Is universalism logically certain?

[NowHereThis]

I was talking about earthly suffering.

You act as if God must conform to your idea of fairness and justice. That is putting him in a box.

If you read the original post with my argument, you’ll see that I said nothing about God complying with my ideas of fairness and justice. In my second post, I quoted the Bible. Nothing about my ideas of fairness and justice there.

Fairness and justice came up when my respondents argued that God couldn’t fairly be held responsible if we sin, and thus God had not violated his own will. Take up the mistake of applying personal ideas of fairness and justice to God with them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If we have no frame of reference for understanding justice, then we can’t say anything about God’s justice, for or against. Yet you’ve already said that God acted justly. You’re applying a double standard to my argument.

No

God has revealed to us certain attributes about himself and his plans. He has told us that he loves us and wants us to choose him. He tells us of his eternal all powerful nature.

So we know by what he gave us that his system is just and his system results in some people choosing not to participate.

You are trying to say that God’s system as revealed is not just and that it must be different in order to be just.

You and I both have no frame of reference to say that.

I did not make up my own ideas about God. I just presented what he has given us to know.

Regardless I think we all agree God is love and just.

It just does not follow that he must conform to a modern anything goes everyone is saved idea which is not historically or theologically sound.

 

[bzkoss236]

Your assumption is that because they are currently in hell, that precludes them from “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord” through the Holy Spirit.

So, your claiming that those in hell are not there for eternity? You do understand how eternity works, right?

If you are claiming that, then you could also claim that someone might not be in heaven forever either, right?

 

[Loving_disciple]

1. God creates everyone who exists
2. God wills that everyone who exists be saved.
3. If God creates someone who will not be saved, God violates his own will.
4. God cannot violate his own will.
5. Everyone who God creates will be saved.

The most important objection to this line of reasoning is “what about free will?” and I answer it like this:

1. Only existing created beings can have a free will.
2. No created being exists until God creates it.
3. A being cannot lose free will if they never exist in the first place.
4. No being loses free will if God creates only those beings that will use their free will to be saved.

Remember, God’s knowledge of a created being’s future choices does not rob that being of free will, because the knowledge doesn’t actually cause the choice. So it would seem that as long as you grant, God’s omniscience, his will for all to be saved, and the idea that you have to exist first in order to have a free will to lose, universalism is inescapable.

Thoughts?

On short universalism is heresy, if you believe Our Lady of Fatima then it is a fact people are in hell and continuing to go to hell

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you read the original post with my argument, you’ll see that I said nothing about God complying with my ideas of fairness and justice. In my second post, I quoted the Bible. Nothing about my ideas of fairness and justice there.

Fairness and justice came up when my respondents argued that God couldn’t fairly be held responsible if we sin, and thus God had not violated his own will. Take up the mistake of applying personal ideas of fairness and justice to God with them.

How does your argument work with these scriptures?

Revelation 20:11-15
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. **And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. **And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Mark 9:47

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 10:28

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[NowHereThis]

No

God has revealed to us certain attributes about himself and his plans. He has told us that he loves us and wants us to choose him. He tells us of his eternal all powerful nature.

So we know by what he gave us that his system is just and his system results in some people choosing not to participate.

You are trying to say that God’s system as revealed is not just and that it must be different in order to be just.

You and I both have no frame of reference to say that.

I did not make up my own ideas about God. I just presented what he has given us to know.

Regardless I think we all agree God is love and just.

It just does not follow that he must conform to a modern anything goes everyone is saved idea which is not historically or theologically sound.

You’re begging the question by assuming that your view of the afterlife is the definition of “what God has revealed.” Read my first two posts. I’ve appealed to logic AND the Bible. You must be thinking of someone else with your “modern anything goes everyone is saved” reference. I haven’t said anything of the sort about “modernity” or “anything goes”. It really helps if you argue against what I actually say, rather than a strawman caricature.

 

[NowHereThis]

So, your claiming that those in hell are not there for eternity? You do understand how eternity works, right?

If you are claiming that, then you could also claim that someone might not be in heaven forever either, right?

If people can’t change positions after death, why would Jesus preach to disobedient spirits in prison? (1 Peter 3:18-20) As far as people leaving heaven, I can’t see how that would be in God’s will, given the desire for all to be saved.

If you want to suggest that people could leave heaven, then you’re welcome to find support for that.

 

[sw85]

1. God creates everyone who exists
2. God wills that everyone who exists be saved.
3. If God creates someone who will not be saved, God violates his own will.
4. God cannot violate his own will.
5. Everyone who God creates will be saved.

The most important objection to this line of reasoning is “what about free will?” and I answer it like this:

1. Only existing created beings can have a free will.
2. No created being exists until God creates it.
3. A being cannot lose free will if they never exist in the first place.
4. No being loses free will if God creates only those beings that will use their free will to be saved.

Remember, God’s knowledge of a created being’s future choices does not rob that being of free will, because the knowledge doesn’t actually cause the choice. So it would seem that as long as you grant, God’s omniscience, his will for all to be saved, and the idea that you have to exist first in order to have a free will to lose, universalism is inescapable.

Thoughts?

Sure. I will that my child clean his room, but I won’t do it for him – that defeats the point, denies him the very real good of assuming responsibility for his life, and reduces him to an inert blob that needs to be taken care of. I might try to induce him to clean his room, offering him reward if he does, threatening punishment if he doesn’t, etc. But I won’t clean his room for him.

In other words, it’s understandable because my will that he clean his room, while important, is subordinated to a higher good which I also will – that my child be free, and responsible and mature.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Except my argument doesn’t require God to do anything evil, just to refrain from acting.

1. Except as has been shown, such refraining from acting would be evil, and
2. Allowing already created people to choose evil is also refraining from acting, so if refraining from acting were always neutral (although in reality it may or may not be in any given case) then creating people and letting them make their own choices would also be neutral.

And I think you’re taking my analogy too far. Sure, not having kids because they might burn themselves is absurd, but not having a child if you knew for certain that your child would grow up to be Hitler would save the world a lot of suffering, an eminently reasonable and moral thing to do.

Depends on what choices you made to avoid having the child. If you used abortion to kill an innocent child after he was conceived who you knew would later be evil, for example, that would still be bad. If you used any other immoral means to avoid having the child altogether (ABC) that would also be bad. If you did so with an immoral lack of action, that would also be bad.

Sparing beings eternal suffering in hell by not creating them seems more like the second case than the first.

To exist is better not to exist. It is better to exist and be in Hell than not to exist - otherwise there would be no Hell (and there is because God tells us there is, in addition to other arguments) and God would simply annihilate the damned (and He doesn’t because He tells us what happens to the damned, in addition to natural arguments to show that such is bad). God does what is best for us, within the bounds of only doing good actions.

And it is obviously the case that such a world is better, if God desires all men (meaning humankind) to be saved.

By “world”, I don’t mean the current physical world, but rather the totality of created everything. And no, it wouldn’t. I invite you to prove that if you take a world in which all people are saved and add one more person who ends up choosing hell that that world is worse - given that to exist in hell is better than to not exist.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think it is perfectly acceptable as a Catholic to wish that all will be saved. There is no law against that. Though, here is no way to know that. And a simple logical proof is not going to tell us either way. I think it boils down to if repentance after death is possible. If repentance is not possible after death (as is the common view) then it would never be possible for those in hell to be saved. However, if repentance is possible then I believe since God is love then he would try to love that person into repentance even if it took all eternity.

I’ve heard it said that hell is locked from the inside. This implies people put themselves in that state. And they could leave if they were able to receive God’s mercy and forgiveness.

When you bring Scripture into it, it doesn’t sound like all will be saved. That is the unfortunate reality we have to deal with.

 

[bzkoss236]

If people can’t change positions after death, why would Jesus preach to disobedient spirits in prison? (1 Peter 3:18-20) As far as people leaving heaven, I can’t see how that would be in God’s will, given the desire for all to be saved.

If you want to suggest that people could leave heaven, then you’re welcome to find support for that.

It is by your logic that I claim that those in heaven could change their minds. If those in hell can, then those in heaven can too.

And those in “prison” were in God’s favor because they chose to follow and serve him, but heaven wasn’t opened yet, so they went to hell, but were kept in a special place in hell called the bosom of abraham where they were protected from suffering until Christ came to set them free. They made their choice on earth for God, their choice didn’t change after death. Preaching doesn’t mean you try to change someone’s opinion, it just means t teach. Christ taught them the Gospel since they weren’t alive on earth to hear it. Christ then resurrected their spirits with himself to earth and then brought them to heaven with him.

 

[fisherman_carl]

1. God creates everyone who exists
2. God wills that everyone who exists be saved.
3. If God creates someone who will not be saved, God violates his own will.
4. God cannot violate his own will.
5. Everyone who God creates will be saved.

I will illustrate how this is faulty logic. Using your own reasoning we can formulate the following argument.

1. God creates everyone who exists
2. God wills that no one sins
3. If God created someone who sins, God violates his own will
4. God can not violate his own will
5. Everyone who God creates does not sin

The conclusion is obviously false yet it is the same reasoning you are using in your argument.