- Oct 11, 2018
- 75
- 54
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Simple concept: God is only good. Humans injected badness into creation. For the creation to be brought to an “all in all” state either God must degrade to ‘less than good’ or the creation must be brought to ‘wholly good’ in order to be one with God qualitatively, and thus “all in all”.I've never heard anyone say that before. What is your reasoning in support of it?
I alluded to this in another post here: “… What is destroyed completely is not a substance but a quality in essence: falsity. God is Truth. Nothing false can coexist with Him (in His direct presence).”
To have one’s falsity destroyed and be brought to a wholly true state is the object of salvation.
BarWi said: ↑
That hell is eternal must also be true if the salvation of all is to be accomplished.
IMO that is simply illogical and ridiculous.
Inherent to the Standard is the raising of new interpretive conventions that produce their own distinctive contexts. The general understanding of hell as a “place”, very common in literalist Christian thinking, is moved conceptually in the Standard to its proper metaphoric meaning: hell [or hellfire] is the destruction that takes place in human essence or spirit as the natural opposition between absolute Truth and the false, when God draws near. This is judgment. God needn’t lift a finger to judge. His essence is the roaring lake of fire of pure Truth to the kindling of falsity in human essence. He needs only draw fragmentally falsified humans near to Him and judgment takes place automatically. Either one is covered by the faith of righteousness to walk in the furnace of His presence or the dross is burnt off. Either we wear the wedding clothes or suffer the consequences. Either we are of the foolish virgins whose lamps had no oil or of those whose were prudent and had oil.
There’s a reason even God’s voice produced fear in the hearing of the Hebrews in Deut 4:
"Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived?...Out of the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire.” (vv. 33, 36) These are metaphors, repeated in multiple passages throughout the Bible, of Godly fire and destruction. I recall that Pneuma pointed this out earlier. God’s pure Truth is so powerful even the distant sound of it struck fear into the Hebrews’ minds. Fire (and in other cases, hail, wind, sword, etc.) represents the destruction that naturally takes place when human falsity comes into juxtaposition to God’s essence.
One might argue, “Well, that can’t be so because Abraham heard God’s voice and didn’t react in fear and trembling during their discussion on the road to Sodom in the very passages you use to establish the allegorical system. Isn’t this a contradiction?”
No, it isn’t. Abraham was righteous (Gal 3:6). The righteous have been cleansed of falsity in sanctification sufficient to “hear” God’s voice, or to be able to establish t-t union with absolute truth:
"You who are far away, hear what I have done; And you who are near, acknowledge My might. Sinners in Zion are terrified; Trembling has seized the godless. ‘Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning?’ He who walks righteously, and speaks with sincerity, He who rejects unjust gain, And shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed, And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil” (Isa 33:13-15) How can the righteous live with “continual burning”? Because sufficient falsity has been removed in order for them to unite with God’s Truth, they hear God’s word without fear or burning. One can walk in the midst of fire when her essence is made compatible with it…remember Daniel’s friends in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace? Those passages create a confirming metaphor for this concept.
Here's one view of "biblical literalism":
What is biblical literalism?
"Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists."
An accurate summary. From the article you referenced:
Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally. Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists.
Where do the champions of literalism get the authority to dictate these sorts of terms to God’s children of interpreting His word? Is this a God-breathed truth or man-made doctrine? Why am I wrong to suppose these kinds of rules are man’s attempt to control what God is allowed to say in His word?
One of the Greek words often translated "destroy" is the same word used of the prodigal son who was "lost". Obviously he was not annihilated eternally or wholly out of existence. This example illustrates how faulty the Annihilationism position is.
So what? Is lead a metal or does the word identify ‘showing a direction’? Is a ball a round toy or name for a fancy dance? To argue the subtleties of word meanings is a literalist strategy that has little use or carries little weight in the allegorical structure because it’s built on meanings the literal words themselves point to by the arrangement of their base meanings. Its uselessness is further evidenced by the multiple metaphors spread across the Bible that adhere to the same pattern using multiple arrangements of literal words/meanings by multiple authors. The words are used only to convey higher meanings, to incessantly argue the subtleties of their meanings is of virtually no relevance in a systematic, logical allegorical system.
The Bible is full of the language of destruction. I hold that this is so because God wants us to understand the concept of destruction, and this because it’s a real and functional part of His methodology to save all. To take a single word and say it can mean something else doesn’t carry the weight to “illustrate how faulty the annihilationist position is” that you’re forcing on it. I’m not defending the doctrine of annihilation, just the legitimacy of the idea as a God-inspired concept the word points to that we are to understand.
I expect you’re right.God knows how many change their views. In this enlightened internet age i expect many will be rejecting the eternal tormentism view for either annihilationism or universalism. In the generations to come eternal tormentism may become a small minority view & no longer be considered orthodox.
Agree, but not sure if you see this particular idea as relevant to the ongoing discussion or just a general observation on your part.In any case results are in God's hands who grants the truth to whom He wills. We should seek to be faithful & obedient to what He has shown us & leave results up to Him & those who have ears to hear.
Upvote
0