Love's Final Victory / Ultimate Universal Salvation on the Basis of Scripture and Reason

by Horatio

Look at the matter simply and candidly. Did not Christ die for every soul of man? All theological subtleties aside, we joyfully believe that He did. The fact is stated over and over again in Scripture, with the utmost plainness; and it is assumed in a multitude of other passages. So clearly has this come to be recognized that the American Presbyterian Church formally adopted it, and put it in their "Brief Statement" some years ago. It is also proposed for acceptance in the creed of the united churches of Canada, if that union is consummated. And despite all theories to the contrary, it is believed and preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches.

Very well. Consider what is involved in that article of our faith. If Christ really died for all, does not justice require that all will be saved! If Christ paid the debt for every sinner, will not every sinner be redeemed? How else could infinite justice be satisfied? I wish our Methodist brethern would consider this matter well. All honor to the Methodist Church for its noble testimony to the universality of the atonement. But does not universal atonement imply universal salvation? If we may speak of such things in the language of mathematics may we not say that universal salvation is the corollary of universal atonement? To this conclusion it does seem to me that we are inevitably led.

I was speaking lately to a Methodist minister of a very acute but candid mind. He put the matter in this way: Either Christ made an atonement for each one, or He did not. Did He not actually bear upon His heart the sins of the whole world? And if the whole world, then surely each one singly, so that every child of humanity may truthfully say with Paul, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." Does not justice then demand that each one will be saved? In our present limited outlook there may be a difficulty as to how and where; but the glorious fact seems to be beyond question.

This matter is so important that I would try to make it plain from my own point of view, even if that involves some degree of repetition.

I raise the question elsewhere: Can man commit an infinite sin? Some say he can, because his sin is against God, a Being of infinite purity. If his sin then is of this infinite nature, infinite justice may demand that he suffer an infinite punishment. But being a finite being, he cannot suffer infinite punishment in quality. Therefore it is said, he must suffer it in duration. Hence the necessity of everlasting punishment. That is the argument.

But the main premise is by no means clear. It may well be doubted if man can commit an infinite sin. First; he is a finite being; and can a finite being do on infinite wrong? Further; he cannot suffer everlasting punishment. For everlasting has no end. He would never have rendered a due equivalent for his sin. When he would have suffered millions and millions of years he would be as for from rendering a due equivalent as at the beginning. Thus the demands of God's law would never be satisfied.

We have therefore to confront the idea of God inflicting a punishment that could never be rendered. In that case might not God suspend all punishment at once? For when man shall have suffered for aeons and aeons untold he would really be as far from the end as he is now. Could you think of the Infinitely Wise and Holy One pronouncing a sentence that could never be executed? Then add to the idea of Infinite Holiness and Infinite Wisdom, the idea of Infinite Power and Infinite Love, and I think you will find yourself involved in a series of contradictions which you will be glad to see dissolved as an ugly dream.

But now, supposing that man, not being infinite in his nature, cannot commit an infinite sin, is it not reasonable to think that a less punishment than an infinite one would suffice even eternal justice? Suppose, for instance, that God had cut off the first human pair when they sinned, and thus have prevented this hideous tale of mourning, lamentation, and woe, would not that suffice? For us to be debarred forever from existence and consciousness—would not that suffice? Well; the Infinite One had that alternative. But He did not resort to it. Would He not have resorted to it if He foresaw that His choice lay between eternal extinction and eternal fire, for the great majority of our race? Would the eternal joy to which He foresaw that a few of the race would attain, compensate for the eternal woe which He foresaw would be the fate of the great majority? A thousand times No. The fact that we, with our poor, limited powers, can see that there was a way of averting unutterable and everlasting woe from even one soul, is a strong argument that there is no everlasting woe. Let us beware of imputing to God that which we can see might have been honorably avoided, and that which we would shrink in horror from doing ourselves! Think this matter over seriously, and see where it will land you.

But then, what is the use of suffering at all? Surely, God foresaw that there would be a great deal of temporary suffering in this world. Why did He not prevent it?

Well; having disposed of the idea of eternal suffering, it remains for us to see the place and use of that which is temporary only. But here, an entirely new principle comes into view. Eternal suffering is supposed to be a vindication of justice. It could be nothing else; amendment of character is entirely out of the question. But temporary suffering is a means of reformation. Eternal suffering has no regard to reformation; it would issue in the very opposite. Evil would be itensified, and intensified forever, which is unthinkable; and still more is it unthinkable in a universe governed by a God of Wisdom and Holiness. But temporary suffering is a means for the development of character.