Is universalism logically certain?

[Iron_Donkey]

You’ve stated that Fred is responsible for his choice, but you’re assuming that Fred being responsible for that choice completely negates any responsibility God would have for the outcome. You don’t justify that view, except with the statement that allowing a thing to happen is not the same thing as causing it. You don’t defend that statement either, but assuming that it is true, it’s still not clear how that difference would totally negate God’s responsibility.

If I execute a thief, he won’t steal again. But executing a man who does not deserve to die is a greater evil than allowing him to live even if he thereby commits evil. You cannot do evil so that good will come of it - or so that different evil - even greater evil - won’t come of it. So if the only way to prevent evil is evil, one cannot say that the person who refrains from using evil to prevent evil is responsible for the evil he did not prevent.

I can easily give a counter-example: Suppose I’m a parent, and I leave a pot of boiling water on the stove unattended. My child comes in and knocks it over, burning themselves severely. Did I make my child do it? No. Am I still responsible for the outcome? Heck, yes! It’s reasonably foreseeable that an unattended pot of boiling water with a child in the house would lead to injury. And that’s without the divine omniscience that makes knowledge of the outcome certain.

Indeed, but the solution is not to either a) never have children or b) never make pasta. Rather, you take reasonable precautions to prevent the child from being burned.

But if, despite your efforts to the contrary, your child is so intent on pouring boiling water on himself that the only way to stop it from ever happening is to gun him down with a machine gun, then your child will just end up burned.

Regarding the equation of being with goodness, God already is all the goodness possible. Creation cannot possibly add to the sum of goodness because that would mean that God was incompletely good without creation. Therefore, this idea that adding a being burning in hell would increase the amount of goodness does not work.

Right, God is goodness, but some theoretical worlds are better than other theoretical worlds as created things. It is not the obviously case that world A having fewer people in it who will choose hell than world B implies that world A was the better thing to create.

 

[bzkoss236]

We can, but under my argument, ultimately, nobody will. It’s a real choice, but every existent being will choose rightly.

Saying that everyone goes to heaven makes Christ a liar, because he said that the gate to destruction (hell) is wide and many people pass through it, and narrow is the gate that leads to life (heaven) and only a few find it.

So, are you claiming that Jesus is not God? Or are you claiming that God is a liar?

Also, you have still not shown any real evidence to suggest that everyone will be saved. You make the false assumption that because God wills the salvation of all men that all men will be saved, but God also wills that we not sin, and yet we still sin. If we can freely reject God in this life and go against his will, we too can reject his will in the after life and choose to not be saved. And the fact that the option exists means it is more likely that there will be even at least one person (though I’d say many, going by the words of Christ) will choose against God and go to hell. We even know that 1/3 of the angels chose against God and became the demons of hell that now tempt us. And surely God wills all his creation to be saved, including the angels, and yet we know that there are those 1/3 in hell.

 

[NowHereThis]

Ok first your points act as if God is a creature and point four suggests that he submits to his creation.

But simply put. If this is true, “have fun partying with Hitler and terrorists in the afterlife”

I don’t understand how my argument acts “as if God is a creature” and the whole “God won’t override our free will” line of thought smacks of God “submitting to his creation” so raising that as a point against my argument isn’t very strong.

 

[bzkoss236]

And if sin had eternal consequences, that might be a problem. But if everyone is ultimately redeemed, then sin is only a temporary state of affairs, not reflective of God’s ultimate nature.

Redemption is not the same as salvation.

Redemption means that the price has been paid, like if a random person buys you a drink. They can pay for it, but that doesn’t mean that you’ll accept it.

Christ redeemed us, but Christ can only save us if we let him, and we do that by accepting him and following him.

 

[bzkoss236]

I don’t understand how my argument acts “as if God is a creature” and the whole “God won’t override our free will” line of thought smacks of God “submitting to his creation” so raising that as a point against my argument isn’t very strong.

God does submit to us. He humbled himself and became one of us (Jesus), calling himself a servant.

He does this because he loves us and wants us to love him.

 

[NowHereThis]

Then it was not an actual choice just a perceived choice. Perceived choices are not choices at all

Answer me this:

1. Was Jesus perfect?
2. Did he have free will?

If the answer to both is “yes”, then it must be possible to have real free will and still not choose wrongly.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Answer me this:

1. Was Jesus perfect?
2. Did he have free will?

If the answer to both is “yes”, then it must be possible to have real free will and still not choose wrongly.

Yes and yes, but we suffer from original sin whereas Jesus did not - we are fallen. Adam and Eve could have perfectly refrained from sin. We cannot.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Answer me this:

1. Was Jesus perfect?
2. Did he have free will?

If the answer to both is “yes”, then it must be possible to have real free will and still not choose wrongly.

Yes and yes.

It’s not about the possibility. You claimed everyone would “choose” to be perfect. We know this is not true but even if it was, it would be no choice at all if it was predetermined everyone would choose A.

For example,

I give you two choices.

One: you can eat a piece of your favorite candy.
Or
Two: I kill you.

There is no choice there.

 

[NowHereThis]

If I execute a thief, he won’t steal again. But executing a man who does not deserve to die is a greater evil than allowing him to live even if he thereby commits evil. You cannot do evil so that good will come of it - or so that different evil - even greater evil - won’t come of it. So if the only way to prevent evil is evil, one cannot say that the person who refrains from using evil to prevent evil is responsible for the evil he did not prevent.

Indeed, but the solution is not to either a) never have children or b) never make pasta. Rather, you take reasonable precautions to prevent the child from being burned.

But if, despite your efforts to the contrary, your child is so intent on pouring boiling water on himself that the only way to stop it from ever happening is to gun him down with a machine gun, then your child will just end up burned.

Right, God is goodness, but some theoretical worlds are better than other theoretical worlds as created things. It is not the obviously case that world A having fewer people in it who will choose hell than world B implies that world A was the better thing to create.

Except my argument doesn’t require God to do anything evil, just to refrain from acting. 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. Sparing beings eternal suffering in hell by not creating them seems more like the second case than the first.

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

 

[Jon_S_1]

Except my argument doesn’t require God to do anything evil, just to refrain from acting. 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. Sparing beings eternal suffering in hell by not creating them seems more like the second case than the first.

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

Why do you think human suffering is as horrific as we think it is? In the immense nature of the Cosmos and our near complete inability to understand the supernatural how can we try to fit God in our human box?

We can see all the evil and good around us but not understand any of it. I we don’t.

It’s like a dog sitting in his masters study. All around him are books filled with knowledge. The master can show the dog the books explain the characters and how characters make up words and words sentences etc…

But when it’s all done although the dog sees much he understands little.

The problem of evil lies here in this relm.

Remember when Job called out God in Chapter 38. God puts Job in his place. “Where were you when I created the Sun…and on and on for chapters”.

The discrepancy between us and God is far greater than man and dog.

 

[capablanca911]

Actually, that sentence comes from 10 anathemas pronounced by Emperor Justinian at the Synod of Constantinople (543), a more local meeting of bishops.
ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@magist/0543-53_an-orig/01_introd.htm#_ftn3

It does not have the force of 15 anathemas of the 2nd Council of Constantinople (553), because it is not restated in them: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html

That’s a theory, and I believe contrary to the heavyweights Hefele and Schaff, I think yours is the minority view–is it not?

 

[NowHereThis]

Saying that everyone goes to heaven makes Christ a liar, because he said that the gate to destruction (hell) is wide and many people pass through it, and narrow is the gate that leads to life (heaven) and only a few find it.

So, are you claiming that Jesus is not God? Or are you claiming that God is a liar?

I could say the same thing to you, in light of the Bible verses I quoted in my second post on this thread. Here they are again:

John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

1 Cor. 15:22 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Tim 2:1-6 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

1 Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

---

Also, you have still not shown any real evidence to suggest that everyone will be saved. You make the false assumption that because God wills the salvation of all men that all men will be saved, but God also wills that we not sin, and yet we still sin. If we can freely reject God in this life and go against his will, we too can reject his will in the after life and choose to not be saved.

Again, you’re arguing that it’s possible to not be saved, and I agree. It is possible. It’s that it’s also possible that everyone will choose to be saved. The second possibility is the one that is in accord with God’s will. It would be very bizarre if it was God’s will, and yet not God’s plan, and if you can’t trust God’s plan, can you claim to believe in him? So which do you think is the possibility that is realized?

And the fact that the option exists means it is more likely that there will be even at least one person (though I’d say many, going by the words of Christ) will choose against God and go to hell. We even know that 1/3 of the angels chose against God and became the demons of hell that now tempt us. And surely God wills all his creation to be saved, including the angels, and yet we know that there are those 1/3 in hell.

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.

 

[NowHereThis]

Redemption is not the same as salvation.

Redemption means that the price has been paid, like if a random person buys you a drink. They can pay for it, but that doesn’t mean that you’ll accept it.

Christ redeemed us, but Christ can only save us if we let him, and we do that by accepting him and following him.

I misspoke. I meant “saved” where I said “redeemed”.

 

[NowHereThis]

Yes and yes, but we suffer from original sin whereas Jesus did not - we are fallen. Adam and Eve could have perfectly refrained from sin. We cannot.

The issue isn’t really sin, that was just an illustration of how it’s possible for there to be no wrong choices, and yet still free will. Does everyone have a real possibility of choosing Jesus? If so, then it is possible that everyone could indeed choose Jesus without negating free will.

 

[NowHereThis]

Yes and yes.

It’s not about the possibility. You claimed everyone would “choose” to be perfect. We know this is not true but even if it was, it would be no choice at all if it was predetermined everyone would choose A.

For example,

I give you two choices.

One: you can eat a piece of your favorite candy.
Or
Two: I kill you.

There is no choice there.

But remember, God’s omniscience doesn’t interfere with free will. So God knowing that everyone he creates will choose to be saved has no effect on whether the choice is free or not. Otherwise, God’s foreknowledge would abolish the freedom of every choice.

 

[NowHereThis]

Why do you think human suffering is as horrific as we think it is? In the immense nature of the Cosmos and our near complete inability to understand the supernatural how can we try to fit God in our human box?

We can see all the evil and good around us but not understand any of it. I we don’t.

It’s like a dog sitting in his masters study. All around him are books filled with knowledge. The master can show the dog the books explain the characters and how characters make up words and words sentences etc…

But when it’s all done although the dog sees much he understands little.

The problem of evil lies here in this relm.

Remember when Job called out God in Chapter 38. God puts Job in his place. “Where were you when I created the Sun…and on and on for chapters”.

The discrepancy between us and God is far greater than man and dog.

What does human suffering have to do with “putting God in a box”? Also, if suffering in hell isn’t as bad as we think, why is it so important to avoid it through choosing Jesus?

 

[Jon_S_1]

But remember, God’s omniscience doesn’t interfere with free will. So God knowing that everyone he creates will choose to be saved has no effect on whether the choice is free or not. Otherwise, God’s foreknowledge would abolish the freedom of every choice.

God created a world in which we had free will. He created it perfect for us. We chose to go against him.

He foresaw all of this. He is God and knows why he did it all. He did it justly too since God IS Love.

Ultimately we have no frame of reference to be able to say God’s system is unjust, or everyone must be saved in order for it to be just.

That said, anyone damned is damned because they choose to be. They are inwardly focused and unable to see God.

 

[NowHereThis]

That’s a theory, and I believe contrary to the heavyweights Hefele and Schaff, I think yours is the minority view–is it not?

You’re welcome to try to demonstrate that. I provided links to back up what I said. Do you have links?

 

[Jon_S_1]

What does human suffering have to do with “putting God in a box”? Also, if suffering in hell isn’t as bad as we think, why is it so important to avoid it through choosing Jesus?

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.

 

[NowHereThis]

God created a world in which we had free will. He created it perfect for us. We chose to go against him.

He foresaw all of this. He is God and knows why he did it all. He did it justly too since God IS Love.

Ultimately we have no frame of reference to be able to say God’s system is unjust, or everyone must be saved in order for it to be just.

That said, anyone damned is damned because they choose to be. They are inwardly focused and unable to see God.

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.