Something I have Noticed

[steve]

I have invited anyone to do the research through these past discussions and to discover whether I am right or wrong. If you reach different conclusions than mine, you are always welcome to do so (as on any other subject). I have been a participant on most of the threads about universalism. I don't believe I have started any of them (though, if I did, I would not have done so in an attacking mode against another view). I usually enter the discussion if I am asked, or if I observe unfair attacks and misrepresentations of some view with which I am familiar. To my recollection, these attacks are usually from Homer and JR (though there are occasionally others). Homer's attacks strike me as more emotional, while JR's strike me as more clueless. So if I wrongly accused JR of being hostile, I apologize. However, no one here has taken up the crusade against universalism as enthusiastically as has JR, or written more (or longer) posts against it. I am prepared to interpret this as hostility toward the viewpoint.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

—Few contestants in any debate at this forum as regularly, and abusively, misrepresent any views that they seek to refute.

And also wrote:

Instead of either recanting or defending his errors, Homer decided to complain (at this new thread) that he was not being treated very nicely.

Perhaps you did not knowingly misrepresent what I said, but misrepresent it you did. Go back and read the OP. I said absolutely nothing about being personally mistreated. I was making a general statement about how we all should interact here at the forum. Perhaps unbelievers who drop in will think we are Christians if we act like it. I have felt bad about how we interact and hope, myself, to do better.

You accuse JR and I of misunderstanding the UR position. Perhaps we misunderstand you just like you misunderstood my OP. You say JR writes nonsense but I can understand His points quite well. He has pointed out, as I did long ago, that God has a rather long track record in His judgments. Makes sense to me that we can learn from that.

To use ad hominem would mean that one, in lieu of sound arguments to support his position, simply attacks the character, intelligence, associations or motivations of his opponent in a debate.

IMO this you have resorted to repeatedly. I am strongly opposed to universalism. I am convinced it is both false and harmful. That, and only that, is why I strenuously oppose it. Yet you slanderously insinuate that I would enjoy people suffering in hell. I use Hugh Hefner as an icon for the hedonistic unbeliever and you insinuate that I am jealous of Hefner. And I will let JR respond regarding comments you have made about him. Go back and look at your first response to my OP. Doesn't your question, upon reflection, seem to be a bit of the smart aleck?

As far as JR and I being strongly opposed to universalism, Perhaps we match your dislike for Calvinism. I do not think we are any more zealous against UR than your are in opposition to Calvinism. Your fervor in that regard matches your fervor in defending UR.

As far as my being "on the ropes" regarding the arguments made by UR proponents I can't say I ever noticed. I can't think of one strong biblical argument for it. Calvinists have better arguments. Long ago when the old forum site crashed and many posts were lost I had been in a discussion with a Calvinist who posted a scripture from 1 John that concerned the Greek text that I found very difficult to refute. Unfortunately he never returned after the site was restored and I can't remember which verse it was. I do not have that feeling with UR arguments like your suggestion that the remnant returning from Babylon somehow supported UR.

[steve]

You say JR writes nonsense but I can understand His points quite well.

What he writes may be intelligible in general, but it is usually little more than nonsense in the context of the debate about universalism. The example given in your next sentence is a case-in-point:

He has pointed out, as I did long ago, that God has a rather long track record in His judgments. Makes sense to me that we can learn from that.

You see? This sentence makes sense by itself, but it clearly makes no sense in the context of the debate, since it makes no point that your opponents would be unwilling to make themselves. Universalists are very aware of God's track record of judgments, and generally would agree that there are lessons to be learned from them. There is nothing in this information to challenge restorationism in any way. Your inability to recognize this, after so many patient attempts on the part of others to inform you of this, is what concerns many here.


Me:

To use ad hominem would mean that one, in lieu of sound arguments to support his position, simply attacks the character, intelligence, associations or motivations of his opponent in a debate.

You:

IMO this you have resorted to repeatedly.

I have never rested my case upon a poor assessment of my opponent's abilities. I would not even be tempted to do so, unless I thought my correspondent was the very best and most persuasive advocate of his view around (which I do not). If you think I have based my case on something other than sound exegetical or philosophical arguments, you have either not read my posts, or, as another has said to you, you lack the ability to look at this matter objectively.

I am strongly opposed to universalism. I am convinced it is both false and harmful. That, and only that, is why I strenuously oppose it.

But even this is an intuition, not something for which you have presented evidence. Where have you seen evidence of this doctrine causing harm? I know a number of cases (I give them in my book) of the traditional view of hell causing harm. I have seen no evidence (nor can I imagine a case) where evangelical universalism has caused harm, or could do so.

Yet you slanderously insinuate that I would enjoy people suffering in hell. I use Hugh Hefner as an icon for the hedonistic unbeliever and you insinuate that I am jealous of Hefner.

This is going back some. You made the argument, several times, that Hugh Hefner should not be given a chance to repent post-mortem, because he would then have gotten away with a life of sin. I said this sounds like the attitude of the prodigal's older brother, who thought his younger brother had "gotten away with" a life of pleasure, rather than pitying his brother for the wasted years of his alienation from his father. I said that the older brother clearly exhibited jealousy of his younger brother, and a belief that his younger brother had had more "fun" than he himself had been having at home. This is envy. I also said that I can not imagine any other motive than jealousy that would lead someone who has not lived a life of sin to resent the grace given to one who has done so. Can you identify for me the chink in this argument?

As far as JR and I being strongly opposed to universalism, Perhaps we match your dislike for Calvinism. I do not think we are any more zealous against UR than your are in opposition to Calvinism. Your fervor in that regard matches your fervor in defending UR.

Do I answer the actual arguments that Calvinists advance, or do I attack them on the basis of my failure to understand their position? Therein is the difference between my responses to Calvinism and yours to universalism. You asked for five examples of such misunderstanding on your part. I gave seven. Why have I heard nothing more on that thread from you about this? Why did you, in your last post, repeat one of the same errors that I identified for you among the seven? Are you deliberately ignoring people's answers to your questions?

As far as my being "on the ropes" regarding the arguments made by UR proponents I can't say I ever noticed.

I believe you.

I can't think of one strong biblical argument for it.

I asked earlier if you had read my book. I have not yet heard your answer. If the answer is "yes," and you can still say you have never heard any strong arguments for it, we will have to disagree upon what constitutes a strong argument—and what constitutes an objective assessment of unwelcome arguments.

Calvinists have better arguments...I do not have that feeling with UR arguments like your suggestion that the remnant returning from Babylon somehow supported UR.

This statement suggests that I am wasting my time hoping for a fruitful back-and-forth on this subject. Did you attempt to follow the arguments at all? Here is how it went:

JR argues (repeatedly) that the instances of divine, temporal judgments in the Old Testament should be extrapolated to post-judgment-day conditions. This is pure eisegesis, since there is not one datum in scripture to suggest this application. Nonetheless, he says that these examples, when applied thus, support annihilationism, because they use language that sounds rather final—"death," "destruction," etc.

My point was that, even if we were to extrapolate the principles of temporal judgment to the case of post-mortem destinies, there would still (even in this assumption) be plenty to suggest restorationism, since those "final" judgments in the Old Testament were not final at all. The prophecies of destruction were accompanied by prophecies of later restoration for Judah, Israel, Sodom, Assyria, and Egypt. While I don't accept the premise that we can draw conclusions about the final destinies of sinners from statements about temporal judgments, my point was that, even on JR's own terms, Old Testament judgments speak of restorationism, not finality.

That you could miss such a plain point is very discouraging.

[dwilkins]

I like spending time here specifically because of the way people treat each other well. Though I agree that some other places with other topics can be very tame, this is a pretty good one. If you want to see what rude looks like, spend some time on CARM.

Doug

[Homer]

Steve,

I think I made myself very clear about Hugh Hefner, and those like him, in this discussion with you:

you:
as if you are not at all happy about the possibility of Jesus actually saving everyone, as He desires to do, and for which end He shed His own blood.

me:
I'm always filled with joy when sinners repent, even to the point of tears.

you:
Yet the suggestion that He might actually get what he wants seems to drive you to distraction.

me:
Nope. If universalism is true I will say "praise God".

you:
You sometimes have tipped your hand a bit in your past references to wicked people, who surely do not deserve to be saved (e.g., Hugh Hefner, whom you have brought up repeatedly).

me:
Wrong again. Perhaps you have forgotten that I have pointed out that Hefner is just a handy icon? Wicked is a biblical term, a contrast.

I do not believe I have ever said that there is anyone who does not deserve to be saved. I challenge you to show me where. That is a slur. Certainly I do not deserve to be saved. I believe Ted Bundy died a saved man if what I have heard is true, and I rejoiced when I heard it.

you:
You give the very distinct impression that it would grieve you immensely were God to give such people additional postmortem opportunities to repent.

me:
Wrong again.

you:
Maybe you would even object to Hefner's being forgiven if he were to repent before death? I honestly can't tell.

me:
And again; bordering on slander there.

you:
Your arguments often make me wonder: How much do you think you deserved to be saved? Were your sins also black, or only off-white? It is a pertinent and sincere question, since its answer alone can shed light on why you would oppose the salvation of the most undeserving wretches. It sounds very much as if you do not count yourself among their number.

me:
"God, be merciful to me, the sinner"! I deserve nothing. That's my view.

you:
But why the acrimony toward the doctrine which seems like one of the most cheering and God-honoring doctrines that I have ever encountered?

me:
Because it strikes me as the same old lie "you shall not surely die".

I hope this will put the false charges to rest, but I have my doubts. I noticed you made no acknowledgement about your first response to my OP in this thread.

[steve]

Actually, my first response to your OP was an actual question, not a barb. It might have sounded like a wisecrack, but I was trying to get more information about how your experience there differed from your impressions of this forum. My question was an attempt to get at the most likely difference to my mind. I don't remember you answering it.

However, I am not interested in bickering about incidentals. It seems that you may not wish to dialogue any longer on this topic, and I am more than willing discontinue the debate. If you are desiring to continue, please respond to some of the things that have been presented to you lately at the other thread on hell. If you and JR had rather give it a rest (which I doubt), I'll join you. You go first.

[steve7150]

I am strongly opposed to universalism. I am convinced it is both false and harmful. That, and only that, is why I strenuously oppose it.







Homer,

With all the dialogue going back and forth actually for several years on this topic i don't know why you see "universalism" as harmful. Why is it harmful?

[jriccitelli]

I noticed that I hadn't started many threads, so to not delineate from this one I will politely attempt to answer this question on another thread, since it has come up previously before both me and Homer. I will call it “Why is UR harmful?”
I asked a question in another thread tied to this thought myself, maybe Steve Gregg missed it:
… they put Jeremiah in a well, why did they do that?

[steve]

… they put Jeremiah in a well, why did they do that?

They put him in a well because that was a very common way to incarcerate a person. Joseph's brothers did the same to him. What is your point?

[jriccitelli]

How can the point be hard to see?
... the words that Jeremiah was speaking to all the people, saying, 2 “Thus says the LORD, ‘He who stays in this city will die by the sword and by famine and by pestilence, but he who goes out to the Chaldeans will live and have his own life as booty and stay alive.’ 3 “Thus says the LORD, ‘This city will certainly be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon and he will capture it.’” 4 Then the officials said to the king, “Now let this man be put to death, inasmuch as he is discouraging the men of war who are left in this city and all the people, by speaking such words to them; for this man is not seeking the well-being of this people but rather their harm... Now the captain of the bodyguard had taken Jeremiah and said to him, “The LORD your God promised this calamity against this place; 3 and the LORD has brought it on and done just as He promised. Because you people sinned against the LORD and did not listen to His voice, therefore this thing has happened to you. 4 “But now, behold, I am freeing you today from the chains which are on your hands. If you would prefer to come with me to Babylon, come along... (Jeremiah 38-40)

Is it that difficult to see the parallel here with the teaching of UR versus CI?