The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Four premises: your help needed

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

I’m planning on posting an article on my blog outlining an argument for universal salvation. I have formulated four premises. I’d appreciate if you would take a look at them and offer your criticisms, suggestions, and fine-tuning. Thanks.

  1. The human being is created in the image of the divine Son, and this image is never lost.

  2. To turn away from God is to turn away from happiness and bliss: it is to create our own hell and doom ourselves to ever-increasing anguish.

  3. In his infinite love for us, God will not permit us to irrevocably decide against union with him based on either insufficient information or disordered desire.

  4. God will never give up on any sinner.

P.S. Have you ever heard of Sergius Bulgakov? You may find of interest this recent article of mine: goo.gl/Bh5fS.

#2

In Genesis, God says: “Let US create man in OUR image.” So in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. So I’m not sure I’d word prop. 1 that way, but then I think the image was (in part) community with one another and with the Trinity (also community). So when man separated himself from God and from one another by seeking his own independent knowledge, we did lose the image to an extent. That’s part of what Jesus came to restore, imo.

Otherwise I wouldn’t object to the rest. I might nuance some of it a little differently but that’s a personality thing. :wink: Have fun writing your post.

#3

Agree with Cindy that it goes farther than that, but on the other hand focusing it down like this could be more profitable. Perhaps the proposition would be (in two parts):

1a.) All personal spirits, including all human beings, are created in the image of the divine Son;
1b.) The Father would dishonor the Son and the Son would dishonor the Father (and the Spirit would dishonor both) if any of the Persons allowed (much moreso decreed) an image of the beloved Son to be finally lost.

While that’s true, I can’t tell where you’re going with this. It ought to be a non-disputed proposition, though, so make good use of it. :slight_smile:

I’d say this could be put more strongly (connecting with polished 1a-1b):

  1. God Who is essentially love could not be satisfied with less than true love in any created person, so will not permit less than true love to be the final state of any person, much less decree a final state less than true love.

The question of insufficient information or disordered desires doesn’t even become a potential loophole this way.

Well, Arminians broadly dispute that (and Calvinsts, too, in their own way), so simply proposing it doesn’t seem to go anywhere. But it follows logically from me suggested alternatives for 1 and 3, so it could be considered a conclusion from those propositions if they’re accepted. :slight_smile:

Yep, I own his larger trilogy. I liked them, although I lost patience with him about 1/3 of the way through The Bride of the Lamb when he decided to defend something he himself thought was an outright contradiction by throwing logical analysis under a bus. :unamused: Didn’t read him again for a year, and then I just skipped ahead to the end to get some quotes from him about eschatology.

I most enjoyed his opening monographs (for each book) on the historical development of Christian doctrine. Reading the end of TBotL kind of makes me want to go back and read those introductory monographs again just because I liked them so much! :sunglasses:

#4

Thanks, folks, for your thoughts so far. Here are my revised premises, with brief explanations for each. I welcome your further suggestions.

  1. Human beings are created in the image of the divine Son, and this image is never lost.

I understand this to mean that man is created by God to enjoy eternal fellowship with the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit—in other words, theosis. God is our supernatural end, fulfillment, supreme good, and true happiness.

  1. To turn away from God is to turn away from our supreme good and thus to turn away from true happiness: it is to create our own hell and doom ourselves to ever-increasing anguish.

God does not damn; we damn ourselves. God simply allows us to experience the terrible consequences of our disbelief, decisions, and actions.

  1. God will not permit us to irrevocably decide against union with him based on either insufficient information or disordered desire.

In the words of philosopher Thomas Talbott: “If I am ignorant of, or deceived about, the true consequences of my choices, then I am in no position to embrace those consequences freely; and similarly, if I suffer from an illusion that conceals from me the true nature of God, or the true import of union with God, then I am again in no position to reject God freely” (The Inescapable Love of God, p. 187). Similarly, if I am enslaved to my destructive desires and passions, then I am not in a position to make a free decision. Just as addicts are incapable of making free and responsible decisions until they have secured liberation from the drugs that enslave them, so those who are in bondage to their passions are incapable, to the degree they are so bound, of free actions and decisions. They could not have done otherwise.

  1. God never gives up on any sinner; he never withdraws his offer of forgiveness.

God has not set a time limit on the offer of salvation, nor has he configured the afterlife to render it impossible for sinners to repent and turn to him. God loves every human being with an infinite and absolute love. He truly wills the good and salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4) and welcomes all who come to him in repentant faith.

  1. When a person surrenders to God in death or in the afterlife, his orientation is definitively stabilized and his eternal bliss confirmed.

In the afterlife, the redeemed no longer have the freedom to reject God, for their freedom has been fulfilled in God. Theologians advance various arguments to explain this truth, but all agree upon it. In heaven, once saved, always saved.