The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve]

Homer wrote:

Quite a range there between a transcendent tragedy and mere disappointment? I'm disappointed our granddaughter hasn't finished college but overall most pleased with her.

Tragedy and disappointment can both refer to the same event. If your granddaughter should end up in abject poverty due to her not finishing college, this would be the same disappointment that it is to you now, but would also be a tragedy, by anyone's description. You may have read some strange meaning into the adjective "transcendent." Your drawing of the contrast seems to imply a severe degree of tragedy. The word only refers to the fact that the tragic element transcends the mere consideration of human experience. That is, the tragedy is not so much the pain felt by the human sufferer as it is defined by transcendent considerations—like God's will not being done in one's life.

With all the non-Christians in existence, each one a transcendent tragedy, God must be the most miserable being in existence, unless, that is, the transcendent tragedy is the future of the unbeliever. I think the analogy of God to a human father in our thinking is way overdone, something unthinkable in the ANE (ancient near east).

The analogy of God as father was indeed unthinkable for the Jewish religion...which is one reason that Jesus' teaching offended them so greatly. You might recall that the analolgy is taken directly from Jesus' teaching—especially the story of the Prodigal Son.

As for how miserable God may be, seeing those whom He loves being lost after a wasted earthly existence, I cannot say. I do think I hear grief in Jeremiah's laments and in God's mournful, "Turn, turn at my reproof, for why will you die?" (Ezek.33:11). Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem, likewise, seems to communicate this grief. What I find peculiar is that you would think this assertion strange. If you were a Calvinist, then you could argue (against the biblical evidence) that God never suffers disappointment and gladly sends the non-elect to their doom. However, you are an Arminian (last I heard), who believes that God desires all men to be saved. Are you able to hold such a view while mocking my statement that God suffers grief over the lost?

[steve]

Breckmin,

Is our sin painful to God? Yes, I think so. It was certainly the occasion of great pain to Jesus.

Could someone who knows all the future be disappointed by the outcomes in individuals' lives. Only if we removed the element of "surprise" from the word "disappointment." If the latter word means "worse than was anticipated," then one who knows all future things experiences no disappointment. If, on the other hand, it means "worse than was desired," then it certainly is the case that God experiences this kind of disappointment.

The Bible certainly records that God's will is not always done, and what is done instead is often displeasing to Him. This is what I mean by His being disappointed. It is hard not to read disappointment into the statement:

"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" (Gen.6:6)

—or in that of Jesus:

"“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Matt.23:37)

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote,

The analogy of God as father was indeed unthinkable for the Jewish religion...which is one reason that Jesus' teaching offended them so greatly. You might recall that the analolgy is taken directly from Jesus' teaching—especially the story of the Prodigal Son.

I think it fair to say the idea of "father" in the patriarchal ANE is considerably different than our modern idea.

You may have read some strange meaning into the adjective "transcendent."

I did not know what you meant apparently, you have a different way with words as we all do. Transcendent means exceeding or surpassing, even to the extent of the incomprehensible. When used as an adjective for a tragedy, a disastrous event, I would think transcendent tragedy to be very far from a disappointment. But that's just me. No mocking intended.

[steve]

My use of transcendent is in the theological sense, where it is the opposite of "immanent." The former means "transcending the universe, time, etc." while the latter means "inherent within the universe, time, etc." The first definition to come up in a Google search reads: "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience." That is the way I was using it by saying the tragedy is God's loss, not primarily man's, which makes it transcendent.

I think it fair to say the idea of "father" in the patriarchal ANE is considerably different than our modern idea.

I think you are right, and that the western cultural concept is based more upon the New Testament teaching on the subject, while ANE culture was not. In Jesus' reference to the prodigal's father running out to meet him, Jesus was describing actions that no dignified father in the ANE would do.

[Paidion]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point, Homer and Steve. Are you saying that God is called "Father" in a different sense in the old Testament? For example, is He called "Father" in a different sense in the following passage from Isaiah?

Doubtless You are our Father, Though Abraham was ignorant of us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O LORD, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name. (Isaiah 63:16)

[steve]

I am saying that Jesus describes the Father's behavior in a way that would shock the cultural notions of dignity in Israel. That is, Christ's view of a Father's "warmth" toward His children is not drawn from the standard cultural demeanor of fathers in His day.

[jriccitelli]

I love my children, but if one harms another and disobeys me, I cannot allow this behavior to continue.
As children all I can do is discipline and teach them. Albeit if one child were to seriously harm another child, or say kill or rape another then I would have to (and for the sake of the others) allow the Law to take over.

They are grown now so they must suffer or enjoy the rewards of their own actions, I cannot forcefully intervene (nor want to).
I love them, but because they are made in my image they are capable of their own decisions and responsible for them, just like me (I don’t control them and they don’t control me, but we are all accountable and responsible to the good of the human family, it is not about me it is about the whole)

So if one child does 'not' want to conform and does not 'want' to live for the good of the whole, which means to die to self, well that is the loving 'freedom' they have been given, that’s the way it is. That adult 'chooses' death then.

Steve I have heard you argue that God is the father of us all, therefore; since God created us (in His image) He therefore would be ‘exactly’ what a good human father would be.

But a good human father would have to submit to the foregoing argument I made above.
And a Creator God would also want to submit to the foregoing argument I made above.
(Since the argument is really from Gods own Law)

The term ‘father’ with God (OT generally) only refers to the fact that God created us, because we are not ‘begotten’. So you cannot make a demand that God must (or will) save us based on a love between a begotten son and a father. God begot His son, yet gave Him up for the greater good (And neither can you demand that it means God will save us because He is the father of Creation, you would then be arguing that God will have to save every plant and animal)
God says you must be born again, this is a choice given to adults.
If we repent and believe; God begets us from above, but not until we repent.
‘However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual’ (1Cor 15)

God loves the sinner, but nature expresses the fact that time doesn’t wait forever. So I think that Creation expresses Gods demand to repent - before we die.

[steve7150]

So you cannot make a demand that God must (or will) save us based on a love between a begotten son and a father. God begot His son, yet gave Him up for the greater good (And neither can you demand that it means God will save us because He is the father of Creation, you would then be arguing that God will have to save every plant and animal)
o it was part of






God did give Jesus up in a way but this was determined before the foundation of the world and of course so was the resurrection and glorification. So through death Jesus became greater.
So the issue is not what any of us demand of God but rather what God will do the effectuate his will. CU is the only outcome which is God's will and eventually the ball will be in His court.

[Paidion]

The writer of Hebrews seemed to believe that one could make an analogy between the LORD's treatment of his children AND human fathers' treatment of their children:

For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.

And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Heb.12:3-11)

[jriccitelli]

Jesus is from the Father – begotten – God says so, were as humans are 'not' sons and daughters 'until' we repent, believe, and are born again from above.

Just like your verse says, we are illegitimate sons (12:8) if we are not His, and we are His by birth.

The OT passage speaks of Israel as His own, contrasted with the 'Gentiles' who are not. There is nothing in here that says He is using this in any way other than analogy, and an analogy is nothing other than a comparison – an analogy is not the same as being. We are compared to sheep, grass, dogs, vipers, bad fish, just as we are compared to sons, but we are not actually sheep or worms. It generally infers ‘as’ or ‘like’ in the comparisons. Steve is making the relationship between God and humans as if God was ‘actually’ everyones father and thus making an argument to this effect, even using verses that demonstrate 'analogy' as if they are to be taken literally.
While slipping past verses that demonstrate illegitimate sons, sons God kills, people God kills, adoption, born again, choice, etc. these mean nothing if we are simply all beloved children of God to which none will be spared from death.