This article expresses the views of Mr. Knight’s response to Talbott,s propositions on the Universalism nature of God. In the article Knight list three propositions which he claims are the basis of Talbott’s argument. According to Knight, Talbott claims that, “1) It is God’s will from preventing even from happening, 2) It is in God’s power from preventing evil from occurring, 3) There is evil in the world,” are logically inconsistent to the very nature of God. However, it is Knight’w view that these three prepositions are not inconsistent because of free will. Although he does not claim that the free will defense should be use as his defense against the argument, but should be taken into consideration when facing an argument of this nature.

Another interesting argument that Knight’s makes in this article is God desire to produce the most good. According to Knight, it is reasonable for one to think that God and His God giving nature would desire to save all souls. However, the desire to produce the most good is much broader than that. It may also be reasonable to think that there is a greater good for God to not reveal His nature. It may also be a great good for humans to have free will and grow spiritually.

Although Knight views Universalism as a very good attribute of God, he believes that Universalism does not represent God’s nature as a loving being. According to Knight, if we take free will seriously, then the possibility to one or more persons not receiving salvation must be allowed. But the argument still reminds open, what is God’s will for all to be saved?