Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pointing out that someone is overcomplicating things is addressing the method of the argument, rather than the man himself.
The complexity of an argument neither implies nor denies its truth. And addressing methods is inherently about the man, as it is a question of conduct not content.

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that there is nothing complex about my analysis. It's basic syntax, about as elementary as semantics can get. To claim that that is overcomplicating is to deny that any formal analysis can be conducted rendering any attempts to derive an objective meaning suspect.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I do agree it is one that has potential as a UR proof text since it is both contextually relevant and grammatically coherent.

I will say this, the way hell is taught in the west is almost certainly not true. I do find more truth in the classical Orthodox view of hell as the response of the wicked to being in the presence of God rather than a place they are sent. I don't discard any of the three positions out of hand, as I do agree it is possible to find some support for UR in the Bible. I just find it the least compelling because from my readings it has the fewest supporting passages and the most challenges within Scripture. My concern is simply fidelity to the text and solid argumentation that begins with Scripture not with human philosophy. All I've seen in this thread coming from those who hold to UR are empty boasts, hollow claims of word studies that don't seem to understand semantics, and bald fallacies.

I'm sure those who hold to UR have seen the same regarding their opponents.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The complexity of an argument neither implies nor denies its truth. And addressing methods is inherently about the man, as it is a question of conduct not content.

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that there is nothing complex about my analysis. It's basic syntax, about as elementary as semantics can get. To claim that that is overcomplicating is to deny that any formal analysis can be conducted rendering any attempts to derive an objective meaning suspect.

It seems to me that you're intentionally overdoing it in an attempt to obfuscate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me that you're intentionally overdoing it in an attempt to obfuscate.
I've overdone nothing. Hmm decided to try to introduce someone debating the function of "in" in the sentence, and so I answered by discussing the syntax requirements for it to function as claimed. As the question rests on what noun or substantive "all" is modifying everything I have discussed is relevant to the question. The only thing that makes it even a sliver complex is familiarity with the grammatical terms, which I've used to keep my posts from being walls of detailed explanation since I assume at least a working understanding of the relevant terminology. In fact I've avoided making it more complicated by not getting specific about the Greek grammar and kept the discussion of grammar to the clinical aspects.

Actually it's called the tu quoque fallacy.
The fact that you can identify the fallacy you're employing gives serious question to the good faith assumption.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've overdone nothing. Hmm decided to try to introduce someone debating the function of "in" in the sentence, and so I answered by discussing the syntax requirements for it to function as claimed. As the question rests on what noun or substantive "all" is modifying everything I have discussed is relevant to the question. The only thing that makes it even a sliver complex is familiarity with the grammatical terms, which I've used to keep my posts from being walls of detailed explanation since I assume at least a working understanding of the relevant terminology. In fact I've avoided making it more complicated by not getting specific about the Greek grammar and kept the discussion of grammar to the clinical aspects.


The fact that you can identify the fallacy you're employing gives serious question to the good faith assumption.

Perhaps if I had actually committed it. The tu quoque fallacy is an appeal to hypocrisy. However I was pointing out that both parties most likely have the same perception of one another.

How's about getting back to the topic now?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps if I had actually committed it. The tu quoque fallacy is an appeal to hypocrisy. However I was pointing out that both parties most likely have the same perception of one another.

How's about getting back to the topic now?
I'm aware of what it is, though what I'm speaking to isn't a general perception but the tactics engaged in within this thread. This isn't a matter of "parties," or at least I am not a member of one of the two "parties" as I am not a motivated reasoner. I don't have particular stock in disproving UR, nor do I care whether annhilationism or ECT are true. It's quite simple if you want to get back to the topic because at this point the ball is in your court to provide a refutation of the argument presented, some kind of textual support for your interpretation, or some reason to exclude the one presented by Der Alte and myself.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm aware of what it is, though what I'm speaking to isn't a general perception but the tactics engaged in within this thread. This isn't a matter of "parties," or at least I am not a member of one of the two "parties" as I am not a motivated reasoner. I don't have particular stock in disproving UR, nor do I care whether annhilationism or ECT are true. It's quite simple if you want to get back to the topic because at this point the ball is in your court to provide a refutation of the argument presented, some kind of textual support for your interpretation, or some reason to exclude the one presented by Der Alte and myself.

How's about discussing Romans 5:15?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How's about getting back to the topic?
As I said, that ball's in your court. You're the one who made this about the participants, so address the content of what's been presented(or concede the point and move to something else).
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I said, that ball's in your court. You're the one who made this about the participants, so address the content of what's been presented(or concede the point and move to something else).

How's about discussing Romans 5:15? Especially since it seems to back up the UR view of 1 Corinthians 15:22.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How's about discussing Romans 5:15? Especially since it seems to back up the UR view of 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 are largely unrelated, textually speaking. And I already conceded that Romans 5 on its own is intriguing support as far as the UR position goes especially if we read the whole passage through to 5:16, though I think in Western theology the discussion is somewhat spoiled by the rigid way justification has been assigned. The one thing I would point out, though, is that the UR reading is simply one of the possible ways to render the passage that makes sense of all of the elements and while it is relevant to Paul's discussion in general it is not critical to interpret it as such for the passage to maintain Paul's point.

My initial argument is essentially an argument from silence, in that if UR were true then somewhere in the Bible it would be clear not only that it is supportable but that it is the direct intent of the human author to teach. Which is why I laid out the three criteria I did in that in order for the Bible to teach UR it must be clearly present within the text, but not only that must also be a critical understanding for the larger topic being discussed, and must maintain both criteria when we consider the mindset of the ancient author and audience. Romans 5 meets the first criteria, and comes close to the second criteria thhugh ultimately fails and the third criteria requires a greater analysis than is worth getting into in a forum like this because it requires considering the Old Testament background Paul is drawing on(Principally the pentateuch, Jeremiah, and the minor prophets) along with identifying which audience he is talking to(Romans goes back and forth between addressing former pagan gentiles and individuals with a deep Jewish background).
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 are largely unrelated, textually speaking. And I already conceded that Romans 5 on its own is intriguing support as far as the UR position goes especially if we read the whole passage through to 5:16, though I think in Western theology the discussion is somewhat spoiled by the rigid way justification has been assigned. The one thing I would point out, though, is that the UR reading is simply one of the possible ways to render the passage that makes sense of all of the elements and while it is relevant to Paul's discussion in general it is not critical to interpret it as such for the passage to maintain Paul's point.

My initial argument is essentially an argument from silence, in that if UR were true then somewhere in the Bible it would be clear not only that it is supportable but that it is the direct intent of the human author to teach. Which is why I laid out the three criteria I did in that in order for the Bible to teach UR it must be clearly present within the text, but not only that must also be a critical understanding for the larger topic being discussed, and must maintain both criteria when we consider the mindset of the ancient author and audience. Romans 5 meets the first criteria, and comes close to the second criteria thhugh ultimately fails and the third criteria requires a greater analysis than is worth getting into in a forum like this because it requires considering the Old Testament background Paul is drawing on(Principally the pentateuch, Jeremiah, and the minor prophets) along with identifying which audience he is talking to(Romans goes back and forth between addressing former pagan gentiles and individuals with a deep Jewish background).

Seems to me that the statement of "for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" fits in quite well with "for if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!". Add to those "God, the savior of all men, especially those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:10) and there's a trifecta. While that's not necessarily concrete evidence, I think it takes UR past "it's not found anywhere in the Bible".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
For example, Hmm standing on "experts" authority is an ad hominem(and a special class at that) because it's about the person who made the argument not the argument

I would be interested in hearing more about this "special class" that makes citing expert opinion an ad hominem. As MMXX said, an ad hom. is an attack on the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Citing an expert is clearly not an attack on the expert and it makes a positive contribution to the argument, it doesn't avoid it.

As neither you nor I or probably anyone here are experts in Greek how are we supposed to discuss the meaning of an ancient Greek word like aiõnios without bringing in authoritative voices to the discussion?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would be interested in hearing more about this "special class" that makes citing expert opinion an ad hominem.

As MMXX said, an ad hom. is an attack on the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Citing an expert is not an attack on the expert and it's done to make a positive contribution to the argument, not to avoid it.

As neither you nor I nor probably anyone here are experts in Greek how are we supposed to discuss the meaning of an ancient Greek word aiõnios without bringing in authoritative voices to the discussion?

Perhaps he got his wires crossed and meant appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, rather than ad hominem.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
While that's not necessarily concrete evidence, I think it takes UR past "it's not found anywhere in the Bible".

I agree, there's no single knockdown text for UR. It's the cumulative scriptual evidence together with reading scripture through the lens of Christ, who it's very hard I think to see committing or allowing the eternal torment of anyone, that makes an overwhelmingly case IMO.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Physician heal thyself. IOW follow your own advice! When the words of the NT writers appear to conflict with the very words of Jesus, Himself, how do you resolve the apparent contradiction?
We who believe that when Jesus said "eternal punishment," that is exactly what He meant also believe that Jesus, is Lord and Savior not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. If there is an apparent contradiction I will always choose to interpret the disciples to agree with Jesus NOT the wrong way around.
Jesus taught e.g.,
• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
…..how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..In re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,
“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​
…..Jesus opposed the Jewish leaders many times, He undoubtedly knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jewish teaching, about hell, was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc?
Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed,
"The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"[/i] ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17). Judith, CHAPTER 16 | USCCB
which would only encourage and reinforce their beliefs in “hell”?

I've addressed much of this from your previous postings of it, but you act like that never happened, and continue to claim no one refuses such posts. Seems rather disingenuous to me.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Perhaps he got his wires crossed and meant appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, rather than ad hominem.

Okay. But in any case appealing to a recognised authority about the meaning of an ancient word is not a "logical fallacy". What else are we supposed to do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,959
.
✟607,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

Those along with passages found in Rev 21and 22 are saying that sin will not exist heaven. The fact that sin won't exist in heaven isn't something that any Christian, doctrine or theology I know of disagrees with. The UR position as I understand it, is that all sin will be healed and destroyed through Jesus.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.