According to some circles of Christian theology, once a person is saved, that person is always saved and can never become unsaved. But how does this happen? Proponents of this view usually state that God guarantees that the person will persevere to the end. But this answer seems to tacitly admit that the person could become unsaved on his own, if it weren’t for God keeping him saved.
But if one were to argue this way, I say that this has unacceptable consequences. Namely a person who answers thus has no answer against Universalism. My argument goes like this:
(1) God guarantees that person X will always remain a Christian after he/she is saved (Assumption)
(2) If God guarantees that person X will always remain a Christian after he/she is saved, then God overrides their freedom to do otherwise
(3) God overrides their freedom to do otherwise
(4) But if God overrides their freedom to do otherwise, then getting person X to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom
(5) Getting person X to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom
(6) But if getting person X to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom, then generalized, getting all people to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom
(7) Getting all people to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom
(8) If getting all people to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom, then God guarantees all people get to heaven
(9) God guarantees all people get to heaven (Universalism)
So there’s my argument, it’s kind of long but I think it’s valid, but is it sound? (6) is probably the weakest premiss with (8) following a close second. Most likely, defenders of the view will say that (6) should say this:
(6a) But if getting person X to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom, then generalized, getting all Christians to heaven is a greater good than is their freedom
and this doesn’t lead to Universalism, this just leads to the doctrine in question. But why should God restrict his attention to only Christians? Why might someone’s freedom only be the greatest good when they are not a Christian, and when they do become one, their entrance into heaven becomes a greater good? It doesn’t seem to me that God would restrict people’s freedom in this way.
There seems to be a lot of assumption in your argument. Firstly you are assuming that a person has the freedom to become a Christian. In arguing against point 5 of Calvinism you need to count in points 1-4 which eliminates such freedom for part 5 is merely the logical conclusion of the first four. Secondly, must God override freedom to grant them salvation? Perhaps freedom is merely overcome by grace. Freedom makes the wrong move, grace covers it over. Thirdly, is freedom better than salvation? Would it be better to have freedom and be cast into hell than be an obedient servant and be saved? That could be considered subjective. Fourthly, you make a jump in premise (8). The greater good being salvation doesn’t necessitate God to provide it, especially if there may exist a “greatest good” which is unknown by which God acts. I won’t claim I agree with all of my thoughts, but hopefully it will stir some more of yours.
Another thought to possibly consider is that we receive freedom when we come to Christ. We are freed from our bondage to sin. What if we only have freedom if we are a Christian? How do you think that would play into the argument?
Comment by Miah — May 27, 2008 @ 4:45 pm