Christian Universalism is Biblically False

I aim to show that Pro has not established his case for the proposition that Christian universalism (CU) is biblically false. (I will also be using "CU" as abbreviation for Christian universalist. ) I will try to follow Pro's format for purposes of clarity. ClarificationsInterestingly enough, Pro isn't arguing against CU per se. This He's arguing against a particular generic version of universalism that doesn't even seem to be essentially connected to Christianity. For example, there are many universalists from many different religious traditions and they all have their own way of working out how exactly all people are saved. The closest version of universalism Pro seems to be arguing against is pluralist universalism (PU). PU of this type was most famously advocated by the recently departed John Hick, and while Hick did identify with the Christian religion he also maintained that other religious traditions are all on different paths to the same destination so to speak. There's not necessarily one path that's better than the other. Christ's death and atonement are one way to salvation but not the only way. And even on Hick's account of PU, he vigorously emphasized the importance that libertarian free will has in his theological system. He argues that, in the end, all will freely choose to be with God. So, the quote by Plantinga doesn't even correctly characterize PU as advocated by one it's most famous defenders. That's neither here nor there, however. I don't seek to defend PU. I will defend CU. CU, meaning: "Although this a wide family of views they share in common (a) the commitment to working within a Christian theological framework and (b) the claim that all individuals will be saved through the work of Christ. " [1] This is an immensely important point because many objectors to "CU" confuse it with PU as Pro seems to implicitly do some of the parts of his opening round. It should be noted that there is is a wide variety of views encompassed by CU (just like with other Christian groups). For example, one could be a CU compatibalist or incompatibalist with respect to free will. Which brings me nicely to my next point. CU ExclusivismOne could be a CU and an exclusivist (as defined by Pro). In fact, most adherents of CU throughout the centuries (something a lot of people don't know is that CU has a long history dating back as far as other Christians traditional positions on hell like annihilationism and eternality) have probably been exclusivists. This goes from Origen on down to the present day CU like Thomas Talbott. But one could also be a CU advocate and an inclusivist. Of course, there are also non CU advocates who are both exclusivists and inclusivists. CU exclusivism puts just as much emphasis on John 14:6 as a non CU exclusivist does. A CU exclusivist fully agrees with the non-CU exclusivist that no one will come to the Father except through Christ. The CU exclusivist just thinks that all will come to the Father through Christ. So the CU exclusivist will also agree that the atoning merit of Christ is made exclusively through the universal Christian Church. As we can see, Pro's case for exclusivism largely rests on a misunderstanding of what CU actually is - because a CU exclusivist will actually agree with most of biblical defense of exclusivism. They just think that the scope of God's salvation encompasses all - not anything less than all. To give a very brief example of how this might work note a common text taken by CU to provide evidence of CU - Philippians 2:9-11: Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven,those on earth, and those under the earth, (11) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. What will a non-CU say about this? Well, the only reasonable thing they can say in response is that some will do confess voluntarily and others will not - so it can't be the case that this confession is salvific for everyone. This won't do at all. This text draws on Isaiah 45 (please read these texts so you know I'm not making this up) wherein every tongue shall confess and every knee shall bow to Yahweh. This is in a salvific context. We have even stronger reasons besides Isaiah to suppose that this in a salvific context:A) Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3) B)The very same text that Pro uses - Romans 10:9. C) The word translated as "confess" (exomologeomai) is one that Jesus is word almost always translated as "praise". [3] A Brief Biblical Defense of CUAs much as I hate prooftexting, it's almost unavoidable in this format. Here's a quick snappy argument with biblical warrants for each premise:1. God sincerely wills or desires the salvation of each and every sinful human being. 2. God will eventually achieve a complete victory over sin and death and will therefore accomplish the salvation of everyone whose salvation he sincerely wills or desires3. God will eventually accomplish the salvation of each and every sinful human being. [4]For 1: 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord. .. is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"; 1 Timothy 2:4: "God desires everyone to be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth"; Ezekiel 33:11: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn away from the ways and live. "For 2: Ephesians 1:11: God "accomplishes all things according to his will and counsel"; Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours is thwarted"; Isaiah 46:10b & 11b: "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose. .. I have spoken and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. For 3: 3 follows as a consequence of 1 and 2. But there seems to many such texts that explicitly say all will be saved. Romans 5:18: "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. "; 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. "; Colossians 1:20: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. "; the Philippians verse mentioned above, etc. ConclusionPro has not come close to establishing his resolution - mainly because most of his claims here are entirely compatible with CU and there is biblical warrant to suppose that all will be saved. To reiterate: 1) Exclusivism (as defined by Pro) is compatible with CU, 2) the existence of hell (postmortem punishment) is compatible with CU - as long as it's construed as reconcilliatory, restorative, and not eternal - and, most importantly, 3) there is good justification both from the "big picture" of the bible and specific texts that support the doctrine of CU. Sources[1] Robin Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, "Universal Salvation? : The Current Debate", pg. xvii[2] . http://www.biblegateway.com... [3] . http://www.blueletterbible.org... [4] . http://www.willamette.edu...