The Logic of Universal Salvation

[Bill the Cat]

You seem unaware that this is exactly the point in the op.

No I am not unaware. The problem, again, lies with your universalism.

The idea of human goodness being outside of God was never put forth. Goodness proceeds from the thoughts and acts of people relative to the value content of the soul. I take good to be the logical product of the true. Since truth endues the essence of all creation until it's fragmentally falsified by human choice, the good produced by people--though produced from an inherent possession of truth in essence--is from God. Please try to avoid any more strawman arguments.

So you DO understand that good comes from God alone, and not from anything in man. Good. Perhaps we can move on from there.

Sure.

1. [u]Gen 18 is a metaphoric account[/] teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.

Agreed

a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.

Agreed

No such principle exists. You've invented this out of nothing.

Correct.

3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b

Wrong. They confirm no such thing. There are some deeper theories in this passage about God's foreknowledge and Abram's pleading, but none "confirm" your premise in 1b

Conclusion: Spiritual principles a and b combine to suggest that God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.

Leave b out, and it still confirms your conclusion. B only complicates A by attaching an invented principle to support your larger conclusion. It's classic bait and switch tactics.

I assume that unless corrected the underlined portion of point 1 is not contested, only the remaining text in point #1.

Neither part of 1 is contested.

1. Do you agree or disagree that God only destroys prescriptive, spiritual or moral badness, never goodness? If you disagree, please provide evidence from reason and/or Scripture.

Agreed. But you have to understand a few things too. As the ruler of the universe God actually kills everyone. All people are mortal, some of them die young, and God is responsible for this state of affairs. Sometimes he does it miraculously in order to make a special point, but more often it he causes it to happen naturally. Before I ask whether I can trust a God who killed the Sodomites, I first need to ask whether I can trust a God who will kill ME. As Christians, we trust that God is using death as a tool in order to turn us into the people he wants us to become. Partly, we trust him because he came to Earth and died for us, so he isn't asking us to suffer anything which he hasn't gone through himself.

Being killed is not the same thing as being destroyed.

Multiplicity is the property of being multiple. Lot, his family and numerous (v. 4) Sodomites are involved in the Gen 18-19 story.
2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.

Agree.

"Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.

Certainly, although David's son with Bathsheba could throw a serious monkey wrench in your plans. The infant did nothing wicked, yet God slew him as judgment on David. There are reasons for that too, but again, it's the difference between being killed and being destroyed.

Abraham identifies two moral or prescriptive classes of persons in v. 23:
4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.

They certainly are. Yet you've done nothing to prove the rest of your claim in B.


No it isn't.

Hatred is a cognitive function.

It's a spiritual one.

Flesh in a literal sense has no cognitive function except to materialists.

Flesh is contrasted to spirit in several places in Paul's writing. It is what gets purified last at our resurrection.

Well they are wrong.

contrary value components in spirit or soul and the tension is resolved.

It's wrong. Flesh is dualistic in both physical and moral application. Flesh is where sin reigns. it is what is resurrected and changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

As far as I can see, comparisons of spirit/flesh as true and false components in essence can be appropriately read into all verses in which this contradistinction is made in the Bible without contradiction.

As far as I can see, flesh is what is physical, and where sin lies, and spirit is where the intangible is. Reading the dualism of physical flesh's fallen nature being the core of sin makes the most sense in the sacrificial system. It's why Jesus had to physically die, so that sinful flesh could be defeated once and for all.

This is amusing, have to give you a point for zeal. The text this refers to was simply an observation, not a proposition. Fallacies refer to arguments.

Sorry, but when you declare your observations, they become claims. Claims can be fallacious.

representational

I like grammar. sue me. He still used simile more than metaphor.

Again with the liar accusation?

You made a false accusation that we ban people for calling others "smart ass, liar and stupid". That's a blatant lie. Don't like being called on a lie? Don't lie!

Back pedal all you want. You lied. Own it.

I really admire your gnawing and ripping of my posts to find any little thing you can carp on. Very Christlike.

And your lying is practically saint-worthy. dunce.gif

And my experience is that when someone is making crap up as they go, they talk in extremely vague or large words, hide snipes inside long paragraphs of text, and chide others for breaking their 25 point paragraph down into the individual points.

Presumably these folks think that if they can't dazzle with knowledge, baffle with 30 sentence paragraphs full of bull snot.

[Anomaly]

1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?2. Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?

[Bill the Cat]

1. Based on previous discussion I assume you would agree. If not, why?2. Valid or invalid? If invalid, why?

Depends. What do you mean by "directed to"? You've also substituted "human essence/spirit/soul" for a multitude of people. Do you mean human as in the entire species, or human as in an INDIVIDUAL member of the species?

[Sparko]

The fact remains, while God did save the righteous people out of Sodom he destroyed the wicked people. Same with the flood. He saved only 8 righteous people and destroyed everyone else. God destroys evil.

[Bill the Cat]

The fact remains, while God did save the righteous people out of Sodom he destroyed the wicked people. Same with the flood. He saved only 8 righteous people and destroyed everyone else. God destroys evil.

He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.

[37818]

He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.

Then it really doesn't matter in the end whether one believes it or not. Of course universalism salvation being a dangerous lie for those who believe it true, it really matters that one actually should want to have the real truth.

[Sparko]

He seems to be trying to get to the point of stating that SOME part of us is good, therefore God will only destroy the BAD parts of us while saving the good parts of us.

ah. Maybe he will split us into two, good and evil, like Kirk.

evilkirk.jpg

[Anomaly]

1. from whole persons in the literal to the value elements within each whole in the metaphor.

Is the logical structure of the presentation valid and if not, why not?

[Bill the Cat]

God absolutely CAN destroy matter and energy. He created it ex nihilo and can destroy it en nihilo.

Wrong. The Hebrew word caphah used here in Gen 18 and Gen 19 simply means to sweep away completely. It's the same term used in Proverbs 13:23 that talks about injustice sweeping away blessings. It simply means something isn't there any more.

This is where you are begging the question. And as I stated at the very beginning, this is your hook into universalism. Nothing in this passage even hints at "atoms being reconfigured".

ii- prescriptive value is ascribable to essence or spirit, hence the metaphor constructed in AA-D that validates 1 necessitates that destruction must be understood to be directed from whole persons in the literal to the value elements within each whole in the metaphor.

No it doesn't. You've committed the fallacy of division

Is the logical structure of the presentation valid and if not, why not?

No. You've committed at least 2 fallacies. 2i is a begged question and 2ii is a division fallacy.

[Anomaly]

God absolutely CAN destroy matter and energy. He created it ex nihilo and can destroy it en nihilo.

personI specifically asked you to respond only to the logical structure without the addition of bias.Note: The propriety of God destroying or causing the death of unrighteous people is not disputed here. Literalists seem terrified that an allegorical reading of salvation somehow [i]

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry, but physical death is EXACTLY how God destroys unrighteousness. It's called the Crucifixion. Jesus took ALL of our unrighteousness onto Himself in His flesh, and He died a physical death to destroy the power of sin and unrighteousness.

Matter has no prescriptive value.

Then Jesus did not need to die.

person is not destroyed by physical death, matter is just something to be manipulated.

Then destroying Sodom could not be classified as a judgment against their sin.

Of course it is.

I specifically asked you to respond only to the logical structure without the addition of bias.

We've already agreed that your initial claim is logically structured correctly. However, some of the individual arguments themselves are fallacious. You hand waving them away as my "bias" and "doctrine" doesn't change the fact that they are fallacious arguments.

Doctrine is not a legitimate argument.

Yes it is. Just as much as any other claim.

Doctrine is not identical to truth.

Never claimed otherwise.

Arguments from doctrine are not appropriate to test the truth value of a logical argument.

But they are sufficient to show your question begging. An argument can be begged and contain truth at the same time.

That's classic bait and switch tactics.

I'm a dualist, so I don't assume we are a spiritual being. The resurrection shows that we are complete only when our body and soul are joined.


I have better and more difficult things to do with my life than search for ways to refute your arguments - like clipping my toenails.

You committed a fallacy. And you make a doctrinal error with this statement. Salvation is for both the spirit AND body. That's the purpose of the resurrection.

Nothing is divided.

You divide body and spirit improperly.

It's clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Your complaints have been overcome. Again:

Sure they have, Mr. Quixote... on to the next dragon!

Note: The propriety of God destroying or causing the death of unrighteous people is not disputed here. Literalists seem terrified that an allegorical reading of salvation somehow [i]replaces[/] the literal. It does not. Once understood, the allegory allows the literal to be placed in its proper light and resolves tensions a primarily literal reading of the Bible naturally imposes on doctrine.

There is no tension.

Wrath and blessing are directed to whole and parts simultaneously.

But, as you admitted in post 31... " True, God does not save part of us. He does treat us as individuals. "

giphy.gif

here we go...

When the wrath of destruction is performed by God, the living Lake of Fire against falsity in the human soul which burns like chaff, the whole suffers the just recompense for her sins.

No! The lake of fire is reserved until the end judgment. There is no "living lake of fire against falsity in the human soul".

Not even close. Sanctification is for the saved, those who have no part in the second death in the lake of fire.

God uses the same cleansing process whether sanctifying an individual or bringing him to physical death.

No He doesn't. The purification of the saved has nothing to do with sinners. They are not purified. There are all kinds of metaphors in scripture about faith and what remains after purifying fire. See Revelation 3:18 and 1 Peter 1:7 for example.

Only if we die in Christ.

2 Timothy 2:11
This is a trustworthy saying: If we died with Him, we will also live with Him;

The unsaved do not die in Christ, and therefore they have nothing left after their sin is burned away. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

[Anomaly]

We've already agreed that your initial claim is logically structured correctly.

SM) for the allegorical system.
2) A few Level One (L1L2Framework revealed in the SM:Exodus is a powerful L1 metaphor. Here, the nation Israel symbolizes a single person [wholerebirth). The Bible bears this out; compare the number that left Egypt (Exo 12:37-38) with those who entered the promised land after 40 years of affliction in the wilderness (Num 26:51). This despite the fact that thousands were destroyed in the wilderness. Destruction and restoration, death and resurrection. This work of God in Israel's soul produced faith to enter the promised land, revealing the grace of God to work benefit in the midst of affliction.

A much shorter but equally powerful L1 metaphor is found in Isa 65:8-9. [good] [the wholefor there is benefit [good] in it, So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them. [only the bad, in keeping with the SM]. And I will bring forth offspring [rebirth, replacing the destroyed] from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah; Even My chosen ones shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.

[Anomaly]

by Dr. William Arp, taken from The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2000 36-50

Likewise, in another pdf entitled, , Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament, writes, meaning is static and locked up in the past insofar as traditional hermeneutics are concerned

My high-spirited antagonists have in this thread expressed no (awareness of or) inclination to grasp fundamental truth criteria like coherence, congruity, consistence and comprehensiveness which are now quickly taking shape in the allegorical structure that emerged in the union of the primary framework metaphor (Gen 18-19) and the two supporting Level One metaphors.

Connections strengthen with additional metaphors. Goats and sheep (value components) of humanity (the whole) in Mat 25, wheat and tares (value components) or the whole field (Mat 13), and good figs and bad figs (value components) of the whole of Judah are found in Jer 24. Good and bad branches in the whole vine are offered by both Jeremiah (5:10) and Jesus (Jn 15:1-6). The sword of God cuts off value elements from the whole (all flesh, i.e., all humanity) in Ezek 21:3-5Mat 12:35 the a single individual in possession of coincident conflicting thoughts, beliefs and behaviors. The former interpretation is experientially incoherent, while this tension is mitigated in the latter. Explanations able to resolve tensions are proof of enhanced ownership of truth content.

Thoughts?

[Bill the Cat]

Anomaly,

Please accept my apologies. Real life changes are forthcoming that will limit my TWeb time, so I will not be able to continue to engage you in this thread.

[Anomaly]

Anomaly,

Please accept my apologies. Real life changes are forthcoming that will limit my TWeb time, so I will not be able to continue to engage you in this thread.

Okay, thanks for the refreshing challenges you've posed Catman. You've delved more deeply into the ideas presented than those on other boards and made me rethink some important things.