Reflections on the implications of an argument often raised against Christian universalism

 

Reflections on the implications of an argument often raised against Christian universalism

I should clarify that this post isn’t a criticism of Christianity in general but it is a reflection of the implications of a rigidly exclusivist theistic worldview.

I want start  from a critique  against a common objection to universalism that is often raised by anti-universalists. The argument IMO implies that if 'evagelization' is truly as necessary as some anti-universalists believe, this would imply that God doesn't want the salvation of all.

My critique is aimed at those views which accept the following propositions:

(1) There is no possibility of salvation after this life

(2) In order to be saved, it is necessary for a human being to join a particular religious denomination/community ('exclusivism')

(3) There is a creator God that wants the salvation of all human beings/that no human being should be lost forever

Let's call 'evangelization' the efforts of any religious community to convert non-believers.

If as propositions (1) and (2) imply, the ultimate fate of any human being is determined by their entrance into a given religious denomination, it follows that the fate of any human being doesn't depend only on the choices of that human being but also on the choices and efforts of others. So, if this is true God would let that the ultimate fate of each human being is contingent on the choices of other human beings. So, in these views, God would allow the possibility that some or many human beings will be lost forever in part due to the choices of other human beings. This is to me clearly inconsistent with proposition (3): if God truly wanted that no one should be lost forever, it is hard to imagine that the same God would allow that the ultimate fate of any human being would depend on the choices and efforts of other human beings.

So, the 'argument from evangelization' against universalism is hardly coherent when made by some anti-universalist. It is based on two premises (1) and (2) that, taken together, would de facto deny proposition (3), i.e. that God's salvific will is universal. But if God's salvific will is not universal, it follows that God either wants the salvation only of some or of none. However, if this is true, one can't say that the "efficient cause of one's damnation" is only the misuse of one's own free will.

Hence, my conclusion is that 'evangelization' (in this life) and the consequent possible entrance into the 'right religious tradition' can't be a decisive factor for the salvation of any human being not only for the universalist but also for all anti-universalists model who insist that the "efficient cause of one's damnation" is solely the misuse of one's own free will.

The fact that the acceptance of both an anti-universalist view and exclusivism seems to imply the denial of the universality of God's salvific will is perhaps reflected in the Christian theologian Augustine of Hyppo’s (fl. 4-5th century) denial that God wills the salvation of all (see his discussion in Enchiridion 97-103[1], I quote some excerpts):

“97. Accordingly, we must now inquire about the meaning of what was said most truly by the apostle concerning God, "Who willeth that all men should be saved."For since not all--not even a majority-- are saved, it would indeed appear that the fact that what God willeth to happen does not happen is due to an embargo on God's will by the human will. Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it." But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the power of willing or not willing. For, if we could attribute to their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they were saved against their will. But the Lord's language is clearer when, in the Gospel, he reproveth the unrighteous city: "How often," he saith, "would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks, and you would not."204 This sounds as if God's will had been overcome by human wills and as if the weakest, by not willing, impeded the Most Powerful so that he could not do what he willed. And where is that omnipotence by which "whatsoever he willed in heaven and on earth, he has done," if he willed to gather the children of Jerusalem together, and did not do so? Or, is it not rather the case that, although Jerusalem did not will that her children be gathered together by him, yet, despite her unwillingness, God did indeed gather together those children of hers whom he would? It is not that "in heaven and on earth" he hath willed and done some things, and willed other things and not done them. Instead, "all things whatsoever he willed, he hath done."

…

103. Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God "willeth that all men should be saved," although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man.” This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God. In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will--he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them--but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our Lord? Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth. Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered "for all men" and especially "for kings and all those of exalted station," whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his argument, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour" -- that is, to pray even for such as these kings--the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted--a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb." Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of herb," so also we can interpret "all men" to mean "all kinds of men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. "He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed," as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point.”

Needless to say, the view that God’s salvific will is universal is nowadays clearly affirmed by the Catholic Church[2], which still reveres highly Augustine.  

If anything, the view espoused by Augustine, however, is coherent. It is hard to make sense of a Creator God (who is said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient, among other things) would want or desire the salvation of all human beings if the ultimate fate of each human being is contingent on his or her (visible) entrance into a particular religious tradition.

So, in my view, Augustine was just correctly describing the consequences of holding a so rigidly exclusivist view. If such exclusivism were true, it would be incoherent to think that God’s salvific will is universal. Augustine understood this but instead of either abandoning proposition (1) or (2) he abandoned proposition (3).  

I should perhaps add the following question, however. If God exists and doesn’t want the salvation of all, I believe that one could raise the following question: for what purpose did God create those people He doesn't want to be saved (or is indifferent of their fate)?

 


[2] See e.g. paragraphs 1058, 1821 of the Current Catechism. Also, paragraphs 1033 and 1037 make it quite clear that the cause of one’s own damnation is the misuse of one’s own free will and goes against the will of God.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see (pages 2-10 in this document), the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). At page 8 there is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition Warning: the present post is subject to revision East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Church. This testimony is particularly interesting because it provides evidence that ‘universalism’ was often...
Read more

On the historical reception of the eschatological views of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)'

   On the historical reception of the eschatological views  of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)' In what follows, I will make a list of references of both pre-modern and recent (20-21th centuries) witnesses of ‘universalist’ [1]  or ‘universalist-leaning’positions in the writings of the Cappadocian Christian philosophers (who lived in the fourth century): Basil of Caesarea, Macrina the Younger, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus.  The purpose of this text is to show that, while scant, there is evidence that in Ancient and Medieval times some have affirmed the presence of the doctrine in these figures – at least in the case of Gregory of Nyssa – or tried to explain it away by suggesting that the texts have been interpolated (which, in a way, is an admission of the presence of the doctrine in the texts themselves) and the latter strategy was probably popular among the later Greek fathers. It should be noted that there is no writing attributed to M...
Read more