The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism

[thrombomodulin]

If you went to hell, you aren't saved from something you have already experienced...you are merely delivered out of it... You can't claim the opposite condition IF you've already experienced it

I thought you were making an argument about what the word "saved" meant as used in the bible. This is why I asked you to exegete the passage of scripture you had in mind which defines what it means to be saved. Since our salvation involves being delivered from sin and potentially hell itself, I have no trouble using the word "delivered" instead of "saved". Suppose I said that no one at all is "saved", rather all people are merely "delivered". How would you reply? I'll respond to the rest after you answer.

[Breckmin]

I have no trouble using the word "delivered" instead of "saved". Suppose I said that no one at all is "saved", rather all people are merely "delivered". How would you reply?

That would be the beginning consistency that we would be looking for so we could then proceed to see the implications
of whether words like enemies, grace, gifts and other concepts are diminished by the concept of various views on
universalism. It is necessary for critical thinking. If someone is incapable of seeing that "if there is no eternal hell" (because everyone meets the same fate of eternal heaven) then there is no opposite condition that exists in reality to actually be
saved FROM... it is going to be difficult to reason with such a person. If they can not conceptualize that we are talking
about the "state of things in eternity" then we will continue spinning our wheels and the person will remain in deception.

I apologize, Peter, for taking so long to respond.... (I know the thread has drifted) I was actually waiting (hoping) for Mattrose to respond to whether God takes "risks" or is emotionally hurt in some way. If you can already see that using a different word other than "saved" prevents the fallacy, then that is to your credit. That was one of the purposes of the
opening post. GBY (=God Bless You)

[Breckmin]

I think I have a challenge to what you say is a logical fallacy. It's sort of a converse arrangement to what you've laid out.
I've heard you on the radio. I think (I could be mistaken) you hold to a Reformed view of the elect, that is their number is certain and unchangeable. Is this basically your view? If so, how do you reckon the reprobate to truly be reprobate if the possibility of the them being other than damned does not now, nor will ever exist or be available to them?

This would be a question I would be more than happy to answer when we discuss the "rightness" (goodness)/righteousness
of eternal hell and the 'logic' for eternal hell. Right now I would say that I have a different view on how you are possibly
presenting this by saying "if the possibility of the them being other than damned does not now, nor will ever exist or be available to them?" I would not phrase it in such a way NOR would I say that being reprobate would be the only deter-
mining factor in their condemnation. There are distinctions I would make that are slightly different regarding the
doctrine of "total depravity" (and why I do not use such terminology nor do I believe it is completely accurate). I DO,
however, believe in the doctrines of grace.

you also said:

...You are still adding some experience of chastisement or punishment to Jesus' work (Jesus paying for ALL sins)

Does Hebrews 12 not give you pause before straitjacketing the scriptures in such a way? The chastisement the writer spoke of there was before and as well after the cross. Was he counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, or adulterating the finished work of Jesus?

I would encourage you to read verses 6 and 7 and see this with respect to adoption. We are sons because we have been
adopted out of a perishing world. The price for our adoption is Jesus' Sacrifice...NOT (adding) our chastisement.

Re:

How does a temporary hell glorify Jesus Christ?

If it is God's plan to ultimately restore all humanity to holiness, then a temporary hell as a means to that end would result in those who were once enemies of God, becoming his friends! Their redemption from sin would be no less glorifying of Jesus Christ than ours is. They would be no less grateful for their new found holy breath from God than you or I will enjoy at the last day (and also enjoy now).

If you add our chastisement in Hebrews 12 to salvation, then perhaps you could make the case....BUT "IF" you see salvation clearly as being justified by "faith" in Jesus' Sacrifice, THEN Jesus did the work on the Cross and we wouldn't want to add going to hell to that. Also, I think that your last assumption of "they would be no less grateful" misses a certain reality regarding contrast. This is something we can definitely address in a future thread regarding gifts, mercy and knowledge of opposite conditions. GBY

[Breckmin]

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.

Since this has to do with the OP and the 'state of things in eternity' and an opposite condition existing...perhaps a universalist
will address this.

[backwoodsman]

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.

Since this has to do with the OP and the 'state of things in eternity' and an opposite condition existing...perhaps a universalist will address this.

Your answer is way back on Page 1 of this thread (and repeated several times thereafter), but you didn't consider it satisfactory then, and I don't expect you will now. You'll never get a satisfactory answer because you insist on a definition of 'saved' that Christian universalists (and others as well) believe is unbiblical.

It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to understand the Christian universalist position. In fact, it seems like you're trying to avoid understanding it. I guess the payoff for you is that you get to claim victory and feel good about having exposed the "logical fallacy", but in fact all you've done is knock down a straw man while leaving Christian universalism untouched.

[thrombomodulin]

I have no trouble using the word "delivered" instead of "saved". Suppose I said that no one at all is "saved", rather all people are merely "delivered". How would you reply?

If you can already see that using a different word other than "saved" prevents the fallacy, then that is to your credit. That was one of the purposes of the opening post.

Then a step forward in this discussion has been made as you agree that using a different word than saved undermines the argument you are making. I understand that some here are asserting exactly this - no one at all is saved, rather men are delivered from both sin and a temporary hell. Perhaps you can tell me why it is that those who assert such are necessarily wrong about this. It seems plausible to me that scripture speaks of nothing more than deliverance, and if this is so then the argument you presented fails.

[Breckmin]

Then a step forward in this discussion has been made as you agree that using a different word than saved undermines the argument you are making.

Having to use a different word other than the English word "saved" IS my argument.... so using a different word would not undermine the purpose
of this thread. Perhaps the thread should have been entitled "The Logical Fallacy of Using the Word Saved" since an opposite condition needs to
exist in eternity to demonstrate being saved from something REAL in eternity (rather than having the inevitable fate of everyone being in the
same boat with no opposite condition of unsaved making saved meaningful).

I understand that some here are asserting exactly this - no one at all is saved, rather men are delivered from both sin and a temporary hell.

"no one at all is saved" would be something I would think would be contradictory to historical Christianity and the assertion that we ARE INDEED
saved from an opposite condition. (that will eternally exist in reality)

Perhaps you can tell me why it is that those who assert such are necessarily wrong about this.

It is illogical. I will perhaps open up another thread on it at the prompting from your PM.

It seems plausible to me that scripture speaks of nothing more than deliverance, and if this is so then the argument you presented fails.

The argument "was" regarding the English word saved being able to be used. The argument was that if no opposite condition existed then
there was nothing REAL (in eternity) to be saved from. The argument clearly stands from reason....in that you have to have an opposite
condition of non-saved to contrast with being saved from something that is real (a real possible danger).

Universal Redemption has multiple other problems which make it discombobulated. Are you sure you want to go through these Peter?

[Breckmin]

Your answer is way back on Page 1 of this thread (and repeated several times thereafter), but you didn't consider it satisfactory then, and I don't expect you will now.

No one ever gave an example of something where an opposite condition did not exist in reality.

You'll never get a satisfactory answer because you insist on a definition of 'saved' that Christian universalists (and others as well) believe is unbiblical.

Salvation from eternal hell in the scriptures is a synthetic conclusion based on multiple verses. It is obvious with a plain reading of verses
like Matthew 25:46, or Revelation 20:10 or 19:3, etc. The history of the Christian church has not been in error over this very basic doctrine.

It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to understand the Christian universalist position.

I've read Steve's book including Chapter 11, 12 and Chart C. I didn't learn anything new... it was the same old stuff I have had to go through
with others who wrongfully hold the the UR heresy.

The position contains cognitive dissonance for me to even see the role of "faith" and how Abraham's faith would be distinguished between
those who somehow have faith in hell and "get out of hell" and into heaven. How can you exercise "faith" in hell? Plus it stands opposed
to the writer of Hebrews.

In fact, it seems like you're trying to avoid understanding it.

After reading Steve's book it convinced me even more that the spiritual conviction of those men/women of God who hold to the
truth of eternal hell are absolutely correct. It is all of the arguments that are "missing" from Steve's book that fully make the
eternal hell position the most logical of the three.

I guess the payoff for you is that you get to claim victory and feel good about having exposed the "logical fallacy"

This has never been about competitive polemics or winning a debate. I pray for you backwoodsman....I pray that God will deliver you from
this deception - AND I know some day He will. When you finally see the incredible unfathomable reality of eternal hell that you have been
saved from....you will glorify God and finally know it was His GRACE to you....

If God "should" save everyone .....then it is NOT grace!

Question everything.

[steve]

an opposite condition needs to exist in eternity to demonstrate being saved from something REAL in eternity

There is indeed a real condition that is opposite to being saved. It is called "alienated from God." We Christians have all been saved from that condition for all eternity. For this to be true does not logically require that someone else has to remain alienated from God for eternity. Perhaps some will be, but this is not a necessary condition of our eternal salvation. The fact that you can't see this is troubling.

Salvation from eternal hell in the scriptures is a synthetic conclusion based on multiple verses. It is obvious with a plain reading of verses
like Matthew 25:46, or Revelation 20:10 or 19:3, etc.

None of these verses mention anyone being saved from (or even avoiding) eternal torment. Therefore, they do not support your insistence that salvation in the Bible means avoiding eternal torment.

You admit that your conclusion must be "synthesized" from verses that do not clearly state your point. Well and good. Many doctrines (including the Trinity) have to be similarly synthesized. The point you underrate is that any such "synthesizing" is the effort of a mind capable of miscalculation. For example, those who hold to annihilationism and those who hold to universal reconciliation also base their views on the way they synthesize various relevant texts (they just happen to have a great many more texts than you have to work with). If their synthesis can be flawed, so can yours.

The history of the Christian church has not been in error over this very basic doctrine.

This may be true, but it is not self-evidently true simply because it is asserted. Unless you are a Roman Catholic, you must believe that many of the traditional doctrines of the Christian Church, held for over a thousand years by those in power, have been terribly wrong. Whether the doctrine of eternal torment is one of them, or not, will have to be determined by scriptural exegesis.

[Breckmin]

an opposite condition needs to exist in eternity to demonstrate being saved from something REAL in eternity

There is indeed a real condition that is opposite to being saved. It is called "alienated from God." We Christians have all been saved from that condition for all eternity. For this to be true does not logically require that someone else has to remain alienated from God for eternity. Perhaps some will be, but this is not a necessary condition of our eternal salvation.

Steve,
thank you for taking the time to engage this discussion again, brother.

Do you see the equivocation here where you switched subjects from "needs to exist in eternity to demonstrate being saved from something REAL"
to "necessary condition for our eternal salvation?" (which is Jesus - or the work Jesus did plus our faith in the work that Jesus did for us)

If you need me to spell out this equivocation fallacy in more detail I'll do it....I'll respond the rest, lordwilling, later.