Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105

Thread: The Logic of Universal Salvation

  1. #21
    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,692
    Amen (Given)
    7513
    Amen (Received)
    17322
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    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.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  2. #22
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    66
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    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.

  3. #23
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    66
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Naw, you're WAY to smart and knowed up for me. You're not here for civil discourse.
    Okay, well thanks for stopping by.

  4. #24
    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,692
    Amen (Given)
    7513
    Amen (Received)
    17322
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    Okay, well thanks for stopping by.
    You bet. Have fun trolling.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  5. #25
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,293
    Amen (Given)
    15494
    Amen (Received)
    5448
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    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, “Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike….Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” Abraham recognized that for God to destroy even an iota of good was an unthinkable offense, a wholly illogical and improper idea—a violation of His perfection. In the exchange, then, this spiritual rule is established:

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    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. God, the actual author of the Bible, structured His work in salvation in this “one and many” organization in multiple passages in both Testaments. The physical body is a single entity composed of an estimated 32 trillion cells functioning together as the whole person. 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 “one and many” convention suggests what might be called "spiritual mechanics", i.e., the revelation of God's work within the value elements of individual souls.
    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.
    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?

  6. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  7. #26
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    66
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    14
    Thanks for your response J,

    Let’s run with it and see if it goes anywhere.

    Here you are jumping from a specific event to a much larger, much vaguer, generalization.
    To confirm: In your thinking is the “specific event” the quoted portions of Genesis and the “vague generalization” the conclusion? If not please clarify?

    You are acting, or writing, as though you can fully understand what God is doing and why.
    Actually, I’m only interpreting. We all interpret, or at least have been taught to accept a certain domain of interpretation. No, I’m not acting like I know what God is doing and why: I’m interpreting what I believe God shows us figuratively He is doing. The why should become evident once the what is established if this thread goes far enough to get past the preliminaries.

    You take this…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.
    After quoting relevant passages from Gen 18 I maintained that God’s known attributes seem to be supervised by His perfection. I argued that this premise is confirmed in Abraham’s words in vv. 23-25.
    1. Do you claim this is wrong and if so on what basis?

    It’s then concluded that the spiritual principle that God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists is properly drawn from the premises and argument. Scripture bears out that God’s wrath is always directed to His enemies, never to the true or good. I feel the conclusion rests on the fact that God did exactly this in removing Lot and family before destroying Sodom and its unrighteous.
    2. Do you maintain this is wrong and if so on what basis? I want to know how you validate your claim that I provided an “unwarranted generalization”.

    You take this, in my view, unwarranted generalization and hold to it in spite of clear contrary pronouncements made in scripture…In my opinion these so called drive by shootings totally destroy the vague generalization you have used to try to show them as incorrect.
    You’re missing the gist of what has been posted. I didn’t post my so-called “vague generalization” to “try to show [Bible passages supporting the traditional view of eternal punishment] as incorrect.” I do believe them to be incorrect. Not incorrect in a radical way--as it would be to say a computer is a house--but in a lesser, context-insufficient way relative to God’s plan for the human race “hidden” in metaphor that is in all ways better than eternal hell or destruction. I concede that both my Annihilationist and traditional brethren are warranted in holding their doctrines, but contend that the numerous tensions that exist between the three views can be mostly or entirely resolved by the allegorical methodology God has woven into His word. God is truth. If the allegorical method contended for is legitimate, it must be held to the same standards, the same methods for truth-testing that any view must conform to. I believe the method presented here is able to meet these criteria.

    It was offered earlier that citing passages thought to prove one’s pet doctrine is not discussion if the presupposed meaning of those passages is deficient. The literal meaning is incapable of resolving the major tensions between Universalism, Annihilationism and the Eternal Punishment positions. The Calvinist/Arminian controversy has been unresolved for more than 400 years, and there are many more tensions in Christian doctrine.

    A caveat: the crowd who heard Jesus claim He would rebuild the temple in three days if destroyed were also sure their literal understanding was correct. Some of them shouted it at His "trial".

    you accuse us of "shoot and run" opinions.
    And I feel justified in doing so. I didn’t want the usual tedious textproofing, as noted in the op…
    “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.”
    …specifically to try to avoid the typical “passage bashing” that takes place in most theology boards discussion. The starting point for discussion of the sort of unorthodox view contended for here is to lay down groundwork to, 1) establish a ground of warrant for the theology that follows, and, 2) to establish a framework for response to the literal-based arguments provided in the proof texts of my opponents. I'm asking specifically for a critique of the proposition in the op; throwing passages out on the assumption I agree that their meaning as presented is accurate amounts to no more than offering opinions. I’m well aware of the eternal hell doctrine. I held it for many years.

    Reasonable, forward-moving discussion needs to start at the beginning and proceed from there. The interpretive structure being proposed has to be investigated and understood before discussing. I get it that most Christians aren’t interested in taking the time to understand views that seem antagonistic to theirs. Everyone thinks their doctrine already is the truth. Universalist, eternal tormenist and annihilationist all beat one another repeatedly with their favorite verses on the basis that their understanding holds more truth than the others, but rarely does anyone go home afterwards changed. If that’s how it is here so be it, this thread can die on the rim as they say.

  8. #27
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,100
    Amen (Given)
    6627
    Amen (Received)
    6904
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    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.


    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 ---

  9. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #28
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,100
    Amen (Given)
    6627
    Amen (Received)
    6904
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    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, “….’Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’”

    Beginning here and running to the end of this chapter, God establishes not only an inviolable principle concerning the perfection of His justice, but the first of His twofold framework [death, resurrection] of the process of salvation so fundamentally and harmoniously woven into both testaments of the Bible it’s hard to see how its significance has been overlooked. This principle is elaborated in vv. 24-25, where Abraham asks: "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?"

    The well known conversation then continues, ending with God’s promise to not destroy Sodom if even only a few righteous were found there.
    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, “Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike….Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” Abraham recognized that for God to destroy even an iota of good was an unthinkable offense, a wholly illogical and improper idea—a violation of His perfection.
    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.

    God, the actual author of the Bible, structured His work in salvation in this “one and many” organization in multiple passages in both Testaments.
    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.

    This “one and many” convention suggests what might be called "spiritual mechanics", i.e., the revelation of God's work within the value elements of individual souls.
    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)


    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 ---

  11. Amen Cow Poke, Sparko, RumTumTugger, Jedidiah, Adrift amen'd this post.
  12. #29
    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32,692
    Amen (Given)
    7513
    Amen (Received)
    17322
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    The well known conversation then continues, ending with God’s promise to not destroy Sodom if even only a few righteous were found there.
    Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.


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

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  13. #30
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    30,587
    Amen (Given)
    2573
    Amen (Received)
    15166
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.


    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.

Posting Permissions

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