Universalism: a compromise
For a short time I would say that I accepted an idea known as Universalism. This is the idea that there is a God who created us and that perhaps there is some good information about Him we can learn from the Bible. However, it holds that He loves us all, and whether or not we have the perfect theology or even the correct religion we can still go to heaven.
This idea helps solves issues like: what about those who haven’t heard. Or what about babies? Or for some, what about aborted babies? It allows that all of us can be saved either by God’s overall love applied to everyone, or at least by being good people.
This to me made sense. If God is really a loving God than how could he let anyone go to hell.
I know the argument that God wants us to love Him and thus he gave us a free will. How can it be truly love if we can’t freely choose whether we love him or not right?
This to me if logically flawed.
If I have a son who is playing with a ball and the ball goes into a busy street. I call out to him and beg for him not to run into the street to retrieve his ball. He doesn’t listen to me. I want him to. It would be rewarding and considered a sign of love for him to simply trust me and not run into the street.
However, he is smaller than I am and less developed. He doesn’t understand how the world works and that big cars can crush little people. He doesn’t see the big picture. He is unable to look past the momentary pleasure of running for his ball. So he does.
What is the most loving thing for me to do? If you say leave him be and let him go on his own you are an evil person. I would chase him down and against his will snatch him from the traffic despite all his protests in order to protect his life.
How do we not apply this same logic to God? How is it more loving for God to let us choose to love Him on our own rather than forcibly saving us from the fire of hell?
If this road I am on is taking me away from God, and God and hell are real, wouldn’t it be a more loving thing for God to forcibly change my direction than to let me continue down this supposedly destructive path?
Somehow very few Christians I talk to seem to be able to grasp this concept. for the Calvinists, they simply say “god choose some for heaven and some for hell”. Sounds like a terrible God if you ask me. The argument is that God’s greatest purpose is to bring honor to his name. This is not considered vain because he indeed is the greatest being. Therefore he deserves it. And it is ultimately good for those who believe, because being in the glory of the greatest being there is would be the greatest joy a person could experience. But what about those who he condemns to hell? Isn’t that a pathetic being that needs to burn people in hell against their will in order to make himself great? Especially since he created a vast universe in which those people are a minuscule speck, how insecure can he be that he needs to condemn these little insignificant beings to eternal torment to feed his ego? This is completely illogical to being with, and if true it would indicate a psychotic supreme being at best, not a loving one in whom to put out trust.
Let’s revisit the logic of hell next…
Follow my world adventures on Instagram @Jeltown