The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve7150]

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?)





JR i appreciate you giving me a break but lets take another look at Rev 22.17. "Blessed are those who wash their robes so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. (Sounds like present tense). Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolators and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Reference to folks in the LOF). It is I Jesus who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendent of David, the bright morning star. The Spirit and the BRIDE say, Come and let everyone who hears say Come. And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift." Rev 22.14-17

The phrase "BRIDE" or "wife" is only used in Rev AFTER she is married and glorified, or in other words after this present evil age. (Rev 19.7 & 21.2). Therefore this invitation from the Spirit and the Bride can only be to the unsaved in the LOF , IMHO.

[backwoodsman]

there is no reason to condemn inquiry, and put to death a zeal for answers.

I've found that, when it comes to religion, even those who are generally inquisitive, outside-the-box thinkers can have issues on which they simply can't see past their preconceived notions, and seem unable to see their blind spot even after it's brought to their attention. Repeated attempts to point out such a blind spot can hardly be called condemning inquiry or discouraging zeal.

Where have I misunderstood UR ideology?

If you really want an answer to that, two really good places to start come to mind:

1. Go back through this and other recent threads on the subject, and find the places where someone has said you don't understand the evangelical universalist position. Then carefully think through the issue at hand, and try to understand why they said it.

2. Do a little reading on the subject. I find writings from 100-150 years ago tend to be more Biblically based and better researched and thought out than what I've seen of the more recent stuff. In particular, for a good starting point, I'd recommend Edward Beecher's 'History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution' (1878). This and many others can be read online or downloaded in PDF at archive.org (use the advanced search) or Google Books.

[Jepne]

Riccitelli: “I hope all things do not mean everything or I may end up restored back with my exwife.”

It shocks my heart to hear where two people made vows of matrimony in good faith to love one another the rest of their lives and become one flesh - and then one takes such a jab at that person. . . .

[Michelle]

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, for one, will disagree. In real life, face-to-face conversation, a sense of humor and a pleasant disposition is truly an asset. In writing at a forum such as this, clarity and conciseness are more important, and jokes and humor detract from the message. I was once the recipient of your "good-natured sarcasm" which I mistook as a rebuke for wasting your time. It's not that you've rubbed people the wrong way, it is rather that it is very hard to convey friendly ribbing in online, written, discourse. What happens is that what you consider funny, pleasant, and good-natured jocularity comes across to readers as disjointed and mean-spirited. Perhaps this is why Steve recommended that you re-read your posts before hitting the submit button. Imagine your readers as the most sensitive, humorless, yet willing to read what you have to say people you have ever met and consider whether what you've said will be received as what you meant to convey.

[jriccitelli]

(Note, I wrote this before I read my ‘mail’ this morning)

Mkprr your quote distracted me in a ‘good’ way (I love Pixar). My point was about progression, something not found in much Christian teaching to speak of, rather I find it closer to Hinduism, not that there is anything wrong with ‘association’, progression is just more ‘like’ the other than the former.
LDS teaching is a form of Universalism, yet there is a final hell of sorts, for sons of perdition like me. Something like having our spiritual bodies disorganized, and then sent to be born in another world. Rather unpleasant.

This reminds me of a class one day in a LDS Sunday school, the teacher separated the class into three categories; terrestrial, telestial, celestial, and sat everyone at the respective tables. Well my friends sat themselves at the terrestrial tables and commented on how happy they were to not have to work so hard and stress about progressing to the telestial levels or godhood. My friends were very jovial and lighthearted (as were most the LDS people I knew, friendly, fun and easy going) so it was easy for them to admit they really found no interest in having to become ‘gods’ and noted they were happy on their terrestrial world and letting God be God and freeing themselves from the constant effort to become perfect. I had wondered if there should have been a deorganized table for the sons of perdition (or, maybe a table for the Reorganized group, the Missouri group). It was very revealing, and I’m sure this is not the direction the teacher had planned for the class though.

My friend later came to know that he did not have to become perfect to become ‘glorified’, in fact he realized he did not have to wait. We found out that Jesus did the ‘work’ for us ‘on the Cross’ (not in the garden of Gethsemane) Jesus glorifies us when He lives in us, it is His Spirit that Glorifies us ‘not us’.
So we become perfect only because He is perfect, and He does His Works in us and through us, just as Jesus only did what the Father willed ‘it is not our works’ but His. Accepting His spirit means 'dying’ to self promotion, ourselves and promoting Him through us, and with us. For he will never leave you, or forsake you once you believe and repent of our own ‘self’ interests, goals and will – and accept His Will. God bless you.

[jriccitelli]

I appreciate that some like 7150 are not caught up in sensitivity, and stick to the subject. Religion and politics can automatically stir a lot of emotions but we have to separate ourselves from the ideology in order to rationally consider it’s content. It is generally only on a subject we disagree upon when this happens, why is it no one critiques my humor (or others), or content, when we are in agreement? Is it a spiritual thing? Possibly. There is a lot of humor and lightheartedness on this forum (and others) when everyone agrees, why is it sarcasm and intellectual put downs when we are on opposite sides?

I really appreciate it when I am challenged, and I feel my friends would be disrespectful of me if they were not real. I have been known to be able to take a difficult subject, make it real, make it enjoyable and interesting, get the whole class involved and interested, and have most everyone come away with a higher knowledge and appreciation of the subject. As I had this modeled for me by at least two great teachers I know. I do like to write like I talk, if that’s the problem.

‘outside-the-box thinkers can have issues on which they simply can't see past their preconceived notions, and seem unable to see their blind spot even after it's brought to their attention. Repeated attempts to point out such a blind spot can hardly be called condemning inquiry or discouraging zeal’

I know exactly how you feel.

‘…find the places where someone has said you don't understand the evangelical universalist position’

Exactly, instead of telling me I am wrong, all I get is ‘your wrong’. Where? And as I have already asked and offered to donate money to NP concerning, where?
And a basic biblical position should not be so hard to defend, that you cannot think off the top of your head for an answer.
What are the central defenses and foundations that reading all these writers are getting to? Can you summarize something of them that I have missed? I can summarize what I am speaking of. And I already have so many shelves and books that if you knocked down the house my wife could assure you the books would still shelter us, and yes i read them as my wife is bothered that I read rather than sleep.

It shocks my heart to hear where two people made vows of matrimony in good faith to love one another the rest of their lives and become one flesh - and then one takes such a jab at that person. . . .

My ex committed adultery, and moved in with another man, while I was trying to reconcile. And she filled the divorce not me. Speaking of jab, my exwife was abit crazy, the first time I visited her house she was laying in a pool of blood half dead on the floor from a knife fight she had just had with her boyfriend at the time. She cut herself, and later I feared she could pull a knife or gun on me, as she was highly jealous, and I slept with one eye open.
Never the less, this situation drove me to God, ‘because’ I did not want the divorce (See my testimony; http://jriccitelli.blogspot.com/ )

[jriccitelli]

I am sorry Michelle, although you’re past four posts were pointed at me, and one of yours disappeared (?) I don’t see, or remember where I said anything about you wasting time. The words only show up in a response to Steve, when he said he was wasting his time;

Steve said; 'I have apparently wasted my time (far too much of it) trying to get you to participate in an exegetical discussion on this topic. I think I will step out of this discussion and allow others to answer your points. I have already done so, and it appears to have penetrated like water off a duck's back'

John said; I really do not want to waste anyone’s time, and I didn't want a conversation with an angry tone. But since I am in the habit of using apologetics I need to pick this back up again, the best use of my time is to encourage people to 'believe' what God has said, thus saving some from the fire. (Visiting the… pg. 16)

It is waste of time (and I am not blaming anyone) for us to have to defend our personalities, as it is now, all I wanted to do was read or get to a bible verse, or get an answer to biblical questions but Paul had to do it too. Lets see now, Revelations chapter 22, hmm…

[Michelle]

Very well, fair enough. I commend you, jriccitelli, for your determination to remain on topic.

You say:

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?)

In Revelation 21 and 22, where do you see the switch from details of post-mortem existence to present, earthly existence? What in the text signals the change? What makes 22:10-21 a doxology?

[Jepne]

So you had a bad marriage - so did I - two of them. When I met my present husband, a sincere Christian man, he listened carefully to how I referred to the people in my past. Had I spoken of them flippantly, I might still be single today.

I almost missed your message about that - I am usually unable to read your posts past the first sentence or two.

Your ex-wife sounds like a tragic figure. You don't sound like you care about anything but what she did to you. I can understand why it doesn't matter to you that such people would be tortured in hell forever.

[Homer]

jricitelli is taken to task for not being familiar with what universalists believe. But they believe in various things, from no hell to being in an agonizing hell for thousands of years. So which universalist?

Here is a case where jricitelli is slandered; he has made it plain he does not believe in eternal punishment.

Your ex-wife sounds like a tragic figure. You don't sound like you care about anything but what she did to you. I can understand why it doesn't matter to you that such people would be tortured in hell forever.

Seems to me the Christian thing to when you have an urge to take someone to task for their perceived lack of ability would be to make use of the private message.