This is my first post.
I'm new here, so I don't how this will work.
But I want to address specifically how we falsify or prove Christian universalism is NOT a viable concept with basic logic.
I have debated Christian universalism effectively over the last 5 years since 2008 and have never seen a universalist be
able to refute this basic argument... perhaps I someone will do it here... I don't know......but people who I discuss this
with say that it is irrefutable.
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."
So first, we must understand that "salvation" is being saved from something REAL. If I hear my daughter scream at night
and rush into her bedroom to see what's wrong and she says "daddy, daddy, you saved me!" and I ask "Saved from what?"
and she goes on to talk about the monster under her bed... Did I really save her? No. Because the monster under the
bed does NOT exist in reality. She was never under any real threat or in danger and therefore *salvation* was not *only
"not accomplished" but also an inapplicable word to ascribe to what actually happened.
If everyone reaches the same inevitable fate of heaven in the glorified state and we look back at what "actually
happened" one only needs to ask the question, "what danger were we ever in? of being NOT - saved?" What was
the actual threat?
In order to have actual salvation you need to have an actual threat or actual danger to exist to be saved FROM.
This is a small start on this topic... I'll see if this posts and then continue.
The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
(cont.)
I often make the following statement (for which I must credit one of my sons for making me think about it)
that can be found on the internet that goes like this "if everyone is saved, then no one is saved - because
no one was saved from anything REAL." I use this statement form for a certain shock value to get people
to think deeply before they respond...but often they don't see the implication and respond to it by claiming
it is mere nonsense (makes no sense, etc).
Because the law of contradiction does not allow for everyone to be something that no one is... I'm the
first to admit that on the surface it seems very contradictory if you do not think deeply about the first
word "saved" and whether or not the word can be used to describe a fate for which it is impossible to
receive any other such fate (such as unsaved or non-salvation OR eternal non-salvation as a final
destiny).
The most common responses are to reply with examples that are within a "closed set of circumstances"
that exist in an open system to try and parallel that of another open system. For example, "come on,
are you saying that if everyone is saved from drowning from a ship that is sinking than no one was saved?"
Or "everyone is saved from a plane crash or a burning building" are you saying that no one was really saved?
The problem with these responses and examples are that they are incongruous to final destination in
eternity because they are specific events with a closed set of circumstances where in the open system
where these events take place we have repeated experience with NON-salvation...in this case being
death by drowning or death by being crushed or burned, etc. Death is REAL in the open system and
yet in the closed event NO death takes place...but that is quite different than in the final destination
of eternity where in THIS open system - no contrary condition such as being unsaved takes place.
IOW, in the examples of ships sinking and planes crashing and buildings burning...there exists a REAL
threat of death that we have repeated experience with in such system...but in the case of eternity
-where everyone ends up in heaven - we have NO SUCH threat of being not saved. So the examples
people give back are clearly apples and oranges (incongruous examples) because in THEIR examples
we have repeated experience with an end result of non-salvation (death).
If we wanted to give an example that is "apples to apples" (actually tantamount to the same thing)
instead of "apples to oranges" (incongruous responses) we would have to use immortal beings in
our examples...where no such treat or danger would exist to them.
So just as with the case of eternity in heaven where (with universalism) no NON-salvation exists
and no threat exists of being in an eternal hell - the example we would give in response with
immortal beings would be equal to no threat existing with them.
So let's use immortal beings such as holy angels. If a plane full of holy angels crashes into a
tall building (which is also filled with holy angels) and every angel is quote unquote "saved"
does this mean that no angel was saved? I would say that the word "salvation" does NOT apply..
but ONE thing that DOES apply is that this example is tantamount to what is happening with
Christian universalism and the English word "salvation" being used to describe eternity.
We would say that this example of holy angels being saved is "nonsense" and we would be
correct... because there is NO threat of death/mortality to them... just as in the "nonsense"
case of universalism where there is NO threat of ending up "unsaved" since it is impossible
to end up any where but in heaven.
The importance of this fallacy with respect to salvation (and being saved from something
REAL) also has implication regarding "justice" and "mercy."
Now, before we go further...let's translate this sentence "if everyone is saved then no one
is saved, because nothing real exists to be saved from." (with respect to eternal heaven)
We could start by using adjectives "if everyone is allegedly saved, then no one is actually
saved because there is no real danger or threat of never being unsaved" but this still
seems contradictory because of the use of the word saved.
So a better translation would be " If God is planning on having everyone end up in
heaven (where everyone meets the same inevitable fate of living eternally in heaven)
and it is impossible to reach any other condition in eternity, then NO ONE is actually
saved from any real threat because no one was ever in any danger of NOT being saved."
The logical fallacy of Christian Universalism is that by claiming that "everyone gets
saved" (in the open system of eternity - where you can NOT give examples from a
closed event from the open system of this life where the threat of death DOES exist)
you contradict the concept of "salvation" by having no opposite condition that exists
in reality. Salvation implies that you are under REAL threat and in actual REAL
danger of being "not saved." If you can not be anything BUT saved... the word
salvation can not be used... because nothing REAL exists in reality (remember the
monster under the bed) from which to be saved FROM.
This is no accident, by the way. God is NOT mocked by the deception of Christian
universalism and this fallacy bears true to the Holy Word of God (logos - contained
in the bible) that there is INDEED real salvation.... and it can not apply to everyone
equally and still be called salvation.
Salvation means not non-salvation (real threat or real danger) must exist in reality
and somebody has to be "unsaved" in order for salvation to be demonstrated as real.
**Edit: 03/02/13 Please see Page 6 of all the posts for my first responses and explanation.**
God Bless. Please pray for protection from deception.
I often make the following statement (for which I must credit one of my sons for making me think about it)
that can be found on the internet that goes like this "if everyone is saved, then no one is saved - because
no one was saved from anything REAL." I use this statement form for a certain shock value to get people
to think deeply before they respond...but often they don't see the implication and respond to it by claiming
it is mere nonsense (makes no sense, etc).
Because the law of contradiction does not allow for everyone to be something that no one is... I'm the
first to admit that on the surface it seems very contradictory if you do not think deeply about the first
word "saved" and whether or not the word can be used to describe a fate for which it is impossible to
receive any other such fate (such as unsaved or non-salvation OR eternal non-salvation as a final
destiny).
The most common responses are to reply with examples that are within a "closed set of circumstances"
that exist in an open system to try and parallel that of another open system. For example, "come on,
are you saying that if everyone is saved from drowning from a ship that is sinking than no one was saved?"
Or "everyone is saved from a plane crash or a burning building" are you saying that no one was really saved?
The problem with these responses and examples are that they are incongruous to final destination in
eternity because they are specific events with a closed set of circumstances where in the open system
where these events take place we have repeated experience with NON-salvation...in this case being
death by drowning or death by being crushed or burned, etc. Death is REAL in the open system and
yet in the closed event NO death takes place...but that is quite different than in the final destination
of eternity where in THIS open system - no contrary condition such as being unsaved takes place.
IOW, in the examples of ships sinking and planes crashing and buildings burning...there exists a REAL
threat of death that we have repeated experience with in such system...but in the case of eternity
-where everyone ends up in heaven - we have NO SUCH threat of being not saved. So the examples
people give back are clearly apples and oranges (incongruous examples) because in THEIR examples
we have repeated experience with an end result of non-salvation (death).
If we wanted to give an example that is "apples to apples" (actually tantamount to the same thing)
instead of "apples to oranges" (incongruous responses) we would have to use immortal beings in
our examples...where no such treat or danger would exist to them.
So just as with the case of eternity in heaven where (with universalism) no NON-salvation exists
and no threat exists of being in an eternal hell - the example we would give in response with
immortal beings would be equal to no threat existing with them.
So let's use immortal beings such as holy angels. If a plane full of holy angels crashes into a
tall building (which is also filled with holy angels) and every angel is quote unquote "saved"
does this mean that no angel was saved? I would say that the word "salvation" does NOT apply..
but ONE thing that DOES apply is that this example is tantamount to what is happening with
Christian universalism and the English word "salvation" being used to describe eternity.
We would say that this example of holy angels being saved is "nonsense" and we would be
correct... because there is NO threat of death/mortality to them... just as in the "nonsense"
case of universalism where there is NO threat of ending up "unsaved" since it is impossible
to end up any where but in heaven.
The importance of this fallacy with respect to salvation (and being saved from something
REAL) also has implication regarding "justice" and "mercy."
Now, before we go further...let's translate this sentence "if everyone is saved then no one
is saved, because nothing real exists to be saved from." (with respect to eternal heaven)
We could start by using adjectives "if everyone is allegedly saved, then no one is actually
saved because there is no real danger or threat of never being unsaved" but this still
seems contradictory because of the use of the word saved.
So a better translation would be " If God is planning on having everyone end up in
heaven (where everyone meets the same inevitable fate of living eternally in heaven)
and it is impossible to reach any other condition in eternity, then NO ONE is actually
saved from any real threat because no one was ever in any danger of NOT being saved."
The logical fallacy of Christian Universalism is that by claiming that "everyone gets
saved" (in the open system of eternity - where you can NOT give examples from a
closed event from the open system of this life where the threat of death DOES exist)
you contradict the concept of "salvation" by having no opposite condition that exists
in reality. Salvation implies that you are under REAL threat and in actual REAL
danger of being "not saved." If you can not be anything BUT saved... the word
salvation can not be used... because nothing REAL exists in reality (remember the
monster under the bed) from which to be saved FROM.
This is no accident, by the way. God is NOT mocked by the deception of Christian
universalism and this fallacy bears true to the Holy Word of God (logos - contained
in the bible) that there is INDEED real salvation.... and it can not apply to everyone
equally and still be called salvation.
Salvation means not non-salvation (real threat or real danger) must exist in reality
and somebody has to be "unsaved" in order for salvation to be demonstrated as real.
**Edit: 03/02/13 Please see Page 6 of all the posts for my first responses and explanation.**
God Bless. Please pray for protection from deception.
Last edited by Breckmin on Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Hi there,
Were you the caller that recently discussed this issue on Steve's radio program?
Were you the caller that recently discussed this issue on Steve's radio program?
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
If so, what date was the program?
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Homer,
The most recent of several of breckmin's calls on the same subject (making the same points) was last Friday afternoon, February 15th.
Breckmin,
First, welcome to this forum. We are glad to have you participating with us here.
I'm sorry, but your argument lost me way before it ended. However, I did read far enough to realize that the so-called "logic" of your argument is flawed, either in your premises (which I have not yet been able to ascertain) or in your process. The case is not as esoteric as you make it. The question is, can God save everybody if He wishes? You have confused yourself (and me!) by assuming a whole set of conditions for which there is no necessity.
I think your friends are too soon impressed with what they view as an "irrefutable" argument. You create a logical problem for yourself by phrasing it a certain way (although even the way you phrase it does not create such a logical problem as you think it does). The question addressed by universalism can be phrased better than you are phrasing it, so that your problem vanishes. Here are three alternative ways the question can be phrased:
1) "Will everyone be reconciled to God?"
Reconciliation depends upon both parties being restored to friendly relations. If a man repents, and God forgives him, this results in reconciliation. How many people can be reconciled to God—ten percent? fifty percent? one-hundred percent? At what percentage do you run into "logical" problems? It may well be that all will not repent, and that not all will be reconciled, but for everyone to do so does not create any problems in "logic," any more than logic prevents me from forgiving everyone who has offended me.
2) "Will God defeat all of His enemies?"
For God to do so does not require that He defy any logic. It only requires that He have the resolve and the ability to do so. If He has such resolve and ability, as universalists believe to be the case, then there is no logical problem with His taking any measures He may wish—including the allowing of postmortem repentance—to procure His victory.
3) "Will God rescue (save) every person from hell when they repent?"
This is very similar to your phrasing, but it includes a part of reality (hell) that is left out of your statement. Your argument is a refutation of the person who says there is no hell. That is not the position of most universalists. They believe in hell. Therefore your illustration about the imagined monster under the bed is irrelevant. There is no monster under the bed; there is a hell. We know that you and I have been saved from hell. We will never go there. Does that mean we were never on our way there, and that we were not really saved from anything?
Evangelical universalists believe that there is a real hell from which people are saved—some without going there, and some after going there. When we talked on the radio, I said:
"If a ship sank and all the passengers were drowning, but another ship came and saved them all, would you deny that the passengers had ever been in any real danger?"
You gave no answer relevant to our debate. Even your answer above is nonsensical. It is a simple case. Somehow, you declare the analogy irrelevant ("apples and oranges"). If the case is not parallel, then you are assuming certain factors, in your scenario, which are unnecessary...but I am still having trouble figuring out what those assumptions are.
The truth evident to me in our several conversations is that you are very offended at the possibility of God saving everyone. To say, "If everyone is saved, then I haven't been saved from anything" is a statement, not of rational logic, but of emotion. You clearly have a strong emotional objection to universalism. After talking with you, I always come away asking myself, "Why would anyone have this response to what is clearly a very wonderful vision of God's grace?" I can think of two possible answers:
1) The objector thinks it is dangerous to believe it. The assumption is that the Bible teaches eternal torment (or maybe annihilation) and that it is dangerous to be raising false hopes in the lost by suggesting God loves them enough to keep pursuing them even in hell. I would call this the "scriptural" argument because it proceeds on the premise that the scripture teaches something other than universalism and reasons from that assumption.
This is, in fact, the argument I would have raised to univesalism before studying the scriptural teaching thoroughly. I once thought universalism was clearly refuted from scripture and that something else was clearly taught. I have since learned otherwise. However, this does not seem to be the basis of your objection, since you do not really make an exegetical case for an alternative view (at least you do not do so in our conversations). Instead, you raise a second kind of objection:
2) The objector does not want everyone to be saved. Few Christians will admit to themselves that this is their attitude, but it is obvious to observers, in many cases. The unspoken argument is: "If everyone is going to be saved eventually, why am I knocking myself out to be a Christian now? If heaven awaits all those sinners who are doing all those fun and sinful things of which I am depriving myself so as to get to heaven, I am getting ripped off!" This is, of course, the very objection of the older son to the mercy shown to the prodigal (Luke 15:29-30). It is like the objection raised by those who labored all day and complained that those who worked only one hour received the same pay as they received (Matt.20:12). In other words, it was the attitude of the Pharisees, whom Jesus was rebuking in these parables.
Now this is an objection to which I never would have been able to relate. This is because I enjoy God. I consider that knowing God in this life has saved me from the kind of aimless lifestyle that I would otherwise have had if I did not know Him. When I see people living hedonistic lifestyles, my honest reaction is, "Is this the happiest life that they know of? How horribly sad for them!" Now, if God were to speak to me and say, "Don't worry, their ignorance is not eternal. They will someday know and enjoy me as you do—though it will be at the cost of their having wasted every earthy opportunity to serve me!" I would be very heartened, not disappointed, to learn of it! This seems to be the opposite of your reaction to the suggestion of that possibility.
But then, I have always believed that God wants everyone saved. It would seem inexplicable that He would send Jesus to die for everyone, if He was content to lose the majority of mankind. Like Him, I also want everyone to be saved. I don't know if they will be or not, but I can't imagine raising an objection to that prospect on emotional grounds like yours. The knowledge that every sinner would someday be rescued and that hell would eventually be vacant would fill my present life with greater joy than would any other belief. In fact, I think the knowledge that all of my loved ones (and all of God's loved ones) will eventually be saved would be even better news than my knowledge that I am saved. I think Paul felt the same way, if I read him correctly (Rom.9:3).
I would have thought that every Christian would naturally feel the same way. I am often surprised.
The most recent of several of breckmin's calls on the same subject (making the same points) was last Friday afternoon, February 15th.
Breckmin,
First, welcome to this forum. We are glad to have you participating with us here.
I'm sorry, but your argument lost me way before it ended. However, I did read far enough to realize that the so-called "logic" of your argument is flawed, either in your premises (which I have not yet been able to ascertain) or in your process. The case is not as esoteric as you make it. The question is, can God save everybody if He wishes? You have confused yourself (and me!) by assuming a whole set of conditions for which there is no necessity.
I think your friends are too soon impressed with what they view as an "irrefutable" argument. You create a logical problem for yourself by phrasing it a certain way (although even the way you phrase it does not create such a logical problem as you think it does). The question addressed by universalism can be phrased better than you are phrasing it, so that your problem vanishes. Here are three alternative ways the question can be phrased:
1) "Will everyone be reconciled to God?"
Reconciliation depends upon both parties being restored to friendly relations. If a man repents, and God forgives him, this results in reconciliation. How many people can be reconciled to God—ten percent? fifty percent? one-hundred percent? At what percentage do you run into "logical" problems? It may well be that all will not repent, and that not all will be reconciled, but for everyone to do so does not create any problems in "logic," any more than logic prevents me from forgiving everyone who has offended me.
2) "Will God defeat all of His enemies?"
For God to do so does not require that He defy any logic. It only requires that He have the resolve and the ability to do so. If He has such resolve and ability, as universalists believe to be the case, then there is no logical problem with His taking any measures He may wish—including the allowing of postmortem repentance—to procure His victory.
3) "Will God rescue (save) every person from hell when they repent?"
This is very similar to your phrasing, but it includes a part of reality (hell) that is left out of your statement. Your argument is a refutation of the person who says there is no hell. That is not the position of most universalists. They believe in hell. Therefore your illustration about the imagined monster under the bed is irrelevant. There is no monster under the bed; there is a hell. We know that you and I have been saved from hell. We will never go there. Does that mean we were never on our way there, and that we were not really saved from anything?
Evangelical universalists believe that there is a real hell from which people are saved—some without going there, and some after going there. When we talked on the radio, I said:
"If a ship sank and all the passengers were drowning, but another ship came and saved them all, would you deny that the passengers had ever been in any real danger?"
You gave no answer relevant to our debate. Even your answer above is nonsensical. It is a simple case. Somehow, you declare the analogy irrelevant ("apples and oranges"). If the case is not parallel, then you are assuming certain factors, in your scenario, which are unnecessary...but I am still having trouble figuring out what those assumptions are.
The truth evident to me in our several conversations is that you are very offended at the possibility of God saving everyone. To say, "If everyone is saved, then I haven't been saved from anything" is a statement, not of rational logic, but of emotion. You clearly have a strong emotional objection to universalism. After talking with you, I always come away asking myself, "Why would anyone have this response to what is clearly a very wonderful vision of God's grace?" I can think of two possible answers:
1) The objector thinks it is dangerous to believe it. The assumption is that the Bible teaches eternal torment (or maybe annihilation) and that it is dangerous to be raising false hopes in the lost by suggesting God loves them enough to keep pursuing them even in hell. I would call this the "scriptural" argument because it proceeds on the premise that the scripture teaches something other than universalism and reasons from that assumption.
This is, in fact, the argument I would have raised to univesalism before studying the scriptural teaching thoroughly. I once thought universalism was clearly refuted from scripture and that something else was clearly taught. I have since learned otherwise. However, this does not seem to be the basis of your objection, since you do not really make an exegetical case for an alternative view (at least you do not do so in our conversations). Instead, you raise a second kind of objection:
2) The objector does not want everyone to be saved. Few Christians will admit to themselves that this is their attitude, but it is obvious to observers, in many cases. The unspoken argument is: "If everyone is going to be saved eventually, why am I knocking myself out to be a Christian now? If heaven awaits all those sinners who are doing all those fun and sinful things of which I am depriving myself so as to get to heaven, I am getting ripped off!" This is, of course, the very objection of the older son to the mercy shown to the prodigal (Luke 15:29-30). It is like the objection raised by those who labored all day and complained that those who worked only one hour received the same pay as they received (Matt.20:12). In other words, it was the attitude of the Pharisees, whom Jesus was rebuking in these parables.
Now this is an objection to which I never would have been able to relate. This is because I enjoy God. I consider that knowing God in this life has saved me from the kind of aimless lifestyle that I would otherwise have had if I did not know Him. When I see people living hedonistic lifestyles, my honest reaction is, "Is this the happiest life that they know of? How horribly sad for them!" Now, if God were to speak to me and say, "Don't worry, their ignorance is not eternal. They will someday know and enjoy me as you do—though it will be at the cost of their having wasted every earthy opportunity to serve me!" I would be very heartened, not disappointed, to learn of it! This seems to be the opposite of your reaction to the suggestion of that possibility.
But then, I have always believed that God wants everyone saved. It would seem inexplicable that He would send Jesus to die for everyone, if He was content to lose the majority of mankind. Like Him, I also want everyone to be saved. I don't know if they will be or not, but I can't imagine raising an objection to that prospect on emotional grounds like yours. The knowledge that every sinner would someday be rescued and that hell would eventually be vacant would fill my present life with greater joy than would any other belief. In fact, I think the knowledge that all of my loved ones (and all of God's loved ones) will eventually be saved would be even better news than my knowledge that I am saved. I think Paul felt the same way, if I read him correctly (Rom.9:3).
I would have thought that every Christian would naturally feel the same way. I am often surprised.
-
backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Breckmin,
You start with at least two errors of fact, so I won't address your logic, because it's irrelevant:
1. Assuming we're talking about evangelical Christian universalism, your understanding of it is overly simplistic. As Steve pointed out, they do believe there's a hell. If you want to argue against a view, the first requirement is that you correctly understand the view. Remember, we're talking about Christians who believe the Bible as thoroughly as you do -- they simply understand parts of it differently than you do.
2. People tend to think of salvation as being saved from hell, but the Bible talks of it as being saved from our sins and into the relationship with God for which we were designed. That starts here and now and continues through eternity, and has nothing to do with what hell is or isn't. Of course we are saved from hell, whatever it turns out to be, but that's a side effect and is irrelevant to what I see as a correct Biblical understanding of salvation. So, even if the kind of universalism of which you speak were correct, we'd still be saved from something very real -- our sins and their negative effects in this life, as Steve described; it would still be of paramount importance for each person to be saved at the earliest possible moment; and it would still be our job to evangelize to that end, without dividing ourselves over secondary details on which we have differences of opinion.
You start with at least two errors of fact, so I won't address your logic, because it's irrelevant:
1. Assuming we're talking about evangelical Christian universalism, your understanding of it is overly simplistic. As Steve pointed out, they do believe there's a hell. If you want to argue against a view, the first requirement is that you correctly understand the view. Remember, we're talking about Christians who believe the Bible as thoroughly as you do -- they simply understand parts of it differently than you do.
2. People tend to think of salvation as being saved from hell, but the Bible talks of it as being saved from our sins and into the relationship with God for which we were designed. That starts here and now and continues through eternity, and has nothing to do with what hell is or isn't. Of course we are saved from hell, whatever it turns out to be, but that's a side effect and is irrelevant to what I see as a correct Biblical understanding of salvation. So, even if the kind of universalism of which you speak were correct, we'd still be saved from something very real -- our sins and their negative effects in this life, as Steve described; it would still be of paramount importance for each person to be saved at the earliest possible moment; and it would still be our job to evangelize to that end, without dividing ourselves over secondary details on which we have differences of opinion.
Last edited by backwoodsman on Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
But the natural man has no desire to be "saved" from his sins, he is quite comfortable in them. Escaping from hell would be appealing to him, that is, if he believed hell existed. Universalism guarantees an escape (although delayed; for how long no universalist can tell) from hell regardless of what he does in this life. So in the sinner's mind he has an out. If hell exists, he will not stay there anyway.
This idea of being saved from sins as an appealing program to the sinner depends on a Calvinistic idea: regeneration prior to the reception of the gospel.
This idea of being saved from sins as an appealing program to the sinner depends on a Calvinistic idea: regeneration prior to the reception of the gospel.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Actually, it is your statement that "the natural man has no desire to be 'saved' from his sins" that reflects Calvinism. Their view of total depravity teaches that the unregenerate cannot even desire to know God, nor seek Him. You and I understand the scriptures differently, I think.This idea of being saved from sins as an appealing program to the sinner depends on a Calvinistic idea: regeneration prior to the reception of the gospel.
However, you write as if the appeal of salvation is to the sinner's interest, rather than God's. So what if most sinners don't want to be saved from their sins? God wants them to be. He has the right to get what He wants.
This same argument could be made against the gospel that you and I both believe—namely, that the grace of God is so great that, no matter what we have done in this life, we can be saved. If this is not an escape from hell, what is? Yet you have no objection (I think) to teaching the possibility of salvation even on one's deathbed. Would this teaching not equally encourage sinners that they can do whatever they want, right up till the last breath, and then escape from hell? I see little difference between preaching the one or the other in this respect.Escaping from hell would be appealing to him, that is, if he believed hell existed. Universalism guarantees an escape (although delayed; for how long no universalist can tell) from hell regardless of what he does in this life. So in the sinner's mind he has an out.
You often talk as if the avoidance of just a little while in flames provides minimal incentive for repentance prior to death. I seriously doubt that this idea is the product of serious consideration. If you were told that you must stop watching television or else be burned at the stake, do you think you would cavalierly wave this off, reasoning, "Ah well, the pain of being burned up will only last a few minutes! Now, where's that remote...?"If hell exists, he will not stay there anyway.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
"if everyone is saved, then no one is saved - because
no one was saved from anything REAL”
This reminds me of what the villian from Disney's The Incredibles said, "If everyone is super, nobody is" I think your logic doesn't quite fit the concept of salvation though. If without Jesus we would be damned, but because of Jesus we are saved, then we have real salvation even if everyone else who ever lived also shares the same salvation with us. Jesus did for us what we don't have the power to do ourselves. That is what makes Him a savior. Salvation then doesn't mean we are in a better position than others, it means we are in a better position than we would have been without Jesus.
Re: The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism
Very well-summarized!Salvation then doesn't mean we are in a better position than others, it means we are in a better position than we would have been without Jesus.