UNIVERSALS
234therefore the only position that is possibly
true. Although the advocates of univer-
salism are perhaps increasing in number,
it is still a distinctly minority position.
Two very different accounts have
been given for why some will be lost. On
one side, there is a significant Christian
tradition that holds that God chooses
unconditionally who will be saved and
who will be lost, so it is God who deter-
mines that some persons will be eternally
damned. On the other side, it is held that
some people will, by their own free will,
decisively reject God, and consequently
be lost. On this view, God wills for all to
be saved, so if any are not, it is entirely
due to their own blameworthy choice.
Advocates of universalism challenge key
assumptions of both of these positions.
With regard to the first, and in agreement
with the second, they would contend
that God truly loves all persons and
would never determine anyone to be
lost. Responding to the second position is
more difficult, for if God has made us free
in such a way that our choices are not
determined, then it seems possible that
some will be lost even if God desires to
save them. This is recognized by those
who hold to universalism tentatively, who
argue that it is possibly or probably true,
and we can rightly hope that it is. It is
their view that human freedom does not
necessarily rule out universalism: given
enough time, we may hope that God will
be able to win all persons and all will
freely repent and be saved.
Those who hold that universalism is
the only position that is possibly true
contend that freedom, rightly understood,
does not pose an obstacle. Two distinct
moves have been made. First, it has been
argued that there is no intelligible motive
for anyone freely to choose eternal dam-
nation. Such a choice would entail ever
increasing misery, and at some point, all
persons would be moved to repent and
accept salvation. So the idea that any
rational agent could freely choose eternal
hell and be forever lost is simply incoher-
ent. Second, it is argued that a loving God
would, if necessary, override human free-
dom in order to assure the salvation of all
persons. According to this view, the value
and significance of human freedom have
been overestimated, and it is wrong-
headed to think God would be honoring
us to give us the power to destroy our-
selves in an ultimate sense. A loving God
would not give us such a dangerous gift.
Clearly, the plausibility of universal-
ism depends on one’s judgments about
the value of human freedom as well as
one’s assessment of whether a decisive
choice of evil makes moral and psycho-
logical sense.UNIVERSALS. Types or kinds of things
such as human beings or animals.
Universals are properties which may be
multiply instantiated. Presumably, you
and the authors of this entry exemplify
the universal human being or property