The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:So until CU is effectuated, salvation is unfinished and incomplete and not necessarily inevitable but just a possibility that may or may not happen. Even if it ended up being true why is it inevitable?


If it is God's plan to save everyone then it is inevitable that everyone reaches the same inevitable fate. God is omniscient
and knows whom He is going to save. Using the word "salvation" implies that an opposite condition to the contrary can
exist... but with this form of universalism... no "non-salvation" exists therefore when we are in eternity looking back
(from this perspective) the meaning of being "saved" is the same as everyone reaching the same inevitable fate. It
would be a good fate to be in, but the word salvation and how we are using it - is what is in question. Thank you, Steve.








Interesting to hear a Calvinist use inevitable fate as an argument against salvation based on a particular belief. IMO CU is possible but not inevitable and the fact that God may know the end result doesn't change anything which is that the vast majority of mankind is separated from God and is in need of reconciliation or salvation right this minute.
Whether the number ends up being 10% of mankind or 50% or 100% God knows who will be saved therefore any number is inevitable. So inevitability would exist in any example with any number and the fact is that each case of salvation is an individual salvation between one sinner and God. One individual person at a time, each process of salvation unique and different. Until a person is saved he is lost and separated from God and even when God has 99 sheep he still rejoices when he finds the last sheep.
So my point is two fold. There is no "everyone" there is one person at a time. Second point is that if God knows who will be saved the same inevitable argument could be applied against any group or percentage saved claiming there was never any chance of non-salvation for this or that group. It does not matter if this group is 100% or 1%
of mankind.

[Breckmin]

Interesting to hear a Calvinist use inevitable fate as an argument against salvation based on a particular belief.

It is not an argument against using the English word "salvation" IF an opposite condition exist from which to be saved from.. or
for which to even be predestined to be saved from...or for which to end up being your inevitable fate that you were predestined
to be saved from. FTR, I have never claimed to be a Calvinist (but I have admitted to being Calvinistic and always end up
spending most of my time defending the same conclusions as Augustinians even though my reasons may vary slightly).

Whether the number ends up being 10% of mankind or 50% or 100% God knows who will be saved therefore any number is inevitable.

If 10% then 90% unsaved, 10% saved. If 50% then 50% are not saved.. If 99% are saved you at least still have a contrary or
opposition condition of 1% who are NOT saved for which to properly use the word salvation and see that you were saved
from something REAL (the eternal state for which the 1% went to). If 100% are so called "saved" then we have a problem
with the terminology of the English word "saved." Just give one example anywhere in this world where we use the word
salvation where NO unsaved or non-salvation exists. Just give one example.

So my point is two fold. There is no "everyone" there is one person at a time.

Suppose you were the ONLY person in the universe... it was just you and God. You are Adam and there is no Eve.
If you did sin and God redeemed you... how would you ever know that you had been "saved?" Please be specific.
How would you ever know the consequences for NOT being saved? Please be specific,

Second point is that if God knows who will be saved the same inevitable argument could be applied against any group or percentage saved claiming there was never any chance of non-salvation for this or that group. It does not matter if this group is 100% or 1%
of mankind.

Actually it does matter... because we are talking about the "knowledge" of a contrary condition or opposite condition
existing in order to know what the consequences would have been if you were NOT saved. This is what universalists
do not understand. It is the role of "knowledge" of consequences...which DO indeed exist in eternity.

What you are doing, however, is trying to focus on just 1 aspect of why we wouldn't use salvation to describe
the eternal state or condition - "inevitability." But this argument is MORE than just inevitability... and we
need to be careful not to just isolate on this aspect alone.

[Breckmin]

...there are indeed multiple ways in which we are saved from sin...but clearly these generally have to do with some consequences or what will happen if we continue.

I said it this way for a variety of reasons. 1. "we" does not address the difference between believers and unbelievers and
how sin affects us differently. The believer's sins are forgiven and the unbeliever is left having to pay for his/her sins.
2. There are consequences which we identify as immediate and consequences which we identify as eternal. Ultimately
all sin has eternal consequences...but clearly different for the believer than for the unbeliever. The believer will
experience God's chastisement and a loss of eternal reward...should he/she have been obedient. 3. "saved from sin"
ITSELF is general... and doesn't specify how we are saved from sin... this is arrived at via hermeneutics and therefore
systematically from other scriptures which talk about what happens to a person when they stand before the Lord
in judgment.

Each one of these three points could still be expanded upon and there are MORE.

if these generally have to do with some consequences, then maybe some of the ways we are saved from sin are not about being saved from hell. Again, your arguments seem flawed.

The subject of the OP is regarding the state of things in eternity. Clearly "a loss of rewards" is a different subject than "being saved from
eternal hell" or an opposite condition other than Heaven. The reason the argument seems flawed to you is that you are backing out of
eternity and looking at things "here and now" and therefore looking for ways to describe salvation which do not address the logical
fallacy presented in the OP. The current loss of communion with God is not the subject matter...any more than a loss of rewards is.

By admitting this, are you not clearly saying that an act of salvation has occurred?

Saved from "what?", however. The real question in eternity is "is there any danger or possibility of NOT being saved?"
We can talk about the consequences that sin brings regarding displeasing God, or losing eternal rewards, etc.. but these
are NOT the same things as being rescued from an eternal condition which you WOULD HAVE had had you not been saved
(or even predestined to be rescued from.

What more are you looking for?

The fallacy we are discussing has to do with the state of things "in eternity."

Is there not enough danger of displeasing the Lord in this lifetime (with it's attendant consequences) to consider salvation from sin to be a salvation from a real danger?

We are talking, however, about the state of things in eternity and whether or not we were saved from something (an eternal hell)
that exists in reality.

Is a danger only real if it is permanent?

I'm reminded here of a scene in a movie where Jack Nicholson's character is asked by Tom Cruise "grave danger?" and
Nicholson responds "Is there any other kind?" Clearly in heaven the danger we would be talking about would be the
permanent condition of an eternal state that is not heaven... but once again... the subject is not so much "danger"
for the believer because the believer could see their own redemption/election never being in any real danger if
God has elected them...what they would be able to see, however, is the real consequences of sin and disobedience
without forgiveness and see that they were clearly elected/predestined to be saved from something REAL that
exists in reality. Once again, the subject here is the state of things in eternity...so trying to come up with
temporary things here and now which are all going to change TO an eternal state where everyone is somehow
"saved" is a different subject.

It seems to me that we disagree on the "consequences or what will happen next" applying only to a permanent punishment in hell - you seem to see only one option as being worthy of the title "real danger"

From the semipelagian view or the prescient view then the only real danger we are talking about is the state
of things in eternity. This is what the fallacy addresses... salvation with respect to looking back from eternity
and asking "what were we actually saved from?" if no opposite condition exists.

The Calvinist view would not be concerned with "danger" other than the danger of God not electing or
adopting them out from among those who are perishing in eternal hell.

Therefore, you seem to only allow for genuine salvation to apply to one final, permanent, danger.

It is the state of things in eternity for which this fallacy is concerned. The "danger" concept is somewhat relative
to whether or not something in eternity actually exists for which to be saved FROM...yes.

[john6809]

Breckmin wrote, It is the state of things in eternity for which this fallacy is concerned. The "danger" concept is somewhat relative to whether or not something in eternity actually exists for which to be saved FROM...yes.

So is it your contention that hell is only a real danger if it is a permanent place from which no one can ever escape? If an unbelieving person theoretically could repent after many years in hell, they would look back and say that they were never in any real danger and therefore they were not really saved from hell?

[Breckmin]

Breckmin wrote, It is the state of things in eternity for which this fallacy is concerned. The "danger" concept is somewhat relative to whether or not something in eternity actually exists for which to be saved FROM...yes.

So is it your contention that hell is only a real danger if it is a permanent place from which no one can ever escape?

You have to be careful here because we are talking about the state of things in eternity. Clearly a "lion" or a "plane crashing"
are "real" dangers because they do harm to us...but clearly these have opposite conditions in that people have been eaten
by lions and people have also died in plane crashes. So just because hell is alleged to be temporary wouldn't mean that a
believer couldn't be saved from it, as a group of first saved individuals... or have it be a danger to them (if you have to go
there). The issue in eternity, however, has to do with understanding that the temporary will fade eternally and become
smaller in significance (smaller and smaller forever in comparison to heaven). Also, you are not really saved from something
that you just went through... IOW, if you went to hell, then you were not exactly saved "from" it. You might be "delivered
out of it" or saved from a future continuing experience of it.... but you clearly are not saved from what you just had to
endure or went through.

The issue is therefore that hell only demonstrates an opposite condition IN ETERNITY if it is eternal...because as we
exist further and further into eternity...a theoretical temporary condition would eternally shrink in comparison, and
this would shrink forever. So to rephrase you statement "It is my contention that someone has to go to eternal hell or
stay in hell forever in order for it to be an opposite condition of non-salvation from which to be actually saved FROM.

If an unbelieving person theoretically could repent after many years in hell,

How do you change your mind and repent when you have been rid of the battle between flesh and spirit?

they would look back and say that they were never in any real danger and therefore they were not really saved from hell?

Well, just ask this question.... Were they ever in any danger of NOT being saved? Scapegoating to Calvinism
here doesn't work...because the believer within the Calvinist schema can clearly say "I was saved from eternal hell" or I
was predestined to be saved from eternal hell, or "I was adopted from a group of people who were all on their way
to an eternal hell." IOW, the Calvinist believer in eternity has something real that exists in eternity that they
can point to and say "if I was born as one of the non-elect...this is what would have happened to me" etc,
No one in the universalist schema can point to anything IN ETERNITY and say "these are the consequences
of sinning against a Holy Creator" because NO SUCH eternal condition exists.

Clearly the question that is begged - with respect to your above sentence "and therefore they were not really
saved from hell?" is "were they ever in danger of not being saved out of this temporary hell?"....if universalism
were somehow true.

You see the point that you have to see here is that the temporary hell is "changing" and more importantly
it is changing TO everyone going to heaven. If there is no danger of someone not going to heaven because
it is impossible in God's plan, then "in the end" what is the salvation referring to?

[steve7150]

So my point is two fold. There is no "everyone" there is one person at a time.



Suppose you were the ONLY person in the universe... it was just you and God. You are Adam and there is no Eve.
If you did sin and God redeemed you... how would you ever know that you had been "saved?" Please be specific.
How would you ever know the consequences for NOT being saved? Please be specific,


steve7150 wrote:Second point is that if God knows who will be saved the same inevitable argument could be applied against any group or percentage saved claiming there was never any chance of non-salvation for this or that group. It does not matter if this group is 100% or 1%
of mankind.



Actually it does matter... because we are talking about the "knowledge" of a contrary condition or opposite condition
existing in order to know what the consequences would have been if you were NOT saved. This is what universalists
do not understand. It is the role of "knowledge" of consequences...which DO indeed exist in eternity.







My point is that if God redeemed me (even if I were Adam)i would know because it would be AFTER i repented and accepted the reality i am a sinner and need a Savior. You are a Calvinist which is evident by how you phrase things. So you see redemption only as God redeeming you and asking "how would you know?" A Calvinist really never knows for sure, so you can rightly ask, how would you know?
You seem to want to be in the eternal state with God looking back and concluding that from the eternal perspective if everyone is saved and if it were God's plan then salvation was never a contrast from damnation.
I disagree because i don't know if God has a plan or is simply providing an opportunity including postmortem for all to have a real opportunity to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
I can look at a history documentary and know about an historical event such as Lincoln choosing to go the theater the night Booth murdered him, yet at the time Lincoln decided to go to the theater it was his freewill to make that choice even though i know what happened and now looking back perhaps can see it as inevitable. It was not inevitable at the time Lincoln made the choice.
The word "krisis" you referenced as one of the greek words for "judgment" has in the NAS lexicon eight definitions and traditional bibles choose to translate the 7th & 8th definitions which are condemnation or damnation. The first 6 provide a possibility of punishment and restoration IMO and even condemnation may not be a permanent state.
So we are not now in the eternal state, each one of us needs salvation and it is an individual choice to follow Christ and is disconnected to how many others may or may not follow Christ.
I disagree that CU if it's true is inevitable but if it is the ultimate result then it would match up with God's plainly stated will rather then God saying he wants everyone to be saved and then taking actions to limit the atonement to a select few. I'm aware of Calvinism's response to this about God's different kinds of will, and if and when i have time to respond to this view i will.
So please don't feel you have to respond (unless it's inevitable) as we can agree to disagree on this.
I would like to respond to your other points if i can find the time Breckmin, but for now this is all i have the time for, thanks Steve

[Paidion]

I do not know much about George MacDonald, but I do not find him very impressive.

He will want only to be rid of his suffering; but that he cannot have, unless he is delivered from its essential root, a thing infinitely worse than any suffering it can produce.

It seems to me he is saying that Hugh Hefner must be suffering more now, although unbeknownst to him, than Hefner ever could in hell. That's not much of an evangelism tool - tell a sinner that right now is the worst he will ever have it.

George MacDonald never minimized the suffering of hell. Rather he is saying that a person cannot get rid of his suffering, present or future, without having been delivered from his sinful nature.

[Homer]

If an unbelieving person theoretically could repent after many years in hell, they would look back and say that they were never in any real danger and therefore they were not really saved from hell?

Something that has never been discussed in the ongoing hell controversy, as far as I can recall, is when, while in hell, does the person sent there become aware of the possibility of getting out and going to heaven, that universalism is true? When and how does the universalist think this happens? If they are knowledgeable about this possibility from the beginning then they would at all times know that they were never in danger of a permanent stay in hell. By definition, a permanent condition that is impossible, or universalism is false.

[steve7150]

Something that has never been discussed in the ongoing hell controversy, as far as I can recall, is when, while in hell, does the person sent there become aware of the possibility of getting out and going to heaven, that universalism is true? When and how does the universalist think this happens? If they are knowledgeable about this possibility from the beginning then they would at all times know that they were never in danger of a permanent stay in hell. By definition, a permanent condition that is impossible, or universalism is false.

User avatar
Homer






To me the invitation in Rev 22.17 from the Spirit and the Bride is to the folks in the lake of fire as "bride" is used in Rev to mean redeemed church. Whether there are chances before that or what the folks in the LOF know i'm not sure. So the alternative IMO to accepting the final call is annihilation IMHO. Annihilation is a permanent state of another kind and is punishment but not cruel and painful and vindictive as eternal torment.

[jriccitelli]

Steve I hope you go with your conviction concerning CI, rather than CU. Rev 22:15 takes abit of explaining for sure, so I kept half the explanation on the ‘UR evokes many emotions’ thread and I will post a conclusion of it here:

So the invitation to "Anyone" in Rev 22.17 from the Spirit and the Bride is to the only people still left, those in the LOF, IMHO.

Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7“He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (21:6-8)

Note the similitude of Jesus’ words and the statement in 21:6-8 above with 22:12-15 below;

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (22:10-15)

This would seem to place the statement actually before the LOF and the second death. Note also the same event is referred to in 21:27 (below), and for a fourth time this same event is again referred to in 22:12-15. Note the same scenario in 22:12-15 is almost exactly 21:6-8 (Colored pens and markers are helpful at this point)
Note just as the second death of 21:8 is the same as in 20:14 (below),

“14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (20:14-15)

‘And nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life’ (21:27)

The lake of fire, the second death, are where those not found written in the book were thrown – and it says they shall never come into the city as it says below , because they are in the LOF. And as I believe annihilated in the LOF, as Isaiah 60 comments on;

Your gates will be open continually;
They will not be closed day or night,
So that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations,
With their kings led in procession.
12“For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish,
And the nations will be utterly ruined. (Isaiah 60:11-12)

‘Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying’ (22:10-15)

So from this it seems the dogs and such are the people outside the gates (Praise) and walls (Salvation) of the city (metaphorically speaking, not the actual city), but the place and time of this scenario is before the marriage, before his coming, before His judgment, before the immoral idolaters part in the LOF, and before the second death, not after. Verse 22:15-16 is an appeal and a warning to those ‘now’ alive, before the judgment, just as 22:17 is a call to come to Him now, because He is coming soon.