The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[jriccitelli]

I think I will answer Backwoods on a different thread; the 'UR Evokes emotions' thread pg.4.

... Although it is hard for either side to believe the others view, never the less even if I understand it, it is good to try to boil it down to see the actual ‘details and implications’, like turning up the heat. Call it a refining process.

[Paidion]

Paidion,
Upon what do you base your oft repeated "over 99%" on? You must be convinced that many will go to hell, though temporarily.

It is my guess that more than 99% of people at the present time are not disciples of Christ, and suppose that a similar proportion (if not even greater) was the case in past ages. My guess is based on considering the proportion of disciples in various countries throughout the world. How many would you say there are in Communist China whose population is about one third of that of the whole world? In India with all its Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, etc.? How about the Muslim countries with their persecution of Christians? In some of these countries, Christians are not only persecuted but even killed. Only a person who has forsaken all to follow Christ will continue to be a disciple under these circumstances.

Even United States and Canada for all their "Christian Churches" may not have many disciples. Even some conservative churches include many intolerant, belligerent, even hateful individuals which could hardly be called "disciples." I wouldn't be surprised if fewer than 5% of Canadians and U.S. citizens were truly disciples of Christ. Jesus was right when He said that there are few on the difficult road which leads to life.

What do you think, Homer? If over 99% seems too high, then what would be a more realistic percentage?

[steve7150]

What do you think, Homer? If over 99% seems too high, then what would be a more realistic percentage?









Not to mention the 1500 years after Jesus when there were very few bibles if any and later the RCC had possession of almost all of them. Of course if you got one it may have been written in Latin, if you could read at all.
So for hundreds of years i think your estimate was to low. So i guess all those people were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe God just didn't care about them.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Too late and too tired to comment much for now, but what about the age of accountability? If it is as it appeared to be for those in the desert prior to entry into the promised land, there are a huge number throughout history who never reached that age. In times past it was not unusual for a family to bury multiple children. In addtion, if people are judged according to the light they have, a great number of additional people may be saved. And again, God is merciful, and at judgement He may know who would have accepted Jesus had they heard of Him. The judge always has mercy as an option. My only contention is that God has set a day when the sheep and goats are divided for eternity. That is what I believe the scriptures teach.

I suspect I am a bit more liberal than you might have thought.

[jriccitelli]

I have maintained that many people could be saved by grace purely because they sought after righteousness, truth, and thus would love God if offered the Gospel here or there, there could be a second chance to repent and accept. But I have maintained that that would be gambling with your soul to know the truth and neither tell someone or accept Gods sacrifice ‘now’.

I have maintained that Catholics and the like may have accepted Jesus salvation for century’s despite the erroneous doctrines of their leaders and churches.
My personal contention is that there is a separation, and that the separation happens at the 'final' Judgment. I have advised that there is a chance that there could be a second chance to repent, but someone is getting put in the lake of fire, maybe only Hitler and the grim reaper himself, but scripture says ‘someone’ is going there, there are goats, there is chaff, there is a Chosen, there is a choice, there is a remnant, there is a clear warning that someone is going to be blotted out of the book of life, and ‘someone’ is going to experience the second death. I am only contending that we must warn that ‘one’ person, because we don’t know who it is, because we love that person, that whoever they are, that today is the day of salvation.

I cannot support the notion that God loses because ‘mans’ heart was stubborn and loved sin more than Him…

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

My apology for misunderstanding you, however, I am still confused about your position.

My contention is that Jesus used Gehenna the same way that the Old Testament uses it. Gehenna (also called Tophet) is the place where the corpses of the slain were disposed of after the destruction of Jerusalem, in 586 BC. (Isaiah 30:33/ Jeremiah 7:31-34; 19:6-13).

Many are the objective things in the OT and life in general that are types for spiritual matters. The manna in the desert was a type of the true bread of life. The water of Jacob's well was a type of the "living water". The temple, Jonah's three days in the whale, a grain of wheat deposited in the soil, are figures for Jesus' death and resurrection. This was the method of the master teacher. I am puzzled why you would not first see gehenna as a type.

The passages you cite do not contradict my statement, unless it can be shown that they speak of hell. Your comments notwithstanding, I see no evidence that they do.

You see no evidence in Mattew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, that Jesus meant hell when He warned of gehenna? It had been a common term for hell in the Targums prior to Christ. Please explain precisely what Jesus meant by His use of the term in the sermon.

Of course, Christ contrasts (in Matt.10:28) the suffering of martyrdom at the hands of those who can only kill the body, on the one hand, with the suffering of God's ultimate judgment, on the other. The choice is between dying on good terms with God (at the hands of hostile men) and dying on bad terms with God (because one did not shrink from those who threatened them, and thereby suffered martyrdom). This is plain enough in the context. The destruction of the soul, when added to the destruction of the body, speaks of dying under God's wrath, though "soul and body" is a phrase meaning "total destruction" (even of trees!) in Isaiah 10:18 (its only other occurrence in scripture).

Are you saying here that this is a proof for annihilation? If it isn't about hell, can you say exactly what you think the threatened destruction refers to other than physical death?

"Sons of Gehenna" is a Hebraism meaning "those destined to Gehenna," just as "Son of Perdition" (whether applied to Judas or to the Man of Lawlessness) means "one destined for perdition."

You confuse me here. Perdition is a word for hell.

The contrast between Gehenna and eternal life is perfectly apt. Israel was being divided into two categories—the remnant and the apostates. The former would enter into the life of the Messianic Age (aionios life), while the apostates would be discarded and suffer the coming holocaust.

You equate eternal life and the Messianic age. Do you see this as after the resurrrection and judgement or before? If before then Jesus' statement would only apply to certain Jews and is inapplicable to us?

You say Gehenna "is always used figuratively." I wonder how you support this contention. As near as I can tell, from the Old Testament passages where it appears, the Valley of Hinnom is always used literally by canonical writers. Of course, the imaginative rabbis had innovated a figurative application for Gehenna, but Jesus sternly warned His disciples to avoid the doctrines of those folks (Matt.16:12).

Re OT usage see comment on types above. And yes, the rabbis appear to have generally seen gehenna as temporary. Perhaps that is the aspect of their doctrine Jesus had in mind.

If Gehenna refers to the hell that every lost sinner, Jew and Gentile, will enter, it is interesting that no one was ever warned about it in scripture except for Palestinian Jews. None of the epistles written to Gentiles ever mention it. If Gehenna is hell, and not the holocaust of AD 66-70, would not the Gentiles be in as much danger of it as the Jews to whom Jesus spoke? Should they not also have been warned?

Why would gentiles in Greece and Rome be warned using words of only local meaning to the Jews?

[steve7150]

"How can you escape the condemnation of Gehenna...all these things will come upon this generation" (Matt.23:33, 36). While you may be correct that many of them died before seeing that judgment, this fact did not prevent Jesus from speaking as if it was imminent and something for them to avoid. He placed it within their generation.








It does sound like a judgment on "this generation" or the generation that rejected Jesus, linking Gehenna to 70AD. I think at the end of Isaiah "gehenna" was used to identify where the corpses would end up, which also sounds like destruction.

[steve]

Homer wrote:

Many are the objective things in the OT and life in general that are types for spiritual matters. The manna in the desert was a type of the true bread of life. The water of Jacob's well was a type of the "living water". The temple, Jonah's three days in the whale, a grain of wheat deposited in the soil, are figures for Jesus' death and resurrection. This was the method of the master teacher. I am puzzled why you would not first see gehenna as a type.

Why relegate an Old Testament term to a "type" when used in the New Testament, when its literal use makes perfectly good sense? The word Gehenna refers to an actual place, both in the Old Testament and the New. Likewise, the word Bethlehem refers to a place, both in the Old Testament and the New. What possible reason can be given for taking Bethlehem, when used in the Old Testament, as a "type" of Bethlehem, as it appears in the New Testament? It makes perfectly good sense to say that the Bethlehem where Jesus was born was the same Bethlehem in which David was born. One Bethlehem was not a type of the other Bethlehem. Likewise, Gehenna was the place of mass graves in Jeremiah's generation, so was it to be in Jesus' generation. You are puzzled that I see it this way? I am puzzled that you think there to be a better way to read scripture.

You see no evidence in Mattew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, that Jesus meant hell when He warned of gehenna? It had been a common term for hell in the Targums prior to Christ. Please explain precisely what Jesus meant by His use of the term in the sermon.

It means the same thing in Matthew 5 as it means throughout the rest of Matthew. Of what value would the Targums, or other expressions of rabbinic sentiments, be in determining such matters as they addressed with their innovative use of Gehenna? Without divine inspiration, where would these rabbis get accurate information about the afterlife? You think they just guessed correctly, and Jesus just went with their ideas? Feel free.

Are you saying here that this is a proof for annihilation? If it isn't about hell, can you say exactly what you think the threatened destruction refers to other than physical death?

It refers to becoming victims of the holocaust of AD 70 and dying under the judgment of God. This is total destruction of soul and body, because it brings one into the judgment of God as a condemned rebel.

You confuse me here. Perdition is a word for hell.

No, "perdition" means "destruction," generally used as a term for "death" (see, for example, Acts 25:16, where it is translated "to die"). It is not necessarily a synonym for "hell." Where do you get support for your understanding?

You equate eternal life and the Messianic age. Do you see this as after the resurrrection and judgement or before? If before then Jesus' statement would only apply to certain Jews and is inapplicable to us?

The promise of life in the Messianic Age is for every believer—both now and forever. The specific threat of Gehenna would apply only to first-century, Palestinian Jews (do you think it surprising that Jesus would speak of things relevant to His audience?). To those who are not first-century, Palestinian Jews, the threat is not specifically Gehenna, but judgment nonetheless.

Why would gentiles in Greece and Rome be warned using words of only local meaning to the Jews?

Precisely my point. Only the Jews were facing the specific danger of Gehenna. Therefore, only Jews were warned about it. If, as you seem to think, "Gehenna" had become, for Jesus, a technical term for "hell," then why would not the apostles have picked up on it and used it that way as well? After all, they had no other term in their vocabulary that could express a place of final damnation (hades and tartarus were not available, since they already had other meanings in the Greek world). If they wished to speak of such a place, why not adopt Jesus' own terminology? They didn't, for the simple reason that Jesus did not use Gehenna as a word for "hell." It meant to Jesus, as to the prophets before Him, the place of temporal destruction outside Jerusalem.

[jriccitelli]

This is total destruction of soul and body, because it brings one into the judgment of God as a condemned rebel (Steve)

Are you saying they were annihilated?

… the threat is not specifically Gehenna, but judgment nonetheless (Steve)

So, are you saying then Gehenna does typify a Judgment, a temporal one, but not ‘specifically’ a place?

‘It meant to Jesus, as to the prophets before Him, the place of temporal destruction outside Jerusalem’

Yet here it sounds like your saying Jesus only thought of it as a specific place outside of Jerusalem. Which is it then?

What real difference does it make ‘where’ we die?
Jesus told his disciples they would be persecuted and killed even if they follow Him. Yet everyone dies, and some of the disciples will die far from Jerusalem, I would think if Gehenna only meant a burial ground, or whatever, outside Jerusalem they would much rather be buried ‘near’ their home at least than in some distant land, or Rome, anyhow. Some disciples suffered horrible torture outside Israel anyways, and sometimes by fire, so it can’t be only horrible death or cremation, or death, that Jesus is warning them of.

The Sermon has references to rewards blessings and woes that will occur after this life, that seems to be a theme in the Beatitudes;
"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. 23"Be glad in that day and leap [for joy], for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. 24"But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. (Luke 6)
This couldn’t refer to this life, as being hated, ostracized and persecuted does not sound like laughing and joy, unless we are looking to a post-mortem reward. Just as were the prophets before them. And why would it say 'woe' you are receiving comfort?
So it seems that Gehenna is 'contrasted' with the Kingdom of God, the Messianic Kingdom.

Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."
What about this, after He has killed, they should fear being cast into Gehenna, why fear Gehenna if you are already dead?
If you are already killed what point is there in having a great fear, or of 'where’ you will be buried or burned?

James 3:6: "And the tongue is a fire,...and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by, 'Gehenna’
How does Gehenna set a tongue on fire?
Also, Is Jesus telling the Disciples that if they do not ‘keep the Law’ they will go to Gehenna?
I understand this to be teaching that the penalty of sin is death, so why is Jesus telling them there is a penalty if they fail to keep the law? He was saying that, the Law kills and Jesus is the Life, it is better to crucify the flesh than to have both body and soul perish.

The message (the beatitudes) seemed to be to all who would hear, or had ears to hear, as word did get out to the Gentiles soon enough. Didn’t Jesus tell the disciples to tell what they had learned to all nations? It seems the Centurion was already putting faith in Him.
This was just the beginning of his ministry, although to the Jew first, the Gentiles would learn a lot of names and terms they were not very familiar with before, like Jericho, Tyre, and Sodom, Moses, the Ark, etc.

[steve]

jriccitelli wrote:

Are you saying they were annihilated?

They might be, but that is not what I am saying. Even if they are not annihilated, they are "ruined" or "marred" (legitimate alternative translations of apollumi—"destroy"). What I said was they face the judgment as unrepentant rebels. This means that their lives were worse than wasted—they died under the wrath of God. What may happen to them in the ages following this judgment is up for grabs.

So, are you saying then Gehenna does typify a Judgment, a temporal one, but not ‘specifically’ a place?

I said that for those who die under God's judgment, who are not in Palestine in AD 70, their fate is not specifically to be thrown into the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), because that is not where they are when they die. Their deaths and judgment are not connected geographically with that place.

I am not speaking of postmortem conditions here. Gehenna is a geographical place. It is a place of special significance (just as "Waterloo" is a literal place, whose name carries specific significance). To the Jews after Jeremiah's day (at least those familiar with Jeremiah's prophecies), the Valley of Hinnom was the place signifying the slaughter of Jerusalemites by invading troops. This is the significance that was attached to the place by Jeremiah, and it is likely to have been the significance that Jesus and His disciples would have understood in connection with it.

Here it sounds you mean it was specific place outside Jerusalem. I’m confused.

True...twice!

What real difference does it make ‘where’ we die?

If dying in a particular place is an indication that you are dying under the wrath of God, I think it makes a great difference. For example, I think Abraham's dying in the promised land is significant in contrast to the possibility that he would have died in Ur. The latter would have meant he died in disobedience to God, who had earlier told him to leave that place. Similarly, Lot's dying in Sodom (had this been the case) would have been significantly different from wherever it was he actually did die. The former would be dying under disobedience, and sharing the fate of those under God's curse. So also, dying in Jerusalem and having your corpse cast into the Valley of Hinnom was significant in exactly the same way. Jesus called the remnant to separate from the doomed city, and to flee. Those who obeyed Him died under different circumstances (and in a different condition) than did those whose loyalties remained with the apostate city.