Do Universalists Need Jesus?

Someone I know recently said that if Universalism is true then we don't need Jesus and, since I've heard this statement too many times from too many traditionalists, I felt a need to give a short response to it here.

As a Christian Universalist, I like to respond to assertions like this one with a parable in the form of a news article:

At 6:00pm, Friday evening, firefighter Joshua Christos died in order to rescue all 300 children trapped in Kosmos Public School as it was burning to the ground. However, because he saved all 300 students, rather than just 2 or 3 of them, we are forced to declare that Joshua's death didn't actually serve any purpose even though none of the children would have been saved had he not died.

I realize that Universal Reconciliation isn't an easy doctrine to swallow, but statements like "If Universalism is true then Jesus died in vain" make me wonder whether most traditionalists are even trying when they argue against the idea.

TULIP

Believe it or not, I find that there is quite a bit in Calvinism to agree with, particularly their take on free will. There are a couple points where we disagree though, what with me being a Christian Universalist and all, so I thought I'd give my Universalist take on TULIP:

1. Total Depravity/Total Grace: Every part of our lives is affected by sin, but where sin abounds grace super-abounds so every sin has already been forgiven and all of humanity has already been ontologically saved in Christ.
2. Unconditional Election: God elects to noologically save some people based upon no merit of their own.
3. Limited (noological) Salvation in this Age: Only those to whom God has revealed the truth of their ontological salvation will be noologically saved during their lifetime.
4. Irresistible Grace: Those whom God elects cannot resist (noological) salvation.
5. Perseverance of God: God will sacramentally save everyone in the end.

This post explains the references to the three different stages of salvation (ontological, noological and sacramental), just in case you're not familiar with them.

Let's See What You've Got

In my experience, really thinking over the implications and ramifications of their own doctrines doesn't seem to be something most Christians do. Likewise, theological consistency doesn't appear to be a virtue among most Christians either. These observations are probably made the clearest when it comes to the topic of hell. The fact that interpreting the 10 passages generally used to defend Everlasting Torment in hell as an actual defense of the doctrine means that, in order to be exegetically consistent, one also seems to have to believe in salvation by works appears to completely fly over the heads of those trying to use those passages.

Interestingly, traditionalist Christians will exegete passage after passage in order to prove that homosexuality or premarital sex or abortion is a sin, not to mention in order to prove a multitude of completely trivial doctrines, and yet you'll have an easier time trying to kill a grizzly bear with a toothpick than you will getting a believer in Everlasting Torment to explain how those passages actually back up this particular belief. My theory is that they realize none of those passages actually even seem to imply salvation by grace through faith and not of works but are in denial about the whole thing. They can (and sometimes will) argue that it's just so obvious that there's no point in explaining their interpretations of these passages, but, as I said, they're happy to exegete passages to defend much lesser doctrines at the drop of a hat so that makes such arguments suspect in my opinion.

So, to those who insist that people will spend eternity suffering in hell if they don't put their faith in Christ before they die, and that good works won't help them, remember that extreme assertions require extreme proof, and we've yet to see even minor proof from your side. I've given my defense of Universal Reconciliation on this site and on various message boards, even from a completely biblical inerrantist position, but we're all still waiting to see what you guys have to Scripturally and consistently back up your soteriology. The ball's in your court now, let's see what you've got.