Jason Stokes wrote:
> You said it “wasn’t fair” for God to extend mercy to you, merely
> because you were a Christian.
Not quite, you have it backwards. Mercy is available to both you and I. Neither of us deserve it. I accepted it. You have not yet done so.
I was being facetious in the use of “not fair”. It is better than fair.
God is just. Anyone who asks for justice gets it. You can’t be more just than that. Unfortunately, as we are all sinful, justice involves eternal punishment. However if that’s what you want, well you will certainly get it.
However, in addition to being just, God is also merciful.
To anyone who says “I don’t want justice”, God offers a much better alternative: mercy. You want it, you can have it. You reject it, that’s your choice – but don’t winge about the alternative.
If you think that mercy is “unjust” then you and I have a different view of justice.
> As for me, I know damned well it isn’t fair for a
> non-Christian to get annihilated and Christians to go to heaven, if
> that non-Christian has acted just as moral and worked just as hard.
Well, that’s half right. Its perfectly fair (though very sad) for non-Christians to go to hell. It’s not fair, but better than fair, that Christians are saved. They are not saved because they are Christians: “saved” and “Christian” are synonyms in this context.
If a non-Christian lived a perfect life, they could claim a place in heaven on the basis of justice – and they’d get it. However nobody is perfect. You may be as good as (or better than) a Christian – that doesn’t help. The Christian isn’t perfect either.
> This is an inherent injustice of your construction of heaven and hell
> you can’t weasel out of. Since you claim a just God, we must conclude
> your doctrine is false.
The doctrine is unpalatable to you – that doesn’t necessarily make it false. You want salvation, I think you know what’s needed. (If you don’t know I’ll be happy to explain in more detail). If you choose to reject that, you know what the result is. It’s your call.
Michael Smith
Discussion
No comments for “Universalism Revisited”