Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Logic of Universal Salvation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The true logic of universal salvation is that nothing of it needs to be explained or believed.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The true logic of universal salvation is that nothing of it needs to be explained or believed.
      Well, yeah - I'd always go for God's Grace over man's logic.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Ever hear why you shouldn't keep a wild animal as a pet? Or that it is impossible to have a utopia that is perfect for every single human ever?

        Story time! There once was a chowder of stray and feral cats that lived in the woods. They were cold in the winter and hot in the summer. They never had enough to eat and lived lives of fear. However, there was an owner of a cat sanctuary that took pity on them. He wanted to rescue the cats and give them a home. So, his son went out to coax them to the shelter. They could have just trapped all of the cats, but they didn't want to scare them any more than needed. So, they mainly stuck to gathering up the friendly strays that would come to them and any abandoned kittens. The feral cats were afraid that the humans wanted to kill or torture them, so they ran far away and would not let themselves be caught. Now the ones that were rescued lived happily ever after in a warm cozy place full of all the things a cat would love. The feral cats continued to live as they always had, not realizing the happiness that would be theirs if only they'd been rescued.

        There are humans who are like those feral cats in that they would not want to be saved. For God to save them against their will would be like keeping a wild animal as a pet. It is more stressful for the "wild animal" to be held captive than to leave it to fend for itself in a shameful existence. And it's not safe for the "tamed animals" to be around the "wild animals". The Owner can't actually be in any danger in this scenario, unlike foolish humans who have tried to keep a wild creature as a pet!
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #49
          The Logic of Universal Salvation
          OK - where is it?
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I am going to tell you what we told Davidsun and John Martin, two other members who are doing what you are.

            This site is not a blog site. It is not a platform to publish your woo. It is a discussion site. So far you seem to be under the impression it is your personal blog where you can mass post your nonsense. It isn't. Here is a great place to do that: www.blogspot.com

            If you want to debate your ideas you are welcome to. But that means actually debating, not just handwaving away everything people say and then posting more woo. Keep your threads to a few points at a time, and discuss them before moving on. You have not done that.
            Moderated By: ke7ejx

            No arguing with moderation. If you have a grievance take it to the Padded Room where it belongs.

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.



            I'll be happy to respond to intelligent, respectful and well-reasoned arguments. These have been essentially nonexistent so far in this thread. I've tried to explain my position as succinctly as I can with no indication that anyone is grasping the concepts involved.

            I asked the moderator who scrapped my last post in a PM what format is admissible if personal writings are not acceptable. I was referred to this post, which is unclear. The kinds of responses being posted show that no one is expending effort to understand what I post. I'm trying to flesh out my theology in hopes the ideas an attempt to coax legitimate debate from current posters or hoping someone jumps in who has actually read the thread and will participate with intellectual honesty.

            Posting Bible passages is not debate. Offering opinions is not debate. Why do you warn me when I'm trying to put logical, unified ideas out for discussion--but let the good old boy club call me a "smart ass", a liar, and post numerous expressions of contempt with nary a blink of the eye?
            Last edited by ke7ejx; 07-23-2017, 02:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
              I'll be happy to respond to intelligent, respectful and well-reasoned arguments.
              See, here's the problem with that --- you're setting yourself up as the supreme arbiter of what qualifies as an argument. That's not how it works.

              Posting Bible passages is not debate.
              Citing the words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible should count for something, since He IS the resurrection and the life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him.

              Again, that you don't LIKE that you seem to be in disagreement with the Son of God....

              So, let me ask you - do you accept the authority of the Bible?
              Do you dispute that it accurately records what Jesus actually said?

              Maybe that's the problem.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                you're setting yourself up as the supreme arbiter of what qualifies as an argument.
                What in the world are you talking about? Show examples of how you think I set myself up as "supreme arbiter of what qualifies as an argument".

                So, let me ask you - do you accept the authority of the Bible?
                I accept the authority of Truth. I believe the Bible is truth.

                Do you dispute that it accurately records what Jesus actually said?
                No. I dispute that tradition accurately interprets in many cases what Jesus actually means. What is said in Scripture is the literal. Sometimes the literal means only what it says. In the figurative language of metaphor meaning transfers from one domain to another. The Bible is full of figurative language.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Do you think it's a good idea to keep a wild animal near a tame animal? Or to put a wild creature in permanent captivity and pet it?
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                    No. I dispute that tradition accurately interprets in many cases what Jesus actually means.
                    Thanks. So Jesus means what you want Him to mean.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      So, our new universalist is another Humpty Dumpty linguist?
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                        I accept the authority of Truth. I believe the Bible is truth.
                        Do you believe everyone does? Or are a fake universalist?
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                          No. I dispute that tradition accurately interprets in many cases what Jesus actually means. What is said in Scripture is the literal. Sometimes the literal means only what it says. In the figurative language of metaphor meaning transfers from one domain to another. The Bible is full of figurative language.
                          And yet if anyone expresses disagreement you do not respond to them with reasonable rebuttal, you just claim they do not understand correctly.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            no matter what, you are not allowed to just blog your manifesto or whatever it is. You can pick a point or two and discuss that in the thread. you can't just post more and more of your writings.

                            if you feel someone is not understanding what you said, then explain it to them, don't dismiss it and continue with more of your writings.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The op presented a logical problem that calls for a logical answer. Its logical structure either does or does not warrant belief that it can be (or is) true. Quoting Bible passages is the use of doctrine to “refute” a logical problem. Quoting passages assumes a shared interpretive domain when those who engage accept a primarily literal understanding of the Bible. Textproofing is not a problem in this case.

                              But I’m presenting a different interpretive scheme. To simply throw texts out as arguments don’t work when a different interpretive structure is being demonstrated because there’s not universal agreement on what the texts mean. When interpretive assumptions exist on different levels in the same conversation it’s like two different languages are being spoken and parties talk past one another.

                              The interpretive structure defended here holds that highest order truth lies in an allegorical system God has woven into the works of multiple authors in multiple books of Scripture. This interpretation, once its structure is understood, logically establishes its own context which necessarily modifies in some cases the literal or base meaning of salvific passages. The standard arguments against any of the three positions of Biblical salvation posed in prooftexting by the others in many cases does not apply to the structure being argued here. This is why it’s crucial to understand the interpretive system before arguing against it. What is called for in the op are not doctrinal arguments from a literal interpretation of the Bible but logical arguments aimed toward either falsifying or granting validity to the presentation in the op.

                              Typical accusations against this view—which Bill Cat alluded to in his nailing jello and eisegesis comments—are expressed in the following:

                              The problems of the allegorical method:
                              1. Imports meaning into the text.
                              2. It forces a hidden meaning behind every text.
                              3. It put forth fanciful and far-fetched interpretations.
                              4. It does not allow words and sentences to bear their obvious, normal meanings.
                              5. It allowed human subjectivity (the interpreter) to dominate the plain message of the original author.
                              6. There are no controls on interpretation, no way to evaluate an interpretation.


                              http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/b...section06.html

                              Points 1-5 are essentially summed by point 6, and point 4 is false [metaphor requires literal meaning to supply its “paints” and does not replace, only modifies, it]. These arguments have become so ingrained in modern Christian thinking that responses like those in this thread are automatic toward any interpretive scheme that relies on a representational exegesis. Point 6 seems to be true of individually voiced metaphoric readings of isolated passages. But contempt is so woven into the fabric of Christian thinking, no one seems aware of the one question that should be asked of an allegorical interpretation of the Bible: “What proof can be provided to show that it is, or might be, true?” Christians are so sure allegory is human fancy—after all many important Christian leaders concur on its corruption?—they only know how to express contempt and are unwilling to expend effort to apply unbiased scrutiny. There’s no need to give serious consideration to something already known to be false, right? Just ask the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

                              In many cases, the contempt is vindicated. Allegorical interpretations traditionally have a poor track record. An uncomfortable amount of off-the-wall spiritualizing has surfaced in the past and is around today. But this doesn’t rule out that a coherent allegorical system not readily apparent to modern eyes in the Bible could exist. Spiritual concepts were presented in metaphor in the OT that were not immediately realized, sometimes until centuries later. As stated earlier, what is presented here is, I believe, able to adequately answer the question that’s never asked. Proof of the allegorical interpretation contended for here is that, contrary to modern critique, it is able to pass the same foundational epistemic or truth criteria expected of any literal interpretation of the Bible.

                              In Epistemology: The Justification of Belief (1982) author David L. Wolfe argues for the view that, “…beliefs are justified by inclusion in a global system of beliefs that is itself justified by meeting the criteria of consistency, coherence, comprehensiveness and congruity.”

                              I’ve been censored here on grounds of posting in the form of a “blog” and not engaging posters. In fact, anyone reading the thread can see I’ve tried to lay a rational, reasonable groundwork for the interpretive system presented over against a mountain of opinions, scornful barbs and inadequate reasoning. This shows that not only was there no understanding of the concepts offered, there was also no interest to understand. The few questions asked were contemptuous, incorrectly assumed a shared sphere of interpretation and ignored attempted explanations. Mostly there are only drive by opinions and insults. I decided to post supporting Scripture with intent to field responses, in hopes someone would surface to connect the dots and engage in intelligent discussion. The post was not intended to “blog” [the powers that be were obviously looking for an excuse to silence and found one] but to provide evidence for discussion that what was offered in the op has reasonable support in Scripture within that same "global system of beliefs" Professor Wolfe describes.

                              I don’t care about the abuse, am used to it. What’s bothersome is the question, how is the absence of interest in investigating the truth claims of another view, by those who claim to worship and honor Truth Himself, to be interpreted?

                              Again, the logical presentation in the op:

                              1. Gen 18 is a metaphoric account teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.
                              a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
                              b. A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained.

                              2. Abraham’s words in vv. 23 & 25 confirms #1a

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

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

                              Where and why is this logic wrong?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                                Posting Bible passages is not debate. Offering opinions is not debate.
                                There is nothing except those two things. There is the truth of Bible verses, and the opinion of interpretation. That's it. You've effectively shut down any rebuttal because any rebuttal will naturally fall into those two categories.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X