A Brief Case for Universalism

By -
I've just started thinking about this, so it's very rough at this point, but here goes:

1) Christ died to save everyone.

2) But if he didn't save everyone, he failed.

3) God cannot attempt something and fail.

4) Therefore, Christ did save everyone.

5) But how can this be just? Mother Teresa acted good and suffered, while I know a bastard who has done nothing but enjoy himself. If they both are immediately saved, that is unjust, isn't it? And God is just.

6) Therefore, it is not the case that both are immediately saved. The sinner must continue to suffer until he repents. So, if he hasn't repented at death...

7) To reconcile universalism and justice, we require something like purgatory or reincarnation.

8) Hey, not so fast! What about "eternal damnation"? That one is easy: "Eternity" is not a long stretch of time, it is removed from time. Every instant that one is damned is an eternity of damnation!

9) Conclusion: Everyone will be saved. However, for some, it may require millions of years of wallowing in sin before they are ready to repent. This is perfect justice: At every moment, the possibility is open to every sinner to fully repent and accept God. But, so long as they fail to do so, they will continue to suffer the pain imposed upon them by their own sinfulness.


Comments

  1. traumerei5:14 PM

    Good post, that's how I also see the nature of salvation personally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah7:18 PM

    Thanks, traumerei.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy11:06 PM

    I think you're probably much closer to the answer than the major sects, Gene. For sure, when we die, and we understand God's plan fully, we will say, "Ohhhhh. That's so much fairer and more awesome than what I could have imagined. And, I understand why Jesus described it the way He did, given our limited earthly frame of reference."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Silas Barta12:56 PM

    Don't you normally get indignant when a commenter writes with this level of (un)familiarity about a religious doctrine?

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah2:19 PM

    What are you talking about, Silas?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Silas Barta2:55 PM

    Your ratio of "attempted insight on Universalism" to "knowledge of Universalism"?

    Captcha: presto

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah3:08 PM

    Silas, what do you know about universalism? What do you think I am ignorant about in my post?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Silas Barta8:40 PM

    I don't know, but your post is filled with a lot of admitted uncertainties about Universalism and their opinions on certain issues, to the point that it seems your knowledge is short of what you would normally expect out of others before making claims about a topic.

    (Website browsed and comment submitted using only they keyboard thanks to Pentadactyl Firefox extension.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott8:56 PM

    This is fantastic! I love George MacDonald and really wanted to believe this for some time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. gcallah9:13 PM

    Silas, I am proposing a speculative theory. Naturally, when I am first working it out, I am uncertain about it.

    I am NOT trying to say anything about what universalists historically have believed.

    In any case, these posts were just you trying to play "gotcha," right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Silas Barta8:41 AM

    Gene, I wasn't playing "gotcha". You were engaging in a lot of speculation where learning more about the position you were speculating about seemed like it would have been productive, and you are typically more alert to such cases in others, so I mentioned it. If I wanted to play "gotcha", I would have picked a better place.

    ReplyDelete
  12. gcallah11:57 AM

    OK, Silas, I will take your word for it. But, in any case, I was *not* speculating about what some other universalist thinks. I was creating my own universalist defense.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more