Soteriology and universalism


#1

Hi Tom T,

I appreciate that you open your forum to constructive criticism. When you have time, could I discuss something with you?

Per a reply in another thread:

You believe that “all the descendants of Adam are already forgiven” while you “hold that God sometimes punishes sin, perhaps even in hell.”

I understand that this is a major part of your Pauline soteriology and eschatology. We end up with the same eschatological result of universalism, but I strongly disagree with your soteriology. Saying that every human is already forgiven while some might go to temporary hell appears odd and unnecessary to me.

Please consider my conditional election model of universalism. I did not yet completely develop it in writing, but I can outline it in three sentences:

  1. God’s inexhaustible offer of loving salvation is given to every free-will creature regardless of hell.
  2. Free-will creatures need to accept salvation by faith.
  3. No free-will creature will endlessly reject the offer.

I suppose 3 is true because:
P1. There is a logical inequality that favors humans to accept God’s grace versus reject God’s grace, which we previously discussed.
P2. A restrictivist model of free will could indicate definite eventual universalism.

I still need to work out my model of free will and universalism while I like Keith DeRose’s model of free will and universalism?

You “have repeatedly argued in many places that the very idea of someone freely and permanently rejecting God’s grace expresses a logical impossibility.” That is great and by itself does not absolutely necessitate 3. Also, saying that the every human is always forgiven does not necessitate 3.

I (2012) wrote a blog paragraph “The Meaninglessness of Christian Inclusivism Without Repentance”:

“This paragraph ponders the meaninglessness of Christian inclusivism that says Christ has saved all people regardless of their faith and lifestyle. If such inclusivism were true, then haters of God have always been saved and will always be saved regardless if they never repent of hating God. Likewise, what is the value of proposing that a departed hater of God went to heaven and continued to hate God? Or what is the value of proposing that populations in heaven will continue to disbelieve Christ as Lord? However, perhaps Christian inclusivists believe that departed unbelievers go to heaven and eventually embrace Christ as Lord. That would mean that everybody eventually converts to Christian faith, so that inclusivism would no longer include unbelievers.”
(theoperspectives.blogspot.com/20 … stian.html)

I did not focus on you when I wrote that while I suppose it applies to your Pauline soteriology.

My conditional election model of universalism works with both (1) conditional futurism and (2) conditional idealism for those who reject eschatological futurism.

Please reconsider your Pauline soteriology and get back to me.

Peace,
Jim


#2

Hi Tom,

I saw your recent reply to Dr. McClymond (Dr. Talbott replies to Dr. McClymond). That makes your view clearer to me while I understand that I misunderstood you and my questions are off. I am sorry. At this point, I see that you propose a type of divine forgiveness that does not include divine pardon. Is that correct? I think that is typically referred to as an offer of forgiveness, but you make the distinction between forgiveness and pardon. So I better understand you, May I ask if you suppose that everybody is already saved while punishments in hell are possible? I have my way of thinking about forgiveness, pardon, and salvation while I want to avoid talking past you anymore. Thank you.

Peace,
Jim