permissability. That way I can know that my faith is not blind. I may be taking a leap in the dim but it’s not a leap in the dark. The best we can do is trust God and hope and pray that all will eventually be saved. It is here, and only here, that we will be demonstrating the fruits of faith, hope, and love.
Hi Cole
You’re right 
. And confirmation bias is a very interesting, and much underestimated, fallacy. We are all guilty of it, all the time - in everything, not just our religious beliefs. We do very well to arm ourselves against it.
I would just say, though - and I’m sure you’d agree with this - that just as Universalism cannot be ‘proven’ from Scripture, neither can any of the popular alternatives (Calvinism or Arminianism, leading to ECT or annihilationism). Indeed, both the truth of Scripture itself, and the very existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ either. All these things must be taken on faith - after carefully weighing up the evidence.
However, I believe that Universalism has a huge epistemological advantage over competing belief systems - at least those that end in ECT. It makes much more sense to me to believe that a God of absolute love and absolute power - ie the orthodox Christian God - would both want to save all his children and be able to do so. The (hyper) Calvinist God isn’t worthy of belief, let alone worship, and as I have said many times here, if God does in fact turn out to be a Calvinist then I would gladly be damned with the reprobate than spend eternity in his tyrannical presence. The Arminian God looks like a better option, on the surface; but scratch that surface (as we have been doing on Kate’s ‘Refuting Arminianism’ thread) and you find a God who is, ultimately, no more loving than the Calvinist God. After all, what loving parent would ever turn their offspring, no matter how far they strayed?
I thank God that the loving and powerful God of Universalism is portrayed in the Bible. If he weren’t, I’d probably be an atheist.
Wishing you and those you love a peaceful and relaxing New Year mate.
All the best
Johnny
Yes, Johnny, I would agree.
I have tentatively believed all three positions of the afterlife. I tend to think (now) that the truth may be between universalism and annihilationism. Certainly God’s intent (IMO) is to produce life. Free-will, as I understand it, may refuse life. This can be seen as an ideological protest or an authority question. I do not know for certain, though, whether annihilation should be assumed. I only leave it as a possibility. Torture, on the other hand, is an outrageous possibility. I have always struggled with that idea, even when I looked at arguments which were supporting it. The idea of torture just smacks me in the mouth every time it is presented. I am aware that many of the ECF spoke of eternal punishment; but I do not think they meant “eternal torture” when this was said. There are ramifications that may be “eternal” without implying any form of literal torture. There is debate about the word “eternal”; but regardless, it had no connection (IMO) with torture - temporary or eternal.
I think St. Thomas Aquinas does a good job on justifying eternal punishment. The idea is that mortal sins are against God and therefore carry more weight than the other sins. Part of what determines the severity of the sin is the TYPE OF BEING that is being sinned against. For example: killing an ant isn’t as bad as killing a cat. And killing a cat isn’t as bad as killing a human. And killing a human isn’t as bad as killing Jesus Christ. Since all mortal sins are against God they belittle His infinite glory. It follows that the consequences of such sins should likewise be infinite. Moreover, it’s not unreasonable to believe that those who are separated from God’s grace remain evil and unrepentant in hell. No one has given any adequate reasons to my mind for rejecting these possibilities.
I don’t think that your analogy takes into consideration the ignorance of the crime. It is not as though people actually know the enormity of the offence, and this is what we can be assured of with God; He considers our ignorance and motives. Jesus said: “Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing.” Jesus does not say, “Kill them all, father, for they do not know who their messing with…”.
Your portrayal of God, IMO, shows that God has NO consideration of the weight of the crime. A baby who knows no better must be tortured… as ignorance is no excuse. I would think that this portrayal of God is blasphemous toward God. However, I think God takes into account that you don’t know any better.
Steve,
I think that’s true for some people and God does take that into account for them. But the Bible tells us in places that some sins are against Him in that they break His moral law. Those who are aware of this are held responsible.
"It follows that the consequences of such sins should likewise be infinite. "
I understand that reasoning, but think it should rather be as St. Paul put it:
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Christ died for sinners! Where sin abounded (even an infinite sin) grace abounds even more.
Dave,
You must accept it though.
Yep, and our Father will persuade us. At least, as an EU, that’s what the scriptures teach.
Dave,
As a Thomist the scriptures also teach that some people freely reject God.
Of course we are held responsible; but everything is relative to our knowledge, awareness and circumstances. It is the fact that God has mercy that gives us all reason to be joyful. Every single person would “deserve” to be tortured if your criteria of ‘TYPE OF BEING’ was considered. God does not judge us on that basis, fortunately. “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.” (Matthew 12:31, 32) It makes no difference of the ‘TYPE OF BEING’. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both Divine.
Steve,
We must then get into what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. But you see, your response here does nothing to show that St. Thomas Aquinas argument is flawed. He and I both agree that we must be aware of what we are doing. As I showed, the type of being does matter. It’s a principle of justice. PART of what determines the severity of the sin is the type of being sinned against. I showed this above. You don’t like it because it doesn’t make you feel good. And so you look for a way around it. But you haven’t shown that it’s not plausible. It makes perfect sense. Surely torturing an ant isn’t as bad as torturing a dog. And torturing a dog isn’t as bad as torturing a human. The type of being does matter. And our justice system takes such things into consideration. Torture an ant and then torture a baby human and see if the judge in court doesn’t take torturing a baby human as being worse than torturing an ant. Moreover, as I pointed out above it’s not unreasonable to believe that those in hell stay evil and unrepentant since they are separated from God’s grace. Either model will work in justifying hell. Maybe even a combination of both of them.
It is not a principle of justice imo. The shocking and wonderful thing about God is free undeserved Grace to his enemies. St. Thomas was a great philosopher and theologian, but the scriptures are clear that where sin abounds, grace and love abound superabundantly. The greater the offence, the greater the grace. I thank God for that.
No, Michael, it makes no difference what the sin of the Holy Spirit is. You said that “part of what determines the severity of the sin is the **TYPE OF BEING **that is being sinned against.” In this case, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the exact same “TYPE OF BEING”. There is a distinction of severity between the exact “TYPE OF BEING”. Either your statement is true or false, and the scriptures clearly show that your statement is false.
It makes me feel neither good nor bad, Michael, I just think that you offer a strange opinion.
Hi Michael
I think Steve and Dave are right on this one. Your argument is predicated on three assertions, none of which is supported by Scripture, and two of which are actually contradicted by Scripture. To take these three assertions one by one:
Why? This concept isn’t found anywhere in the Bible. You are extrapolating from a purely anthropocentric notion - that “torturing a dog isn’t as bad as torturing a human” - to reach a conclusion about sin generally, but with no justification. And anyway, I’d take issue with the whole basis of the original assertion. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that in a very important sense, torturing a dog is worse than torturing a human, because a dog can’t fight back, as it were. We should be just as kind and loving towards all sentient creatures (which doesn’t include ants) as we should humans.
This concept isn’t found in the Bible either. As I have pointed out before, it is a type of logical fallacy known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It takes two entirely separate concepts - sins committed by finite creatures, and the infinite nature of God - and draws a spurious metaphorical circle around them to create a relationship between them, like the wayward gunman who sprays his bullets around and then draws a target round the holes to make it appear as if he’s a dead shot.
If your assertion is true, then the qualifier ‘mortal’ is redundant. All sins would warrant infinite punishment. Now not only is this concept meaningless - what form, exactly, would infinite punishment take, I wonder? - it is demonstrably unbiblical. Jesus says (Luke 12:47-48):
“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
None of us can ever be separated from God’s grace. Hell, such as it is, must, as Robert Farrar Capon says, be firmly located in the realm of grace. The episode where Christ preached to the spirits in prison in 1 Peter 3, known as the Harrowing of Hell, proves this. Or consider Psalm 139:8 - “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.”
As GMac says in his Unspoken Sermon It Shall Not Be Forgiven, “God who has made us can never be far from any man who draws the breath of life - nay, must be in him; not necessarily in his heart, as we say, but still in him.” If God withdrew from us completely, we would die.
Finally, as Dave has pointed out, all sin is ultimately against God, but Jesus has dealt with it all, once and for all, on the cross. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. And Jesus has explicitly told us that all sins will be forgiven - even sins against him, as Steve has pointed out.
Cheers
Johnny
I’d assume it an impossibility for anyone to belittle an infinitely all glorious God… anything contrary would make no logical sense.
Right on the money, Davo. As if anything a mere created being could do could diminish God’s glory one iota.
J
No. The principle that is used by our justice system doesn’t say this. It takes into consideration the different types of being. Not all sins are against God on this model.
On this model this is a reference to purgatory not eternal punishment.
On this model the second death is eternal separation. It’s plausible
Nothing you or Steve or anybody else has said invalidates the principle that our justice systems use. Steve thinks it’s strange. But thinking something is strange doesn’t show logical inconsistency or invalidity.
People downgrade the glory of God all the time. I can treat someone like trash. But this doesn’t mean they are trash.