The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I agree with you that the use of "hate" in Jesus' remark does not mean the same thing I explained about the "God hates" verses. Like I said, the word hate is used a variety of ways.

[steve7150]

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."

steve7150






One last point i want to add is that the word "judge" or "judgement" is applied to Christians since they are also judged by God therefore judgement must have a wider application then simply destruction or eternal torment.

[jriccitelli]

7150, I do appreciate puns, I also believe in going the extra mile.
The word Judgment (like others, is defined by the context also).
The OT speaks consistently throughout of a coming ‘final’ judgment, a great and terrible day, and that the unbelievers and God haters will be destroyed and crushed. The NT reveals there will also be a judgment of believers. Any good theological dictionary or commentary will point out that these two specific judgments, and I have never seen any that would have the unbelievers present at the second or vice versa.
(Psalm 68, Dan 12, Zeph 2:3, Nahum 1, Matt 10:15, 2Pet 3:7 etc.)

But then you have UR and others not content with this, so they argue that the punishment, crushing and destruction will be temporal, instructive and corrective. Or resort to the full Preterist arguments that these things have no future application (well then nothing does then).

Yet if we see these warnings of punishment as referring and happening (to their spirit) when Gods raising them at the last day to be judged, when they will be further then punished crushed and then destroyed (which every theological book I have points out), then they are destroyed. There is no mention of them being raised from destruction ‘again’. You could point to verses that support Purgatory but that would be from purgatory and prison, not 'destruction'.

You mentioned ‘why raise Sodom’ if just to kill them again?
1. Only the body is dead and gone, they are only spirits. Raised as spirits they receive their judgment and are sentenced to punishment if God chooses and then destruction of the spirit, this is the second death
2. God says He has 'more' severe punishment for some, death however bad as it is, is not 'all' the worst sinners will receive (i.e. an unbeliever vs. a rapist, vs. someone who rapes multiple times or children, as some in Sodom may be guilty of, I don’t know. Sorry I had to be graphic)

[jriccitelli]

“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" (Me) Actually, I don't write that way at all. (Steve)

Then, does a person need to repent, believe and be born again to become an actual son of God, or is simply because we are humans?
Does not God use the metaphor ‘sons of God’ in the NT to signify a ‘difference’ between an unbeliever and a believer with God?

[steve]

The OT speaks consistently throughout of a coming ‘final’ judgment, a great and terrible day, and that the unbelievers and God haters will be destroyed and crushed.

I believe you are begging the question. It is disputed whether the judgment passages in the Old Testament are about the "final" judgment or not. I believe the evidence is not there to support this. Can you identify, in the Old Testament, one of these places where this "consistently" repeated theme is actually affirmed?

The NT reveals there will also be a judgment of believers. Any good theological dictionary or commentary will point out that these two specific judgments, and I have never seen any that would have the unbelievers present at the second or vice versa.
(Psalm 68, Dan 12, Zeph 2:3, Nahum 1, Matt 10:15, 2Pet 3:7 etc.)

In other words, you own no commentaries other than dispensational (or at least premillennial) ones. There were some "good" theological reference works written before 1830—and some are still being written today—which do not agree with this view.

But then you have UR and others not content with this, so they argue that the punishment, crushing and destruction will be temporal, instructive and corrective. Or resort to the full Preterist arguments that these things have no future application (well then nothing does then).

Kind of careless here in your parenthetical statement. One does not have to be a full preterist to see a historic fulfillment of the Old Testament judgment oracles. One needs only take them in their context.

Yet if we see these warnings of punishment as referring and happening (to their spirit) when Gods raising them at the last day to be judged, when they will be further then punished crushed and then destroyed (which every theological book I have points out), then they are destroyed. There is no mention of them being raised from destruction ‘again’. You could point to verses that support Purgatory but that would be from purgatory and prison, not 'destruction'.

1. Only the body is dead and gone, they are only spirits. Raised as spirits they receive their judgment and are sentenced to punishment if God chooses and then destruction of the spirit, this is the second death.

Actually, I have never encountered one theological book that agrees with this view—not that I feel beholden to what is published by theologians, but it is you that make this claim about them. Every orthodox theologian, of every eschatological persuasion, believes there will be a physical resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Rev.20:13).

[jriccitelli]

Can you identify, in the Old Testament, one of these places where this "consistently" repeated theme is actually affirmed?
I think Jesus and the NT writes affirmed the OT.

The language the NT writers use, and all their references are from the OT. Jesus also uses the OT language and references when he spoke, I don’t think Jesus was a full Preterist since He told the disciples to go into all the world, so how will they all escape judgment unless they also believe.

[steve]

Then, does a person need to repent, believe and be born again to become an actual son of God, or is simply because we are humans?

That is not the point under discussion. We have not been disputing which children are saved (only those who repent are saved), but how many people God might view as His "children." As I said, the prodigal son was not saved before his return home, but, by his father's own testimony, he was regarded as a "lost son." Perhaps you should read a few of the prior posts to get back in touch with what we have been discussing.

Does not God use the metaphor ‘sons of God’ in the NT to signify a ‘difference’ between an unbeliever and a believer with God?

Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. No such difference is made in Mal.2:10 or in Acts 17:25, 28-29). You certainly must be aware of the variety of ways in which different groups or individuals are said to be "sons" of God, with different significations—e.g. Christ, angels, the nation of Israel, individual Christians, all people, are all called children or sons of God, in different contexts, with different meanings.

Our dispute is not about who is saved, but about whom God sees as His children. I have not encountered anyone (except you) at this forum who has raised the issue of anyone being saved simply by being a human being. We are discussing whom God might regard with parental compassion as His offspring. By failing to take into consideration the various uses of the sonship language in scripture, you have wrongfully concluded that God does not regard the lost as His children. The scriptures are against you in this.

There is a distinct sense in which Christians are called "sons of God," just as there is another distinct sense in which Christ is called the Son of God. When this language of distinction is used in contrast with "children of the devil," the question is not under discussion of who brought them into existence (the devil is nobody's "father" in that sense), but of who it is to whom they display affinity (see John 8:39, 42, 44). This is similar to the sense in which Jabal was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock" (Gen.4:20). The relationship is one of affinity and vocation, not of generation.

[steve]

The language the NT writers use, and all their references are from the OT. Jesus also uses the OT language and references when he spoke, I don’t think Jesus was a full Preterist since He told the disciples to go into all the world, so how will they all escape judgment unless they also believe.

I'm afraid that I can't see anything in this that addresses my question to you. Maybe you could address it directly, since I am too dull to see esoteric connections.

[jriccitelli]

In other words, you own no commentaries other than dispensational (or at least premillennial) ones.

I do not think you have to be of either camp; dispensational or premillennial to believe in a final Judgment of unbelievers, don’t you believe in a final Judgment? I suppose you ‘believe’ it already happened (do you believe either?)
I don’t feel strongly attached to either camp, ‘when’ is not as important as ‘will’ it happen.

[steve]

Of course I believe in a final resurrection and judgment. I was referring to your statement which I quoted (the one in closest proximity to my answer). You said that the righteous and wicked are not judged at the same time and place. Most theologians throughout history would disagree with you. Only premillennialists would agree.

By the way, would you mind addressing some of the questions and challenges I have posted to you in the past 24 hours?