The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[Breckmin]

If postmortem salvation is possible then the "fire" is symbolic and not meant to add to Jesus sacrifice.

Why would you ever even think it is possible? Such appeals to possibilities are satan's tools in creating deceptions.
How do you have "trust" in hell? (trust....NOT hope)

There have been long threads on this topic here and i imagine that some take offense at this thought so i'm not interested in rehashing it again.

You are still adding some experience of chastisement or punishment to Jesus' work (Jesus paying for ALL sins).

[Breckmin]

It's not that believers add fire to the cross of Jesus. Rather it is Jesus who adds fire to believers (as well as non-believers):

For everyone will be salted with fire (Mark 9:49)

If the fire there refers to the LOF then that would mean everyone was going to hell....

clearly a fire that tests to see who has saving faith and who doesn't...who is saved and who isn't...
or even a purification process involving your faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.....is quite different

Fire doesn't exactly add...but it can purify by burning off the impurities...

Making something ready for an eternal state by purifying is NOT the same thing as being justified by faith.

[thrombomodulin]

I always try to read a whole thread before participating, so I'm sorry if this is out of place, for I have thus far found time only to read from pages #1 through #13. If this topic was already addressed already in pages #14 to here, I wouldn't know.

I would like to propose that the flaw with the argument of the opening post is that the assertion in parentheses is an unwarranted assumption:

then no opposite condition of being unsaved exists (IN ETERNITY)

I agree an opposite state must exist. I disagree that the opposite state has to exist in eternity. Hence, my reply to this challenge is:

There is an opposite condition of being saved. It does not exist in eternity, but only temporarily. It is the state of those who are rejecting the authority of Christ now (or later on in a finite duration hell).

Can you please say why it is that the "IN ETERNITY" is a necessary attribute of the opposite state? I haven't seen any logical rule, or rational which requires it.

[Breckmin]

Notice it is the proving of your faith which is much more valuable than the proving of gold.

How do you prove your so called "faith" in hell?

So fear God who is able to destroy a person's original character in Gehenna, by refining that character, and thus altering it.

Why should we "fear" that? Are we supposed to fear what is (supposedly) a "good" thing that God supposedly wants for us?
This is discombobulated.

Heresies always are.

....so that we won't have to undergo that severe process.

A process different from Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins.....

[Breckmin]

Can you please say why it is that the "IN ETERNITY" is a necessary attribute of the opposite state? I haven't seen any logical rule, or rational which requires it.

Thank you Peter.

Yes, "the fallacy itself" is based on the "state of things IN ETERNITY." So we would be discussing a point in eternity when everyone was supposedly reconciled and living in heaven (which to me is utter nonsense given satan and his demons, the anti-Christ, the false prophet, etc. and a basic reading of scripture) and observing that "no opposite condition" exists in eternity (or exists in actuality in eternity) for which to identify what you are saved "from."
If you went to hell, you aren't saved from something you have already experienced...you are merely delivered out of it...thus there is equivocation with the English word "salvation" and the part of the word which means to "rescue from" a specific danger or opposite condition. You can't claim the opposite condition IF you've already experienced it...nor can
you point to any symmetrical hell which exists in actuality IF hell is completely empty and/or no longer exists (unless you keep it open for people to go back to...which wouldn't surprise me...given all of this discombobulation).

So to answer your question, "why it is that the "IN ETERNITY" is a necessary attribute of the opposite state?" It is
because THAT is the subject matter...how things end up in eternity. If there is no opposite condition of "unsaved" that is REAL to be saved from...then we have nothing from which to contrast being rescued from such opposite state.
As eternity goes on for trillions of years...the finite experiences from the past grow smaller and smaller....only rewards which are permanent and eternal will remain...UNLESS...unless we talk about the TRUTH that will not be hidden - and that would be a symmetrical eternal hell which will fully demonstrate God's incredible grace to us...and that we were actually saved from something REAL that eternally exists in reality and doesn't eternally fade and eternally approach zero.

We wouldn't want to add the payment of hell to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. How does a temporary hell glorify Jesus Christ?

[Breckmin]

There is an opposite condition of being saved. It does not exist in eternity,....

Just stopping right there and looking at the phrase "it does not exist in eternity" should help you see
that IF we DO go to address the state of things in eternity as the subject matter, THEN something
is not existing in that final eternal state...

[thrombomodulin]

It is because THAT is the subject matter...how things end up in eternity

This is begging the question. Reality encompasses all that occurs past, present, and future. It is not illicit to compare states among any parts of reality regardless of when they had occurred.

If you went to hell, you aren't saved from something you have already experienced...you are merely delivered out of it...thus there is equivocation with the English word "salvation" and the part of the word which means to "rescue from" a specific danger or opposite condition.

If indeed English does not suffice, would you be able to exegete the Greek and explain how it helps your case?

You can't claim the opposite condition IF you've already experienced it

Sure you can. Why would you assert otherwise?

As eternity goes on for trillions of years...the finite experiences from the past grow smaller and smaller....

Indeed the percentage of the duration of our experiences in this life relative to all else does diminish perpetually, however, the reality that those states existed and were experienced by us remains objectively true eternally. It doesn't matter if we fail to remember them.

We wouldn't want to add the payment of hell to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. How does a temporary hell glorify Jesus Christ?

I'll decline to answer here, because it detracts from the topic of whether or not the argument presented in the opening post is or is not flawed. You can open another thread if you wish, and I might reply there.

[Breckmin]

It is because THAT is the subject matter...how things end up in eternity

This is begging the question.

What specific question is it begging? The subject matter of the fallacy IS the state of things in eternity. You
can't back out of eternity and give examples of things that are temporary and change. The fallacy is concerned
with the permanent state of things in eternity.

Reality encompasses all that occurs past, present, and future. It is not illicit to compare states among any parts of reality regardless of when they had occurred.

The fallacy addresses whether there is an opposite condition in eternity for which to contrast "saved" verses "unsaved."

If you went to hell, you aren't saved from something you have already experienced...you are merely delivered out of it...thus there is equivocation with the English word "salvation" and the part of the word which means to "rescue from" a specific danger or opposite condition.

If indeed English does not suffice, would you be able to exegete the Greek and explain how it helps your case?

The fallacy would work in any language. If you wish for me to write in koine Greek I could do it, but it would take longer. Latin would be easier for me. This is a fallacy regarding basic logic. We don't need a bible verse to identify every basic contradiction that exists in the world. Contradictions are contradictions involving terms. If you wish to
identify equivocation regarding the English word salvation and say it refers to something else other than being rescued from an opposite condition...well, that is what I expected Steve to do 15 pages ago, but it didn't exactly happen.

You can't claim the opposite condition IF you've already experienced it

Sure you can. Why would you assert otherwise?

This is regarding claiming you were saved from something you have already been through and NOT saved from.
If you experience something...then you were not saved FROM it.

As eternity goes on for trillions of years...the finite experiences from the past grow smaller and smaller....

Indeed the percentage of the duration of our experiences in this life relative to all else does diminish perpetually, however, the reality that those states existed

Yet we are not talking about what "existed" but we are talking about whether an opposite condition of being
eternally "not saved" exists.

(cont.)and were experienced by us remains objectively true eternally. It doesn't matter if we fail to remember them.

Agreed, but those things we experienced are still referring to things where we "step back out of eternity" and miss the subject matter. The subject matter is how things are 'existing' in eternity.

We wouldn't want to add the payment of hell to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. How does a temporary hell glorify Jesus Christ?

I'll decline to answer here, because it detracts from the topic of whether or not the argument presented in the opening post is or is not flawed. You can open another thread if you wish, and I might reply there.

I'll take this as encouragement to open more threads on how various forms of universalism are discombobulated... perhaps soon, since I mentioned it on the radio to Steve back in February.

[jeremiah]

Hello Breckmin,

I'm glad you stuck around!

you said:

The statement "everyone will be saved with no possibility of unsaved" (in the scope of God's Plan and providence) commits
a formal fallacy in logic which we call of contradiction of terms. The terms in contradiction have to do with the concept
of salvation and the word "saved" as well as "everyone" reaching the same inevitable fate and leaving NO ONE to experience
any permanent effect or be in danger or threat of ever experiencing "non-salvation."

In order to be "actually" saved FROM something...that "something" has to exist in reality... You can not be saved from
something that is NOT real and is not a threat or is not any sort of a DANGER to you... because it is impossible for you
to end up being "un-saved."

I think I have a challenge to what you say is a logical fallacy. It's sort of a converse arrangement to what you've laid out.
I've heard you on the radio. I think (I could be mistaken) you hold to a Reformed view of the elect, that is their number is certain and unchangeable. Is this basically your view? If so, how do you reckon the reprobate to truly be reprobate if the possibility of the them being other than damned does not now, nor will ever exist or be available to them?

you also said:

...You are still adding some experience of chastisement or punishment to Jesus' work (Jesus paying for ALL sins)

Does Hebrews 12 not give you pause before straitjacketing the scriptures in such a way? The chastisement the writer spoke of there was before and as well after the cross. Was he counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, or adulterating the finished work of Jesus?

How does a temporary hell glorify Jesus Christ?

If it is God's plan to ultimately restore all humanity to holiness, then a temporary hell as a means to that end would result in those who were once enemies of God, becoming his friends! Their redemption from sin would be no less glorifying of Jesus Christ than ours is. They would be no less grateful for their new found holy breath from God than you or I will enjoy at the last day (and also enjoy now).

Grace and peace to you man.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:If postmortem salvation is possible then the "fire" is symbolic and not meant to add to Jesus sacrifice.



Why would you ever even think it is possible? Such appeals to possibilities are satan's tools in creating deceptions.
How do you have "trust" in hell? (trust....NOT hope)

steve7150 wrote:There have been long threads on this topic here and i imagine that some take offense at this thought so i'm not interested in rehashing it again.



You are still adding some experience of chastisement or punishment to Jesus' work (Jesus paying for ALL sins).

Breckmin

Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:34 am






I don't trust in hell i trust in God's will and i trust in God's character. Also labeling a position different from yours "Satan's tools" is not very convincing. God's will is that everyone should be saved and come into a knowledge of the truth. I think there is a good chance God's will gets fulfilled not in this age but in due time. I'm not dogmatic about it however as i try to avoid "systems" of belief where you try to massage scripture to read in a way that fits into a system.

This argument of yours about adding to Jesus sacrifice sounds like a philosophical view since nothing would even be possible without his sacrifice. However because of his sacrifice God called him "the Savior of the world." To be "the Savior of the world" you actually have to save the world, not potentially save it but actually save it. There is nothing said qualifying this title like the word "potentially" or "subject to man's freewill Savior" simply "the Savior of the world." If you put aside your systems of belief and just think about it, what does the Savior of the World sound like, particularly since Father God gave Jesus the title?

You think Jesus can't overcome man's freewill or maybe he can't overcome Satan? God's will is that everyone s/b saved and God calls Jesus "the Savior of the World." These two facts are pretty powerful to me yet these are not the only support for CU.