Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: The Logic of Universal Salvation

  1. #101
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,289
    Amen (Given)
    6753
    Amen (Received)
    7032
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    This is not disputed. “Cannot destroy” is not meant in terms of God’s abilities, it addresses one reason destruction as physical death does not satisfy a destruction of unrighteousness.
    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.

    This actually justifies why destruction of persons re physical death does not violate God’s perfect justice; the 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.

    In one configuration it contains a soul, in another it no longer does. What’s important is not what happens to the body, it’s what happens to the person—the soul. Distinctions between flesh and spirit or body and soul are necessary to the logic of the metaphor.
    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.

    We aren’t yet at the point of discussing doctrine. That comes later.
    That's classic bait and switch tactics.

    The material/energy reconfiguration of the physical component of a human is not controversial. It merely joins basic scientific facts (the body decays beginning at the point of physical death into other configurations--matter/energy can’t be destroyed, only changed from one state to another) with the common Christian assumption that the person is actually not a material body but a spiritual being. It was not claimed that atoms are in the passages in question.
    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.


    You must have scanned the internet a while to pull this one out of your….out of a dark place, cat.
    I have better and more difficult things to do with my life than search for ways to refute your arguments - like clipping my toenails.

    The explanations above show that the points above are borrowed from knowledge bases of basic scientific fact, metaphysical theory and customary Christian assumptions to show the metaphor contended for is logically directed to man’s spiritual, not physical, component.
    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 you’re performing mental gymnastics in desperate attempts to deny warrant to an obviously reasonable argument at the expense of truth.
    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. "

    That’s the point of the Gen 18-19 passages.
    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".

    If this happens in time, it’s sanctification.
    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.

    In God’s merciful hands, rebirth follows death.
    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.


    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 ---

  2. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #102
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    81
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    18
    We've already agreed that your initial claim is logically structured correctly.
    Good, let’s move forward.

    I agree that some of the supporting arguments have not been clear, thanks for helping me see this and add clarity.

    While the Gen 18-19 passages are able to withstand scrutiny as a standalone metaphor, they don’t provide anything like a coherent allegorical system. The arguments typically mounted against symbolic interpretation—a couple of which have been used in a coarse sense in this thread—by the champions of historical-grammatical methodology have weight. Metaphors, if they have no corroboration in Scripture, just aren’t objectively valid. Outrageous depictions used by some spiritualizers certainly support the notion that they aren’t to be trusted.

    What give the Gen 18-19 passages substantiation are multiple corresponding metaphors from several books in both Testaments of the Bible. If the structure stands, it reveals an organization no human mind could possibly have orchestrated because the corresponding metaphors are from multiple authors from different backgrounds and cultures separated in many cases by centuries of time. Only God could arrange such a system.

    The structure God uses for salvation in the Bible is simple:
    1) Gen 18-19 is the framework or Supervising Metaphor (SM) for the allegorical system.
    2) A few Level One (L1) metaphors unite with the SM to
    a] form the allegoric structure,
    b] finish the two-part configuration of salvation (rebirth); God reveals only the first part, death or destruction, in the SM). L1 metaphors contain the entire death/rebirth blueprint of God’s design for salvation.
    3) Yet other metaphors—Level Two (L2)—are uncovered by the SM/L1 structure. L2 metaphors comprise the majority of associated symbols in Scripture for the allegorical structure. L2 metaphors are mostly from the figurative language, but some are found in language not taken to be symbolic in nature.

    Framework revealed in the SM:
    1) bad, never good components are destroyed [deviation violates the perfection of God’s justice]
    2) human essence (spirit or soul) is represented as a whole consisting of true/false or good/bad elements. This is the “one and many” organization within which God symbolically shows He performs His work.

    The story of the Exodus is a powerful L1 metaphor. Here, the nation Israel symbolizes a single person [whole] made up of many parts (Exo 12:37-38). Israel sinned repeatedly on the way to Canaan, complaining of lack of water (Exo 15), meat (Exo 16) etc. Israel lacked faith to take the promised land, rebelling (Num 13&14) and was sent back to the wilderness (Num 14:34). During the wilderness experience, Israel suffered. Many “complaining elements”
    were destroyed (Num 21, 25, 14: 29-38), corresponding to the death aspect of salvation revealed in the SM.

    God completes the cycle of salvation here, that as evil, unbelieving parts were destroyed from within Israel, new offspring were born to replace the old (rebirth). 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. “Thus says the LORD, "As the new wine [good] is found in the cluster, And one says, ‘Do not destroy [the whole]…, for 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.

    The pattern is reinforced and enlarges, the allegoric structure is established. No longer does the claim for a coherent allegorical interpretation rest on a single metaphor in Genesis 18-19. In addition the incoherent notion of a “partial” soul left after bad parts are destroyed is solved: rebirth follows death. This idea isn’t new, Jesus taught in symbolic language that death precedes rebirth (Jn 12:24).

  4. #103
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    81
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    18
    It’s not surprising that my traditional brethren struggle to cope with the logical order of the allegorical system presented in this thread. You’ve been indoctrinated into an interpretive system that places strict control on what you’re allowed to think and believe. To deviate imposes, at minimum, rebuke from the religious powers within Evangelicalism that control the Biblical narrative. If you rock the boat overmuch you will be censured and risk losing membership in the organization. You thus accept as truth what other men tell you to believe and erroneously (as I’ve pointed out more than once in this thread) use your doctrine as the truth by which alternate views are to be judged. This is obviously circular; if your doctrine is truth itself, any view that deviates from it need not be seriously considered on its own merits and the possibility of open mindedness is quashed. This distortion has stained the thinking of status quo religionists since day one and remains in force in Christianity today.

    In an online pdf titled “Author Intent” by Dr. William Arp, taken from The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2000 36-50, Arp—after professing the usual allegiance to the inspiration and ownership of Scripture by God—writes, “…in order to know the meaning of the Bible, we must know the author's meaning…the goal of interpretation is to know the author's intended meaning as expressed in the text… The role of the author is crucial. The biblical author is the determiner of the text's meaning. The meaning of a text is what the author consciously intended to say by his text.”

    Likewise, in another pdf entitled, “THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGLE MEANING”, Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament, writes, “Traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics place tight restrictions on what the text can yield by way of interpretation.” Criticizing Professor Clark Pinnock’s evaluation of the grammatical-historical hermeneutics, Thomas notes, “I studied his alternative carefully and came to the conclusion that his approach was extremely close to Aquarianism. In responding to my response, he denied any leanings toward New Age teaching, but the similarities are undeniable.”

    See the typical nudge of those who dare stand against the interpretive structure used by “real” Christians toward the abyss of heresy? Thomas goes on to say of Pinnock, “He writes elsewhere, ‘The meaning of the Bible is not static and locked up in the past but is something living and active.’ On the contrary, meaning is static and locked up in the past insofar as traditional hermeneutics are concerned…Traditional hermeneutics limit each passage to one interpretation and one only.”[my emph.] Bam! Yet these interpretive rules aren’t wrong per se. It’s natural and proper to understand what the inspired authors intended to convey. The problem is that treating these precepts as authoritarian—that this is the final say in Bible interpretation—blocks anything else God has to say in His word beyond these conventions. Like automatons, literalists throw rocks at allegory—eisegesis, imagination, contrived, manipulating God’s word—like candy tossed from floats at a 4th of July parade. But given the lack of logical structure in most claims for symbolic meaning and the fact that most evangelicals are raised to think only within the strict confines of grammatical-historical literalism, this stuff is expected.

    Arp ably demonstrates the control placed on Christianity’s proselytes. After taking readers to the door of freedom: “Can God's ultimate purpose be much broader than the immediate purpose of the human author? Could God see or intend a sense in a particular passage separate and different from that conceived and intended by the human author? Did the human author always intend all the sense which emerges from the passage? Did he always understand all the referents in the passage? Is it possible that a prophecy may have a deeper meaning56 or "fuller" sense than the prophet envisioned?”…the conclusion he seems to want us to draw ( in a somewhat muddled ending) is, “…the meaning which God has assigned to any passage of Scripture can only be ascertained by studying the verbal meanings of the human writer. There is only one verbal meaning to a passage of Scripture unless the author indicates that he has more than one aim in view.”

    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 21:3-5. Equivalent patterns of a multiplicity of value elements within a whole are repeated by numerous authors separated in most cases by decades or centuries. Only one so blind and stubborn he wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead could dismiss evidence like this. The patterns in both Testaments correspond impeccably to the model.

    The learned principles of status quo literalism—author intent as the only meaning, maintaining literal context, sensitivity to literature types, importance of the historical, etc.—crumble in light of the allegorical application God has sown across the whole of His word. Here, people circumstances are paints, and history their canvas. This ‘change of venue’ contributes greatly to the confusion of my literalist brethren to properly critique this system. God establishes His own contexts. For example, in Mat 12:35 the "…good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil” expands in meaning in the allegorical context from “good individuals perform good and bad people practice evil” to the higher implication of 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?

  5. #104
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,289
    Amen (Given)
    6753
    Amen (Received)
    7032
    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.


    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 ---

  6. #105
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    81
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •