The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[Breckmin]

This sounds as awful lot like coming up with a philosophical concept of God and then applying it to the Scriptures.

The concept of God that we come to understand with spiritual conviction comes to us through "biblical theology" as well
as historical, systematic and natural theologies. With the latter, for instance, we learn about God through His "general
revelation" and what God has revealed through the natural order of creation. What we can conclude from general revelation
or natural revelation is distinctly called natural theology. It is based on general revelation. Historical theology is based
on biblical theology (and in some cases tradition) so these are all important in forming our understanding of God.

We use "logic" when interpreting the scriptures because logic is the greatest hermeneutic we have and God is a God of
order.... and does NOT contradict Himself.

Wouldn't it be better to start with revelation (primarily Jesus... but Scripture also) and then begin to develop your philosophical concept of God if you feel so inclined?

This is exactly what biblical, historical, and systematic theology does. General revelation corroborates these three.

So to say God never experiences pain or suffering ...

What kind of "pain" and "suffering" does God the Father experience? Please be specific. I'm trying to understand how
this is consistent with God the Father's other attributes. To me, it makes no sense to have God the Father experiencing
pain and suffering while He is sustaining every sub atomic particle and anti particle of infinite inner space and is completely
sovereign in His bringing forth of His Perfect Plan and is omniscient of all things we will ever do.

I would have tremendous cognitive dissonance if I believed God the Father was experiencing pain and suffering so
please explain this to me.

[mattrose]

God is our heavenly Father. Whenever one of His creatures/children rebel against Him, it would seem He would experience the pain of that rejection. Indeed, this isn't really speculation since the Bible says as much. The only way to dismiss it is to come at the Bible with predetermined philosophical rules like 'God can't experience emotion/grief.' To fit such passages in such a philosophical system you'd have to label such passages as anthropomorphism.

My question for you is... why must you imagine a God so limited that He can't experience emotion AND be sovereign over His creation at the same time? Some of your phraseology suggests to me that we have a number of theological differences. It may be that I'd have a hard time imagining what you're trying to imagine as well!

Impassibility is as strange a doctrine to my eyes/ears as a God who experiences emotion may be to yours.

[jriccitelli]

Diff is that God ‘can’ change the situation. He is not ‘subject’ to emotion, where in most cases we can not ‘change’ our situation but can change our mind about it. Interesting thing about Creation is that God has made this Creation this certain way to allow us the freewill choice to ‘decide’. And it seems God does not generally ‘change’ the situation just because of His emotion about it, in fact God planned to step back and let us change our mind about it once we observe our situation, and in this waiting time I am sure God experiences emotion such as disappointment (as scripture points out) but He is not ‘subject’ to the temporal disappointment since it was planned all along to bring about the greater end. God is not subject to any foregoing disappointment past this age since God had ‘planned all this’ all along and knew some created freewill’s would reject and some accept, after all God created them in the first place even wiring their brains to allow a free choice.
If everything happens and works out as you planned before you started, and you wouldn’t have done it differently, and you can change everything at any moment, and yet you ‘allow’ yourself emotional disappointment ‘in the process’ how do you remain disappointed? The only sense I can logically see God being disappointed in this; would be the further confirmation that God has demonstrated to Himself that only God (Himself) is capable of perfection and right decisions. But He already knew that.
The flip side to this is mans disappointment that he is not like God, but ‘we’ should know that by now.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve I looked for a specific question, I guess you mean what verse in the OT demonstrates that the judgments were not temporal (as in you die, but you get to live again). I am rushed right now but I would start with the premise that “in the day that you eat of it you will die”. The following OT books speak of continued judgments and death, and intermittent promises of ‘life’ to those who fear, love, repent, obey and believe God. Where do any of the unrighteous get anything ‘but’ death?

So that would be my first verse; Genesis 3:17 (there is no promise of anything but death to the sinner)

And I did ask about the blotting out verses from the OT, which are brought up again in Rev.20:12-15… then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Also: Rev. 3:5, 17:8, 21:27, 22:19, Phil 4:3)

The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry. 16 The face of the LORD is against evildoers, to cut off the memory of them from the earth. 17 The righteous cry, and the LORD hears And delivers them out of all their troubles.… (Psalm 34:15-17)
“Add iniquity to their iniquity, and may they not come into Your righteousness. 28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and may they not be recorded with the righteous” (Psalm 69:27-28)
"Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exodus 32:30)

[steve7150]

And I did ask about the blotting out verses from the OT, which are brought up again in Rev.20:12-15… then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Also: Rev. 3:5, 17:8, 21:27, 22:19, Phil 4:3)






Exactly as all these people who came under judgment end up being resurrected and thrown into the LOF. Yet later on it appears they are alive in the LOF so in what way did they die? BTW some take death as separation from God when it comes to the LOF.

[Breckmin]

Whenever one of His creatures/children rebel against Him, it would seem He would experience the pain of that rejection.

Please explain this so called "pain of rejection" here. So every time someone sins or ignores God the Father, then God the Father is subject to "pain" billions of times? Please be specific. Why would God suffer so called "rejection" when God is Perfect and nothing can be added or taken away from God. What is this so called feeling of "rejection" that an omniscient, immutable Infinite Creator experiences? How can God the Father "suffer" or experience "pain?" Please be specific.

The only way to dismiss it is to come at the Bible with predetermined philosophical rules like 'God can't experience emotion/grief.'

I believe that God can have mental attitudes which we describe as "emotions" but they are NOT the same as human
emotions which are manifested physically in our brains. Our grief that we experience is often one of "regret."

Why would a sovereign omnipotent omniscient immutable God have any "regrets?" This part of grief makes absolutely
no sense to me. Please explain God's grief or so called "loss" in this context.

To fit such passages in such a philosophical system you'd have to label such passages as anthropomorphism.

The majority of the ways in which we describe God's actions (such as hands, eyes of the Lord, God spoke, etc.) are indeed anthropomorphic. If the prophets did this regularly there is no reason to believe they were not being anthropomorphic when
they used a word in Hebrew that was dynamically equivalent to "repented." God does NOT need to repent.. this stands
opposed to basic concepts of omniscience and immutability.

why must you imagine a God so limited that He can't experience emotion AND be sovereign over His creation at the same time?

I think there is a dynamic of pleased and displeased (described as disappointed because God knows that it is not optimal for us).... but that is quite different from "hurt" or feelings of "loss."

Impassibility is as strange a doctrine to my eyes/ears as a God who experiences emotion may be to yours.

There is a difference, however, between God knowing our free will choices and knowing that they are not optimal for us, and
in this sense being described as "disappointed" or "displeased" verses God the Father suffering or experiencing transcendent tragedies or experiencing "pain" or "loss" or somehow "hurt." How do you hurt a Perfect Infinite Creator? You have not addressed this. How does a Perfect Infinite and Sovereign Creator experience the so called "pain of rejection?" Please be specific.

This makes absolutely no sense.

[Breckmin]

Diff is that God ‘can’ change the situation. He is not ‘subject’ to emotion, where in most cases we can not ‘change’ our situation but can change our mind about it. Interesting thing about Creation is that God has made this Creation this certain way to allow us the freewill choice to ‘decide’. And it seems God does not generally ‘change’ the situation just because of His emotion about it, in fact God planned to step back and let us change our mind about it once we observe our situation, and in this waiting time I am sure God experiences emotion such as disappointment (as scripture points out) but He is not ‘subject’ to the temporal disappointment since it was planned all along to bring about the greater end. God is not subject to any foregoing disappointment past this age since God had ‘planned all this’ all along and knew some created freewill’s would reject and some accept, after all God created them in the first place even wiring their brains to allow a free choice.
If everything happens and works out as you planned before you started, and you wouldn’t have done it differently, and you can change everything at any moment, and yet you ‘allow’ yourself emotional disappointment ‘in the process’ how do you remain disappointed? The only sense I can logically see God being disappointed in this; would be the further confirmation that God has demonstrated to Himself that only God (Himself) is capable of perfection and right decisions. But He already knew that.
The flip side to this is mans disappointment that he is not like God, but ‘we’ should know that by now.

Wise.... and most of it should come with spiritual conviction when we are on our knees and not walking in the flesh.

If you don't have an accurate comprehensive God concept then you will not have a comprehensive theodicy and all sorts of
false beliefs will affect your ability to see clearly the doctrines of Grace or something as basic as God's justice being displayed
in an eternal state. These things are repugnant to our own flesh which is cursed with original sin (and hasn't really thought
through "fairness" concepts often times).

When you say,"and knew some created freewill’s would reject and some accept," however, I hope you wouldn't also to appeal
any Middle Knowledge or Molinism. I also wouldn't say necessarily that God planned ALL things in the sense of 'God planning
peoples specific sins' but would note that God "together acts with" all free will decisions to bring about His Plan and that
Plan is inclusive of both creations of moral evil (which a good God can disown) and creations of moral good which a good
God can co-own and ultimately receive all the glory for (since we continued to exist/live by God's incredible grace and we
are enabled by His Holy Spirit). We would have to discuss your definition of "planned" when you say 'God planned all things.'

If you mean that "all things are part of God's plan" when you say "God planned all things" then perhaps I/we would agree.

[jriccitelli]

Breck, we agree. I in no way would think or imagine God causes sin or anything unholy (like some extreme Calvinists). God has allowed us to choose, and sin is entirely our doing. I believe God can and does intervene from time to time (prayer etc.), but animals and life can and do generally operate freely on their own.

[jriccitelli]

I have never heard anyone try to defend this idea before, or more than you 7150. I like most your arguing but this one is really tuff to imagine. It is a ‘lake of fire’.

I do not think there is any need at all to think it is a literal lake of fire but God has used a picture to describe something just as, well something destructive and devastating as a lake of fire. I believe as a conditionalist that; after the godless are judged and punished each for their own sins, and to different degrees (some maybe go straight to the LOF) that the LOF means they are immediately consumed and disappear, the spirit that is.

It seems God is saying in terms people could visualize and comprehend that what happens to anything that would be thrown into a LOF will happen to the sinner. Nothing could possibly survive being put into a lake of fire. If God wanted to depict a spiritual image of things punished or released God could have said ‘prison’ or pit, or shelter, or something survivable. God chooses words very wisely, any generation would have to agree nothing could escape a lake of fire.

(Nevertheless I had wanted to continue what we had argued under the ‘UR evokes many emotions’ thread, sometime)

[steve7150]

It seems God is saying in terms people could visualize and comprehend that what happens to anything that would be thrown into a LOF will happen to the sinner. Nothing could possibly survive being put into a lake of fire. If God wanted to depict a spiritual image of things punished or released God could have said ‘prison’ or pit, or shelter, or something survivable. God chooses words very wisely, any generation would have to agree nothing could escape a lake of fire.









FYI most folks who believe in CU take the LOF as a cleansing process as the greek word translated as "fire" is "pur" which is the root of "purify." Certainly fire can destroy also and you may be right, as I'm not dogmatic about this. However i take this lake image the opposite of you. To me a lake is not difficult to get out of, like an abyss which God seals would be. If it were a sealed abyss of fire i would have no argument. A lake which may be shallow along with open gates of New Jerusalem added to Rev 22.17 gives me a strong allusion to postmortem repentance.

But maybe it's just me?

[Breckmin]

I thought we were cleansed by the Blood of Jesus Christ being shed and His Perfect Sacrifice for sins...NOT adding fire!


Why would a believer who is filled with the Holy Spirit ever ADD fire to the Cross of Jesus? It is one thing to prune
branches so that good fruit can come forth...but this is NOT salvation. You are talking about salvation in the afterlife
and it would seem to me like an obvious sort of heresy to ADD fire to the Holy Cross of Jesus Christ and His Perfect
Sacrifice.

Pruning and chastisement is NEVER about salvation. Graphing branches is different from pruning (and graphing IS
about "who" is being saved....but it still comes down to our faith in Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross).