The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[Breckmin]

Steve,
it may be a week before I reply again. When I do (Lordwilling) I want to address the very important point
you raised regarding predestination certain distinctions that need to be made.

Thank you for allowing me to post this argument against Chrisian Universalism here. May the Lord Bless
You and Keep You.

[jeremiah]

hello breckmin,

welcome to theos man. talk about coming out of the gate swinging! <----only a metaphor, i hope any perceived heat can be forgiven and only the light remembered.

i look forward to you maybe participating more here. and i would like to encourage you to consider that all of us here, though we may differ on the nature of eternal judgment (i'm a 98% convinced conditionalist) hold the gospel of Christ no less precious and close than you do. how else could one who has been given life from the dead respond?

grace and peace be with us...

[steve]

Hi Breckmin,

When I said the argument was too esoteric, I was not referring to it as novel or new. It seems that this is how you understood the word, and thus answered that someone had held it 175 years ago. I think this means you understood esoteric to mean "new." That is not the meaning I understand that word to have, so your response to this did not appear relevant.

[Breckmin]

Where specifically was I "illogical?" Please quote the illogical point or the sentence. Thank you.

The fact that someone made your case 175 years ago does not give it validity any more than that Darby made the case for dispensationalism 180 years ago. The case must stand or fall on its innate validity, not on how long ago someone may have thought of it.

It is because of your responses like this, however, that I would continue to request that you quote me word for
word and respond point for point. No where did I ever claim that the age of an argument in any way gives it
validity. I merely responded to your claim that I somehow implied that it was esoteric.

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

My response:

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).

I would encourage you to see that by quoting you will not be misrepresenting a person in what was actually said.

When I said the argument was too esoteric, I was not referring to it as novel or new. It seems that this is how you understood the word, and thus answered that someone had held it 175 years ago. I think this means you understood esoteric to mean "new." That is not the meaning I understand that word to have, so your response to this did not appear relevant.

When you used "esoteric" I thought you were referring to it as though it "required special knowledge of only a few" or that it
was unpublished or that it was exclusive. That is why I responded the way in which I did. Still, even if you thought I was
thinking "new" this would still not justify your implication that I was somehow giving it "validity" based on how old it was.
My response was clearly "I'm not sure where I implied this is esoteric."

This is just one more reason why it is important to quote so that we don't mislead any of the readers regarding what the other said.

[Breckmin]

Here is where you misunderstand universalism:

Steve, even though I have debated this heresy for at least 5 years (mostly through emails with personal conversations with individuals)
and have heard all sorts of interpretations about "the kernel and the husk" and the history of universalism regarding Pantaenus and
Clement, and Origen and Didymus the blind, etc. - what you are not seeing here is that someone could know very little about universalism
in order to identify a logical fallacy regarding the use of the English word "salvation" as it relates to save or rescue from real danger.
All a logician has to know is that "no eternal hell" exists in reality and that there is no opposite condition that is either possible to exist
or DOES exist from which to be save "from" in order to demonstrate this fallacy.

You think no one is saved from hell if everyone is saved from hell. Thus, you mistakenly define "salvation" as "saved from hell."

There are many little nuances in using exact words...which is why I would request that you quote me. I would encourage you to see
that if I were the one to say "what you think" or to say how you "define things" it would be natural for you to be inclined to quickly correct me.
If someone reads these statements from you they would not understand the correct position. First, we are talking about the state of things
in eternity so it is imperative that you say "eternal hell" rather than just hell. Also, I was hoping we are past the "everyone is saved, no
one is saved" statement as to understand its translation to mean "if everyone reaches the same inevitable fate of eternal heaven and it is
impossible to not reach such fate, then no opposition condition exists in eternity and therefore the word "salvation" loses its meaning with
respect to saving someone from something "real" that exists in eternity. "That exists in eternity" is something you keep missing. You
keep stepping back out of eternity and talking about temporary things which are going to change to something else in eternity.

Most universalists, I believe, would define salvation in the biblical manner, which is to be saved from one's sins (Matt.1:21), from "every lawless deed" (Tit.2:14), from this present (not future) evil age (Gal.1:4) and from one's former aimless life (1 Peter 1:18).

Let's look at this carefully, because now you are not only stepping back out of eternity and failing to address whether or not it is possible
to NOT be saved from one's sins; but now you are committing another mistake (two mistakes at the same time) that you committed before
when we talked about a temporary hell that someone was going to experience. The question is "how can you be saved "from" something
you actually 'do' or experience?" You say "saved from one's sins (Matt.1:21)" but how does the word "from" apply when we've already
committed such sins? How can you be saved "from" an action you have already committed if you have already committed or experienced
it? Christians have always thought of this as "saved from the consequences of the sin" (which would be God's Just/Righteous response).
You say "from "every lawless deed" (Tit.2:14)" or "from one's former aimless life (1 Peter 1:18)" but hold it a second - these are actions
we have already committed. We were not saved "from" committing them... the only thing that makes any sense is for us to be saved
from the "consequences" of these sins. In Gal.1:4 we are not taken out of the evil age but we are delivered from its influence on us
as to condemn us along with everyone else AND we are delivered from the consequences of our own sins (sins which we commit in
this evil age). It is clearly the fact that the majority of people "in the evil age" are perishing and we are being adopted "out of" this
evil age (because of Jesus "who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us" from real danger - the danger of perishing
with such evil age).

How can we be saved "from" something we experience? If we are experiencing the "evil age" then clearly being saved "from this
evil age" but rather we are being saved "out of" this evil age and there would clearly be "consequences" for NOT being saved out
of this evil age. This is something else that you are not seeing.

We are saved so as to enter the kingdom of God, not just heaven.

Is it possible to NOT be saved as to "enter the kingdom of God?" Is there any danger here of not entering into the Kingdom of God?

There is no place in scripture that defines salvation as "escape from hell,"

I would encourage you, however, to see over simplistic you are being here with respect to the English word "salvation" and having
it be "defined" in the scriptures. First, salvation is an English word so it appears no where in scripture but is rather a translation
of a concept. There are of course koine Greek words such as "soteria" and "soter" (which means Savior) and particularists believe
that the Savior is saving us from something "real" that is an eternal danger to us (were we NOT to be saved). The fallacy that we
are talking about here has to do with the part of the English word "salvation" which means "to save or rescue" from real danger.
If you wish to claim equivocation on the English word "salvation" and claim that it refers to "transformation" or "redemption" or
"reconciliation" or "deliverance out of" or these sorts of things then please do so - so we can proceed to the implications of this.

You need to see that even if we claim that 3 of those verses above that you mentioned are talking about transformation we
still have the ball and chain of the flesh so we still commit sin even after we first experience salvation. So clearly, we are NOT
saved from committing sin until after we are in glorified bodies...but we are rather currently saved from the consequences of
the sins we HAVE committed or WILL commit before we die.

so you have misunderstood the claims of universal salvation by misunderstanding the biblical definitions of salvation itself.

No where does the bible define the word salvation. No where does it say "σωτηρία ορίζεται" this way.. etc. The bible does NOT give
biblical definitions for salvation itself, but what the scriptures DO teach is that we are saved from consequences of our sin...and not
just the sin itself. You are not saved "from" an action that you commit any more than you are saved from suffering that you endure.
This is where we use logic as a hermeneutic.

I have been saved from my sins and from my otherwise aimless way of life. Is it your opinion that, since I have been saved from it, there was never really anything (sin, lawless deeds, an evil age, an aimless life, etc.) from which to be saved?

See my responses above to this. It is the way in which you are using the word "from" that I object to... especially if you are claiming
that it is just the action itself rather than the consequences of that action. The consequences of sins here - are what is the danger...
not the action of sinning or committing a lawless deed or living an aimless life itself. You would have to explain more of what you
mean here when you use the English word "from" to describe this salvation.

Now suppose we say that I have additionally been saved from "hell." Does this mean I was never on the path to hell?

The fallacy is regarding the state of things in eternity and whether or not any opposite condition of "non-salvation" can exist for which
to give meaning to the concept of "rescue" or "save" from real danger. Regarding your above statement - first, you would have to
specify whether this is a temporary hell from which you are being spared or whether this is a real eternal hell which will not eternally
shrink in comparison to an eternal heaven. Second, yes you can indeed be saved or spared from something you were never on a
path to...as long as that something you are spared from (or saved from) exists in reality. You may not have ever been in danger
of straying off your path.... but there would still exist a condition of non-salvation to demonstrate what would have happened to
you if you would have been on the wrong path.

[Breckmin]

(cont.)

If Calvinism is true, as you seem to believe, then those who are "saved" were predestined to be saved—and thus were never in any real danger of hell.

I'm finding it somewhat ironic, however, that you are appealing to something that you don't believe in - in order to "dodge the bullet" of the implications
of your own belief. Any semipelagian can show that there is a real danger of the fish not taking the "bait" of the gospel message...or that there is a
danger of the drowning person (going to eternal hell) if they do not grab on to the rope of salvation that is thrown to them...or that there is a danger
for the dying patient of not taking the medicine (Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross as an Atonement/Payment for sin) of the gospel to keep them from
death. So it is odd/peculiar to me that you raise this objection since you don't believe in this type of election.

Thus, if everyone is saved, then everyone was similarly predestined to be saved, and no one was ever in any real danger of hell. This is where you are having your problems.

There is actually no problem for Calvinism but there still IS a problem for universalism.....and all we need to do is look at the two "worlds" of
Calvinism and Universalism and compare them. In one world, we have some people who are predestined to be saved from something in eternity
that is REAL. In the other world, everyone is predestined to the same inevitable fate where there is no possibility of a contrary or opposite condition
existing. Just as with the end of the last post, the Christian may not be in danger of being on the wrong path... but the wrong path does indeed exist
and it means they are saved from being on that wrong path - which would lead them to eternal hell. If they are predestined to be on the correct
path rather than on the wrong path, they still can point to their salvation. This is basic.

... this sounds like nonsense (not superior logic) to me.

This is not "superior" logic...but rather very basic logic. All the logician has to ask you is "what eternal existence exists in reality
for which you are saved from?" All the Calvinist has to do is show you that "they were predestined to be saved from something
that is REAL - eternal hell - which DOES indeed exist in reality."

But then, I do not start with Calvinist presuppositions. Perhaps that is where we need to start our discussion.

You don't need to be a Calvinist to identify this logical fallacy, and a discussion on Calvinism (which I would welcome in another
thread, btw, because there a great many misunderstandings that we need to clear up) would just be another diversion from the
premise that you have to have something real that exists in eternity in order to be saved from it.

Your logic is flawed in that you begin with a false premise—namely, that salvation is defined by its contrast with other people's fates.

Not with other people's fates, but rather with the possibility of an opposing condition of non-salvation existing (and this is what you
are not seeing). This has to do with the word "salvation" itself - and the part of the word "salvation" that means to save or rescue
from real danger. Just like the monster under the bed being compared to eternal hell... if no eternal hell exists then there is no
real salvation anymore than there is any real salvation from an invisible monster under my daughter's bed.

Let's do this. Suppose the logician asks you for an example of ANY time or any case for which we use the word salvation
in this lifetime and there is no opposite condition of non-salvation existing. Just give us ONE example where you can have
an actual rescue of someone...or where someone is "saved" in this lifetime... and there is no opposite condition of people
NOT being saved that we have knowledge of or experience with.

Just one example? Please give one... in this lifetime.

It has been pointed out (correctly) earlier, that salvation is a personal experience, quite apart from what does or does not happen to anyone else.

I wish every universalist could see this as the particularists do. You don't need to worry about everyone else - but worry about yourself
and your own salvation - and realize that salvation is God's business because He Owns all of those that He will eternally judge. Preach
the gospel to as many people as you can...pray for as many people as you can...but realize that it is God's Right to Judge sin and display
His Righteousness and we are not to make idols out of those around us (our family) (whom we do not own) who never receive salvation.

[Breckmin]

You keep mentioning the compromising of the "Gospel" with such ideas as universalism.

Yes. Universalism is a very clear heresy and I usually don't use that word lightly. I don't even claim that Sabellianism or some
teachings of Nestorius are heresy but would rather say these are aberrational teachings... but universalism is not only heresy
it is satanic deception (just like many of the false teachings of Harold Camping). The gospel is that Jesus died and saved us from
something VERY real...eternal hell. He didn't just save us from sinning again. He didn't save us from some action we have already
committed or will commit until we are in glorified bodies...rather He saved us from the CONSEQUENCES of our sins.. and these
being the eternal consequences of our sins.

Could you please cite some scripture in which the idea of hell is closely associated with the "Gospel," as it was preached to sinners by any New Testament preacher?

The problem that I have with going down this road with you so early in the conversation is that "if you will not listen to verses like
Luke 9:16-31, Rev.20:10, Rev. 21:8, Matt. 25:46, (or the 6 verses in the book of Matthew that describe "weeping and gnashing
of teeth) or Luke 13:28, Mark 9:48, etc. etc." and all of the dozens of scriptures related to these which corroborate the fact that
hell is ETERNAL, but will instead "explain them all away" using the deceptive universalist' hermeneutic (or annihilationism) - we
will just be going back and forth using different scriptures and end up not making very much progress. Jesus was the greatest
New Testament preacher and preached more on hell than anyone. Paul also gave us the "bad news" in various verses in his
letter to the Romans. (Rom. 1:18, Rom. 3:10-16, Rom. 3:23, etc)

By definition, the "Gospel" is "good news." Universalism would be about as good as it gets.

"Good" would be defined in God's universe as the TRUTH that will exist in eternity - and God would set the standard for
that "good." I believe that you are under the false assumption that quantity is everything RATHER than glorifying God.

God will be glorified in His Judgment against the wicked and this will be "good" (Righteous) as well.

Can you find the scripture for me that indicates that the Gospel is to be mixed with such "bad news" as that which you are asking us to embrace.

There are actually two types of bad news that we as Christians talk about with respect to the gospel. One is that we are sinners.

http://www.reformationstudycenter.com/GoodNews.html

http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=518

The other bad news in the First Century was that Jesus was going to have to die:

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/41 ... wsbad-news


These concepts about knowing "the bad news" first before you can know "the good news" of the gospel are all over the internet. I would
encourage you to study and know "why there is bad news" regarding our sinful condition and how Jesus would have to die and suffer horribly.

Thank you, and God Bless.

Most of all, please pray for protection from deception. Unclean deceiving spirits love to piggyback their deceptions on our own self-deceptions.

[Paidion]

Breckmin, you say that the reason Christ died was to save us from eternal hell.

Here are the New Testament scriptures I found which tell us why Christ died:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed [of your sin sickness].

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

These passages are plain. Yet you have denied that Christ died to deliver us from sin, and insist that the reason was that we might be saved from eternal hell.

Now it's your turn. Provide a list of New Testament scriptures which affirm that Christ died in order to save us from eternal hell.

[Breckmin]

Breckmin, you say that the reason Christ died was to save us from eternal hell.

You've been reading Steve, perhaps... but no where do I specify that this is the only reason why Christ died. What you are
doing here below is very unwise. It is a form of "isolation." You are isolating on verses as though they are all inclusive...
when there is so much more to what Jesus accomplished by dying on the Cross, than just these verses.

These scriptures, therefore, are NOT the "only" reason why Jesus died on the Cross. (and two, this is also a
diversion from whether or not the English word "salvation" requires us to be rescued/saved from something real).

Here are the New Testament scriptures I found which tell us why Christ died:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed [of your sin sickness].

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

These passages are plain.

Yet no where do these particular scriptures say that Jesus died on the Cross to "glorify God." No where do these specific verses say
"because He loved us." No where do these specific verses say "to pay for our adoption." But we know Jesus did all of these (just like
He saved us from being condemned) are true.... but here is the key - it's "if we believe."

Mark 16:16 tells us that if we don't believe we are condemned. Romans 5:9 tells us "we will be saved from God's wrath" through
Him and this is clearly through His Sacrifice on the Cross...but even this verse is elliptical in that it does NOT tell us we need to
believe in order to be saved from God's wrath...when clearly we do.

Therefore, what you are doing is here extremely impractical.

Yet you have denied that Christ died to deliver us from sin, and insist that the reason was that we might be saved from eternal hell.

These are NOT diametrically opposed. It is clearly both... but what you are not seeing is that our "sin" is against a Holy Creator
who will Judge us for such sin if we do not receive forgiveness and payment (Christ's Atonement). There is much much more
that Jesus' Sacrifice accomplishes than just the English words "to deliver us from sin" and you are not seeing perhaps all of the
other many implications of this.

Now it's your turn. Provide a list of New Testament scriptures which affirm that Christ died in order to save us from eternal hell.

I've already given scripture references for an eternal hell.... but what you are doing here is extremely over simplistic with respect to
the implications of other verses that talk about hell or talk about hell being eternal. How would you expect that we would be saved
from the hell that is mentioned throughout scripture? Clearly it is through Jesus' Perfect Sacrifice...

but this tactic to divert from eternal salvation as being saved from something real (in eternity) to "where in the bible does it say
that eternal salvation is saved from something real in eternity" is extremely impractical and over-simplistic. In other words it is
a diversion from the logical fallacy we are discussing itself.

[backwoodsman]

Universalism is a very clear heresy...
...universalism is not only heresy it is satanic deception...

Breckmin,

If I might presume to ask a question, a thoughtful answer to which will benefit you more than anyone else: What do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

I ask because you come here guns blazing, clearly having neglected to do your homework on the view against which you're trying to argue, which you nevertheless feel free to call "very clear heresy" and "satanic deception." You say you don't think it matters whether you have your facts wrong because you think your logic is unassailable and decimating to that view; but not only are you factually wrong on multiple points, but your logic is best described as nonsense, as Steve put it. This has all been brought to your attention multiple times by several of us, yet you keep hammering on your argument with no apparent interest in discussion or learning, and no apparent recognition that anyone else has said anything useful. That tactic seems unlikely to convince anyone of anything, and certainly doesn't display the mutual respect and humility Scripture indicates is fitting for followers of Christ; hence my question.