A Brief Case for Universalism

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.


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

  2. Thanks, traumerei.

  3. 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."

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

  5. What are you talking about, Silas?

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

    Captcha: presto

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

  8. 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.)

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

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fiat Currency