PDA

View Full Version : Traditional Salvation Violates Godís Justice



Bociferous
March 20th, 2016, 07:09 PM
[/SIZE]The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of Godís justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of Godís discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodomís destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphoróa symbolic depiction of Godís work in human spirit or the soulóGod establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a ďone and manyĒ organization or multiplicity of ďvalue elementsĒ. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributesólove, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abrahamís point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of Godís justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

Iíve posted this elsewhere. Thereíve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?

jamie
March 20th, 2016, 09:22 PM
Everyone will have an opportunity for salvation by grace through Jesus Christ. Those who reject him will die the second death.

Eternal judgment is one of the basic doctrinal principles of Christianity.


...of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:2)

Nick M
March 20th, 2016, 09:43 PM
All are condemned because of one. Even those who have not sinned like the one. And because God is just, the death penalty is at the heart of our gospel. We can't remove some sin. All of it needs to go.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 06:11 AM
Eternal judgment is one of the basic doctrinal principles of Christianity.


...of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:2)
Yes, eternal judgment is decreed by God. I take the position that the literal applies eternality to the wrong place. Would you care to take a shot at the logical problem posed in the op?

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 06:21 AM
All are condemned because of one.
True. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.


Even those who have not sinned like the one. And because God is just, the death penalty is at the heart of our gospel.
I agree. But the literal doesn't take us far enough into the truth. Jesus died not so we don't pay the penalty of death for our sins...He died that when we kill ourselves with our sin He lovingly resurrects us to life. The death we suffer is both spiritual and physical, the resurrection by virtue of the atonement is spiritual.


We can't remove some sin.
I agree, we cannot. But God can.


All of it needs to go.
Again, agreed. And it will.

Do you have a solution for the logical problem posed in the op?

jamie
March 21st, 2016, 09:14 AM
THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributes—love, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abraham’s point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.


We know there is none good of themselves. It would not be love, justice or wisdom to grant on-going life to a person opposed to love, justice, wisdom, the person would be miserable. Eternal death is the most merciful.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 12:01 PM
Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of God’s justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.
You are assuming that an individual person can be divided up into righteous people and wicked people the way that a population of people can be divided.

That is a false assumption.

The Bible shows that justice is based on the assumption that the entire person receives punishment for the sin of the person, not a piece of the person receiving punishment for the sin.

The way God deals with an individual person is on whether they are choosing to be righteous and turning away from wickedness or choosing to be wicked and turning away from righteousness.

Ezekiel 18:20-28
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

You, like the house of Israel in these verses, are claiming that God's ways are not fair ("are not your ways unequal?").
God stated that His justice is very fair, since He only looks on whether a person chooses to turn away from righteousness or a person chooses to turn away from wickedness.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 12:03 PM
We know there is none good of themselves. It would not be love, justice or wisdom to grant on-going life to a person opposed to love, justice, wisdom, the person would be miserable. Eternal death is the most merciful.
This is the popular view in much of Christianity, but I don't think the premise that we are free agents in the sense of autonomy to choose between right and wrong is correct. The position I find supported by Scripture is that we are captive, to varying degrees, to the propensity to sin by the stain of falsity in our spirit. To the extent we're set free, we're able to choose truth. To the extent our soul is darkened, we choose unrighteousness, as per Rom 8:5-6 and John 3:19-21 for example.

This idea develops from what was posted in the op, but the short version is that as elemental badness is removed from spirit and one is restored to a higher truth state the disposition toward sin is lessened, toward righteousness is increased. God thus frees the soul progressively and fragmentally to the ability to choose what would be chosen freely and naturally were it not hindered from doing so by the stain in spirit. (We call this sanctification, but it is identical to salvation.)

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 12:09 PM
You are assuming that an individual person can be divided up into righteous people and wicked people the way that a population of people can be divided.

That is a false assumption.

Thanks for sharing your opinion GE, but this does nothing to refute the points made in the op.


You, like the house of Israel in these verses, are claiming that God's ways are not fair ("are not your ways unequal?").
God stated that His justice is very fair, since He only looks on whether a person chooses to turn away from righteousness or a person chooses to turn away from wickedness.
Again, thanks for the opinion. I claim only an interpretation of those passages presented in the op. Would you care to take a stab at presenting evidence for why you think what was presented is wrong?

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 12:21 PM
Thanks for sharing your opinion GE, but this does nothing to refute the points made in the op.
Please point out the points in the OP that you believe are valid, since I am not able to find them.


Again, thanks for the opinion. I claim only an interpretation of those passages presented in the op.
I believe I have shown that you are misinterpreting those passages by posting the passages that show the correct way to interpret them.


Would you care to take a stab at presenting evidence for why you think what was presented is wrong?
I presented as much evidence showing why your misinterpretation of God's justice is wrong as you did.

I could post the death penalty verses, if you would like, which show that the entire person is punished for a single sin.
How much more evidence will it take to convince you that people are not split into good and bad parts?

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 12:44 PM
I presented as much evidence showing why your misinterpretation of God's justice is wrong as you did.

The op presents a logical problem. One doesn't refute a logical problem with personal theology. Nothing you posted refutes the logical problem presented in the op. Ezek 18 accords perfectly with the theology that follows from the op, but from a different interpretive perspective. It isn't the purpose of the op to discuss why, how or in what ways my theology interprets Ezek 18 at this point.


Please point out the points in the OP that you believe are valid, since I am not able to find them.

Please reread the op, first dismissing your preconceived doctrines. I believe I posed the logical problem clearly. If you still don't understand the problem, let me know and I'll try to elaborate it further. Thanks.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 12:58 PM
The op presents a logical problem. One doesn't refute a logical problem with personal theology. Nothing you posted refutes the logical problem presented in the op. Ezek 18 accords perfectly with the theology that follows from the op, but from a different interpretive perspective. It isn't the purpose of the op to discuss why, how or in what ways my theology interprets Ezek 18 at this point.


Please reread the op, first dismissing your preconceived doctrines. I believe I posed the logical problem clearly. If you still don't understand the problem, let me know and I'll try to elaborate it further. Thanks.

I see your problem.

You think God's justice can be redefined with a logic problem.

That is a lousy hermeneutic method for creating a theology.

Peter described what happens when you treat scripture that way.


2 Peter 3:16
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

According to the Bible as a whole (not some verses taken out of the Bible for use in a logic problem), a person is either considered as wicked or as righteous before God, and justice is against a whole person for being wicked.

This invalidates your entire logic problem, and puts you in the category of the wicked that refuse to accept God's definition of justice.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 01:13 PM
I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.
You should have defined what you will consider to be an "adequate" refutation, and specifically noted that this is merely a logic problem that has nothing to do with theology or Biblical hermeneutics.

Hawkins
March 21st, 2016, 01:20 PM
That actually lies the difference between God and man.

Abraham is a man (a human), so he counts physical bodies as human lives. God on the other hand, counts souls. That's why He decided to destroy the 2 cities, as He can choose not to show mercy to the 2 cities where there won't be any souls to be harvested.

The same applies to Noah's situation. He decided to destroy all mankind by the same token of reasoning.


However He can also show mercy or a change of mind if requested by someone like Abraham to show mercy to human lives (in terms of man). He will even actively do so when in the end, people in the cities will choose to repent. That's how He choose to show mercy in the case of Jonah, such that those who will repent in the end will thus be shown openly and to be saved openly.

Samie
March 21st, 2016, 02:37 PM
[/SIZE]. . .

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

Iíve posted this elsewhere. Thereíve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?The solution had been done; you could have just not noticed it.

God, through Christ, has already fully restored us all to a wholly true or righteous state. It was done ON THE CROSS by God through His Son, the Lamb of God that took away the sin of the world. That death on the cross was foreshadowed by the death of an animal that same day Adam sinned, and by all the animal sacrifices in the old covenant. No wonder Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

On the cross, God fashioned humanity (Jews & Gentiles) into the Body of His Son. When the Head died, the Body died with Him, and we all were forgiven from all sins, justified, sanctified and made perfect. When He - the Head - resurrected, we - the Body - were made alive TOGETHER with Him, born again into a living hope of life eternal. God's fashioning us into the Body of His Son on the cross, made us all parts of His Body. We are all attached to Him. We are all in Christ.

As a body part can NOT of its own detach itself from the body, we can NOT possibly detach ourselves from being parts of His Body. UNLESS Christ Himself does so. And it is done only AFTER a person dies. If God so judges a man as having been overcome of evil in his lifetime, instead of overcoming evil with good, then his name will be blotted out from the book of life, effectively removed from membership in the family of God, forever detached from being part of the Body of Christ. Hence, the Body of Christ remains perfect, without spot nor wrinkle nor blemish.

When Christ comes again, all whose names remain written in the book of life will be rewarded with life eternal and ushered to the heavenly mansions to live with Him throughout all eternity. All others will be made to suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire, the second death.

(Scriptural references will be provided upon request.)

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 03:03 PM
I agree. But the literal doesn't take us far enough into the truth.

Here is what Paul says to you adding to his gospel, because you think it isn't far enough.

Galatians 1

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


Jesus died not so we don't pay the penalty of death for our sins

1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
Romans 5

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.





...He died that when we kill ourselves with our sin He lovingly resurrects us to life. The death we suffer is both spiritual and physical, the resurrection by virtue of the atonement is spiritual.

Made up.

jamie
March 21st, 2016, 03:12 PM
This is the popular view in much of Christianity, but I don't think the premise that we are free agents in the sense of autonomy to choose between right and wrong is correct.


Are we free agents in the sense of autonomy to choose between right and wrong with regard to being held accountable for what we say and do?


So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12)

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 03:41 PM
Since the opening poster does not believe God and his Bible, I will give an explanation. Justice is shown as woman holding a scale while blindfolded. The scale has to balance. What can balance sin? Sin being singular, a state of being. And all the sins committed by those in sin. How do you balance the scale of justice? What can counter all of that weight?

Only one thing. God himself.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 04:48 PM
I see your problem.

You think God's justice can be redefined with a logic problem.

That is a lousy hermeneutic method for creating a theology.
And I see your problem. You have little idea how to conduct a rational discussion. Despite your contemptuous tone and insults Iíll try to explain how you might respond appropriately.

From Wikipedia
Christian theology Ė enterprise to construct a coherent system of Christian belief and practice based primarily upon the texts of theOld Testament and the New Testament as well as the historic traditions of the faithful. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis,rational analysis, and argument to clarify, examine, understand, explicate, critique, defend or promote Christianity. Theology might be undertaken to help the theologian better understand Christian tenets, make comparisons between Christianity and other traditions, defend Christianity against objections and criticism, facilitate reforms in the Christian church, assist in the propagationof Christianity, draw on the resources of the Christian tradition to address some present situation or need, or for a variety of other reasons.

Every Christian usesóor should useóreason to aid in formulating his or her personal theology. Iíve been doing this long enough to know that if Iposted a logical formula whose conclusion agrees with your theology you would be all up in there high-fiving and backslapping me, congratulating me on my wonderful use of logic.

The op suggests an unorthodox interpretive method. Traditionally, symbolic interpretations have been roughly limited to one or two or at most a few connected passages. The champions of grammatical-historical literalism correctly deem such interpretations to be inadequate because they form no coherent system and canít be properly tested. Modern literalism has become closed-minded, however. Her champions now claim that no allegorical interpretation of the Bible is possible, that all metaphors and symbols outside the obvious ones in the Bible land in the realm of subjective imagination. The problem with this is that Literalismís advocates have closed their (and their adherents) minds to even the possibility that an allegorical interpretation can be truthful or legitimate.

Instead of closing their minds, the question literalists should be asking is, ďWhat standards might there be to test the authenticity of an allegorical interpretation of the Bible?Ē The answer is, the same standards that should be used (but rarely are any more) to test the authority of the literal interpretation of the Bible: accepted truth criteria. An interpretive scheme should be able to be critically examined and warrant either granted or denied commensurate with the degree to which truth criteria are satisfied or substandard.

What this means is that interpretive scheme ďAĒ cannot be judged by interpretive scheme ďBĒ because interpretive schemes are not identical to truth. They are interpretations. ďAĒ may be either better (is non-contradictory, resolves more tensions, is coherent, etc.) or worse (unable to resolve tensions, is incoherent, lacks congruity, etc.) than ďBĒ, but the truthfulness of either "A" nor "B" canít be determined by the other. We have to appeal to a higher standard capable of properly judging both.

What was posted in the op deserves, in the interest of intellectually honest discourse, to be judged on the merits of its ability or lack thereof to present at minimum,
1. a proper metaphoric structure, and,
2. an appropriately logical problem [Abrahamís concern] and Godís resolution [separation of righteous and unrighteous elements prior to destruction of the latter].


You should have defined what you will consider to be an "adequate" refutation, and specifically noted that this is merely a logic problem that has nothing to do with theology or Biblical hermeneutics.
First, most people know intuitively what an adequate refutation is. If you donít you can ask someone to instruct you. Second, from what Iíve seen so far youíre probably not equipped to determine whether something posted is appropriate to theology or hermeneutics.

Now, if youíre willing to play nice and be honest, letís discuss. If not, play somewhere else or alone, please.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 04:52 PM
Thanks for responding Samie.

Do you care to comment on the logical conundrum specified in the op?

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 04:55 PM
.

Here is what Paul says to you adding to his gospel, because you think it isn't far enough.

Galatians 1

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.



1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
Romans 5

18 Therefore, as through one manís offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Manís righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.



Made up.
Thanks for picking out a single sentence from one of my recent posts and offering your opinion on it.

So, do you agree of disagree with what was proposed in the op? If you disagree, what's the basis of your disagreement?

Hawkins
March 21st, 2016, 05:13 PM
Thanks for responding Samie.

Do you care to comment on the logical conundrum specified in the op?

I am not Samie. But from what I can tell, you are arguing from a wrong premise.

God's purpose for earth is for the righteous to be told apart openly from the wicked when measured by a covenant a humans is subject to.

The Bible serves the main purpose of calling His sheep. As long as all His sheep answer the call, His job is done. He's no obligation whatsoever to make the wicked to understand His Bible. Somehow the opposite may be true;

Matthew 25:29 (NIV)
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.


The Bible was written as a matter of human witnessing, God will ensure that it will convey the same message of salvation.

The salvation message is rather simple to pick up. That is, by the New Covenant granted you will be saved by Faith in Jesus Christ.

Samie
March 21st, 2016, 05:51 PM
Thanks for responding Samie.

Do you care to comment on the logical conundrum specified in the op?You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 07:12 PM
You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.
Sorry, getting late...I will reread your post and respond tomorrow.

Bociferous
March 21st, 2016, 07:29 PM
I am not Samie. But from what I can tell, you are arguing from a wrong premise.

Hi Hawkins,

No, I know you're not Samie. I was actually responding to Samie above.

But after noting a wrong premise, you use your personal theology or interpretation of Scripture to suggest how what I posted is wrong. This, as I noted earlier, skirts the issue at hand. I simply ask if the premises stated are reasonable on their own ground. I'm asking readers to set aside their theological presuppositions and consider the op purely from the standpoint of its ability to satisfy basic truth tests.

For example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

chair
March 21st, 2016, 10:55 PM
All are condemned because of one.

You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

WizardofOz
March 21st, 2016, 11:14 PM
You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

As opposed to Judaism where only a specific group are chosen. Salvation is open to all in Christianity. Which is more just?

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:37 PM
And I see your problem. You have little idea how to conduct a rational discussion. Despite your contemptuous tone and insults Iíll try to explain how you might respond appropriately.

Now, if youíre willing to play nice and be honest, letís discuss. If not, play somewhere else or alone, please.
I did play nice and honest, but you did a quick bait-and-switch move when I did so.
You know that you are not handling the Word of God in an honest manner with your "logic problem".


I simply ask if the premises stated are reasonable on their own ground.
No, you don't.

I showed that the premises stated are unreasonable, at which point you went into full-blown "educated idiot" mode.

You haven't learned how to properly read the Bible for understanding, and the techniques you have been taught regarding debate are not serving you any good here.

Now, if you would like to honestly discuss the problems with the OP, start by answering my primary objection to your premises instead of running away from it.

Here it is again:
The Bible shows that justice is based on the assumption that the entire person receives punishment for the sin of the person, not a piece of the person receiving punishment for the sin.

chair
March 22nd, 2016, 01:26 AM
As opposed to Judaism where only a specific group are chosen. Salvation is open to all in Christianity. Which is more just?

Learn something about Judaism before you say silly things. This whole "salvation" business is a Christian thing.

And trying to excuse your twisted morality by pointing fingers at others doesn't change the basic fact that your "morality" is amoral.

WizardofOz
March 22nd, 2016, 01:39 AM
Learn something about Judaism before you say silly things. This whole "salvation" business is a Christian thing.

And trying to excuse your twisted morality by pointing fingers at others doesn't change the basic fact that your "morality" is amoral.

Give me a break chair. I understand the difference between Jewish salvation and Christian salvation. For years you've done the same song and dance. Attacking an easy target like Nick M is just your way of doing what you're here to do; attack Christianity. Is it strange that you talk negatively about one religion instead of talking positively about yours?

God's Truth
March 22nd, 2016, 03:14 AM
[/SIZE]The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of Godís justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of Godís discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodomís destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphoróa symbolic depiction of Godís work in human spirit or the soulóGod establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a ďone and manyĒ organization or multiplicity of ďvalue elementsĒ. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributesólove, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abrahamís point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of Godís justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

Iíve posted this elsewhere. Thereíve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?

We are flesh and spirit. Our spirits do not die. Jesus came and all have a chance to be saved from the lake of fire; however, not all will submit to him and be saved.

chair
March 22nd, 2016, 03:55 AM
Give me a break chair. I understand the difference between Jewish salvation and Christian salvation. For years you've done the same song and dance. Attacking an easy target like Nick M is just your way of doing what you're here to do; attack Christianity. Is it strange that you talk negatively about one religion instead of talking positively about yours?

Sorry, no breaks or discounts here. This is a Christian forum that allows some (limited, mind you) criticism and question-raising about Christianity. So I will continue to point out that what many consider to be basic in Christianity is amoral.

Bociferous
March 22nd, 2016, 05:38 AM
You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.
Samie, at the end of the day you have the unrighteous annihilated. While this is more merciful than the idea of eternal torture, the op presented a couple primary reasons from Scripture why this violates God's justice.

Like all others who have posted thus far, you're attempting to answer my interpretation with another interpretation. I explained in a post yesterday why using one's personal interpretation or doctrine is not an appropriate test for truth of another. The question remains, do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?

Pamella
March 22nd, 2016, 05:44 AM
'The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of Godís justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.' OP

Hi. :wave: Not on here to throw insults, but to understand where you are coming from.

My first thought was you are one of the several, or many as far as I know, who do not believe God sends people to hell. Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks.

genuineoriginal
March 22nd, 2016, 10:31 AM
do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?
Are you ever going to address the fact that the logic problem posed in the OP has no merit because of this:
The Bible shows that justice is based on the assumption that the entire person receives punishment for the sin of the person, not a piece of the person receiving punishment for the sin.

Bociferous
March 22nd, 2016, 10:51 AM
You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.
Though this is off-topic, are you saying the doctrine of the fall doesn't make sense?

Bociferous
March 22nd, 2016, 11:02 AM
Hi. :wave: Not on here to throw insults, but to understand where you are coming from.

My first thought was you are one of the several, or many as far as I know, who do not believe God sends people to hell. Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks.
Well, it's refreshing that someone wants to know where I'm coming from. Though the subject of hell is off-topic I'll favor you. No, I actually believe God commits all humans (more accurately, most of every person) to hell, though for me hell isn't a place but--like heaven--is an experience. The mystery literalism is unable to solve is to explain how hell is both eternal yet doesn't last forever. You can get a sense of what I believe about hell here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MUINRM_9U

So, do you have a take on what was posted in the op Pamella?

genuineoriginal
March 22nd, 2016, 11:16 AM
boisterous
rough and noisy; noisily jolly or rowdy; clamorous; unrestrained:

vociferous
crying out noisily; clamorous.

Bociferous
both boisterous and vociferous
like a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal

Samie
March 22nd, 2016, 01:57 PM
Samie, at the end of the day you have the unrighteous annihilated. While this is more merciful than the idea of eternal torture, the op presented a couple primary reasons from Scripture why this violates God's justice.

Like all others who have posted thus far, you're attempting to answer my interpretation with another interpretation. I explained in a post yesterday why using one's personal interpretation or doctrine is not an appropriate test for truth of another. The question remains, do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?Sorry. I am not able to understand you.

In the OP, you noted how Abraham understood God's justice that God won't annihilate the righteous along with the wicked. And you said God did that in Sodom and Gomorrah: He separated the righteous before He annihilated the wicked.

Did that Sodom & Gomorrah account violate God's justice?

If you say Yes, then you should not have used that account as basis for your interpretation that annihilating the wicked violates God's justice. Because in so doing you have God violating His own justice system when He annihilated the inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah.

If No, then you have no reason to complain with the Scriptural solution I presented because all the elements you wanted in God's justice system are all there.

God restored humanity to what you described as "wholly true or righteous state" when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son. But those who won't live up according to His standards, will be separated from the Body, thus the BODY as a whole REMAINS in the "wholly true or righteous state". The Body is not annihilated. It will stay on forever. It's the wicked that will be annihilated. Nothing good remains in them having been removed from the Source of all good.

Nick M
March 22nd, 2016, 04:22 PM
You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

Would you drink from a cup with poison in it?

Bociferous
March 22nd, 2016, 05:29 PM
Sorry. I am not able to understand you.

In the OP, you noted how Abraham understood God's justice that God won't annihilate the righteous along with the wicked. And you said God did that in Sodom and Gomorrah: He separated the righteous before He annihilated the wicked.

Did that Sodom & Gomorrah account violate God's justice?

If you say Yes, then you should not have used that account as basis for your interpretation that annihilating the wicked violates God's justice. Because in so doing you have God violating His own justice system when He annihilated the inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah.

If No, then you have no reason to complain with the Scriptural solution I presented because all the elements you wanted in God's justice system are all there.

God restored humanity to what you described as "wholly true or righteous state" when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son. But those who won't live up according to His standards, will be separated from the Body, thus the BODY as a whole REMAINS in the "wholly true or righteous state". The Body is not annihilated. It will stay on forever. It's the wicked that will be annihilated. Nothing good remains in them having been removed from the Source of all good.
Hi Samie,

I believe God purposefully told Abraham what He planned to do knowing that Abraham would react as he did, to set up a metaphor in these passages to be uncovered in its proper time.

Remember, Abraham's nephew Lot and family had settled in Sodom. Abraham, probably in part pleading for the sake of his nephew and family, correctly pointed out (Gen 18:25) to God that it was a violation of His holy justice to destroy Sodom while righteous folk yet remained.(Gen 18:23-32).

In the above scene God sets up the metaphor. Observe that Sodom was a single city, a whole containing many parts . Some (Lot and family) were deemed righteous by God, others (the Sodomites) deemed unrighteous. He then shows in Gen 19:1-24 how He solves the problem identified by Abraham: instead of destroying the entire city consisting of unrighteous and righteous parts, He separates the two, destroys the latter and saves the former. Abraham was right--it's wrong of a perfect God to destroy good with bad. God is pure Good, to destroy good violates His justice.

The reason most can't get their heads around the metaphor is because we're taught to understand the Bible only in its literal sense. The literal only sees whole people. You're seeing unrighteous people annihilated and righteous people saved, but the people involved were just paints on God's canvas or actors on His stage of history. God used those who lived in Sodom to show us not only [I]how He saves, but who He saves. Once it's understood that God uses Sodom's inhabitants to represent the spirit or soul of each and every human being, at least two principles suggest themselves:

1. God is showing us the work He performs in human soul/spirit has some likeness to a whole consisting in many parts.
2. Those "parts" [a term from the realm of substance] are "value elements", not necessarily substance. Base value (derived from Aquinas) is true and false. Goods follow from the true and evils from the false. These terms fit easily into Scripture, i.e., truth and falsity can be exchanged for "darkness/light", "spirit/flesh", "righteous/unrighteous", etc.
3. God always destroys or annihilates only good, never bad parts.

Once made manifest, this order and process of salvation is necessarily universal in nature as the metaphor shows the logical problems dealing with whole persons. Strong arguments can be made for example that there is some good in even the worst human beings and some evil in the best.

One test of truth is whether this metaphor repeats in Scripture. It does. Dozens of times. God separates wheat and tares (Mat 13), sheep and goats (Mat 25), good figs and rotten (Jer 24), He cuts off righteous from wicked (Ezek 21) cuts off bad branches from the vine (Jn 3, Jer 5), and so on.

This concept is presented in a bit more detail here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePVHVPgQp3k

The point is Samie, God violates the perfection of His justice if He saves some people and destroys or separates and punishes others because He will have destroyed a whole person who had some good in her. But His justice is preserved when He moves His destruction and eternal separation from individuals to bad parts within each human spirit .

This isn't the whole story of course. Salvation has two distinct aspects, Death and Resurrection. The Gen 18-19 metaphor is just the death part of the equation. In His great mercy, what He destroys in the soul He resurrects [rebirth, restoration], as Jesus taught (John 12:24).

chair
March 23rd, 2016, 02:05 AM
Though this is off-topic, are you saying the doctrine of the fall doesn't make sense?

Yes. I have had many people try to explain it to me, but when it comes down to it, it is not a moral doctrine.

chair
March 23rd, 2016, 02:06 AM
Would you drink from a cup with poison in it?

No. Not knowingly. What is your point?

Bociferous
March 23rd, 2016, 05:53 AM
Yes. I have had many people try to explain it to me, but when it comes down to it, it is not a moral doctrine.
Unless you're using the term "moral" to mean something considerably different than most folks, I find this position astonishing. There is probably no doctrine in Christianity more obvious in both Testaments of the Bible--especially in light of the confirming experience of every day life--than that human beings are naturally morally defective.

Simple thought experiment. What do you think would happen in this world if tomorrow we woke up and all forms of civil constraint--police, armed services, etc.--were gone? Would society quickly dissolve into chaos or would we all join hands and sing Michael Row the Boat Ashore? I find it hard to fathom that you'd even need anyone to 'explain' the idea of a fallen human nature. Yours is a position typically held by humanists.

chair
March 23rd, 2016, 06:40 AM
Unless you're using the term "moral" to mean something considerably different than most folks, I find this position astonishing. There is probably no doctrine in Christianity more obvious in both Testaments of the Bible--especially in light of the confirming experience of every day life--than that human beings are naturally morally defective.

Simple thought experiment. What do you think would happen in this world if tomorrow we woke up and all forms of civil constraint--police, armed services, etc.--were gone? Would society quickly dissolve into chaos or would we all join hands and sing Michael Row the Boat Ashore? I find it hard to fathom that you'd even need anyone to 'explain' the idea of a fallen human nature. Yours is a position typically held by humanists.

Of course humans are imperfect. Should we go ahead and punish everybody for being imperfect? That is what the doctrine of Original Sin says. Or should we punish people for the actual crimes they commit?

Jamie Gigliotti
March 23rd, 2016, 09:09 AM
[/SIZE]The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of God’s justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of God’s discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodom’s destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphor—a symbolic depiction of God’s work in human spirit or the soul—God establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a “one and many” organization or multiplicity of “value elements”. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributes—love, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abraham’s point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of God’s justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?

"Some good" in people.
You seem to confuse value with goodness. Christ proved the value we possess. But good and goodness only comes from Him. We are stained by sin controlled by our sinful nature. He has made the way. We have redemptive value. He desires to clean us reconcile us with himself and empower us with Himself, His love, His Spirit to share in Him and His goodness. He does desire us all to share in His love, but he does not force. Most refuse Him. He desires to create love between us and Him that can only be achieved with freedom to choose Him. He has paved the way with His blood, the Master, all glorious King made himself nothing to satisfy His love His Justice. He can not go against His nature.

1Mind1Spirit
March 23rd, 2016, 01:15 PM
He desires to create love between us and Him that can only be achieved with freedom to choose Him. He has paved the way with His blood, the Master, all glorious King made himself nothing to satisfy His love His Justice. He can not go against His nature.

It seems you confuse seeking with choosing.

Jeremiah 29:13
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Bociferous
March 23rd, 2016, 03:16 PM
Of course humans are imperfect. Should we go ahead and punish everybody for being imperfect? That is what the doctrine of Original Sin says. Or should we punish people for the actual crimes they commit?
Okay, I thought you stood opposed to the idea of the fall from virtually any standpoint. We're probably closer in thinking than I guessed. If I now understand you were reacting to the extremist or fundamentalist notion that humans are automatically born with moral offense in human essence--which I also disagree with. We're born defective as I see it, and some of that defect creates dispositions for immoral choice and choice, to the extent it's actually free [open for lots of discussion], begets culpability as near as I can see.

Bociferous
March 23rd, 2016, 03:34 PM
Hello JG,


"Some good" in people.
You seem to confuse value with goodness. Christ proved the value we possess. But good and goodness only comes from Him.
No, I take the position [and this view of truth is foundational to my theology] that all value derives from only two properties, true and false. Good and evil are effects created by complex assortments of truth and falsity. The "all things" of Scripture that are subjected to God so He may be all in all (1Cor 15)is, in my thinking, truth. Creation was created in a wholly true (perfect) state but God allowed it to become falsified, maybe to let the pathogen of falsity work itself out in existence so we'll eventually build a natural resistance to it. To work all in all is to restore creation to its original perfection.

But I agree that good and goodness--as effects of falsity being removed and the soul restored to a a higher truth state--are from God. We seem to know how to falsify, but God knows how to restore what is damaged back to a true state.


He does desire us all to share in His love, but he does not force.

Sure He does. The idea that God doesn't "force us to be good" or to choose Him is rooted in a corrupt view of the power of the human will. God doesn't force us to be saved; He gradually and fragmentally sets us free from the thing (elemental falsity in the soul) which prevents us from choosing good automatically and appropriately if not hindered by spiritual disease. The free agency idea places individual humans on a level playing field with God in terms of will, which is absurd.

He "forces" us to be saved in the same way any loving Father "forces" his toddler to be safe and well.

Samie
March 23rd, 2016, 03:36 PM
Hi Bociferous;

I noticed in your post I quoted below, that you did not make any reference to what I pointed out in my response you quoted. I take that to mean that perhaps you saw nothing in my post as going against God's justice system.
Hi Samie,

I believe God purposefully told Abraham what He planned to do knowing that Abraham would react as he did, to set up a metaphor in these passages to be uncovered in its proper time.

Remember, Abraham's nephew Lot and family had settled in Sodom. Abraham, probably in part pleading for the sake of his nephew and family, correctly pointed out (Gen 18:25) to God that it was a violation of His holy justice to destroy Sodom while righteous folk yet remained.(Gen 18:23-32).

In the above scene God sets up the metaphor. Observe that Sodom was a single city, a whole containing many parts . Some (Lot and family) were deemed righteous by God, others (the Sodomites) deemed unrighteous. He then shows in Gen 19:1-24 how He solves the problem identified by Abraham: instead of destroying the entire city consisting of unrighteous and righteous parts, He separates the two, destroys the latter and saves the former. Abraham was right--it's wrong of a perfect God to destroy good with bad. God is pure Good, to destroy good violates His justice.

The reason most can't get their heads around the metaphor is because we're taught to understand the Bible only in its literal sense. The literal only sees whole people. You're seeing unrighteous people annihilated and righteous people saved, but the people involved were just paints on God's canvas or actors on His stage of history. God used those who lived in Sodom to show us not only [I]how He saves, but who He saves. Once it's understood that God uses Sodom's inhabitants to represent the spirit or soul of each and every human being, at least two principles suggest themselves:

1. God is showing us the work He performs in human soul/spirit has some likeness to a whole consisting in many parts.
2. Those "parts" [a term from the realm of substance] are "value elements", not necessarily substance. Base value (derived from Aquinas) is true and false. Goods follow from the true and evils from the false. These terms fit easily into Scripture, i.e., truth and falsity can be exchanged for "darkness/light", "spirit/flesh", "righteous/unrighteous", etc.
3. God always destroys or annihilates only good, never bad parts.

Once made manifest, this order and process of salvation is necessarily universal in nature as the metaphor shows the logical problems dealing with whole persons. Strong arguments can be made for example that there is some good in even the worst human beings and some evil in the best.

One test of truth is whether this metaphor repeats in Scripture. It does. Dozens of times. God separates wheat and tares (Mat 13), sheep and goats (Mat 25), good figs and rotten (Jer 24), He cuts off righteous from wicked (Ezek 21) cuts off bad branches from the vine (Jn 3, Jer 5), and so on.

This concept is presented in a bit more detail here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePVHVPgQp3k

The point is Samie, God violates the perfection of His justice if He saves some people and destroys or separates and punishes others because He will have destroyed a whole person who had some good in her. But His justice is preserved when He moves His destruction and eternal separation from individuals to bad parts within each human spirit .

This isn't the whole story of course. Salvation has two distinct aspects, Death and Resurrection. The Gen 18-19 metaphor is just the death part of the equation. In His great mercy, what He destroys in the soul He resurrects [rebirth, restoration], as Jesus taught (John 12:24).It appears that you are not coherent in your reasoning, as shown in what I highlighted in red above, and also as follows:

Initially, you said that God's justice system requires that the good be not annihilated with the bad. And He did just that in Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim. He separated the good from the bad AND THEN destroyed the bad.

Then, you likened the righteous and the unrighteous inhabitants in those cities as representing the good parts and bad parts IN a person.

And finally, you reasoned that God will NOT destroy the bad part in a person with his good part, but that He will destroy only the bad parts, thus making the person only having the good parts.

Where lies the incoherence?

In the metaphor, God SEPARATED the good (Lot and family) from the bad (bad inhabitants) and then rained fire on those cities, destroying the cities with the bad in it.

In your application of the metaphor, the cities with its good and bad inhabitants necessarily represent the person with his good and bad parts; the good inhabitants represent the good parts in a person; the bad inhabitants represent the bad parts in a person.

In line with the metaphor, the good parts (good inhabitants) should be removed from the person (cities), and the person (cities) destroyed with its bad parts (bad inhabitants). But that is NOT how you portrayed the metaphor in your application.

Instead, in your application, the person (cities) is not destroyed, only the bad parts (bad inhabitants). You also have the bad parts (bad inhabitants) destroyed in the person (cities) with the good parts (Lot and family) NOT first removed from the person (city).

I'm afraid the incoherence gave you out.

Bociferous
March 23rd, 2016, 07:03 PM
Hi Samie,


It appears that you are not coherent in your reasoning...

Initially, you said that God's justice system requires that the good be not annihilated with the bad. And He did just that in Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim. He separated the good from the bad AND THEN destroyed the bad.

You're not quite picking up on the salient points brother.

God shows us in metaphor the first part [destruction; death] of what is taking place inside the souls of each of the Sodomites as they were being physically destroyed. As each Sodomite died--and as each human passes from physical life to death throughout history--the false value elements in our essence or spirit are destroyed [death] and being replaced with true value [resurrection]. Human spirit is, fragmentally speaking, undergoing multiple deaths and rebirths. The result? A completely regenerated individual, restored to a wholly true state. Why? Because as Rev 21:8 tells us, "...the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Falsity is kindling to the pure essence of God. First we suffer the death of our spirit with wrong choice (re Adam and Eve in the garden), then our spiritual death itself suffers the death of God's wrath [annihilation]followed by His loving grace [rebirth]. What happened to all the falsity inside us that caused us to be cowards, to lie, not have faith, murder and be immoral? It is annihilated in God's loving, fiery presence.

This process describes not only salvation, when it takes place in this life it's sanctification. If we're fortunate we suffer "hell on earth" because hellfire is purification. To the extent we hear and follow Christ Jesus' voice in this life, we're 'cleansed' to a state of saving faith so we can be changed in the twinkling of an eye (1Cor 15:51-52) upon entering physical death while the unsaved squarely face the terrible cleansing fire of God's presence, where He shows no mercy (Jer 11:11, Ezek 7:4, 9:10) until every last bit of falsity is burned up, the sinner is made wholly true and the individual's name restored to the book of life for eternity.

How come? Because nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it [the New Jerusalem], but only those whose names are written in the Lambís book of life Rev 21:27...i.e., God is pure Truth and no false thing may enter His presence. His pure Truth essence is a roaring lake of fire to the false value in human spirit. Jesus died not that we don't die for our sins (Rom 6:23) but that when we kill ourselves with our sin He lovingly restores us.

Do you see why I didn't answer your post directly? You weren't properly following the metaphor. What I posted in the op is quite coherent friend--it's the doctrines of annihilation and eternal punishment that are incoherent.

chair
March 23rd, 2016, 10:08 PM
Okay, I thought you stood opposed to the idea of the fall from virtually any standpoint. We're probably closer in thinking than I guessed. If I now understand you were reacting to the extremist or fundamentalist notion that humans are automatically born with moral offense in human essence--which I also disagree with. We're born defective as I see it, and some of that defect creates dispositions for immoral choice and choice, to the extent it's actually free [open for lots of discussion], begets culpability as near as I can see.

Don't get me wrong here. I do not accept any idea of the "Fall". It is a misreading of the Biblical story. I just think that people are not perfect. That is the way God made us.

TulipBee
March 24th, 2016, 04:56 AM
God choosing according to his own pleasure still stands

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 05:08 AM
God choosing according to his own pleasure still stands

God chooses those who believe and obey Jesus.

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 06:00 AM
God choosing according to his own pleasure still stands
To whom and to what point in particular is this comment directed?

Timotheos
March 24th, 2016, 06:02 AM
Questions, comments?

Since the Bible says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the coming judgment of the wicked, and since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed and not just the sin components of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can know for certain that the coming judgment of the guilty will be complete destruction, just as it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.

I hope this helps you.

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 06:03 AM
Hello Chair,


Don't get me wrong here. I do not accept any idea of the "Fall". It is a misreading of the Biblical story. I just think that people are not perfect. That is the way God made us.
Then we disagree and you do take a position common to that of humanists I've read. Off topic for this thread anyway.

TulipBee
March 24th, 2016, 07:49 AM
To whom and to what point in particular is this comment directed?
The point is like you sitting in the middle of the traffic. You have free will to do anything you want. God accomplished what He wanted by arranging circumstances around you. He arranged stalled cars to be all around you. He got YOU to stay at a single POINT for a little bit to delay you from getting home on time to enjoy your wife's hot meal. He tested your wife's patience through circumstances. You and your wife had free will to do anything you naturally desired. You could have gotten out of your car to walk home but your meal still got cold. God knew a car was going to run a red light at 100 miles per hour in your future. If God didn't arrange circumstances around you, you would have been at that intersection and killed by the speeding robber who God also arranged the bank to be there for the robber to rob. God also put the same bank for the members to deposit money. You see, you're happy, the robber is happy, the member is happy and God is Happy.
.
.
.
All four are happy!
.
It's according to God's pleasure He let you live another day. Instead you complain to God and boastfully claim you're superman with your own self applied non existent free will.

If God is love, he is also reality.
.
.
When will you return to reality?

Jamie Gigliotti
March 24th, 2016, 10:07 AM
It seems you confuse seeking with choosing.

Jeremiah 29:13
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Not sure what you are getting at. We choose to seek.

Jamie Gigliotti
March 24th, 2016, 10:36 AM
Hello JG,


No, I take the position [and this view of truth is foundational to my theology] that all value derives from only two properties, true and false. Good and evil are effects created by complex assortments of truth and falsity. The "all things" of Scripture that are subjected to God so He may be all in all (1Cor 15)is, in my thinking, truth. Creation was created in a wholly true (perfect) state but God allowed it to become falsified, maybe to let the pathogen of falsity work itself out in existence so we'll eventually build a natural resistance to it. To work all in all is to restore creation to its original perfection.

But I agree that good and goodness--as effects of falsity being removed and the soul restored to a a higher truth state--are from God. We seem to know how to falsify, but God knows how to restore what is damaged back to a true state.



Sure He does. The idea that God doesn't "force us to be good" or to choose Him is rooted in a corrupt view of the power of the human will. God doesn't force us to be saved; He gradually and fragmentally sets us free from the thing (elemental falsity in the soul) which prevents us from choosing good automatically and appropriately if not hindered by spiritual disease. The free agency idea places individual humans on a level playing field with God in terms of will, which is absurd.

He "forces" us to be saved in the same way any loving Father "forces" his toddler to be safe and well.

Jesus said only a few will find it. Agreed it is the truth that sets us free, Again Jesus said, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples and then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

You seem to just take out of God's word what you like.

How could a murderer who is actively murdering and is killed become freed?

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 11:25 AM
Since the Bible says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the coming judgment of the wicked, and since Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed and not just the sin components of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can know for certain that the coming judgment of the guilty will be complete destruction, just as it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.

I hope this helps you.
Hello Timotheos,

In saying we can know for certain that the guilty will be completely destroyed, are you suggesting that the entire person, if he is guilty, will be destroyed? In other words are you suggesting the "standard" Annihilationist view is correct?

Also curious to know what it is you suppose I need help with...?

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 11:27 AM
The point is like you sitting in the middle of the traffic. You have free will to do anything you want. God accomplished what He wanted by arranging circumstances around you. He arranged stalled cars to be all around you. He got YOU to stay at a single POINT for a little bit to delay you from getting home on time to enjoy your wife's hot meal. He tested your wife's patience through circumstances. You and your wife had free will to do anything you naturally desired. You could have gotten out of your car to walk home but your meal still got cold. God knew a car was going to run a red light at 100 miles per hour in your future. If God didn't arrange circumstances around you, you would have been at that intersection and killed by the speeding robber who God also arranged the bank to be there for the robber to rob. God also put the same bank for the members to deposit money. You see, you're happy, the robber is happy, the member is happy and God is Happy.
.
.
.
All four are happy!
.
It's according to God's pleasure He let you live another day. Instead you complain to God and boastfully claim you're superman with your own self applied non existent free will.

If God is love, he is also reality.
.
.
When will you return to reality?
TB, I still can't figure out who you're aiming your posts at. If it's me, I have no idea what on God's green earth you're talking about.

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 11:40 AM
Hello again JG,


Jesus said only a few will find it. Agreed it is the truth that sets us free, Again Jesus said, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples and then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

You seem to just take out of God's word what you like.

Jesus also said destroy this temple and in three days I'll rebuild it. This comment appears to have been used against Him by His detractors at His mock trial. His enemies were harsh literalists who missed the metaphor because their minds and hearts were stone cold and could only "hear" the literal.

I notice that like many others, you've not offered a rational rebuttal to the proposition in the op that God shows us metaphorically why the destruction or eternal separation of any individual in whom any good exists is a violation of His perfect justice. Id be interested to hear your argument if you have one.


How could a murderer who is actively murdering and is killed become freed?
Simple. Like this: "A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice." (Isa 42:3) In the op God shows how He brings forth justice, despite the doctrines of men.

Samie
March 24th, 2016, 02:39 PM
Hi Samie,

. . .

This process describes not only salvation, when it takes place in this life it's sanctification. If we're fortunate we suffer "hell on earth" because hellfire is purification. To the extent we hear and follow Christ Jesus' voice in this life, we're 'cleansed' to a state of saving faith so we can be changed in the twinkling of an eye (1Cor 15:51-52) upon entering physical death while the unsaved squarely face the terrible cleansing fire of God's presence, where He shows no mercy (Jer 11:11, Ezek 7:4, 9:10) until every last bit of falsity is burned up, the sinner is made wholly true and the individual's name restored to the book of life for eternity.

How come? Because nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it [the New Jerusalem], but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life Rev 21:27...i.e., God is pure Truth and no false thing may enter His presence. His pure Truth essence is a roaring lake of fire to the false value in human spirit. Jesus died not that we don't die for our sins (Rom 6:23) but that when we kill ourselves with our sin He lovingly restores us.

Do you see why I didn't answer your post directly? You weren't properly following the metaphor. What I posted in the op is quite coherent friend--it's the doctrines of annihilation and eternal punishment that are incoherent.OK. That's fine with me, brother.

Again, when you said "Abraham was right--it's wrong of a perfect God to destroy good with bad. God is pure Good, to destroy good violates His justice" and then followed it up with "God always destroys or annihilates only good, never bad parts" but in the metaphor it's the bad that were destroyed, is that NOT incoherence?

If you can't even see or rather refuse to acknowledge the incoherence in your own application of what you say is a metaphor but which actually is a REALITY, then be happy with it and congratulate yourself of having developed a theology glaringly against Scriptures.

There is NOWHERE in Scriptures there will be restoration of names into the book of life after having been blotted out from it. And restoration of names is not incoherence, I agree. It is it's older brother and it's name is FALSEHOOD.

Bociferous
March 24th, 2016, 07:21 PM
when you said "Abraham was right--it's wrong of a perfect God to destroy good with bad. God is pure Good, to destroy good violates His justice" and then followed it up with "God always destroys or annihilates only good, never bad parts" but in the metaphor it's the bad that were destroyed, is that NOT incoherence?

Okay now I see what you're saying. You identified a typo. How could you read all that I posted to that point and not pick up on the fact that the switch of "good" with "bad" was a simple typo? Because of the mistake, yes, that sentence would be incoherent with the rest of my posts. Typographical errors sometimes do that.


There is NOWHERE in Scriptures there will be restoration of names into the book of life after having been blotted out from it.

Correct. And since there is also nowhere in Scripture that it says there will not be a restoration of names into the book of life after they're blotted out from it, your point is empty. When Scripture is silent on certain points it requires interpretation by means of the use of other passages, principles and concepts to piece together what is meant.

1Mind1Spirit
March 25th, 2016, 01:42 AM
Correct. And since there is also nowhere in Scripture that it says there will not be a restoration of names into the book of life after they're blotted out from it, your point is empty. When Scripture is silent on certain points it requires interpretation by means of the use of other passages, principles and concepts to piece together what is meant.

Which name?

Maybe the one written on the white stone?

Samie
March 25th, 2016, 05:45 AM
Okay now I see what you're saying. You identified a typo. How could you read all that I posted to that point and not pick up on the fact that the switch of "good" with "bad" was a simple typo? Because of the mistake, yes, that sentence would be incoherent with the rest of my posts. Typographical errors sometimes do that.


Correct. And since there is also nowhere in Scripture that it says there will not be a restoration of names into the book of life after they're blotted out from it, your point is empty. When Scripture is silent on certain points it requires interpretation by means of the use of other passages, principles and concepts to piece together what is meant.After refusal to acknowledge incoherence, you now switch to typo defense. You had been unmasked, my brother. In the metaphor, God first removed the good parts and then destroyed the bad. In your application, the bad parts were destroyed without first removing the good. You are forced into such scenario because of your UNBELIEF in the Biblical account that those whose names were blotted out from the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. You instead teach that those blotted out will be rewritten.

The Bible is replete with references that when Christ comes again He will reward each one according to what each has done, and when the good had been separated, the bad will be destroyed. The wheat gathered into the kingdom, the tares burned. The sheep gathered in, the goats burned. The righteous ushered into heaven, the unrighteous made to suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire.

And I guess, I have to agree with you that your position is NOT incoherent. It is FALSEHOOD.

jamie
March 25th, 2016, 06:23 AM
How could a murderer who is actively murdering and is killed become freed?


The penalty for sin is death. Once the penalty is paid it is paid and in the resurrection is no longer owed. It has been paid.

jamie
March 25th, 2016, 06:32 AM
Jesus said only a few will find it.


Only a few will find it in this age. Then there is the Last Day. (John 7:37)

Timotheos
March 25th, 2016, 08:36 AM
Hello Timotheos,

In saying we can know for certain that the guilty will be completely destroyed, are you suggesting that the entire person, if he is guilty, will be destroyed? In other words are you suggesting the "standard" Annihilationist view is correct?

Also curious to know what it is you suppose I need help with...?

I'm just trying to help, that's all. Look over the account of the Destruction of Sodom. How many half persons were destroyed? Just make a rough estimate. 100? 500?
ZERO? Yes, Zero. Out of all the people who were destroyed, each one of them was destroyed. Not 1/4 of the person destroyed, not 1/2, not 3/4, not 99%.

According to the Bible, the wicked will be destroyed. You call that the Standard Annihilationist View.
I call it, "What the Bible says."

Jamie Gigliotti
March 25th, 2016, 11:51 AM
Hello again JG,


Jesus also said destroy this temple and in three days I'll rebuild it. This comment appears to have been used against Him by His detractors at His mock trial. His enemies were harsh literalists who missed the metaphor because their minds and hearts were stone cold and could only "hear" the literal.

I notice that like many others, you've not offered a rational rebuttal to the proposition in the op that God shows us metaphorically why the destruction or eternal separation of any individual in whom any good exists is a violation of His perfect justice. Id be interested to hear your argument if you have one.


Simple. Like this: "A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice." (Isa 42:3) In the op God shows how He brings forth justice, despite the doctrines of men.

We could metaphorically interpret scripture to anything we or Satan chooses. It makes it all meaningless. In guesing you believe satan to be a metaphor.

His blood is offered as an attoning, reconciling gift for those who accept it. His blood makes us acceptable to be filled with Him, nothing else. He satisfied His Justice His holiness with His blood. His blood, His love, His Spirit is meant to transform, not metaphorically.

Jamie Gigliotti
March 25th, 2016, 11:53 AM
The penalty for sin is death. Once the penalty is paid it is paid and in the resurrection is no longer owed. It has been paid.

I'm not going to ignore His warnings of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Teaching others to do so is a lie from Hell.

Bociferous
March 25th, 2016, 12:35 PM
Hello Samie,

Letís examine your last post carefully and see if your arguments are valid.

1. Samie claims that I refused...

to acknowledge incoherence
...despite my statement in post #65:

Because of the mistake, yes, that sentence would be incoherent with the rest of my posts.
Samie's claim is false.

2. Samie claims that...

...you now switch to typo defense. You had been unmasked
Let's look at the evidence. Typo was a weak term, the more accurate one is "transpose", something I find myself doing from time to timee in my old age Here's a sampling of my posts on the subject of the disposition of good/bad or righteous/unrighteous or true/false parts...note my emphasis in bold...

post #1

A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state

Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abrahamís point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of Godís justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists. [arguing that only good remains is of course tantamount to affirming only bad is destroyed]

and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence

post #8

elemental badness is removed from spirit

post #19
[separation of righteous and unrighteous elements prior to destruction of the latter]

post #41

it's wrong of a perfect God to destroy good with bad. God is pure Good, [B]to destroy good violates His justice.

His justice is preserved when He moves His destruction and eternal separation from individuals to bad parts within each human spirit .

post #49

good and goodness--as effects of falsity being removed and the soul restored to a a higher truth state--are from God

post #51

What happened to all the falsity inside us that caused us to be cowards, to lie, not have faith, murder and be immoral? It is annihilated in God's loving, fiery presence.

He shows no mercy (Jer 11:11, Ezek 7:4, 9:10) until every last bit of falsity is burned up, the sinner is made wholly true

The simple fact is, in everything I posted with one exception--the one Samie uses to suggest that he destroys my presentation and has allowed him to "unmask" me--shows that have stated clearly that God destroys bad only. This was apparent in the op and was repeated often in posts thereafter.

In fact, I did accidentally transpose "good" and "bad" in post 41: "God always destroys or annihilates only good, never bad parts" In light of the evidence, Samie, your second claim is therefore not merely false but mean-spirited and renders your own arguments chaotic and nearly incomprehensible.

Given your lack of charity, intellectual honesty and ability to formulate rational arguments there's no reason to try to discuss further with you in this thread. God bless you in your walk.

Samie
March 25th, 2016, 03:29 PM
Given your lack of charity, intellectual honesty and ability to formulate rational arguments there's no reason to try to discuss further with you in this thread. God bless you in your walk.I don't think what you call my "lack of charity, intellectual honesty and ability to formulate rational arguments" is valid accusation. It should had been me telling you that, brother.

In my last and other posts, your lack of charity and intellectual dishonesty forced you to skip the rational arguments I presented that unmasked the falsity of your position. You know yours is a losing proposition, that's why you refuse to discuss with me further. Here's an example from my last post:
In the metaphor, God first removed the good parts and then destroyed the bad. In your application, the bad parts were destroyed without first removing the good. You are forced into such scenario because of your UNBELIEF in the Biblical account that those whose names were blotted out from the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. You instead teach that those blotted out will be rewritten.

The Bible is replete with references that when Christ comes again He will reward each one according to what each has done, and when the good had been separated, the bad will be destroyed. The wheat gathered into the kingdom, the tares burned. The sheep gathered in, the goats burned. The righteous ushered into heaven, the unrighteous made to suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire.I respect your refusal not to continue discussing with me. There's no use anyway. You had been unmasked. Again, I agree with you that you are not being incoherent. You are presenting FALSEHOOD.

May your eyes be opened to truth so you can see the falsity of your proposition.

jamie
March 25th, 2016, 04:17 PM
I'm not going to ignore His warnings of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Teaching others to do so is a lie from Hell.


What a strange post. Was Jesus lying when he said his Spirit would be available in the Last Day?

:readthis:

Jamie Gigliotti
March 25th, 2016, 05:12 PM
What a strange post. Was Jesus lying when he said his Spirit would be available in the Last Day?

:readthis:

"And the King will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Then He will say to those on His left, depart from me you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matthew 25:40-41

Does it sound as strange coming from Jesus?

jamie
March 25th, 2016, 07:05 PM
"And the King will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Then He will say to those on His left, depart from me you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matthew 25:40-41

Does it sound as strange coming from Jesus?



Did you know parables are not literal?

Jamie Gigliotti
March 26th, 2016, 12:49 PM
Did you know parables are not literal?

"And if anyone's name is not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15

It is not a metaphor, nor a parable... It is a warning.

jamie
March 26th, 2016, 01:12 PM
"And if anyone's name is not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15


Why would someone's name not be in Christ's book?

Samie
March 27th, 2016, 01:45 PM
Why would someone's name not be in Christ's book?It was blotted out.

KJV Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

KJV Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Bociferous
March 29th, 2016, 03:40 PM
We could metaphorically interpret scripture to anything we or Satan chooses. It makes it all meaningless. In guesing you believe satan to be a metaphor.
Posts like this are amazing in light of the posts in this thread and links to explanatory videos which clearly show that in fact the allegorical system I present is not only not meaningless, it is able to resolve most of traditional Christianityís doctrinal tensions, which a literal reading of the Bible is powerless to do in itself.

In traditional Christianity there are (at least) two kinds of posters on theology boards.
1. Doctrine chirpers (85% to 95% of all posters depending on the board)
2. Thinkers (15% to 5%)

Thinkers generally understand the basic principles of metaphysics and philosophy as they stand in relation to theology. Thinkers, to varying degrees, are competent to judge and discuss various positions according to their actual truth merits. Thinkers usually understand the difference between doctrine and truth, and can make and consider arguments either way or both. Chirpers on the other hand have learned a doctrinal position and spend their time chirping the same doctrinal arguments at one another repeatedly. For example:

His blood is offered as an attoning, reconciling gift for those who accept it. His blood makes us acceptable to be filled with Him, nothing else. He satisfied His Justice His holiness with His blood. His blood, His love, His Spirit is meant to transform, not metaphorically. This chirping has nothing whatever to do with what was posted in the op.

Chirpers basically parrot [no pun intended] what theyíve been taught and typically neither know nor care about theological issues that lie outside the box of their own doctrines. Chirpers are oblivious to the fact that the same tired doctrinal arguments are discussed over and over, ad infinitum on theology boards. Group A chirps tensions (mistakes) about the doctrines of Group B while B chirps Aís tensions right back. And so it goes, all chirpers blissfully unaware that despite ridiculous numbers of hours of chirping taking place day after day, year after year, rarely (if ever) is one swayed from his or her doctrine, nor are any tensions between them ever resolved. Example: the Arminian-Calvinist tensions remain unresolved after more than 400 years of arguing.

There are reasons no thinkers have attempted an argument against the logical problem presented in the op, perhaps the main one is if they donít like where the truth takes them [away from their doctrine, which theyíve invested heavily in and donít intend to change], they stay away. Chirpers donít know to stay away because theyíre just looking for a new place to flutter to and chirp their doctrines at.

Food for thought, multiple choice format.

1. Jesus spoke primarily in:
a. literal language
b. symbolic language

2. God inspired the Old Testament prophets to prophecy in:
a. literal language
b. symbolic language

3. The entire book of Revelation (and some or most of other books such as the Psalms, Daniel, Job, etc.) is primarily:
a. literal
b. symbolic

The primary method of Bible interpretation by Christian evangelicals is:
a. literal
b. symbolic

See anything glaring that stands out? (Hint: Neither did the Pharisees)

Samie
March 30th, 2016, 10:28 AM
There are reasons no thinkers have attempted an argument against the logical problem presented in the opI may not be a thinker, but I think I had shown your error, Bociferous. Your application did not match what the metaphor delineated.

Again, in the metaphor, God first separated the good from the bad and then annihilated the bad. In your application, God annihilated the bad without separating the good.

When I provided the Biblical solution, it's you who did not directly address it.

There's no reason for the pot to call the kettle black, is there?

Samie
March 30th, 2016, 10:33 AM
I am not anticipating any reply from him. My last post is just to put on record that somebody had directly addressed Bociferous' OP, despite his claim nobody did.

freelight
April 7th, 2016, 01:03 AM
The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of Godís justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of Godís discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodomís destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphoróa symbolic depiction of Godís work in human spirit or the soulóGod establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a ďone and manyĒ organization or multiplicity of ďvalue elementsĒ. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributesólove, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abrahamís point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of Godís justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

Iíve posted this elsewhere. Thereíve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?


Hi Bociferous,

While I have universalist sentiments at heart, and totally reject ECT (eternal conscious torment), the traditional eternal hell-fire belief, we have been challenging ECT in these threads here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?89660-Is-the-doctrine-of-Eternal-Conscious-Torment-biblical-or-not) and here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?109556-Justification-of-Eternal-Punishment). I have a collection of my own arguments/insights archived in a blog-page here (http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?1581-ECT). In these explorations I've leaned towards researching 'conditional immortality' and do find much literal scriptural support for such, so was focusing somewhat of my research towards that view, but keeping 'universalism' open, of course. My philosophical inquiries and issues where solving various 'tensions' and metaphysical questions about 'annihilationism', particularly what the 'second death' is, and what it means for a soul to DIE. As has been discussed and noted so far,....is the question of whether a 'whole soul' dies, or just some sinful of false element in the soul dies (again butting heads with a limited literal interpretation or more liberal 'allegorical' one).

Your example above is clarifying a direction of my former contemplations and opening a new directive towards research in that area. This would be about what is 'saved' in the process of 'salvation' and 'sanctification', and what is destroyed, purged, disintegrated, etc. It appears you may be touching on some points of allegorical interpretation that go even beyond more conservative Christian Universalist circles. Some of my former posts recognize the dilemma of these questions, which open up more questions, until we get our terms, meanings and contextual understandings clarified.

Beyond 'Christian Universalism', I've considered the more pure universalist schools of Spiritism and Spiritualism, as well as Theosophy...which have their own take on the soul's evolution, progress and ultimate destiny as some kind of reunion with Source, whether the soul is perfected and still individually distinct from Source, or altogether absorbed and outshined in that Source becoming one with IT. - but here I probably shoot way outside a 'biblical context' ;)

Anyways,...your allegory above does open new doors and possibilities of universal salvation for every soul, where the good and divine potential is preserved and further glorified, while the sin elements, falsity and impurities of soul are corrected and transformed. This gives us much food for thought :thumb:

TulipBee
April 7th, 2016, 08:58 AM
Traditional word of God violates the urantia according to the unidentified spirit.

freelight
April 7th, 2016, 12:16 PM
Traditional word of God violates the urantia according to the unidentified spirit.


Lets stick to the topic TulipBee, we know you like to "buzz" around a lot :crackup:

TulipBee
April 7th, 2016, 04:20 PM
Lets stick to the topic TulipBee, we know you like to "buzz" around a lot :crackup:
More buzz'in truths.
That was a response to your post

freelight
April 24th, 2016, 02:43 AM
More buzz'in truths.
That was a response to your post

I'm sorry TB,.....but where did I mention anything about 'urantia' in my last post? :idunno: I tire of a few folks here who don't seem to know that I'm an 'eclectic theosophist' (in the most liberal sense of the terms) and this includes a broad spectrum of different religious traditions and schools of thought,..... incorporating, synthesizing and coordinating different points of view, archetypes, principles, symbols along the lines of ancient and eternal truths. Look up the word 'eclectic'. 'Theosophy' simply refers to 'divine wisdom' or the wisdom of God or gods. Its all inclusive, and does not only include the Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky...but all pertinent schools of esoteric or occult knowledge. Most folks here don't have a clue about the breadth or depth of my 'theology'....if we could use the term. They're stuck in presupposition, preconception, mental concepts which limit infinity and the Spirit of God from shining thru all the veneers. Add 'dogmatism' to the brew and things get muckier.

Now if you have a particular point in my last post you would like to address, instead of going on about some urantia trajectory :rolleyes:, by golly give it your best shot. Could you lather up enough creative juices to give it a go?

TulipBee
April 24th, 2016, 04:43 AM
I'm sorry TB,.....but where did I mention anything about 'urantia' in my last post? :idunno: I tire of a few folks here who don't seem to know that I'm an 'eclectic theosophist' (in the most liberal sense of the terms) and this includes a broad spectrum of different religious traditions and schools of thought,..... incorporating, synthesizing and coordinating different points of view, archetypes, principles, symbols along the lines of ancient and eternal truths. Look up the word 'eclectic'. 'Theosophy' simply refers to 'divine wisdom' or the wisdom of God or gods. Its all inclusive, and does not only include the Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky...but all pertinent schools of esoteric or occult knowledge. Most folks here don't have a clue about the breadth or depth of my 'theology'....if we could use the term. They're stuck in presupposition, preconception, mental concepts which limit infinity and the Spirit of God from shining thru all the veneers. Add 'dogmatism' to the brew and things get muckier.

Now if you have a particular point in my last post you would like to address, instead of going on about some urantia trajectory :rolleyes:, by golly give it your best shot. Could you lather up enough creative juices to give it a go?
I know cause I was once there. Gotta try once but things didn't add up. You'll tired of it to when you get older and wiser. Bible is a pretty good book

freelight
April 24th, 2016, 04:53 AM
I know cause I was once there. Gotta try once but things didn't add up. You'll tired of it to when you get older and wiser. Bible is a pretty good book

Meanwhile, back to the subject of the thread here......

TulipBee
April 24th, 2016, 06:07 AM
Meanwhile, back to the subject of the thread here......
You always find a way to change the subject . I follow you. You'll tire of looping with multiple endless theology like the stormy seas.

Clete
April 24th, 2016, 06:43 AM
I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.



Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, 4 so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, 5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Mark 9:42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where

‘Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched.’

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where

‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

And as if that weren't enough to refute your position, these are not all the biblical passages that speak of an eternal Hell. There is one other in particular that DIRECTLY blows your entire argument to smithereens, using Sodom's sin and destruction as an example of THE EXACT OPPOSITE of your position!


Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


Consider yourself refuted. The bible clearly and undeniably teaches these things.

Note that I made no argument in the post at all aside from directly quoting the bible, including God the Son Himself on the subject. If you resist or attempt to argue, you won't be arguing with me. It'll be God Himself and the words that came from His very own lips, that you'll be rejecting.

Now repent of this silliness and stop accusing God of injustice.

Resting in Him,
Clete

freelight
April 24th, 2016, 01:01 PM
You always find a way to change the subject . I follow you. You'll tire of looping with multiple endless theology like the stormy seas.

You sir are the one that changed the subject to 'urantia'. I addressed the subject (the OP) in post #84 to which you responded about 'urantia'. Did I mention urantia anywhere? :idunno: If you want to address the subject here, please stay on subject (or related) if interested in 'dialogue'.

TulipBee
April 24th, 2016, 05:49 PM
You sir are the one that changed the subject to 'urantia'. I addressed the subject (the OP) in post #84 to which you responded about 'urantia'. Did I mention urantia anywhere? :idunno: If you want to address the subject here, please stay on subject (or related) if interested in 'dialogue'.
Let's both move forward

freelight
May 19th, 2016, 08:17 PM
Let's both move forward

From one of my last posts here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117097-Traditional-Salvation-Violates-Godís-Justice&p=4670434&viewfull=1#post4670434),....lets do :)

You still have the contradiction of a 'God' who imposes 'eternal torment in hellfire' while being the essence and will of LOVE simultaneously,...a complete paradox of insanity.

TulipBee
May 19th, 2016, 09:57 PM
From one of my last posts here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117097-Traditional-Salvation-Violates-Godís-Justice&p=4670434&viewfull=1#post4670434),....lets do :)

You still have the contradiction of a 'God' who imposes 'eternal torment in hellfire' while being the essence and will of LOVE simultaneously,...a complete paradox of insanity.
Darkness is the absence of light. They both have something to do with each other.

freelight
May 20th, 2016, 12:46 AM
Darkness is the absence of light. They both have something to do with each other.

Well, I think intojoy isn't concerned so much with the more complex philosophical contrast of darkness & light, except to marginalize my 'name' and spew 'ad hominems'. Appears to be his 'forte'.

Also, the 'duality' of darkness/light; good/evil would appear to be a natural phenomena in this dimension of relativity, where two ends of a polarity appear, but so goes the play of creation....which on the surface is 'maya' (illusion). Even if we reduce everything down to its smallest atoms or photon particles....'darkness' and 'light' may just be the same substance...but resonating at different vibrational frequencies, relating different qualities. If all comes from 'God' as the only original source and essence from which anything could be, in potential and actuality,....then all must originate from that primal Source...all conditions, phases, states, aspects, degrees, polarities, dualities, etc.

By your own statement, you can see how if darkness and light are 'related' and have something to do with each other, then such terms are 'relative'. We'll leave it at that and let you 'nibble' a little on it :)