The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[jriccitelli]

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. (Steve)

You are arguing that God’s ‘love’ demands ‘all’ humans will be saved, this is not remaining neutral(?).
I agree that UR would be nice I suppose, but scripture warns of some (or many) who refuse to repent (Rev 9:21,16:9) - better to never been born - better to have a millstone tied to them - some had no oil for their lamps - the doors were shut - it is impossible to renew them again to repentance - some are thrown into the LOF, etc. .

So, I am not adding to scripture, I am believing scripture. Whereas UR does not seem to believe 'some did not believe' some would not repent' ‘the doors were shut, some thrown into the sea and outer darkness and the LOF’...

[steve]

You are arguing that God’s ‘love’ demands ‘all’ humans will be saved...

I strongly recommend that you make an effort to read the posts of one whose views you would like to summarize. Otherwise, you may become guilty of false accusation. This is not hypothetical. You have already overstepped this matter of integrity.

UR does not seem to believe 'some did not believe' some would not repent' ‘the doors were shut, some thrown into the sea and outer darkness and the LOF’...

I would similarly strongly recommend (in fact I have repeatedly done so!) that you make an effort to understand what a view other than your own actually does and does not believe, before seeking to represent it in a public forum. Your integrity in this debate has proven to be abysmal. I suggest you bow out and re-enter some thread where you actually know something about what is being discussed.

[jriccitelli]

I know exactly how UR interprets many of these passages so that ‘they’ have a different meaning than they would to non-UR proponents, that does not change the fact that ‘we’ believe these passages do say what we believe they do. Sorry we don’t agree, but I have to go.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

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.

But for quite some time you have promoted the universalist side of the argument almost exclusively while we occasionally we hear you are unconvinced that it is true. You must have at least posted 1000/1 words for that side of the argument, so much so that I am continually surprised to hear you say you are not a universalist. I would think, practically speaking, you do teach it.

[steve]

Homer,

Have you heard anyone attacking the annihilationist view lately? If anyone comes against it (or even against the traditionalists view) with such obviously flawed exegesis as has been brought against UR in this thread, I will be equally glad to point out the errors. One reason that I have written so much here is that most of the posts are directed to me, challenging what I have said. Since what I have said is correct, I am glad to defend my statements.

I am also eager to defend the character of God against those who misrepresent His character and His attitude toward mankind. This is a matter (as I have previously said) over which I have been surprised to find so much conflict among those posting here. I have great sympathy toward the universalist ideal. Can you blame me? Most traditionionalists claim the same about themselves—and even about God. For example:

“No evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like Universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you!” —J.I. Packer (traditionalist)

“And it’s important to understand that if the God of Christianity is real, he hates hell and he hates people going there...God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” —Dr. J. P. Moreland (traditionalist)

“...even the most ardent advocates of eternal punishment must confess shrinking from the idea of hell as continuing forever. It is only natural to harbor the hope that such suffering may be somehow terminated. —Dr. John Walvoord (traditionalist)

“There is no doctrine I would more willingly remove from Christianity than [hell], if it lay in my power ... I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully: 'All will be saved’." —C.S. Lewis (traditionalist, of sorts)

[jriccitelli]

"But now, if You will, forgive their sin-- and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!" 33 The LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exodus 32:30)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons… But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. (Romans 9)


Paul and Moses were Universalists, but it seems God is not.
(Note above that “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God…”

We would 'like' to 'think' everyone would love God, and acknowledge God, but God seems to know man does not seek Him, and He knows mans heart. I don't know 'why' so many people won't acknowledge or believe God, I guess that is just the human condition.

Do you think I, or those arguing here against UR, really ‘want’ or hope that some people go to hell?
Yes, or no?

[steve]

Sorry, JR. The question-answering thing has got to go both ways. When you get around to answering a few of the questions in my previous correspondence to you, I may get around to answering this one. However, what I think about what you may want is quite irrelevant to this topic.

[Breckmin]

Is our sin painful to God? Yes, I think so.

My first response to this in my mind was "absolutely NOT." The reason for this response in my mind is that God
is Perfect and Complete and nothing can be taken away from God. When I speak of God this way, I am speaking
of God the Father Who is infinite, omnipresent and I believe omni-temporal which is beyond the limitations of
time and space and able to view all free will decisions of human history.

The problem here, is we have gone from God having a "transcendent tragedy" to a "a loss to God" and now to
"painful to God." To me, this is a very dangerous way to think of the Perfect Creator and our Holy Heavenly
Father. What I mean by this as being "dangerous" is that it seems to suffer from a God concept which is overly
anthropomorphic (perhaps from ignoring systematic theology and taking Genesis 6:6 literally). In systematic
theology one of the most important things to understand is "God concept" because all interpretations and
conclusions will "flow from" your God concept. It is quite clear to me that your God concept of God the
Father is quite different from mine with respect to being able to somehow suffer pain. I do NOT believe
that God the Father suffers pain from the free will decisions of His disobedient slaves nor His adopted Children.

It was certainly the occasion of great pain to Jesus.

For me, the Man that God became would indeed see things from a temporal perspective (not temporal in
the sense of temporary, but rather temporal in the sense of "finite existence being on a consecutive timeline"
and not omni temporal). Please do not quote "temporal perspective" isolated from "not in the sense of
temporary." Jesus as a Man would indeed experience "loss" that/but I am not certain God the Father would
experience the same way....NOR would I expect the resurrected Jesus in His glorified body to experience
the same way. Let me give you an example, Jesus wept before His glorified body was resurrected - but
I am not convinced that Jesus would cry once Jesus was in His glorified body. I don't think there will be
weeping in heaven when we are in our glorified bodies so I don't think that Jesus would/did either. All
weeping would take place prior to His resurrection IMHO.

I do not think there is "great pain" in heaven, therefore I do not think Jesus suffers any pain as a
result of disappointment in His glorified body now, NOR do I think that God the Father suffers any
great pain in heaven because I believe that from God's perspective - God would see things (I would expect)
as going to be made right some day and ALL things will be to God's glory.... even sin (when it is judged)
will glorify God's perfect Justice and Righteousness some day when God perfectly responds to it.(God
patiently awaiting to judge it someday now is also perfectly responding to it... my "perfectly responds
to it" is tantamount to "finally judges it" and glorifies Himself by judging it).

It is true that sin is painful to us. It is true that sin caused Jesus to have to suffer pain. It is true that
Jesus taking on the form of a Man would suffer loss and pain. It is true that the scriptures even tell
us not to "grieve the Holy Spirit" with Whom we are sealed till the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30), but
this does NOT mean "hurt" or "cause pain" in my understanding but rather a "causing of conflict"
between the flesh and the spirit. I know that the koine Greek word used is "lupeite" which literally
meant to be in the state of causing sorrow...and perhaps there is a spiritual dynamic here which we
could discuss with respect to sorrow/disappointment verses pain or loss....just as we could discuss
the difference between God desiring something that is optimal for us - verses what God ultimately
allows when we choose to reject God or choose to sin. My point is, however, with respect to God
the Father, I do not believe that our sin causes God the Father any pain, loss or tragedy. All things
glorify God the Father in the end, so why would anything cause God the Father pain. This makes
no sense to me... nor does an interpretation of God the Father being "sorry" or something or
having to repent for making humankind. What DOES make sense to me, is that this is an anthro-
pomorphic understanding and expression from a prophet (Moses or Aaron writing for Moses or
some other writer writing under the direction of Moses) which likens God to the emotions of
men but is more about the understanding that humankind has not acted in its optimal capacity
(referring to Genesis 6). To me, it systematically does NOT work to have God be "sorry" for
what He knew would happen and what is part of His Perfect Plan for this temporary creation.

[Breckmin]

Do you think I, or those arguing here against UR, really ‘want’ or hope that some people go to hell?
Yes, or no?

The answer is clearly "no." You would have to be evil like satan or his demons to want (desire) someone to go to hell
and suffer what you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. The problem is that we can NOT compare "our" state and/or
relationship to other creatures to the relationship between a Holy God and His tainted creation.

A spirit filled believer who is walking in the spirit by faith would never compare his own ability to forgive to
that of a Holy Creator. Excuse the No True Scotsman fallacy here, but I have never witnessed a mature believer
who was walking in the spirit who would DARE as a fellow sinner to compare his own ability to forgive another
fellow creation to that of a Holy Creator Who possesses the attributes which are incommunicable. Just reading
someone like George MacDonald is enough to identify spiritual immaturity and clearly a believer who was in much
need of deliverance.

The Holy Spirit of God will convict a believer of the truth of the finality of God's judgment. I have never witnessed
a person who has received a deliverance from demonic bondage who didn't in that moment afterwards have a conviction
that hell was eternal when asked. The traditional view is the result of spiritual conviction NOT just because it won out
over competing views. Just as a newly delivered Christian who receives an exorcism believes in the virgin birth and
the bodily resurrection of Jesus, so also they will have the conviction of the coming judgement and "God's INCREDIBLE
GRACE."

Grace and mercy are contrasted with non-mercy. You can't experience the knowledge of mercy unless there is an
opposite condition which exists in reality for which mercy to have meaning. Justice is an unfathomable thing for
the sinner. Justice is still GOOD because of the rightness of justice.

[mattrose]

In systematic theology one of the most important things to understand is "God concept" because all interpretations and conclusions will "flow from" your God concept.

This sounds an awful lot like coming up with a philosophical concept of God and then applying it to the Scriptures.

Wouldn't it be better to start with revelation (primarily Jesus... but Scripture also) and then begin to develop your philosophical concept of God if you feel so inclined?

The big question is... HOW do we know about God? And the answer is not primarily from our philosophical reasoning. The answer is revelation. The answer is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God we have. So to say God never experiences pain or suffering is to jettison genuine revelation in favor of human philosophy. When we import a bunch of 'rules' about what God is like (impassable) and how God exists (outside of time), we are in my opinion more like the Greek philosophers than receivers of revelation.