The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve7150]

If you just start with the words "universal salvation", then I think I can see how that got you started.











Yes since Christ is our judge it s/b called "Christian Universalism" because everyone must truly accept Christ as Lord. Interestingly some people who seem to detest the concept of CU have in a moment of weakness said that in some cases postmortem salvation may be possible. If you allow for that possibility then how can you definitively believe CU is impossible since we are all sinners in differing degrees.

[Jepne]

Too bad singlefile has not availed himself of the wonderful word studies on 'eternal' and such as have been posted throughout these threads on the reconciliation of all things.

Riccitelli - If Jesus was the captain of your imaginary ship, I think he would say that you will not drown in the first place if you grab a life preserver, and if you refuse to grab one, he will not take it away, but it will be there for whenever you make up your stubborn mind to reach for it. He is not a fool and he is not sadistic.

Even Jesus felt forsaken on the cross. He went through what every man will go through so that every man will know in his heart that if God had not saved him, he would be a goner!

[jriccitelli]

Jepne, Jesus was the one who said; Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea’ (Matt 18), and who caused the waters to rise and drown everyone but Noah and 7others? Who caused the sea to come back and drown Pharaoh’s army? Who cast the dead into the lake of fire?
I do not see any mention of a life preserver. You are correct though in saying ‘you have to reach’ for a life preserver, God came to save the lost but we 'must' believe, it is a mandate and a choice. There is much indication that not everyone will grab on to the truth and so be saved. Will it “be there for whenever you make up your stubborn mind to reach for it”?
It seems there is a Final Judgment, God does not seem to find it necessary to wait around forever for people to make up their mind. Your right, He is not a fool and He is not sadistic, but men can be, that’s the problem.

And that is the problem with UR.

[jriccitelli]

7150 wrote; ‘Rev 22.17 , which if the descriptions of the LOF are sequential then it clearly allows for postmortem repentance’

7150, I did know you quote 22:17 abit (also 22:2?), but I was giving you a break as I consider 21:26 better for your case, because I consider chapter 21 to be all post-mortem (your advantage), and 22:10- to the end speaking to those, and of those, in this life on this earth (22:10-21 is John’s closing doxology). (I do not think either are much help to UR's case, do you?)

‘Also "hell" (lake of fire) or "the second death" does not appear to be the end to me since after that description there appears to be activity and references to the LOF in Revelation’

7150, It only says people come into the city, only those written down in the lambs book of life (post 20:15). The kings and nations can easily be those already saved, nations meaning gentiles. You have said once that they will walk out of the lake of fire, is that correct, which verse is that idea founded on?

‘Lastly do you really believe the fire in the LOF is literal?’

No I do not think it ‘has’ to be literal flames, as flames are really only a speeded up chemical process, de-atomizing if you will. I perceive that although decomposition does not have to be painful or even a conscious process, I perceive God is warning us that it ‘could’ be painful, and that it is final. ‘Whatever’ the lake of fire is you do not want to go there. Hell in any terms does seem to be a very unpleasant place, and yet, like you, I do believe that there is ‘only’ a fair punishment for the unrepentant sinner and nothing more when speaking of punishment.

[jriccitelli]

Hi Steve, making an assumption is not a good debate tactic, but having a sense of humor and a pleasant disposition is, wouldn't you agree (I'm sorry if any of my good-natured sarcasm has rubbed you the wrong way). I do not wish to make a whole defense of myself so I will quote Socrates;

At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.

I think a Christian would agree with Socrates defense (as Paul seemed to certainly use it himself), so I think we can both assume we are each fallible men, and there is no reason to condemn inquiry, and put to death a zeal for answers.

Where have I misunderstood UR ideology? And what does not make sense to you?

I had not heard Brecks argument before, and thought it a bit challenging at first, but after rereading it a few times I saw the plausibility of it, and the simplicity of it, albeit hard to wrap with a tidy bow. I considered the argument difficult to apprehend, but meant only as a kind of pragmatic maxim it was worth looking into, sorry about that.
I should have stuck with what I thought was an interesting parallel between you and Mkprr, I had noted that one time in the ‘Visiting the iniquity of the fathers..’ thread I thought you said that UR’s post mortem existense was like another ‘level’, I found it;

‘Nonesense. This is indeed shallow thinking. God allows everyone to die. He could delay it, but not indefinitely. When God decides to take His children home, it is no less loving for Him to use a gunman for this than a tumor. If God allows an unbeliever to die, this is not unloving if, by doing so, God intends to graduate that person to the next level of moral education. If God unnecessarily kills people prematurely, merely in order to send them to an eternal hell, then, yes, that is hard to reconcile with either His goodness or His love’ (Steve pg.13)

(My search for ‘level’ brought up this bit of advice also;)

“This is your problem. You do not realize that these scriptures (especially if you are trying to apply them to any postmortem scenario) are indeed very hard to exegete. Your level of awareness with reference to the subject of exegesis reminds me of a child woodenly playing "Chopsticks" on the piano, and saying, "See! It's easy to play the piano!" (Steve pg.10)

It seems this topic still evokes the same feelings. Controversial as it is, I had thought at that time the parallel with Mormonism’s 'second chance future schooling' thing, so you must realize Mkprr may be coming from the idea of eternal progression and a belief that Jesus just gets us saved, or resurrected, but any further progression is by our own bootstraps, to quote Joseph. I was going to comment on that, but I was distracted by Mkprr’s quote from the Incredibles (I love that line). When checking that out online, I was distracted by an interesting article that kind if supports my theory of UR, I think people think they are way too special nowadays. In contrast the Bible tells man ‘not’ to think to highly of himself.
(The video is 'You Are Not Special' Graduation Speech Is One Every Kid Needs to Hear’ at;)

http://thestir.cafemom.com/teen/138818/ ... graduation

Sure God created us in His image but we have a mandate to choose, and perfect Love does not mean God cannot punish or destroy the unrepentant, since they have a choice to make. I Create, and I destroy God says.

[mkprr]

My apologies, I forgot that whenever I post people might assume I am trying to push a Mormon agenda. The only point I wanted to make is that without Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, everyone would actually be damned, so even if he decides to save everyone He really did save them from something. Mormonism isn't exactly clear about universal salvation so I have no dogs in this fight, it was just an observation I thought might be helpful in this discussion.

Also, it should be pointed out that if you are going to condemn a theological concept for the simple fact that there may be parallels to it in Mormonism you won’t have much left to discuss. Joseph Smith’s teachings are a mixture of dozens of theological camps. Universalist ideas for example were around long before Joseph Smith. He was obviously influenced by them but by no means was he their author.

I will bow out now for fear that if I don’t, I’ll derail this thread. I apologize for the distraction I have already caused.

[Singalphile]

mkprr - "I will bow out now for fear that if I don’t, I’ll derail this thread."

Me, too. But I'll check back in if Breckmin posts again.

[Jepne]

". . .He is not a fool and He is not sadistic, but men can be, that’s the problem.

"And that is the problem with UR."

Huh? That is the problem with the fact that the Bible speaks of the reconciliation of all things, and holds out hope for the restoration of all things. . . .

Did anything ever cure you of your foolishness? Or a sadistic streak you may have had?

[jriccitelli]

Jepne I presume you mean past tense, I never have been accused of either of these, but I'm still young enough to try something new. I did do a lot of dumb and bad things growing up and yes Jesus cured me, but it has been a process, I suppose we call it sanctification.

Jesus will restore the years the locusts have eaten, renew a right spirit within me, restore my relationships, but UR pours way to many things into the word ‘all’ and restoration verses. There are many examples of where ‘all’ does not mean everything (and restoring things does not have to mean the unrepentant). Are you referring to Eph.1:10 or another? I hope all things do not mean everything or I may end up restored back with my exwife. I remember Jesus said “Elijah does first come and restore all things”, so didn’t Elijah already restore everything.

[steve7150]

but UR pours way to many things into the word ‘all’ and restoration verses. There are many examples of where ‘all’ does not mean everything (and restoring things does not have to mean the unrepentant).








UR pours WAY to many things into the word "all"? I wonder if a biblical author actually meant "all" what word he should have used? Maybe he could have said "All and i do mean 100%".
That's right they should have said 100% instead of all.