The philosophy of Christian Universalism

[schoel]

In many argued statements against Christian Universalism (CU), it is claimed that CU has only philosophical arguments to give, as if that in an of itself makes it inferior.

In my understanding, the philosophical arguments made by CU are taking verses that imply that all will be saved and deducing something from them.
Wouldn't the classic idea of the Trinity be deduced in the same way?

For those who have made this argument, what do you mean by philosophical? Why does this make the CU arguments inferior to other arguments?

[steve]

"Logic" is a category of "philosophy." All theology is the result of someone's application of logic as an effort to synthesize biblical data. Therefore all theology is biblical philosophy. Why should anyone object to this method when applied to this one subject, when they use it in every other theological category?

[SteveF]

Dave, I wouldn’t say the position is only philosophical but I think I could say their strongest argument is philosophical. Since there is no scripture that explicitly states what happens after you die much of what we discuss is conjecture. When people use the “it’s largely a philosophical argument” statement here’s what I think they’re getting at:

1. Universalism has a good argument when it’s pointed out “if God loves everyone and desires them to be saved then He's going to find a way to do it.”

2. There are scriptures that speak of a final judgement that are highly improbable to understand in any other way.

3. Therefore, while Universalism presents an argument that seems to make sense (philosophically), it can’t be reconciled with the plain meaning of scripture.


Of course Universalists could turn the tables and make the same argument the other way:

1. CI and ECT make a good point about final judgement in scripture, and thus conclude that the scripture teaches there are eternal consequences for sin.

2. There are scriptures that plainly mention the reconciliation of all, and are difficult to see any other way.

3. Therefore, while CI and ECT seem to have a good argument, the scriptures that speak of eternal judgement must be understood in a different way

I don't know if I'll ever understand what happens after you die.....until I die. There are a lot of things I'm still trying to figure out in this life!! Never mind the next.....

[schoel]

"Logic" is a category of "philosophy." All theology is the result of someone's application of logic as an effort to synthesize biblical data. Therefore all theology is biblical philosophy. Why should anyone object to this method when applied to this one subject, when they use it in every other theological category?

I think this summarizes my point. It doesn't seem right to condemn any viewpoint on Scripture simply because it attempts to synthesize different parts of Scripture.
Arguments can be made that a viewpoint misconstrues or contradicts the meaning of passages, but it seems that we should jettison this condemnation of "too much philosophy", especially since we're all doing it.

Dave