The Logic of Universal Salvation

[Sparko]

Quoting Bible verses to support a favored doctrine is not a legitimate response to a logical argument. The argument I posted uses Scripture--as do most discussions of theology--to support a logical claim. Most discussion on theology boards never satisfy tensions because all folks do is present their interpretation or doctrine as "proof" that the other guy's doctrine is false. This is obviously circular and serve no purpose....if it did, doctrinal tensions would be resolved and we could all turn out the lights, theologically speaking, and go home.


Did you not read or understand this question in the op or the argument that followed it? It ultimately shows that both the Annihilationist and traditional eternal hell doctrines are logically incoherent as both violate the perfection of God's justice, and only the salvation of all is able to resolve the problem.

I specifically asked for reasonable, rational critiques; I don't think asking for this exceeds what is proper for theological discussion.

Yeah I understood it. But I responded with a logical argument and you posted your little "if you can't..." diatribe and then someone else posted giving scripture to back up their claim and you did the same thing. Then you just snipped out my logical argument and questions in my last post and whined again.

Sounds to me like you don't really have an argument or defense of your claims.

[Anomaly]

True, my dislike doesn't equate superficial responses. It's the superficial responses that do it.

And thanks for quoting me your doctrine Cow Poke. Would you be interested in taking a stab at the op?

[Anomaly]

Are you aware that you quoted Jesus as using temple - singular - then you morphed that into temples - plural?

No I wasn't. It's called a "typo", not morphology, in my neck of the woods. Thanks for letting me know.

[Anomaly]

Referring to the resurrection.



No. The Pharisees destroyed the temple (His body in context), and He raised what they unrighteously destroyed.


Yes. And your error.



Oh, it truly is. The righteous are saved and taken out of the wicked generation before it is destroyed.



Correct. The wicked are destroyed and never heard from again. Their punishment is swift and final. Therefore, universalism is refuted.

I'm assuming you either don't have the capability or desire to specifically critique the op. Don't feel badly. No one else has been able to either. Thanks for your drive by and all the best to you.

[Cow Poke]

No I wasn't. It's called a "typo", not morphology, in my neck of the woods. Thanks for letting me know.

It makes a significant difference to your argument.

Here is what you said...

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Jn 2:19)

Jesus destroys temples and rebuilds them in three days.

And you're being a wee big dishonest -- "temples" instead of "temple" could be a typo, but "them" instead of "it" (temples vs temple) is not a typo. It's an error in your "logic".

[Cow Poke]

True, my dislike doesn't equate superficial responses. It's the superficial responses that do it.

And thanks for quoting me your doctrine Cow Poke. Would you be interested in taking a stab at the op?

Naw, you're WAY to smart and knowed up for me. You're not here for civil discourse.

[Anomaly]

Yeah I understood it. But I responded with a logical argument and you posted your little "if you can't..." diatribe and then someone else posted giving scripture to back up their claim and you did the same thing. Then you just snipped out my logical argument and questions in my last post and whined again.

Sounds to me like you don't really have an argument or defense of your claims.

You did no such thing. You are arguing against the idea of the salvation of all from a literal understanding of the Bible and what I present is an allegorical system that is systematic, logical and reasoned. Are you able to offer a reasoned critique of what was posted in the op? I've shown that eternal hell and annihilation are logically untenable. Throwing Bible passages, the meaning of which is from your preconceived notions of what they mean, is not an argument. Tell me why the logic in the op is wrong. Disprove the premise and you will have defeated me, I'll scurry off with my tail between my legs. Someone has to refute that specific argument before this discussion can continue in any meaningful way.

[Anomaly]

Naw, you're WAY to smart and knowed up for me. You're not here for civil discourse.

Okay, well thanks for stopping by.

[Cow Poke]

Okay, well thanks for stopping by.

You bet. Have fun trolling.

[Jedidiah]

It seems reasonable to claim that one supervising attribute of God governs all His others: perfection. We may properly assert that God is just, loving, merciful, faithful, etc., but if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture. Abraham, it seems, recognized this truth when he exclaimed, God will not destroy a whole in which any good exists.

Here you are jumping from a specific event to a much larger, much vaguer, generalization. You are acting, or writing, as though you can fully understand what God is doing and why. You take this, in my view, unwarranted generalization and hold to it in spite of clear contrary pronouncements made in scripture. When only a few of these are pointed out, and there are lots more, you accuse us of "shoot and run" opinions. In my opinion these so called drive by shootings totally destroy the vague generalization you have used to try to show them as incorrect.

value

How is this any more than an expansion of your attempt to show off your not to brilliant generalization. It still presumes to explain that most of us, who take a more literal view of scripture, are just ignorant and wrong. I for one will follow the many clear statements clearly contrary to your Universalism.

[Anomaly]

Here you are jumping from a specific event to a much larger, much vaguer, generalization.

You are acting, or writing, as though you can fully understand what God is doing and why.

He is doing. The why should become evident once the what is established if this thread goes far enough to get past the preliminaries.

do

you accuse us of "shoot and run" opinions.

I'm asking specifically for a critique of the proposition in the op

[Bill the Cat]

I'm assuming you either don't have the capability or desire to specifically critique the op.

The OP is a series of gnostic-wanna be nonsense ideas loosely strung together. Your leaps of logic are enough to make Evil Kanevil jealous.

Don't feel badly. No one else has been able to either. Thanks for your drive by and all the best to you.

It's kind of hard to have a logical discussion with someone who doesn't follow the rules of logic.

[Bill the Cat]

I've posted this a few other places and offer by way of trying to coax honest, intelligent discussion that it has not to date been adequately refuted. I'd like solid, rational critiques please, no "shoot and run" opinions. If all you're capable of contributing is an opinion or expression of contempt with no reasonable argument, please don't post. Thanks.

THE STORY
Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham quickly struck up a conversation with his Creator. His nephew Lot and family lived there, and Abraham doubtless had concerns about his kin being destroyed with all others in the city. Thus he began his famous conversation with God on the road to Sodom in Gen 18 by Abraham's query in v. 23, "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 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?"

Here is your first error. The story continues in Sodom with their wicked behavior, God sending angels to remove His righteous few, and then God utterly and completely destroying the wicked. He left not a single one standing in that city, and even warned the few righteous that continuing to stay among the wicked would result in their destruction as well.

THE ARUGMENT
It seems reasonable to claim that one supervising attribute of God governs all His others: perfection. We may properly assert that God is just, loving, merciful, faithful, etc., but if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture.

Correct.

Abraham, it seems, recognized this truth when he exclaimed,

Actually, this is not true. Ask yourself these questions... was Lot's wife considered righteous by God? Was she destroyed in the end? You have created a rather nasty conundrum for yourself here, for if God destroyed a righteous woman, Lot's wife, by turning her into a pillar of salt, then He violated the very improper notion of perfection you have placed upon Him. This is the logical and rational conclusion you have created here, and it's in error.

In the exchange, then, this spiritual rule is established:

God will not destroy a whole in which any good exists.

It's more than that. If God has set His mind to destroy something, He does so unless the wicked repent. And if they don't, He removes His righteous from the scene and then destroys most completely. That rule is established throughout all scripture, and finds its most complete fulfillment in John 3:16-17. We see it in the story of Sodom, the flood, Jonah, and redemption itself. We will see that fully consummated at the resurrection at the end of the thousand years.

This principle sets the stage for understanding the allegorical structure God uses in Scripture for His plan of the salvation and restoration of all souls.

This is your thesis, and it is set on an incomplete principle, as I have shown above in my reasonable argument.

You have done a poor job of explaining your "one and many" organization, and your partial prooftext is one if the worst you could have used... because God actually did destroyed Sodom. That fact by itself, and on its most basic face, refutes your thesis completely.

The physical body is a single entity composed of an estimated 32 trillion cells functioning together as the whole person.

This is wholly irrelevant to the Bible, salvation, or God's redemptive plan.

God uses this reductive principle to convey in metaphor in Genesis 18 and throughout Scripture a division not of matter, but of value in essence or spirit.

This is nothing but pure gnostic nonsense. God has always treated each of us as individuals. He does not save a part of us. It is impossible for a single part of our bodies to be righteous, so your gnostic mess falls apart faster than a cheap dry cake.

And here, you continue to build your house of cards using pseudo-spiritual sounding words intertwined in a way so as to not be precise enough to allow for a refuting comment or explanation. God has always treated individual humans as individuals. Even in the Church, we are individuals, and not some conglomeration of cells, or "value elements" (whatever those are)

[Cow Poke]

Your "argument" went up in smoke, just like Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Sparko]

Your "argument" went up in smoke, just like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yep, God never says he won't destroy the wicked. Just that he won't destroy the righteous along with the wicked. He separates and saves the righteous and destroys the wicked. Just like with Noah. And if the wicked repent, then he saves them too, like with Nineveh.

The lesson is: If you are righteous you are saved. If you are wicked you are destroyed, so repent and be saved.