If God created humankind and planned and made provisions for their salvation through Jesus Christ, is it logical to entertain the possibility that humankind or any other creature which God has created (physical or spiritual) would have the capacity to reverse or in any way thwart that creation/plan?
In other words, is it possible for any of humankind's activities, behaviors, sins or atrocities to disrupt or overturn God's will? Can war, genocide, abortion, infanticide, pedophilia, injustice, prejudice or ANY other sins/behaviors/actions thwart the will of God? Does God have the ability to forgive and overcome ANY human behavior that might justly be said to be contrary to the will of God? And, if God does have that ability, doesn't that imply/suggest that there is absolutely NOTHING that we can EVER do to thwart God's creation or plan?
In short, does God's creation or plan depend upon us in ANY material way? And, if the salvation of humankind is God's endgame, what would the failure of the vast majority of those creatures say about the fulfillment of God's will/plan/objective? Does the success or failure of God's plans and purposes rest in our hands or God's?
Do we have ANY part to play in our own salvation? I guess we could answer that question in the affirmative - if by that, we mean that each one of us as an individual human must make the decision to participate in that plan (or accept the gift). Nevertheless, even on an individual basis, doesn't Scripture clearly state that EVERY knee will eventually acknowledge and accede to God's will (authority, plan, power, etc.)?
For me, my observations of the world around me, my own experiences as a person, the weight of the Scriptural evidence on the subject and common sense ALL dictate that we acknowledge God's Sovereignty, and that God's Will/Plan/Purposes are immutable - That God's design will succeed and triumph over ANY perceived obstacles or impediments!
Miller, I am a Trinitarian universalist. I could say an evangelical universalist except there are some things about evangelicalism that I do not like. I do not believe that anything can impede the love of God and that the salvation of all of humanity is assured. Three important points:
ReplyDelete1. The omnipotent creator God is an effective and perfect savior. If he desires all people to be saved, all people will be saved.
2. God has created all people to want and desire the good. Sometimes the do not understand what good is but once enlightenment comes, the good will be sought. And that good in its best form is union with God.
3. There is a hell and it should be avoided. Hell is rehabilitative and not destructive. It is roughly what the RCC calls Purgatory. It is not eternal.
The topic of universalism is treated extensively by David Bentley Hart, Tom Talbot, Robin Parry and others. Among the many universalist patristics, Gregory of Nyssa is prominent. On this point, I depart from Barth and Torrance.
I am not trying to sell you on the idea. It is just that the questions that you raise are addressed nicely by universalism.
NEO,
DeleteDavid Bentley Hart is a little too dogmatic for me. I reject traditional notions which suggest that only a few folks will eventually be saved, but I think that the notion of universal salvation also has some philosophical and scriptural challenges.
For me, the notion of justice and a just God dictate that a creature must understand the choice before them and make an informed decision to reject that which is good and God's offer of salvation if they are to be eligible for the "second death" (I continue to reject the notion of eternal suffering). I also believe that logic and common sense dictate that the number of creatures reaching such a negative and irrevocable choice must of necessity be small. Likewise, like you, I believe that God's desire that all people be saved argues in the direction that most will be. Moreover, as I indicated in the post, the notion that the vast majority of humanity would end in failure makes God's plan of salvation very inefficient and would by just about any objective standard force one to evaluate it as a failure.
"I also believe that logic and common sense dictate that the number of creatures reaching such a negative and irrevocable choice must of necessity be small."
ReplyDeleteHart makes a persuasive argument that this number isn't just small, it's zero. Torrance argues that the constraint that all people be saved limits God's free will. An argument that I do not buy into.
******* Click on my moniker for Disclaimer