The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve]

jriccitelli,

My last post was directed to your comment, in which you were not sure why it would be better to die faithful to God than to die under His judgment, if there was not some terrifying postmortem circumstance to avoid. Your response to my post sounds as if you see salvation the way I do, but then, had you seen it that way, there would have been no place for you to have written the line to which I was responding.

I could go to church on Sunday and ask the group generally speaking ‘why or what the purpose of Christianity is’ and I am positive most will reply ‘to make for himself a people, a people set apart, made holy, etc’

Are you sure this is the response you would get from most of the people? If so, then you go to an unusual church. Good for them! However, unless your church truly is exceptional, I think you may be too optimistic as to what answer most attenders would give to your question. Unless my exposure to American evangelicalism has be very uncharacteristic, I would be surprised to find many who did not identify "salvation from hell" as a primary purpose for Jesus having come. They would ask the same question you asked: why was their death worse than a martyrs death?

[darinhouston]

jriccitelli,

My last post was directed to your comment, in which you were not sure why it would be better to die faithful to God than to die under His judgment, if there was not some terrifying postmortem circumstance to avoid. Your response to my post sounds as if you see salvation the way I do, but then, had you seen it that way, there would have been no place for you to have written the line to which I was responding.

I could go to church on Sunday and ask the group generally speaking ‘why or what the purpose of Christianity is’ and I am positive most will reply ‘to make for himself a people, a people set apart, made holy, etc’

Are you sure this is the response you would get from most of the people? If so, then you go to an unusual church. Good for them! However, unless your church truly is exceptional, I think you may be too optimistic as to what answer most attenders would give to your question. Unless my exposure to American evangelicalism has be very uncharacteristic, I would be surprised to find many who did not identify "salvation from hell" as a primary purpose for Jesus having come. They would ask the same question you asked: why was their death worse than a martyrs death?

You might get a few "catachistic" responses such as " to honor and Glorify God " but the test of whether they really understand it to mean that in actuality (and not just in recital) is to ask them what the purpose of being saved is. I think that's where the rubber meets the road.

[Homer]

Thank you Steve! You have stated what ought to be obvious to every disciple of Christ, who has forsaken all self-service, and submitted himself entirely to Christ as Lord of his life. There are only two options:
1. Serve the Lord and other people (as Christ did).
2. Serve yourself.

So how many can say they have forsaken "all self-service" and what does that look like?

Do you spend any money for entertainment?

Do you eat more and better than people in poor countries?

Is your home, if you own one, any larger than absolutely necessary?

Does your home have air conditioning? TV?

Etc, etc.

Have some folks here attained the top of Bernard's "ladder of love", only loving themselves insofar as it benefits God?

[jeremiah]

So how many can say they have forsaken "all self-service" and what does that look like?

everyone that names the name of Christ as their master.

grace and peace.

[steve]

Do you spend any money for entertainment?

Do you eat more and better than people in poor countries?

Is your home, if you own one, any larger than absolutely necessary?

Does your home have air conditioning? TV?

Etc, etc.

Those are very good challenges, Homer.

I can't say for sure that my time and resources could not be better managed for the kingdom of God. I will say that it is my determination to be perfect in this matter, and that I am not currently convicted about any particular category of my stewardship.

The question is not whether we could be wiser stewards, but whether we regard ourselves as stewards at all. If we do, then all of our choices in these areas will be directed by our convictions and our desire to do what pleases God, not ourselves. If we are deliberately doing something that we know displeases God, and do not repent of it, I am not sure how we could describe ourselves as "converted." Converted from what, and to what?

I can see some people truly believing that having extra space under their roofs for guests, or having certain forms of entertainment or climate control in their homes, and the like, is consistent with what God is calling them to do. I cannot say they are wrong, but even if I could, this is a matter between the servant and his Master, not between him and me.

[Paidion]

I cannot say they are wrong, but even if I could, this is a matter between the servant and his Master, not between him and me.

That's how I see it as well, and I think the apostle Paul also saw it the same way:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Romans 13:10-14:10)

[Homer]

Steve,

Quite often Christians say things that give the impression that being a follower of Jesus requires perfection in motive and practice, otherwise you are not likely a Christian at all. Grace seems to be a forgotten concept; instead burdens are heaped on others.

I will give an example of what I mean. Pastors seem to be fond of preaching a series of sermons on someone's book. Over the years I've sat through "The Purpose driven Life", "Crazy Love", and most recently "Not a Fan". In "Not a Fan', the author, Kyle Idleman, made the following statement:

When you accept the invitation of Jesus to follow Him, you are not just saying that He is a top priority in your life; you are making Him the only priority in your life. He desperately wants you, but He won't share you. He will settle for nothing less than your undivided attention and complete commitment. He wants you to invest in Him more than in you invest in your stock portfolio. He wants you to surrender to Him more of your time and talent than the office gets out of you.

We have as neighbors a nice young couple with two small children. We are on very friendly terms, have done things for them and they for us. Without being pushy, we have tried to be witnesses to them. I have given the husband one of Lee Strobel's which he assured me he would read. Kyle Idleman indicated early in his book that he anticipated non-Christians would read his book. I would never give it to my neighbor to read based on the statement above. My neighbor is manager of a large auto wrecking business, largest seller of used auto parts on ebay, and he is responsible for business locations from Seattle to Las Vegas. I see him leave for work at 7am and return home about 7pm. And then sometimes travel requires him to be gone from home. But if he is to be a disciple, Idleman insists he must devote more time to Jesus than his job. Lets say his job takes up 60 hours per week. Additionally, sleep takes up another 56 hours. Now he has less time left than his job requires, which supports his wife and kids. And this does not count time for his wife and kids, his chores, bathing and dressing, etc. etc. But Idleman says he must devote more time to Jesus than to the office.

Now we might recognize that the man can serve Jesus by being a Christian in all he does, including his work and family activities, etc., but this is not explained in the book. Too many demands are made with no explanation of what the demand would look like in practice. And too many Christians sound a bit like the Pharisee praying along with the tax collector.

[steve]

Grace seems to be a forgotten concept; instead burdens are heaped on others.

Grace is what Christianity is all about. It can be "forgotten" in one of two ways:

1) We can forget that, according to grace, God loves us unconditionally, saves us apart from our merits, and always has a gracious disposition toward sinners (Rom.5:8); or

2) We can forget that grace transforms the inner man, creating a new creation defined in terms of love for God and others (Rom.5:5/1 John 3:14). Grace "reigns" (Rom.5:21) and transforms former servants of sin into servants of righteousness (Rom.6:15-18). It changes bad trees, who always produced bad fruit (Rom.6:21), into good trees who produce good fruit (Rom.7:4). It brings into being a new species of human beings, whose nature it is to be "zealous for good works" (Tit.2:14).

To act according to one's nature is no burden. It is no burden to the mother to protect her child, even though it may involve placing herself into mortal danger in order to rescue him. It is no burden to a tree to produce fruit. It is no burden for one who loves God to keep His commandments (1 John 5:3).

If we are only aware of grace as a policy of undeserved amnesty, but forgetful of grace as the supernatural transformative power of God in the believer's life, then it will indeed sound burdensome to us to be told that God expects everything. However, our neglecting this truth will not change the fact that Jesus taught it unambiguously (Matt.16:24/ Luke 9:57-62; 14:26-27, 33).

But if he is to be a disciple, Idleman insists he must devote more time to Jesus than his job.

I have not read Idleman, and if the sentences you cited stand without context, they certainly could leave one with the wrong impression—namely, that time given to God is additional to the time given to job, family, health, etc. This would be the case if "giving time to God" necessarily meant "doing religious activities." I believe that God does demand more of our time than the job does, for the simple reason that God demands every minute of our time, whereas the job does not. If a person is a slave of Christ, he has one duty only, at all times, and that is to do the will of his Master. This he must do when with his family, when on his job, when choosing how to distribute his earnings, etc.

However, we seem to have drifted from the topic of this thread...

[jriccitelli]

My recent response was to your statement; ‘too many argue as if Christianity is about personal rescue from undesirable circumstances’ (Steve pg.13), you spoke this as if ‘my’ thinking was ‘self centered’ or ‘man centered’ or somehow related to Robert Morey (!?). Since then you have said;

I would be surprised to find many who did not identify "salvation from hell" as a primary purpose for Jesus having come. They would ask the same question you asked: why was their death worse than a martyrs death? (Steve, top of page)

That’s why I will respond to this under a different thread since my answer is not a response to the Gehenna question either, nevertheless I did ask the question below to two different bible study classes on Sunday, and it was a very good question;

I could go to church on Sunday and ask the group generally speaking ‘why or what the purpose of Christianity is’ and I am positive most will reply ‘to make for himself a people, a people set apart, made holy, etc’
To which you responded; Are you sure this is the response you would get from most of the people? If so, then you go to an unusual church. Good for them! However, unless your church truly is exceptional’

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the original questions were (pg13);

Ok then, so it’s not the place (Gehenna) that is of significance, it’s the judgment then, right?
And still they are all dead, why in your opinion is dying under the wrath of God different than dying?
You said it makes a great difference, is the difference then post mortem?

Part of your response was;

‘I should think anyone who loves God would know what a great disaster it would be to live one's life, and to die, under His displeasure. When speaking of the disaster of dying under God's wrath, I am not thinking primarily about postmortem consequences (though they would be very undesirable!), but of having expended one's only lifetime, cheating God…’

So still I am trying to understand how you switched from ‘die under His displeasure’, and ‘dying under God’s wrath’ to ‘not thinking about postmortem consequences?’ The theological position of the unrepentant is 'why' Gods judgment was death.
If their death is a 'result' of their stubbornness, then they were not remorseful before death.
What is worry with 'your whole body to go into Gehenna' since we all die anyways, there seems to be an urgency to repent before Gods Judgment (The unrepentant shouldn't neither be concerned with a loss of rewards' at this point. Remorse that your guilty and caught, is not the same as being sorry for sins out of love for righteousness and God).

So my second question was, in that context; 'I was wondering about the Jews who didn’t love God, why was their death worse than a martyrs death?'
In other words; in what respect does a person who does ‘not’ love God feel remorse “for expended one's only lifetime, cheating God out of the service and the pleasure that He deserves” (your words)?
Whether in this world or in the next, where does it say that an unrepentant person will feel remorse for not having served God?

I may feel remorse for not doing more ‘because’ I love God, but why would someone who doesn’t love God rather have their eye plucked out, or hand cut off just to avoid felling remorse?
Matthew 5:30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell'
One person died loving God, and one died not loving God. Dying doesn't make you love God, so the difference still persists post mortem; one person loves God and one died not loving God, yet both are dead and still are for all practical purposes equal 'post Gehenna'. So what difference did cutting off ones hand do?
Gehenna must refer to something else, or beyond this, otherwise what is the fear of Gehenna?

[steve]

I'm sorry we are not communicating better. Perhaps we have tried long enough?

I did not say anything about the lost feeling remorse over their wasted lives. They may feel no remorse at all in this life, and even if there was none for them to experience in the next life, their wasted lives would be equally tragic. They would be unaware of the tragedy, but that doesn't change the facts. God, and sensible onlookers, would still see it.

There are obviously postmortem consequences for dying under God's wrath (that would be post-Gehenna for those whose corpses were cast there), as I acknowledged. What I am saying is that the tragedy is not so much that the sinner got what he deserved (why would that be such a tragedy to anyone except himself?). The tragedy is that God did not get what He deserved from their life. That is a transcendent tragedy of cosmic proportions.

The reason you and I are talking past each other is that you (like the original post author) are talking about what's desirable or undesirable about salvation from man's standpoint. We all acknowledge that postmortem penalties for sinners will be sufficiently horrendous, from the sinner's point of view—so arguing about that is a waste of time. What I am trying to get across is that the tragedy to the sinner is not what is to be primarily considered in evaluating the benefits of salvation. It is God's interests that are to be served in salvation. The fringe benefits are ours—and they are significant.