The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve7150]

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









I think we have been through this about 490 times. You believe when God destroys folks it's permanent or it means nothing and i believe that this destruction is not eternal but applies only to this age. After all Sodom will be raised to judgment and who was worse then Sodom?

[jriccitelli]

490, 491, some people take longer, I have faith you’ll see the light soon enough.

You believe when God destroys folks it's permanent…

Well it is a judgment, and it must mean ‘something’. "In the day you sin you will die" God did not say; you will die, but don't worry you will live anyways(?). There is no indication that they are raised to anything other than the Judgment. The Judgment is not good for the sinner.

… or it means nothing and I believe that this destruction is not eternal but applies only to this age.

Then ‘you’ believe it means nothing, not me. They were alive, and now they are dead. The dead are raised to judgment. God does not indicate that they are anything but souls awaiting judgment, this is not the ‘life’ promised to those who believe. 'Conditional' immortality means they do not have immortality, they are raised temporarily. There is no tree of life, no river of living water, just destruction.

... After all Sodom will be raised to judgment and who was worse then Sodom?

Sodom is raised to be Judged, this is not a good thing. This does not mean they are being given new life, and they are not raised to eternal life. They are still dead in sins and trespasses.

And I was focused on the Father God thing, what happened to that argument?

[steve7150]

490, 491, some people take longer, I have faith you’ll see the light soon enough.

You believe when God destroys folks it's permanent…


Well it is a judgment, and it must mean ‘something’. "In the day you sin you will die" God did not say; you will die, but don't worry you will live anyways(?). There is no indication that they are raised to anything other than the Judgment. The Judgment is not good for the sinner.






490 was meant to be a pun but anyway the crux of our difference is about our understandings of the word "judgement" or in the greek "krino, krisis or krima."
You think it means eternal destruction and i think it can include an opportunity for restoration. Is there any point to raising Sodom after God destroyed them to say "Oh BTW guys since you greatly sinned you had to die, but in case you didn't quite understand the first time, now be gone forever and ever."

[steve]

The OT passage speaks of Israel as His own, contrasted with the 'Gentiles' who are not.

Good point. It demonstrates that there are passages which, speaking on one level, affirm that God loves certain people specially—in this case, the Jews. However, since we know that God loves us Gentiles also, this should warn us off of any hasty conclusions as to absolutizing statements that are relevant to a narrow set of contextual considerations. God loved Jacob (Israel) but hated Esau (Edom). However, Edomites (like Job) could nonetheless be saved.

God's special love for a certain group obviously speaks of some special privilege given to them temporally as a category. It does not, necessarily, speak about God's love, or lack thereof, toward individuals (Even in the Old Testament, many Jews were lost, and many Gentiles were saved).

Similarly, we must be careful when reading of God's special love for those who, in this lifetime, believe in Christ. He certainly has special blessings for the saints in this life and in the next—many of which are enumerated. To suggest that God has no personal love toward those who have not yet come to faith is not justified by any passage I have found. In fact, the Bible indicates that He desires all to be saved, and that He has no pleasure in anyone's death.

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.

If your argument is that, since there are animal metaphors used of people (proving them to be metaphors), we can therefore not take statements about sonship literally (they may all be metaphors), what has your argument gained? All references to "sons" may thereby be consigned to metaphor, whether referring to believers or unbelievers. Similarly, they may all be considered as non-metaphorical.

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.

Since the essence of a father/son relationship is found in the fact that one rational being has brought another rational being into existence, it would be hard to prove that God has no fatherly instincts toward the lost, who are equally His creation: "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? (Mal.2:10). The prodigal son had been alienated from his father, but his father still regarded him as his "son" while he was both "lost" and "dead" (Luke 15:24). If this language is metaphor, where do we find the dividing line between this and the same language when applied to Christians?

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.

This sentence somehow does not read right to me. I think you meant to say that the special language of adoption, etc., when applied to us, means nothing if God equally wishes to save all who are not among us—and that He may have found a way to do so. It seems that this argument would be identical to that of many Jews in Jesus' day: "If God is going to save Gentiles too, then all His talk about loving Israel specially is meaningless."

In such a case, it is a leap to use the word "meaningless." It would be more accurate to say, "If God is going to save Gentiles too, then all His talk about loving Israel specially must mean something different from what we have been assuming." Israel was not chosen to be uniquely saved in eternity—however much they may have misunderstood the promises to be affirming such a thing. They were saved to be God's instrument of salvation to the Gentiles as well.

“I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles"
(Isa.42:6)

Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' 
(Isa.49:6)

Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also
(Rom.3:29)

God's love for Israel was regarded by some as being an indicator that He didn't love the Gentiles equally. This was their mistake. He loved and chose them because He loved the whole world, and chose one group to be His light to the rest. Sounds kind of similar to our mission:

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden...
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven
(Matt.5:14, 16)

“For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' ”
(Acts 13:47)

"A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”
(Luke 2:32)

[Paidion]

Steve, I agree with your thinking as you have expressed it in the above post.

However, some people insist that God hates evildoers. They use the following Old Testament verses as proof texts:

And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them. (Lev.20:23)

The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. (Ps. 5:5)

The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Ps.11:5)

When God heard this, He was furious, And greatly abhorred Israel... (Ps.78:59)

Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, So that He abhorred His own inheritance. (Ps.107.40)

The mouth of an immoral woman is a deep pit; He who is abhorred by the LORD will fall there. (Pr.22:14)

All their wickedness is in Gilgal, For there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more. All their princes are rebellious. (Hos.9:15)

But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness."(Mal1:3)

I am wondering how you deal with such passages in view of your position (and mine) that God loves the world, that is, loves everyone.

[jriccitelli]

I am wondering how you deal with such passages in view of your position (and mine) that God loves the world, that is, loves everyone.

Our ‘all loving God of love’ does not just demonstrate ‘love’ in the one dimensional sense as if justice and the greater good are not facets of the same world. It is necessary to override life when it is necessary to provide a way for the greater good; the Bible does this page after page, sacrificial animals being a prime example.

There is a love 'and' hate demonstrated by God, it is not always a love. Meaning God does not have to always love, or is it necessary for God to always 'love’ in the sense UR views love (Love meaning God cannot destroy his own creation). The Bible clearly lays out God killing and destroying people, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that by doing so God has made himself miserable, upset, in violation of some Law (His or otherwise) and none of the judgments are declared as unfair. The people think it is unfair, but God answers them - why should I let you live - is God unjust - cannot the potter destroy and make - the verses lay out Gods right to kill and make alive over and over. Is God unjust? This comes up all the time in scripture, the answer is God can do whatever He wants and is not unjust. UR on the other hand says it would be unjust, and that God would be unjust, yet UR change’s this to say it wouldn’t be right because God loves everyone too much, like His own children. Or not that he would be unjust but that God would be ‘disappointed’.

[jriccitelli]

Good point... To suggest that God has no personal love toward those who have not yet come to faith is not justified by any passage I have found. In fact, the Bible indicates that He desires all to be saved, and that He has no pleasure in anyone's death.

Gentiles are only included by ‘Faith’ they are not included and made Gods own just because they are humans.
Abraham was the father of all those who would ‘believe’ God, this was not a promise to save every single child of Abraham.

All references to "sons" may thereby be consigned to metaphor, whether referring to believers or unbelievers. Similarly, they may all be considered as non-metaphorical.

Jesus is actually a Son because He comes from the Father, and is actually of the same substance of the Father; Jesus is no analogy or metaphor of God. We are made sons when Jesus the Son lives within us, and thus we can be called sons. And God says we actually are sons, saying Abba father, this is no analogy for the believer born again of the Spirit. The bible uses analogies, sons, dogs, fish, but only the believer and Jesus are actual children.

... They were saved to be God's instrument of salvation to the Gentiles as well.

Yeah, so the gentiles might see the light. It is in hope they would see the light and 'believe', it is a choice to believe the Gospel that has now been delivered to them. They are not yet sons, and they may not all believe.

You write as if choosing to repent, believe, believing the gospel, being born again and has nothing to do with being saved, as if we are just automatically saved post death (?).

It seems that this argument would be identical to that of many Jews in Jesus' day: "If God is going to save Gentiles too, then all His talk about loving Israel specially is meaningless."

You must understand I am not from some camp of people who think they are special because they think they are saved, or special because they believe. You have inferred this upon others and me a few times.
I believed I was sinful, and I believed the Gospel that is all I am. And I hope ‘all’ will believe the Gospel, that is my ambition in life.
But we are told to warn everyone of the wrath to come, judgment and to fear God. This all goes hand in hand in one message: Repent and Believe.

If I told everyone that I think there is a second chance I would be guessing and possibly lying. We have no way to know that, we are warned that there is not, and we are warned not to preach anything other than what is written, and we are told to warn, comfort, and show others precisely just what Gods Word says. And not to add anything to it.

You continue to use the prodigal son story, but the prodigal son ‘chose’ to go back.
It is pretty well known that this is not always the case; many sons do not choose to go back.

And the oft repeated “He desires all to be saved, and that He has no pleasure in anyone's death” but this still just says God desires such, and does not change the multiple dimension of this desire; that you must repent of your own freewill, and it seems god feels that many have been given plenty opportunity and warning to repent, it is a test and God seems to have arraigned it this way, and I feel God knows enough to have made it fair, and purposeful to his whole plan for the next world.

[steve]

JR wrote (to me):

You write as if choosing to repent, believe, believing the gospel, being born again and has nothing to do with being saved, as if we are just automatically saved post death (?).

Actually, I don't write that way at all. The fact that you think that I do, after so many attempts to clarify the point, means either that I am very poor at expressing my beliefs, or, as I and others have rightly informed you, that you do not take adequate pains to understand what someone else is saying before you jump in to answer them.

"He who answers a matter before he hears it,
It is folly and shame to him." (Prov.18:13)

If I told everyone that I think there is a second chance I would be guessing and possibly lying. We have no way to know that, we are warned that there is not, and we are warned not to preach anything other than what is written, and we are told to warn, comfort, and show others precisely just what Gods Word says. And not to add anything to it.

I do not go about telling everyone they will have a second chance. In fact, I have never told anyone that they will have a second chance. Nor will I assure them that there are no post-mortem chances. This is because, unlike yourself, I am not willing to add to the word of God. My position has consistently been that the Bible is silent on the matter of post-mortem repentance. Thus, whether we say, "There will be chances after death," or "There will be no chances after death," we are, in either case, adding to the word of God. I say neither. You say the latter. It is you who add to God's word.

You continue to use the prodigal son story, but the prodigal son ‘chose’ to go back.
It is pretty well known that this is not always the case; many sons do not choose to go back.

It is frustrating that you so often cannot address an argument for what it is saying, and when you find yourself unable to do so, you apparently try to save face by changing the argument into something you can answer. Why don't you look at my statement again, and come back when you think you might be able to say something relevant to my point?

[steve]

Paidion inquired:

some people insist that God hates evildoers. They use the following Old Testament verses as proof texts...

If God hates sinners, in the sense of not wishing to save them, then He certainly sent a bizarre message to the world in the life, death and teachings of Christ about such things. The Pharisees believed that God hated sinners. They also hated Jesus, precisely because He said and demonstrated the opposite. Christ's death for sinners is often mentioned in scripture as the exhibition of God's love for them.

The word "hate" is used many ways. If it means the opposite of love, then we would have to conclude that there are some, for whom Christ died, whom God did not love, but hated. This would be absurd, it seems to me.

On the other hand, hating something can often be the polar opposite of "liking" (which is quite a different matter than loving. If my son or daughter does things that bring grief and shame to me as a parent, I still love them, in the sense that I would die for them, and even give up my salvation for theirs, if possible and necessary). However, I don't like them. Liking someone or something is entirely a matter of taste. Love is a matter of sacrifice.

To say that I hate something (like dental treatments) does not mean that I bear them any malice. It means that they bring me great displeasure. It is in this sense, I believe, that God's hatred toward sinners is to be understood.

God is said to hate and abhor certain people. This, I take in the sense of the opposite of "liking," not the opposite of "loving." They are an occasion of great displeasure to Him, but not objects of His ill-will.

[Paidion]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your explanation of the "hate sinners" verses from the Old Testament. Your position basically seems to be that "hate" is the opposite of "like" rather than the opposite of "love".

If we apply that definition of "hate" to Jesus' words about discipleship, then anyone who does not dislike his parents, wives, children, and siblings, as well as his own life, cannot not be a disciple of Christ (Luke 14:26). Such a requirement does not seem consistent with Christ's character.

The way I understand "hate" at least in that context, is that when it comes to serving Christ and doing what He asks of us as disciples we must discount parents, wives, children, and siblings when it comes to consideration of their demands upon us—that is, we must discount their demands. And even the demands of our own life, that is, our desire to please ourselves.

I wonder whether that could be the sense in which God "hated" evil doers as recorded in the OT passages I quoted. He discounts these evil doers, that is, He discounts their demands, but answers the prayers of His own children.