The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Query about argument against Calvinism in TEU

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hello – I’d like to raise a specific question concerning the argument against Calvinism in Chapter 1 of “The Evangelical Universalist”. The argument in the book takes the following form:

  1. God, being omnipotent,* could* cause all people to freely accept Christ.
  2. God, being omniscient, would know how to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
  3. God, being omnibenevolent, would* want *to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
    Now 1-3 entail:
  4. God will cause all people to freely accept Christ.
    From which it follows that:
  5. All people* will *freely accept Christ.

Let’s assume that this logic is correct, and suggest that, if God is "omnibenevolent”, surely He is not solely concerned with people accepting Christ? Surely he is also concerned with other aspects of human suffering.

Let’s consider the following argument which uses the same logic:

  1. God, being omnipotent,* could* prevent all murders in the world.
  2. God, being omniscient, would know how to prevent all murders in the world.
  3. God, being omnibenevolent, would *want *to prevent all murders in the world.
    Now 1-3 entail:
  4. God will cause the prevention of all murders in the world.
    (Let’s stop there!).

We have used identical logic to prove that God will prevent all murders in the world. This is clearly not happening, which tells us that there must be a fault with the logic.

I would suggest:
• God is omnipotent – omnipotence is an infinite, unchanging attribute of His character.
• God is omniscient - omniscience is, again, an infinite, unchanging attribute of His character.
• God is benevolent, having a strong tendency to bless his creatures. Benevolence is not, however, an infinite, unchanging attribute of His character. Simply ask Korah (Num 16), Uzzah (1 Sam 6) and Ananias (Acts 5).
God’s benevolence needs to be understood in the context of His other revealed attributes, specifically His holiness.

Comments appreciated!

#2

Perhaps it’s misleading to assert that a benevolent God’s intent to prevent all murder is on the same level as wanting to prevent endless damnation and torment (and thus instead causing the ultimate acceptance of Christ). For the 2nd outcome is irremedial but the first loss of life can be restored. And the first otherwise would require in the immediate short run eliminating certain genuine choices (which may have value in our formation). But achieving the second can still value choices by allowing infinite pedagogical opportunities which could ultimately bring everyone to genuinely ‘accept’ Christ.

#3

We have used identical logic to prove that God will prevent all murders in the world. This is clearly not happening, which tells us that there must be a fault with the logic.

it is correct that you have used an identical logic [or form of argument] however it does not follow of necessity that the fault lies with the logic :exclamation: :slight_smile: I felt the need to point this bit out , but Bob without any hesitation has given a far better answer than I :wink:

#4

I agree with the above – the difference lies in the permanence of the condition. It’s one thing to say God might allow temporary harm to an individual for greater good to that same individual, another to say He will allow irremediable harm.

Sonia

#5

I reject premise (3) of this argument. It does not necessarily follow from God’s benevolence that he “would want to prevent all murders in the world.” If a person’s being murdered is not inconsistent with their being made finally and eternally happy by God, then there’s no reason to believe God would necessarily want to prevent it from happening, even if he could prevent it from happening. For all we know, a person’s being murdered may in some way contribute to both their future happiness as well as the future happiness of others. For example, Christ’s murder contributed to his future happiness and is contributing (or will contribute) to the happiness of everyone for whom he died.

#6

the whole point of universalism is that death is not forever. so clearly murder and judgement that leads to death are not as bad as being tormented forever.
death is one of many a stepping stones to our salvation.
the smaller evils will eventually be healed, so people accepting christ is far more important than these temporary things

#7

As a trinitarian Christian theologian (and apologist), I strongly disagree with the notion that benevolence is not an infinite, unchanging attribute of God’s character. To say otherwise would be to imply that the Persons of God are occasionally unbenevolent to one another, which would involve schism of the substance (and, if positive aseity is true, the cessation of God’s existence as well as the cessation of all created past, present and future existence of all natural systems.)

I don’t disagree that God calls for the judicial death sentence in the above cases (and elsewhere)–frankly I would take issue with calling those “murders”, though!!–but the logic of the position indicates we should expect God’s intentions toward those people to still be benevolent (in conjunction with God’s own active self-existence as a loving interPersonal unity of fulfilling fair-togetherness, without which those created persons would not have existed, nor continued to exist, to begin with).

Which gets us into the question of whether there is any scriptural evidence that after God has destroyed such rebels to the point that they are neither slave nor free, they will finally learn their lesson thereby, repent, and be restored by God to blessed fellowship with God.

I think there is such scriptural evidence (in fact I just cited some from Deut 32 :wink: ), but that’s quite another discussion.

#8

Food for thought - thank you for the replies.