Breckmin wrote:It is because THAT is the subject matter...how things end up in eternity
thrombomodulin wrote: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.
thrombomodulin wrote: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."
Breckmin wrote: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.
thrombomodulin wrote: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.
Breckmin wrote:You can't claim the opposite condition IF you've already experienced it
thrombomodulin wrote: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.
Breckmin wrote:As eternity goes on for trillions of years...the finite experiences from the past grow smaller and smaller....
thrombomodulin wrote: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.
thrombomodulin wrote:(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.
Breckmin wrote: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?
thrombomodulin wrote: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.