The Logic of Universal Salvation

[Anomaly]

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.

yourpicture

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.

spiritual principle

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.

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

veryusing this same framework of multiplicity. The literal only sees wholes. A literal reading of the Bible is only capable of applying righteousness and unrighteousness to persons as a whole. God establishes representationally in Gen 18 that to grasp the big picture requires that one moves focus from the whole to the many. From persons to components within persons.

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.

any part of our bodies to be righteous my high-spirited feline friend. Value [true/false, good/evil, righteous/unrighteous, etc.] has no prescriptive or moral affiliation to matter. Spiritual principles are being discussed, and whether you approve of it or not, God shows representationally in Gen 18, in His own word, that His work in the soul is directed to what we can conceive of as a multiplicity.

we are individuals, and not some conglomeration of cells, or "value elements" (whatever those are)

information and value as the that and what of existence. Informational components are complex particulars and also a multiplicity of parts. Value in descriptive or factual reality is complicated and would lead beyond the topic, but it is, according to the principle in Gen 18, suitable to conceive of essence as subsisting in multiple values. Note I don't claim value in essence does

[Sparko]

so it's a metaphor until it is inconvenient like with Lot's wife, then it is literal and you assume she was saved and so were the sodomites despite no such thing being mentioned in the bible. Your assumption is your conclusion.

And the metaphor of Sodom is that the wicked were destroyed but the righteous were saved. Nobody is arguing that there isn't a metaphor there, or a moral lesson. Just that you are claiming it is the opposite of what it actually is. In no way can you look at the story of Sodom and come to the conclusion of Universalism. That's nuts.

[Bill the Cat]

your error, not mine, with an analogy.

And here we go into the gnostic nonsense. It's circular, therefore not refutable.

William James

Who?

But whose interpretation of the "spiritual meaning" is accurate, and how is one to know? Are we just supposed to take your word for it that you are right, despite what the Bible pretty clearly states?

And a metaphor can be understood in multiple ways. But God is not the author of confusion, so He does not hide His truths in metaphor without a clear explanation.

Rubbish. The picture does not become starry night if God uses only red and orange paints to paint a picture. What you are imagining is something the picture simply does not paint. And all you have done is make a bald assertion that it does and then hand wave any attempt to correct you. You can't call it a vegan pizza if bacon is on it.

And yet, you started with a half of a prooftext.

picture

But the problem is that you think your "picture" is correct, and dismiss anyone who differs because you start with the premise that your interpretation of the "picture" is correct. My daughter is a Museum Studies major at college, and she has been routinely taught that in order to truly understand a painting, you must understand the painter, from his life down to his choice of canvas and choice of paints. Just because YOU think the painting says something doesn't mean it says that. When you truly understand the repeated message of the Bible (the paint and canvas), and the holiness of God (the life of the painter) will you truly understand the painting. And you clearly don't understand either.


PROOFTEXTER!!!!! redcard.gif


Yes. Jesus alludes to what happens in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Sorry, but you've not refuted anything I have said.

If you will grasp the spiritual principle

Correct. God saves the righteous and destroys the unrighteous. And since none are righteous, God only saves those who accept the righteousness of Christ as their Messiah. That's the spiritual principle, just like I said.


Your OP was wrong, and intentionally obtuse.


No they haven't. You claiming they have with nothing more than your ambiguity doesn't make it so. You don't know the painter and you have no idea about the paint, so you have no clue about the true meaning of the painting. You only have your uneducated guess at what the painting means couched in pseudo-spiritual sounding drivel.


You've yet to make an argument. You've made bald assertions slathered in pseudo-spiritual ramblings about paintings. You've shown that you can twist scripture and rip it out of context to resemble something it was never intended to be, and then handwaved it when it suited your need to do so.

very

No it isn't. The "painting" is God's plan, not yours. Your interpretation of what God painted doesn't override His intention in painting it. And they are two different things.

Again, look past the paints to the picture.

The "picture" does not change the color of the paints used.

I point out the one and many organization by way of analogy for those not familiar with the concept.

No you didn't. You prooftexted. And poorly at that.

In the Gen 18 account God shows us that He performs His work in human spirit using this same framework of multiplicity.

That is a completely meaningless statement. It's an attempt to sound intelligent using spiritual sounding words cobbled together. And it fails miserably.

The literal only sees wholes. A literal reading of the Bible is only capable of applying righteousness and unrighteousness to persons as a whole.

Because that's how God sees us. We are either covered by Christ's righteousness or not.

God establishes representationally in Gen 18 that to grasp the big picture requires that one moves focus from the whole to the many. From persons to components within persons.

Which is utter nonsense. God does not treat us as components. Your perception of God's plan does not make it reality - only your perception of it.


Because there is no way to refute a perception. When you treat your own perception as reality, and build a framework of perceptions around that, you have created a circular argument that can't be refuted. Your "principles involved" are merely how YOU perceive God's plan through your lens of universalism.

Take your literal blinders off.

You take your "my perception of reality is fact" blinders off and see it for what it is - a trick to fool you into perceiving depth and shape.

True, God does not save part of us. He does treat us as individuals. Again, stop looking for ways to rip, tear and destroy, try to rid your mind of preconceptions and see how what has been presented stacks up to accepted truth criteria.

So, you admit that God doesn't treat us as components within persons. Well done refuting your own argument.

No they haven't. You are just so stuck on your own perception as truth that you can't see that you are missing the tree in front of you for the forest.

It's built on a fallacy and made circular by vagueness.

any part of our bodies to be righteous my high-spirited feline friend.

Correct. Unless we have the righteousness of Christ imparted to us through our faith meeting His grace, we are lost. And He only gives it to those who believe.

Value [true/false, good/evil, righteous/unrighteous, etc.] has no prescriptive or moral affiliation to matter. Spiritual principles are being discussed, and whether you approve of it or not, God shows representationally in Gen 18, in His own word, that His work in the soul is directed to what we can conceive of as a multiplicity.

Wrong. Multiplicity simply means a large number. You've again predicated your interpretation on this begged question. That God merely "cleans everyone up" without any faith on our part necessary. I.E. Universalism. And instead of letting the entire painting speak for itself, you have walked into the gallery and told the artist what He must mean and based that on your own perception coming in.

information and value as the that and what of existence. Informational components are complex particulars and also a multiplicity of parts. Value in descriptive or factual reality is complicated and would lead beyond the topic, but it is, according to the principle in Gen 18, suitable to conceive of essence as subsisting in multiple values. Note I don't claim value in essence does exist as a multiplicity [it might], but that God presents this concept to us in Gen 18 as a presumable aid to grasping His principle of salvation. Atoms, molecules, cells, humans are single things that are also collections of parts. Again, your irrational tirade falls flat; all the ideas presented are taken from recognized areas of learning. You can easily research any of the concepts posted using Google.

Thanks, smartass. I know all of that. I also know you are applying these concepts to things they have nothing to do with because you beg the initial question of universalism, and then shoehorn these disparate concepts into it to try to prove your preconception. It's sloppy in the most basic sense.

In your circular dreams...

[Anomaly]

And here we go into the gnostic nonsense. It's circular, therefore not refutable.

William James
Who?

You appear to have a computer. Google him.

But whose interpretation of the "spiritual meaning" is accurate, and how is one to know? Are we just supposed to take your word for it that you are right,

And a metaphor can be understood in multiple ways. But God is not the author of confusion, so He does not hide His truths in metaphor without a clear explanation.

degrees of warrant

Rubbish. The picture does not become starry night if God uses only red and orange paints to paint a picture.

What you are imagining is something the picture simply does not paint. And all you have done is make a bald assertion that it does and then hand wave any attempt to correct you. You can't call it a vegan pizza if bacon is on it.

But the problem is that you think your "picture" is correct, and dismiss anyone who differs because you start with the premise that your interpretation of the "picture" is correct.

My daughter is a Museum Studies major at college, and she has been routinely taught that in order to truly understand a painting, you must understand the painter, from his life down to his choice of canvas and choice of paints. Just because YOU think the painting says something doesn't mean it says that. When you truly understand the repeated message of the Bible (the paint and canvas), and the holiness of God (the life of the painter) will you truly understand the painting. And you clearly don't understand either.

God saves the righteous and destroys the unrighteous. And since none are righteous, God only saves those who accept the righteousness of Christ as their Messiah. That's the spiritual principle, just like I said.

Your OP was wrong, and intentionally obtuse.

You claiming they have with nothing more than your ambiguity doesn't make it so. You don't know the painter and you have no idea about the paint, so you have no clue about the true meaning of the painting. You only have your uneducated guess at what the painting means couched in pseudo-spiritual sounding drivel.

You've yet to make an argument. You've made bald assertions slathered in pseudo-spiritual ramblings about paintings. You've shown that you can twist scripture and rip it out of context to resemble something it was never intended to be, and then handwaved it when it suited your need to do so.

The "painting" is God's plan, not yours. Your interpretation of what God painted doesn't override His intention in painting it. And they are two different things.

That is a completely meaningless statement. It's an attempt to sound intelligent using spiritual sounding words cobbled together. And it fails miserably.

God does not treat us as components. Your perception of God's plan does not make it reality - only your perception of it.

there is no way to refute a perception. When you treat your own perception as reality, and build a framework of perceptions around that, you have created a circular argument that can't be refuted. Your "principles involved" are merely how YOU perceive God's plan through your lens of universalism.

You take your "my perception of reality is fact" blinders off and see it for what it is - a trick to fool you into perceiving depth and shape.

You are just so stuck on your own perception as truth that you can't see that you are missing the tree in front of you for the forest.

Wrong. Multiplicity simply means a large number. You've again predicated your interpretation on this begged question. That God merely "cleans everyone up" without any faith on our part necessary. I.E. Universalism. And instead of letting the entire painting speak for itself, you have walked into the gallery and told the artist what He must mean and based that on your own perception coming in.

Thanks, smartass. I know all of that. I also know you are applying these concepts to things they have nothing to do with because you beg the initial question of universalism, and then shoehorn these disparate concepts into it to try to prove your preconception. It's sloppy in the most basic sense.

In your circular dreams...

[Bill the Cat]

The quoted text you call circular is not a proposition.

No one said the scripture was circular. Your interpretation of it, and subsequent handwaving of anyone who dares to tell you that you are eisegeting is what is circular.

Circularity applies to propositions.

Exactly. You start with universalism, then provide an interpretation of a scripture that is consistent with universalism to prove your universalism in that same scripture. It's circular.

Considering I am not "throwing insults just to fill a page", that makes me the reasoned one.

You appear to have a computer. Google him.

Why bother? It's an appeal to authority for no other purpose than talking about painting. It's completely irrelevant, and seems to only exist to fluff up your post.

One is to know by the methods used everywhere, every day: by subjecting interpretations to known and accepted truth criteria to see how they fare.

That's the problem. You can't subject something that is a perception to truth criteria. It's like trying to test a happy feeling against truth criteria. It's a perception. Completely untestable. And your wild interpretation of Gen 18 is just a perception.

Pro tip: Try to exegete scripture instead of eisegete.

Scripture used in the op provides the premises,

No it didn't. Your premise was that it "taught a deeper spiritual meaning". But the scripture itself was not your premise.

I provided arguments for an interpretation and furnished a conclusion.

You provided unsupported interpretations in between leaps of logic, and based your conclusion on your unfounded premise and interpretation.

degrees of warrant for belief based on the ability of our interpretations and associated belief systems to pass truth criteria.

The problem is that you have no truth criteria that it passes. Only more of your assumptions.

I have done extensive studies on the "hiddenness" described in scripture, and have preached on it multiple times. God hides truth from the foolish and prideful while He reveals to the humble and hungry.

Wow. I hadn't pegged you for a liar, but here you are.

I've shown quite conclusively that you haven't offered anything outside of your universalist presuppositions read into this passage for no other reason than to validate that same universalism.

Nor am I. I find people like you way too rigid in their self-delusion to be reasoned with. The readers of this thread will be able to weigh your eisegesis for what it is and reject it wholecloth.

Each of us has changed at least one position in our time on TWeb - me included - due to our interacting with others here who can show biblical warrant for their position. But we are all skilled enough and knowledgeable enough to not be taken in by every wind of doctrine people like you blow in with.

despite not being able to refute what was presented to the smallest degree.

Refuting a gnostic interpretation of a verse is as hard as refuting someone who interprets a Van Gogh painting the way they interpret it. There is simply no foundation, and anything literal, which is actually testable, is immediately rejected. Refuting your pseudo-spiritual nonsense is like nailing jello to a tree.

Translation: This is for the gullible who don't need those pesky facts.

We have great conversations with people who actually engage us. People like you, who act like arrogant jackasses, are the ones who get slapped around.

You wouldn't survive 3 weeks at TOL before you got banned. It's how they operate. We let you stay as long as you follow the simple rules you agree to. It's hard to get banned from here. That you fail to get that is more proof that you are talking out of your backside.

[Anomaly]

Since there's still nothing of substance in Mr Cat's recent rant it can be assumed there have been no legitimate objections raised to the logic of the op unless a future poster takes a crack at it.. My next post will flesh out the allegorical structure with multiple supporting metaphors from various passages in both Old and New Testaments that fit the structure of the Gen 18 account in the op.

People like you, who act like arrogant jackasses, are the ones who get slapped around.

It's true that I struggle with arrogance, have for many years. But knowing that this board had descended to roughly TOL's level I felt it necessary to establish up front that I'm not easily intimidated and to keep the slappers from overpowering the thread as they do in so many places, including here. Mostly, though, your charge of arrogance against me is contrived; this is a common reaction to truths shown that shake the status quo soteriology of my traditional brethren. I believe I've been very forthcoming, rational and firm in my defense of the logic of the op. And don't think too highly of your slapping powers or those of your comrades, catman. Dealing with you here is like being pelted with marshmallows.

Truth--primarily prescriptive truth--is the most powerful and misunderstood force in the universe, and few Christians seem to grasp this. The power of truth Christ Jesus told His detractors was the cause of His crucifiction (Jn 7:19, 8:38-45). Truth, the great sanctifier(Jn 17:17-19) is a fearsome power to those not yet cleansed to hear or see it (Jn 3:19). Jesus wasn't showing us how bad those mean old Jews of His day were...He was showing every man, woman and child in every generation the condition of our own hearts. To those who hate the truth, absolute Truth [in propositional but especially experiential form] is a burning fire to be avoided. To those at least partially cleansed to receive it, truth is a cleansing flame that destroys fragmental falsity in the soul and unites (in sanctification) the one who receives it with its Giver. Truth is the single greatest focal point of my theology. Its power, and its relationship to the salvation of all, will be the subject of my next post.

[Anomaly]

Forgot a couple things...

I have done extensive studies on the "hiddenness" described in scripture, and have preached on it multiple times. God hides truth from the foolish and prideful while He reveals to the humble and hungry.

Which makes me wonder: why are you so angrily railing against the simple, direct and powerful truths presented in the op?

Your premise was that it "taught a deeper spiritual meaning". But the scripture itself was not your premise.

I stand corrected. You're right, Gen 18 is not the premise. The premise is that Gen 18 supplies a metaphor by which God establishes a spiritual principle. Hey, you got one right. Kudos.

[Bill the Cat]

Since there's still nothing of substance in Mr Cat's recent rant

Considering it was a summary, not an argument...

it can be assumed there have been no legitimate objections raised to the logic of the op unless a future poster takes a crack at it..

foundation_checkbox_simple-black_128x128.png Set yourself up as the judge of what is reasoned and what isn't

foundation_checkbox_simple-black_128x128.png When presented with scripture, hand wave it away with pseudo-spiritual mumbo jumbo

foundation_checkbox_simple-black_128x128.png When shown fallacious nature of question begging, act like it never happened and try to move to the next phase hoping no one notices...

That's a mighty impenetrable fortress you've concocted for yourself. You get to dictate when and where scripture applies. You get to dictate when scripture is literal or metaphor, and you get to declare who is reasonable and who isn't...

My next post will flesh out the allegorical structure with multiple supporting metaphors from various passages in both Old and New Testaments that fit the structure of the Gen 18 account in the op. continue my circular argument

FIFY

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23371[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23372[/ATTACH]

[Sparko]

Since there's still nothing of substance in Mr Cat's recent rant it can be assumed there have been no legitimate objections raised to the logic of the op unless a future poster takes a crack at it.. My next post will flesh out the allegorical structure with multiple supporting metaphors from various passages in both Old and New Testaments that fit the structure of the Gen 18 account in the op.

Translation: I will just handwave away any objections and continue to spew my nonsense.

It's true that I struggle with arrogance, have for many years.

Ya think?

[Cow Poke]

Translation: I will just handwave away any objections and continue to spew my nonsense.

But ya have to admit, he's much more eloquent about it than Mick was!

[RumTumTugger]

Considering it was a summary, not an argument...



[ATTACH=CONFIG]23370[/ATTACH] Set yourself up as the judge of what is reasoned and what isn't

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23370[/ATTACH] When presented with scripture, hand wave it away with pseudo-spiritual mumbo jumbo

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23370[/ATTACH] When shown fallacious nature of question begging, act like it never happened and try to move to the next phase hoping no one notices...

That's a mighty impenetrable fortress you've concocted for yourself. You get to dictate when and where scripture applies. You get to dictate when scripture is literal or metaphor, and you get to declare who is reasonable and who isn't...




FIFY

Looks like he suffers from Dunning/Kruegar syndrome.

[Anomaly]

The Mystery of Salvation Revealed in the Exodus

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Sparko]

• Edited by a Moderator •

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.

[Jedidiah]

. . . Which makes me wonder: why are you so angrily railing against the simple, direct and powerful truths presented in the op? . . .

I must have missed that part, the simple, direct and powerful truth presented in the op. I saw pretty much what everyone else saw - confusion.

[rogue06]

But ya have to admit, he's much more eloquent about it than Mick was!

Translation: I don't have to correct his spelling and grammar nearly as often