The Narrow Path Ministries

Statement by George Carpenter, in Carpenter vs. Hughes, regarding universalist's use of logic:

The mistake of Universalists is this: when they have proven
that God is good, merciful, etc., they at once conclude that all will therefore be saved. But
the conclusion is not in the premise, it is clearly a non sequiter. Logically stated, their
argument must take this form:
(1) Sin and misery are incompatible with the attributes of a God of love, mercy, power,
etc.
(2) The God of the Bible has these attributes;
(3) Therefore sin and misery are incompatible with the God of the Bible.
The fault I challenge is in the major premise, which is false. Nor will it change the matter
if the word endless be prefixed to “sin and misery.” In proof of which we offer the following:
(1) That which is compatible with a changeless God may co-exist with him endlessly.
(2) Sin and misery are now compatible with the God of the Bible, a changeless God;
(3) Therefore sin and misery may co-exist with him endlessly.
But no logic can prove that that which may exist must cease; and we have shown that sin
and misery may co-exist endlessly with God. This thing, therefore, of simply introducing
Scriptures to prove that God is love, mercy, justice, etc., in this argument, is what logicians call ignoratio elenchi—a misapprehension of the question in debate. No body denies that God possesses these attributes; but we deny the inferences which Universalists draw from them. Before any incongruity can be established between God’s existence in happiness while sin and misery exist eternally, it must be shown that God will change, since he now exists in happiness, notwithstanding these. But James says (1: 17) that with him “is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

The debate can be read at:

http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/carpenter_hughes.pdf

The debate is considered a classic, at Harvard, on the universalist question.

Logically stated, their
argument must take this form:
(1) Sin and misery are incompatible with the attributes of a God of love, mercy, power,
etc.
(2) The God of the Bible has these attributes;
(3) Therefore sin and misery are incompatible with the God of the Bible.
The fault I challenge is in the major premise, which is false. Nor will it change the matter
if the word endless be prefixed to “sin and misery.” In proof of which we offer the following:
(1) That which is compatible with a changeless God may co-exist with him endlessly.
(2) Sin and misery are now compatible with the God of the Bible, a changeless God;
(3) Therefore sin and misery may co-exist with him endlessly.
But no logic can prove that that which may exist must cease; and we have shown that sin
and misery may co-exist endlessly with God.

The author of this logic is missing the whole point of the Universalists' reasoning. The Universalist does not claim that the existence of sin and misery are incompatible with the existence of the God of the Bible. This is a misrepresentation of the Universalists' premise. If we were to begin with that premise, the anti-universalist could certainly say, "Since sin and misery exist, and the God of the Bible exists, these things, obviously, can coexist with God, and can do so endlessly as easily as they can temporally."

However, the thought of the Universalist is not that God cannot exist alongside sin and misery, but that the existence of irredeemable sin and pointless misery are incompatible with the character and purposes of the God of the Bible. To this statement, the above argument has nothing to say, because, while no one can prove that temporal sin and misery are irredeemable and pointless, one could easily argue that endless sin and misery is by definition irredeemable and pointless—and is therefore inconsistent with the character of the God who revealed Himself as the friend of sinners in the person of Christ.

Hi Steve,

one could easily argue that endless sin and misery is by definition irredeemable and pointless—and is therefore inconsistent with the character of the God who revealed Himself as the friend of sinners in the person of Christ.

They might easily argue that but they would have to assume that God's punishment serves no purpose other than the redemption of those being punished.

God bless, Homer

Homer wrote: The fault I challenge is in the major premise, which is false. Nor will it change the matter
if the word endless be prefixed to “sin and misery.” In proof of which we offer the following:
(1) That which is compatible with a changeless God may co-exist with him endlessly.
(2) Sin and misery are now compatible with the God of the Bible, a changeless God;
(3) Therefore sin and misery may co-exist with him endlessly.

This argument makes Christ's advent and sacrifice seem inconsequential. It's like saying God is okay with the status quo...no problem.

Todd

mr. gregg, are you a universalist?

No, I am not. I am a non-commitalist. I am not sure which of the views of hell is the correct one, since there is a biblical case that can be made for more than one view. There are numerous universalists who post here, along with advocates of other views. My summary of the topic can be found in the second post at the thread: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=527

steve wrote:My summary of the topic can be found in the second post at the thread: viewtopic.php?f=73&t=527

I followed the link and have been re-reading some of that thread, and found it helpful to clarify (and solidify) my understanding of the subject.
- Steve, how is your new book progressing?

Thanks. So universalism necessitates a certain understanding of hell? I thought universalism was the view that all would be saved.

- Steve, how is your new book progressing?

Not much to report, I am afraid. Other projects have distracted me. It is still in the works, but no end is in sight.

Lee wrote:

Thanks. So universalism necessitates a certain understanding of hell? I thought universalism was the view that all would be saved.

Yes to both. Christian Universalism (as opposed, for example, to Unitarian Universalism), teaches that all will eventually turn to Christ and will be saved. Obviously, since many people die without having turned to Jesus in their lifetimes, this view suggests the possibility of postmortem repentance and faith. That many will have to spend time in hell before they will successfully be brought to repentance is a feature of this system of belief. Hell is thus seen as a purging experience (like the furnace that refines). Many evangelical Christians throughout history have held such a view.

cool. thanks.