God is just as much the Savior as He is the Creator.


Suppose the following line of characters represents the entirety of God’s creation:


In non-Universalist thought God saves only:


Or maybe only:


Or even perhaps:


I think it a denial of the doctrine of God the Savior to say that He does not save His entire creation, even as it would be a denial of the doctrine of God the Creator if one were to say that there were some things that God didn’t create. Saying, “God will save Jim, but He won’t save Mike” is just as nonsensical as saying, “God created birds, but He didn’t create butterflies.”

Only Universalism recognizes that God is the Savior (with a capital “S”) instead of a mere savior who manages to save some but not all. God created and will save everything. Any other position effectively denies that God is the Creator and the Savior.


It seems this might be fallacious. Most christians (non universalists) would not conceed because from a different point of view God is the Savior of all his children. While they hold he created all things, they also hold that he allows them to choose life or choose death. So to me, it appears that this position is not bullet proof.

What you might have to do is prove the following:
Logically, It is impossible to be the creator of all things if not all things created are not redeemed from the fall.

I’m not a philosopher so please bear with me :slight_smile:



Christ has redeemed the human race - that is easily proven. That leaves the rocks…and they are crying out. Is all creation animated? Well, why not? Try to measure God’s joy in answering that question. (Who, if I must remind you, can animate bones)


Ran, my point is not whether or not all creation has been redeemed. The point is that geoffreys arguments
a) it is a denial of the doctrine of God the savior to say he does not save all his entire creation JUST AS
b) it is a denial of the doctrine of God the creator to say there were some things that God did not create.

points are not dependant on one another so their likeness to me is a stretch logically speaking.

one could hold that God does not redeem his entire creation and equally hold that God did create every single thing that exists.

I realize Geoff, is not saying they are connected but that there is a “likeness” in the denial of either point.

since they are not connected I don’t see any point to the argument being proof for universal salvation.



While I dont subscribe to Geoffry’s particular argument per se, I have long noted that there are strong prohibitions against denying the name of Jesus in the New Testament. And while there is a substantial exegetical argument that in at least some cases the “name” being affirmed is supposed to be YHWH, I believe there is also a substantial exegetical argument that the name “Jesus” itself is supposed to be indicatively important.

Not because it is unique as a name (like YHWH, for example); obviously YSHuA was not (and still is not) unique as a name. But the meaning of the name is “YH Saves” or “YH is salvation” (depending on the vowel structure I guess).

And that makes excellent sense!–for if we deny that the Lord God saves, then how shall we be saved? It falls directly in line with the warnings that God shall not forgive us our sins unless we forgive those who sin against us; and that God shall show no mercy to those who refuse to show mercy. (Though being God, He shall do better for us than we as sinners would do for our enemies. Even so…)

Thus I suggest that Geoffry’s argument has merit when connected to the name of Jesus: Who was named Jesus because He would save His people from their sins.