A reflection on two of the threads running in my favorite Usenet newsgroup
(aus.religion.christian) at the moment: the substitutionary atonement and universalism
discussions.

As I see it, one of the key problems in our thinking involves divorcing one or more
important characteristic/s (I prefer that term to ‘attributes’) about God from
others.

First universalism. You can’t discuss this issue (‘All will/will not be
saved’) without recognizing God as Lover, Lawgiver/Judge, and Sovereign. God as Lover
desires all to be saved (Fundamentalists aren’t comfortable with that and the
hard-line Fundamentalists seem to enjoy the prospect of non-Fs burning in hell). God as
Sovereign/King cannot have his will thwarted. God as Judge must take sin seriously
(Fundamentalists are more comfortable here)…

Re the Atonement. I remember a Reformed professor of theology (Klaas Runia) giving a
talk to the effect that there are _three_ generic views of the atonement in the Bible and
through Christian history. First, the classical model (Jesus died to defeat death/hell) –
beloved by the Eastern church. Then there’s the sin/redemption model (the Western
church). And finally the relational model (God’s love reconciling us to himself)
espoused by liberal Christians…

Who’s right? You guessed it: all three!

(Now like the guy in the Civil War who thought he’d escape being shot at by
wearing the top of one army’s outfit and the pants of the other, but got bombarded
from both directions… I’ll retreat back into my sabbatical… Go for it!)