The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve7150]

jricitelli is taken to task for not being familiar with what universalists believe. But they believe in various things, from no hell to being in an agonozing hell for thousands of years. So which universalist?









I don't think the nature or length of the correction or punishment that various CUs believe had anything to do with the interaction with JR. Also I also don't recall any CU using the word "agonizing hell."
My understanding to what JR objected to was simply postmortem repentance, i can't recall him discussing anything specific about postmortem punishment/correction.

[Breckmin]

"Breckmin,

First, welcome to this forum. We are glad to have you participating with us here."

,
Thank you, Steve. My goal here is to help people identify what "can not" be a valid interpretation in scripture, because
the implications (using God's gift of logic and reason) are completely devastating once you see and understand the argument
correctly. I want to be a thorough as possible...but at the same time it is important for those reading this to understand
that everything I am typing should be read as though it is spoken quietly and calmly... since I am not anxious about a
time limit or someone interrupting me before I make my point (like I was on the radio - and I apologize for this - I am
not gifted as an oral speaker and generally don't attempt it). If I use all caps to emphasize... this is NOT done as
raising my voice or yelling but rather the same as though I used italics or underline. Read it slowly..and hear it slowly.

Anytime we are dealing with opposing views regarding the precious gospel we must understand that we are dealing with
spiritual warfare and the enemies of God are constantly bent on gaining a foothold (through deception) in our theology.
It is absolutely essential that we pray for protection from that which is not from God and ask God to delivers us from these
satanic deceptions.

"I'm sorry, but your argument lost me way before it ended. However, I did read far enough to realize that the so-called "logic" of your argument is flawed, either in your premises (which I have not yet been able to ascertain) or in your process."

I would encourage you to go back and reread the second post. It is extremely important that you understand that we
are talking about "the state of things in eternity" and NOT a temporary means (such as a temporary hell) to an end - but
rather the 'end result' that God has planned for us. I would also encourage you to see that if you "have not yet been able
to ascertain" the argument, then you can not (yet) show how the logic is somehow flawed.

"The case is not as esoteric as you make it."

I'm not sure where I implied this point. There is nothing new under the sun. This argument was made over 175 years
ago (which I recently learned) even though I have used this argument for the last 5 years without such knowledge of
its history. Still, it seems to be somewhat of a forgotten argument but the logic is very sound once you understand it
correctly (and the implications are disastrous to certain views in Christian universalism).

"The question is, can God save everybody if He wishes?"

The question is NOT so much "what God *can* do if He wishes" but rather "IF God does something, THEN does
that invalidate certain words to be able to be used to describe what God actually did." If It is God's plan that everyone
reaches the same inevitable state or fate in eternity, then we must address whether there is any "danger" or threat
of not reaching that inevitable fate. If there is no possibility of an opposite condition existing for that individual (in
eternity), then the English word "salvation" is NOT describing rescue/save from danger since it is impossible NOT
to eventually reach such fate.(and therefore no danger of not reaching it)

"You have confused yourself (and me!) by assuming a whole set of conditions for which there is no necessity."

I would encourage you to ask questions rather than assume that I am somehow confused. The part of the meaning
of the word "save" that means to rescue from threat or danger is what we are first addressing here. The necessary
condition of "danger" or "threat" must exist in actuality in order to be rescued from such threat/danger. If no threat or
danger exists, then no "actual" rescue can take place. Talking about a temporary hell here is completely incongruous
to the final/permanent "state of things in eternity." We can not step back out of eternity and attempt to address a
condition that is going to "change" TO the inevitable fate we are discussing.

"You create a logical problem for yourself by phrasing it a certain way"

The logical problem is created by the belief that "all will be saved." If we wish to rewrite the scriptures to only include
the part of salvation that only refers to reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness, etc (and even THESE will be shown to
be problematic with respect to God's Justice) rather than a REAL salvation from an actual real threat of NOT being
"appointed unto eternal life" then we can expect someone will have to provide us with a future translation which attempts
to eliminate the concept of being saved from an opposite condition (damnation) that exists in eternity. "In eternity" is the
key here,,,and talking about a temporary hell that is going to empty because people are delivered out of it - is missing the
fact that these also are going to be changed TO the same inevitable fate in eternity. Deliverance "out of" a current state
of suffering or circumstance does NOT address whether or not it is possible for this deliverance to never take place in
eternity. If deliverance is inevitable and planned to be inevitable, then there is no real threat to the contrary. Please
see the implications of this.

"1) "Will everyone be reconciled to God?" "

The question is, however, "is there any danger of NOT being reconciled to God?" If God is planning on everyone
being reconciled, then there is no danger or threat of not being reconciled (which is the first thing you must see with
respect to the word "salvation" before we can proceed to its implications). If we claim that salvation only refers to
deliverance from a temporary state which some are first spared, we still have to address the fact that no contrary
condition exists in eternity and therefore no one was ever in any real danger of eternal non-salvation.

"How many people can be reconciled to God—ten percent? fifty percent? one-hundred percent? At what percentage do you run into "logical" problems?"

]

This is very important to see. If only ten percent are reconciled, then there is an actual danger of being one of the ninety percent.
If fifty percent, then there was a danger of not being one of the fifty percent, and so on. Even if 99.9 percent are reconciled, there
still exists the "danger" of not being reconciled. If EVERYONE is reconciled, however, and there is no one who is ever NOT
reconciled because God will not allow such a state of opposite condition to exist, then there is no real threat or danger to any
individual.

"It may well be that all will not repent, and that not all will be reconciled, but for everyone to do so does not create any problems in "logic," any more than logic prevents me from forgiving everyone who has offended me."

The problem here, however, is that you or I are NOT God. You and I are both sinners and we are not the "Just Judge" over all
and therefore it is not intended for us to display our Justice since God has forgiven us and we know we are guilty also. God Who
Owns the universe IS a Just Judge as well as a Merciful Judge. Imagine if billions of people go into a courtroom who are all guilty
of murder and the Judge says to them billions of times "you are forgiven...I give you mercy rather than justice." Even if the Judge
has given His life for them or even if the Judge's Holy Son is standing there next to them to say "I paid for their murder" the
question remains "where is there a demonstration of Justice?" All someone outside needs to say is "no big deal - He says that
to everybody" OR to have people outside the courtroom saying "don't worry, you are not in any danger of receiving justice here"
for us to see clearly that there is NO demonstration on justice in contrast to that of mercy. This theology attacks the very Justice
of God being demonstrated, and therefore has implications towards God's display of Righteous and God's Holiness which we will
address later, Lordwilling, once you see the argument clearly. This is NOT to trivialize that the Judge gave His Life... that is not
the issue with respect to omni-forgiveness removing the implications of Justice. The issue regarding "He says that to everybody"
is that there is no danger of Him NOT forgiving you and actually giving you (justice)consequences. What kind of a Just Judge
would this be - to never deal out the consequences for breaking the law? (note: If you say the temporary hell is punishment
then this is punishment that you are adding to the Sacrifice of the Judge which also has implications we can discuss later).

[Breckmin]

(cont.)

"2) "Will God defeat all of His enemies?"

What you are not seeing, however, is that this form of universalism begs the question of "who can ever be God's enemy?"
Jesus said He laid down His life for His "friends" and if God is reconciling everyone then EVERYBODY is somehow God's friend.
I would encourage you to examine this from the perspective of whether or not God knows whom He is planning on have an
intimate relationship with in eternity, and glorifying them and living inside them for all of eternity and having them love Him
and worship Him forever. How could any such individual ever be seen as an "enemy" (in an eternal sense) in God's eyes?

""3) "Will God rescue (save) every person from hell when they repent?""

Being delivered out of a temporary hell (that some are spared from) is not the same thing as ever being in REAL danger
of not being rescued in eternity. You can claim equivocation with the English word "salvation" which I will discuss later, but
this retreat still fails to address the necessity of contrasting non-rescue with actual rescue from an eternal standpoint.

"This is very similar to your phrasing, but it includes a part of reality (hell) that is left out of your statement. Your argument is a refutation of the person who says there is no hell."

The argument is a refutation of the person who says there is no *eternal* hell. The hell that is temporary does not address the final state
of things in eternity and is merely a different path to the same ends. This is something we need to comprehend before we can look at the
actual implications of the argument or show that the logic is somehow flawed.

"Therefore your illustration about the imagined monster under the bed is irrelevant. There is no monster under the bed; there is a hell."

The monster under the bed is tantamount to the non-existent *eternal* hell in Christian universalism and it is important that everyone sees this.

If someone said "there is no monster under the bed, there IS an *eternal* hell" then we would see how your prior statement fails in relation
to what we are actually discussing here. If this last statement confuses you (in any way) please ask questions and I will explain in greater detail.

"We know that you and I have been saved from hell. We will never go there. Does that mean we were never on our way there, and that we were not really saved from anything?"

You can have temporary particularism within universalism, but the fallacy is concerned with the eternal state NOT the various paths we
experience to get such eternal state. If some are spared a temporary "chastising" (or what ever your position on this temporary state
may be), while others are delivered out of such temporary state (or temporary hell), this doesn't change the fact that NO opposing
condition (to contrast with salvation) is possible to exist in eternity. If no opposing condition of non-salvation can exist, then the part
of the meaning of the word "salvation" that refers to rescue or "saving someone FROM something that was a threat to them" loses
its meaning. The issue at hand is a REAL threat that exists in reality - for which there could be an opposite condition other than
salvation.

"... a real hell from which people are saved—some without going there, and some after going there."

The point that I made on the radio is that you can't be save FROM something you have already experienced. You 'can' be delivered
out of present experience or delivered from the possibility of future experience, but we don't get "saved" FROM what we have
already suffered because we actually already went through it.

"If a ship sank and all the passengers were drowning, but another ship came and saved them all, would you deny that the passengers had ever been in any real danger?""

This is a philosophical error comparing apples and oranges because you are using an example in which you have "drowning" existing
in actually to somehow compare with ETERNAL hell which supposedly does NOT exist in reality. My statement regarding "if everyone
is saved" refers to "if everyone is somehow saved in eternity" where it is NOT possible to be "unsaved." (or not possible to have
anyone drown). We have repeated experience with ships sinking, or buildings burning or with planes crashing where people actually
"die" (tantamount to eternally unsaved in my statement). When comparing two worlds in philosophy - the examples must be parallel.
In order for your example to be congruous or parallel you have to use people who could not "drown" or would not "die" (go to eternal
hell). This is why I used holy angels in the second post to demonstrate a parallel example to you. "If a ship full of holy angels sank
and another ship came and "saved them all" would you deny that the holy angels had ever been in any real danger?" Yes. I would
deny that the holy angels were ever in any real danger since they can not drown anymore than anyone (according to universalism)
can exist in eternity as unsaved/unredeemed.

"You gave no answer relevant to our debate."

I don't mean to nitpick here, but before we can begin a debate we must first fully understand the position and why our examples
are incongruous. If you still do not understand why "holy angels" are being used as a parallel example... I would be willing to
explain further and in greater detail. FTR, (on the air) I do recall that I did explain that your example was incongruous.

"Even your answer above is nonsensical. It is a simple case. Somehow, you declare the analogy irrelevant ("apples and oranges"). If the case is not parallel, then you are assuming certain factors, in your scenario, which are unnecessary...but I am still having trouble figuring out what those assumptions are."

I would encourage to go back and read my second post and "why" I said they were apples and oranges and why I used holy angels.
You are confusing "what is temporary" verses "what is eternal" (in the end). If you still do not see how "if a ship full of people sinks"
or "if a plane is about to crash" or "if a building is burning" are all incongruous (unless you put holy angels in them) then I would be
happy to explain further. This has everything to do with understanding what is meant by "if everyone is allegedly saved in eternity,
then no one was ever in any real danger of not being saved" (and why the English word salvation loses part of its meaning with
this assertion).

In my experience discussing this fallacy 4 things usually take place.

1. People first have trouble understanding the argument because they do not think deeply enough about the implications of]
using the word salvation in a schema where non-salvation does not exist (once again - "in eternity" - spared from a temporary
hell doesn't address how things universally end up "in the end). This requires me to continually explain the fallacy before we
can proceed to its implications. There is much to get to here.... which will expose the chaos created by universal salvation.

2. People attempt to create some abstract hypothetical damnation that would have existed, but does not exist in reality.
We see this already happening with one of mkprr's post. This also is easily shown to be a fallacy, so they continue to retreat.

3. For the critical thinker who sees the argument and understands it, the first retreat (expected) is to claim equivocation with
the English word "salvation" and admit that it is not necessary for real threat or danger to exist when looking back in eternity.
Deliverance out of what a person is experiencing (or will experience) is appealed to as well as redemption, reconciliation, etc.
This is progress (and I hope to get to this point) so we can then begin to discuss the implications of this using logic and reason.

4. The fourth response that I get is the most common and the most TRAGIC of all. For those who DO end up seeing the
argument and understand its logic and its implications is to claim that "logic can't be used." This tragic because as we apply
"scriptura scripturum interpretator" it is the God given laws of logic (and law of non-contradiction) that govern our hermeneutics
through to conviction of the Holy Spirit. You can not reason with a person who will retreat to chaos rather than allowing God's
gift of the laws of logic to correct their heretical theology. I hope and pray that claim will not be made here.

[Breckmin]

"The truth evident to me in our several conversations is that you are very offended at the possibility of God saving everyone."

What we as particularists are defending here is the message of the gospel. We do NOT believe in 2 gospels.. a second one
that will be proclaimed in hell. Before you can understand the "good news" you must first understand the "bad news" (that
you are a sinner who is wicked in the sight of a Holy Creator and that there are eternal consequences for your sin). When
we die and then comes judgement - the unbeliever does 'not' get a new gospel that says "the bad news was only that you
would come here temporarily" "the new good news is that you ALL are going to get saved so don't worry....just repent and
everything will be o.k." That's NOT the gospel message that Jesus preached.

"To say, "If everyone is saved, then I haven't been saved from anything" is a statement, not of rational logic, but of emotion."

I thought it was logical when it was presented to me, but I clearly saw it with respect to an eternal fate in eternity for which there
was no opposite condition nor possibility of opposite condition. I had no emotion when examining this with reason at the time.

"You clearly have a strong emotional objection to universalism."

When you spend years studying systems of deception, you begin to identify "markings" or common themes that exist in
these satanic deceptions. In the 19th Century there were many old heresies that we revived from the early centuries and
Christian universalism was one of them. Although there was good preaching in the 1800's, still the rise of the cults and other
deceptions grew at an enormous rate. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christian Identity (The Order),
Bahai Faith, etc. even Universalism (1825 AUA and 1866 UCA) all grew in the 19th Century along with Darwinian Evolutionary
Theory (1859) and other systems of deception. With the exception of parts of Mormon theology, all of these others that
I mentioned here have elements or markings that make them "cookie cutter" satanic deceptions (when you study systems
of deception and understand what is meant by this). Incidentally, Annihilationism also grew (John Stott) in th 1800's but
like Mormonism, it does not have "all" the same cookie cutter markings of a satanic deception that I am referring to (although
both mentioned in this sentence ARE clearly deceptions).

By the way, there is one eschatological position that exists largely in evangelical conservative denominations that also came
out of the 19th Century that ALSO has all of the markings of a "cookie cutter" satanic deception.

It is the pre-trib rapture position.

"After talking with you, I always come away asking myself, "Why would anyone have this response to what is clearly a very wonderful vision of God's grace?"

I will explain the necessity of understanding the implications regarding contrasting special grace and mercy with non-mercy (Lordwilling) later.
This is absolutely essential in understanding the necessity of justice in contrast to mercy.

"I can think of two possible answers:

1) The objector thinks it is dangerous to believe it. The assumption is that the Bible teaches eternal torment (or maybe annihilation) and that it is dangerous to be raising false hopes in the lost by suggesting God loves them enough to keep pursuing them even in hell. I would call this the "scriptural" argument because it proceeds on the premise that the scripture teaches something other than universalism and reasons from that assumption."

I would say this is part of the reason, but there is much more to it regarding the implications of universalism in distorting the gospel message.

"This is, in fact, the argument I would have raised to univesalism before studying the scriptural teaching thoroughly. I once thought universalism was clearly refuted from scripture and that something else was clearly taught. I have since learned otherwise. However, this does not seem to be the basis of your objection, since you do not really make an exegetical case for an alternative view (at least you do not do so in our conversations)."

I have at least two dozen scripture references we could go to, but if you use a universalist hermeneutic to explain them away (Matt.25:46,
Rev. 20:10, even Mark 9:48, etc) and claim you need to "exegete these correctly for us" all we will be doing is spinning our wheels unless
we understand "why the universalist hermeneutic is NOT to be used.

My prayer is that you and those reading this will pray for protection from deception.

[Singalphile]

Hello, Breckmin. Thanks for your posts, which I've read carefully. They help clarify your position.

I still do not see the logical fallacy or inconsistency. But you're not arguing against my preferred view (yet), so I don't care to argue. I would only say that the CUist does not believe that the Bible teaches any God-ordained death or un-reconcilable life in hell. So, of course they have no reason to justify or explain how those concepts fit into the definition of salvation or their overall view.

[steve]

I will give you the last word, and leave it to readers to decide whether you have made a sensible answer to my points or not. To my mind, you do not understand either the universalistic message nor logic...but you are welcome to your way of seeing things, like the rest of us.

[Breckmin]

{cont.)

"Instead, you raise a second kind of objection:

2) The objector does not want everyone to be saved. Few Christians will admit to themselves that this is their attitude, but it is obvious to observers, in many cases."

I would encourage you to remember that it is God who looks at the heart and we do not want to falsely judge our brothers in Christ here.

"The unspoken argument is: "If everyone is going to be saved eventually, why am I knocking myself out to be a Christian now? If heaven awaits all those sinners who are doing all those fun and sinful things of which I am depriving myself so as to get to heaven, I am getting ripped off!""

I know of no mature believer who can relate to this. The riches and the blessings that come from obedience far out weigh "those fun and
sinful things" as you call them... and we do NOT get to heaven by depriving ourselves of sin....we get to heaven rather through FAITH
in Jesus Christ as we trust in His Sacrificial Atonement for our sins submitting to His Lordship as our God/Creator Incarnate.

"This is, of course, the very objection of the older son to the mercy shown to the prodigal (Luke 15:29-30)."

This is a perfect example of how some universalist' hermeneutic distorts scripture. Never did Jesus ever compare "hell" to a mere pigpen
where pigs are fed (and being satisfied by their slop).

"It is like the objection raised by those who labored all day and complained that those who worked only one hour received the same pay as they received (Matt.20:12)."

Another distortion of scripture using the deceptive hermeneutic of a certain view in universalism. There are NOT two fields were one is "on fire" here.

"Now this is an objection to which I never would have been able to relate."

I think we have agreement in that we want to see as many people come to Christ as possible.

"Now, if God were to speak to me and say, "Don't worry, their ignorance is not eternal. They will someday know and enjoy me as you do—though it will be at the cost of their having wasted every earthy opportunity to serve me!"

You should know that it is satan and NOT God talking to you. Satan always includes the truth with his lies and the first part "there
ignorance is not eternal" is true... the second part, however, "they will (all) someday enjoy me" is NOT the gospel that Jesus preached.

"I would be very heartened, not disappointed, to learn of it! "This seems to be the opposite of your reaction to the suggestion of that possibility."

The more who come to Christ will not disappoint any mature believer. It is why we share the gospel as much as we can and with anyone
who will listen. We want everybody around us to be saved.

"It would seem inexplicable that He would send Jesus to die for everyone, if He was content to lose the majority of mankind."

Like the demons or fallen angels, this requires a comprehensive theodicy to understand, and perhaps we can discuss it in a different
thread, but we must first eliminate the universalist' hermeneutic as an option to explain away the scriptures teaching on eternal consequences.

"Like Him, I also want everyone to be saved."

Every Calvinist I know wants everyone to be saved...but we don't let "what we want" dictate our theology. How many times do we hear
Calvinists make the statement in preaching (knowing full well philosophically that if they were God they would do everything exactly as
God does it), "If I were God, I would save everybody." I personally have made this statement dozens of times in my life. John MacArthur
has alluded to a similar concept and R.C. Sproul has also made this exact statement - more than a couple of times. But here in identifies
where you are allowing "what you want to believe" to influence your theology. I would encourage you to see that as mature believers we
must come to a time in our lives where we will no longer believe "what we want to believe" but rather "what we HAVE TO believe" lest
the enemies of God gain a foothold in our theology. I would encourage you to take the same approach and NOT believe what you "want
to believe" because this can heavily affect your understandings regarding the doctrines of grace also.

I have often heard particularists make the claim, "We are all born univeralists" or "we are all born semipelagian" but that doesn't
mean we don't resist the flesh and allow God's Word to be consistent. This is very important to see.

"I don't know if they will be or not,"

Then I would encourage you not to defend universalism to the degree that you sometimes do on your program.

'but I can't imagine raising an objection to that prospect on emotional grounds like yours."

The idea that my son gave me came from his logical assessment as a philosophically minded kid, it did not come
from emotion. I would encourage you to see here that - earlier you threw out a possibility and now you are concluding
it without ever asking me why I object. This is a big "no no" for two reasons. One is that you are judging me when
you are not omniscient (and not God) and can not look inside my heart and see how I feel about the unbeliever.
The other reason I would encourage you not to do this is because this is poor professionalism as an intellectual
and your assertion is basically "you are arguing for this doctrine because you want it to be true" or "because
you want hell to be real" or "because you don't love others enough and want others to go to hell." If this were
any kind of formal debate this would be instantly identified as a "consequential ad hominem" fallacy or an
"argumentum ad hominem consequential fallacy."

I would encourage you to look carefully at the argument itself and not try and assign motives to the person
who is explaining it to you. We never want to include logical fallacies in our arguments (whatever they may be).

"The knowledge that every sinner would someday be rescued and that hell would eventually be vacant would fill my present life with greater joy than would any other belief. In fact, I think the knowledge that all of my loved ones (and all of God's loved ones) will eventually be saved would be even better news than my knowledge that I am saved. I think Paul felt the same way, if I read him correctly (Rom.9:3)."

This is a great attitude to have toward the unbeliever and I agree with you, but we need to be careful that we don't let that love
and emotion that we have toward the lost cause us to slip into satanic deception which attacks the very gospel itself.

"I would have thought that every Christian would naturally feel the same way. I am often surprised."

I think that every genuine true believer DOES feel the same way in wanting to reach as many people as possible with the true gospel.
It is why we cry out to God in intercessory prayer for God to be merciful to individuals and save them from the consequences of their sin.

(Edit: 03/02/13 - See page 8 of all the posts for more clarifications on this fallacy)

[Breckmin]

To my mind, you do not understand either the universalistic message nor logic.

Steve, I would encourage you to see that this is "general" and doesn't address anything specific or any specific sentence
for which I have posted. What I mean here is that this is extremely unfair...to both of us.....especially when you were
the one that invited me to this forum on the radio and then welcomed me ...and now as I defend the argument you
give a general accusation that "you do not understand....logic" *without* quoting my post or responding to any specific
point that is made.

Please pray about this....especially if you are writing a book that has to do with the three views of hell.

It is important for us to see clearly how to deduct from scripture which view is consistent with the gospel that
Jesus preached.

[Breckmin]

"if everyone is saved, then no one is saved - because
no one was saved from anything REAL” (quoting Breckmin)

"This reminds me of what the villian from Disney's The Incredibles said, "If everyone is super, nobody is"

Even though this character is fiction, the writers got this one right. Being super implies being "superior" in some
way to someone who is "inferior." If everyone in an entire universal system is "equal" because they are all
equally "superior" and no one "inferior exists," then this commits the same type of fallacy. Someone must be
inferior to contrast with (or provide an opposing condition of) being "superior." This is a good example of
a contradiction in terms with the words "everybody" and "super" being applied this way.

"I think your logic doesn't quite fit the concept of salvation though."

I would encourage you to read my response to Steve and pray about it. It is important that we pray for
God's protection when we are in the midst of spiritual warfare.

"If without Jesus we would be damned,"

Does this damnation exist in actuality? Or is this just hypothetical existence? Can the universe even exist
without Jesus? What do you mean by "damned" here? How long is it? What is happening to people during it?

"Salvation then doesn't mean we are in a better position than others, it means we are in a better position than we would have been without Jesus."

Are these diametrically opposed? Why can't both be true for those who receive special grace?

[steve]

Breckmin,

I am not being unfair to you. You speak as if I have ignored your arguments and given you no answer. I gave you an adequate answer, and you responded by repeating your same logic. There is no sense bantering. My response to you stands, in my opinion, unrefuted. If you feel you have refuted it, you should be quite satisfied, since I have given you the last word.

If you will not be satisfied until you have convinced me that you have either scripture or logic on your side, I'm afraid you will be disappointed until you exhibit a better grasp of both scripture and logic. But then, why should you care whether you convince me or not? I am not concerned about convincing you. We both have equal access to this forum, so, if I am permitting you to post more in your favor than I am choosing to post in response, this should give you a great advantage—unless your arguments are as unconvincing to others as they are to me.

You say I should not "defend" universalism so much on the air. I regularly make it clear that I am not a convinced universalist. What I am actually refuting is what I see as flawed arguments or flawed exegesis. I will continue to do this, no matter what the topic, and no matter whether I agree with the position being defended or with that being attacked. Bad arguments are bad arguments, regardless in whose interests they are presented. You and I apparently have different approaches to education and to discovery of truth. I even allow for that. People are free to form their own opinions.