Saturday, July 4, 2009

An argument against Universalism from atonement

Many universalists seem to assume two things. On the one hand, Universalists accept
(A) Jesus died as a substitionary atonement.
And, on the other hand, universalists accept
(B) Some people will be punished after death.
Now, given a certain (popular) conception of universalism, (A) and (B) seem to be incompatible. For (A) seems to entail
(A*) People needed salvation from x.
Now, the question is, what is x? Some sort of punishment, presumably. Is the punishment to which x refers the same as the punishment mentioned in (B)? Not obviously. For many universalists seem to distinguish between the punishment people in fact receive and the punishment they would have received had Jesus not died as an atonement. For example, Keith DeRose writes, "Weak exclusivism, then, will be the position that combines the exclusivist thesis that Christ's saving work is necessary for the salvation of any person - so that were it not for Christ, none could be saved ... The scriptural basis for exclusivism is overwhelming." This line of thought seems to entail
(C) If Jesus had not died as an atonement, everyone would have suffered x.
Now this raises the question again, What is x? Whatever it is, everyone has been saved from it by Christ (hence "if not for Christ, none could be saved"). Now this raises a big problem. For (B) above states that some people will be punished. But if Jesus' atonement saves people from what they would have faced, then it must follow that:
(1) Either no one is punished [~(B)] or people are not punished justly (they do not receive what they deserve and would have received).
This means that the universalist must reject (B) above. Thus, universalism emerges as a position that fails to retain any form of retributive justice that is not directed at Jesus as an atonement. But a further objection can be raised. If the above dilemma is not a false dilemma, then it seems that one's accepting Christ during this lifetime is completely irrelevant. For example, consider Jim and Joe. Jim accepts Christ in his lifetime and Joe rejects Christ in his lifetime. If (1) is true, it follows that both Jim and Joe do not receive punishment after death. But then what was the purpose of Jim accepting Christ? Nothing having to do with punishment.

In conclusion, it seems that a traditional understanding of the atonement forces universalism into an undesirable reformulation. However, the universalist might simply water down atonement by interpreting x differently. It could be that x is not what everyone would have suffered, but that x is what some people will in fact suffer. In other words, Jesus' atonement saves people from the (finite) punishment they deserve. In this case, those that accept Jesus as an atonement go straight to heaven, whereas those who do not face their just deserts first. The question is whether or not this conception of atonement is adequate.

No comments: