Despite the urgings of universalists, a systematic look through the Bible in its entirety reveals that there is
1) The sins of the wicked being forgiven in the after life.
2) The wicked repenting in the after life.
3) The wicked accepting Jesus Christ in the after life.
4) The wicked avoiding judgment in the after life.
5) The wicked having sin "conditioned" out of them in the after life.
6) The wicked getting out of the lake of fire.
7) The wicked getting their names written back into the book of life.
8) Nor can we find anywhere that God repents of His judgment on the wicked in the afterlife or that His judgment is anything short of final and fixed for all eternity.
Sadly, the universalist misses the point of Jesus telling the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18:1-8. They lay their faith in something else, and not in Him alone. They make the claim that that they could not be happy in heaven with God knowing that others suffer for their sins before the eternal righteousness of God.
They forget that the saints in heaven whom are conformed in the image of Christ are also infused with His righteousness.
to contradict Isaiah 55:8, where it is written: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." They forget that all tears in heaven are wiped away as attested to by Isaiah 25:8; 60:20; 65:17; Rev. 7:17 and 21:4 not because all are saved, but because they themselves understand being set apart from sin.
Therefore, bearing that in mind, realize that I have not met a universalist who could justify universalism or truly present substantial reason for its belief based on facts (see Problems Facing Universalist Theology [Link in source] ). The context of Scripture and facts are against them. Thus, they haven't much to stand on which forces them to rely on extremely low quality techniques of debating. The techniques of the universalist apologist are herein presented:
1. Rubberstamp Argument: Regurgitation of philosophical preferences without the least hint of concern as to providing a scriptural proof. Otherwise, known as propaganda.
If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, the people will believe--Adolph Hitler.
2. Inaccurate Quotation: A text is referred to but is either not quoted in the way the text appears in any standard translation or is wrongly attributed.
[We have already seen examples of this, in this thread. DA] For example, universalists will often quote scholarly writing when it supports their agenda, but leave off sections that would blow their position and argument away. This is commonly done with lexicons, concordances, and commentaries. Therefore, be forwarned should you see a universalist quoting a scholar and check their source.
One universalist posited that Dr. Jay Green, Sr. supported universalism citing the preface of his Greek interlinear saying that aivnioV and aion was correctly translated as "to the ages" rather than a clear idiomatic expression for forever (see The Hebrew Concept of Time and "aionios" and "aion" [Link in source]). Upon receiving my email concerning the matter, Dr. Green responded by stating that he could not "understand how they [universalists] could possibly use what I wrote in my preface to give them any leverage. The Hebrew word which the LXX used to express for ever, everlasting, etc. was 5769. It can most often be translated as such. However, as the Hebrew Concordance illustrates, it is quite possible to translate it as perpetual, without end, etc. And in many cases the context will not allow it to mean everlasting, or eternal, or for ever (such as the Aaronic high priesthood, or other OT uses of the word relating to that economy. Because there is so much that militates against universalism in the Scriptures, it has not been my lot to tackle them head-on... The New Versions favor universalism in many places (Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 1 Peter. 4:1; 2 Pet 3:9, etc.), as the Egyptian MSS they follow were created in an Egypt that was dominated by Gnostics. It is a favorite ploy of Satan to dilute and thus to destroy the authority of the Scriptures. If you have John Gill's Body of Divinity, or his commentaries, he is a keen Hebraist who may help you. For instance he is excellent in explaining the use of "all" and other seemingly universal words in His Body of Divinity. It is often Satan's tactic to tie up believers in controversies with unbelievers who bring on endless arguments, and thus to disarm them for other more worthy contributions to the cause of God and truth. Was this not the thrust of Paul's advice to Timothy (6:20)? May our great Shepherd of the sheep abundantly bless you with every grace he has purchased for us, Jay, Sr."
3. Twisted Translation: The biblical text is retranslated, not in accordance with sound scholarship, to fit a preconceived teaching of universalism.
4. Biblical Hook: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture.
5. Ignoring the Immediate Context: A text of Scripture is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning.
5.a. Ignoring the Broader Context: Failure to consider and outright rejection of other verses relevant to the instant point(s).[DA]
6. Collapsing Contexts: Two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary of the other(s).
7. Overspecification: A more detailed or specific conclusion than is legitimate is drawn from a biblical text.
8. Word Play: A word or phrase from a biblical translation is examined and interpreted as if the revelation had been given in that language.
9. The Figurative Fallacy: Either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2)mistaking figurative language for literal language.
[If the plain sense, makes good sense, it is nonsense, to look for any other sense. DA]
10. Speculative Readings of Predictive Prophesy: A predictive prophesy is too readily explained by the occurance of specific events, despite the fact that equally committed biblical scholars consider the interpretation highly dubious.
11. Saying But Not Citing: A writer says that the Bible says such and such but does not cite the specific text (which often indicates that there may be no such text at all).
[Several examples of this, in this thread, 19th century scholars talking "about" the early church fathers but never citing their actual works. DA] Example: A common phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is not found in the Bible.
12. Selective Citing: To substantiate a given argument, only a limited number of text is quoted: the total teaching of Scripture on that subject would lead to a conclusion different from that of the writer.
13. Inadequate Evidence: A hasty generalization is drawn from too little evidence. Example: Universalists state one can be saved in the after life but cannot cite an example from Scripture.
14. Confused Definition: A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected. Example: Universalists hold that to be under subjection of God is to be saved and to recieve eternal life with Him.
15. Ignoring Alternate Explanations: A specific interpretation given to a biblical text or set of text which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered.
16. The Obvious Fallacy: Words like,
OBVIOUSLY, UNDOUBTEDLY, CERTAINLY, ALL REASONABLE PEOPLE HOLD THAT, and so forth are substituted for logical reasons.
17. Virtue by Association: Either (1) a universalist writer associates his or her teaching with those of figures accepted as authoritative by traditional Christians; (2) pro universalist commentaries are likened to the Bible; or (3) universalist literature imitates the form of the Bible writing such that it sounds like the Bible.
18. Esoteric Interpretation: Under the assumption that the Bible contains hidden, esoteric, meaning which is open only to those who are initiated into its secrets, the interpreter declares the significance of biblical passages without giving much, if any, explanation for his or her interpretation.
19. Rejecting Biblical Authority: Either the Bible as a whole or texts from the Bible are examined and rejected because they do not square with other authorities - such as reason or revelation = do not appear to agree with them.
[We have seen this right there in this thread. DA]
20. World-view Confusion: Scriptural statements, stories, commands or symbols which have a particular meaning or set of meanings when taken within the intellectual and broadly cultural framework of the Bible itself are lifted out of that context, placed within the frame of reference of universalism and thus given a meaning that markedly differs from their intended meaning.
21. Change Historical Authority: This practice seeks to rewrite history to favor the argument of the universalist. This can be used as a companion apologetic to the rejection of biblical authority.
22. Babbling technique: Remember when you were a kid. If you closed your eyes, danger would go away. This technique is a variation on that theme. When backed into a corner, begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place.
NOTE:
This material has been adapted from the appendix of James Sire's Scripture Twisting Methods of the Cults, which summarizes his indepth treatment of each of these points and David and Aldina Gibson's essay, Catholic Debate Techniques.