Symbolic Biblical Universalism

BarWi · Jan 1, 2019

ClementofA said:
I've never heard anyone say that before. What is your reasoning in support of it?

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 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.

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.

I expect you’re right.

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.

Agree, but not sure if you see this particular idea as relevant to the ongoing discussion or just a general observation on your part.

ClementofA · Jan 2, 2019

BarWi said:
To have one’s falsity destroyed and be brought to a wholly true state is the object of salvation.

No universalist denies that falsity/evil/death will cease to be when God becomes all "in all" (1 Cor.15:28).

However passages re destruction (e.g. Mt.10:28; 2 Thess.1:9) have nothing to do with a positive/beneficial destruction of the "falsity" that is in persons. Instead they refer either to the ruin of souls/persons and/or to the death of the person. Yet even these negative things Love Omnipotent uses for the ultimate good of the offenders. Just as His wrath is for their ultimate good, even though it is not a pleasant thing in and of itself:

Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the LORD’s wrath, until he pleads my case and upholds my cause. He will bring me out into the light;I will see his righteousness. (Micah 7:9)

To interpret 2 Thess.1:9 "aionion destruction/ruin/death" as meaning an endless annihilation of a bad part of persons is a twisting of the Scriptures IMO.

A recent new translation of 2 Thess.1:9 by EO scholar David Bentley Hart reads:

"Who shall pay the just reparation of ruin in the Age, coming from the face of the Lord and the glory of his might" (A Translation: The New Testament, 2017, Yale University Press).

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

ClementofA · Jan 2, 2019

BarWi said:
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.

Even Satan was in His presence (Job 2) & it did nothing to purify that evil being. It takes Truth penetrating a person's inner being, not just being drawn near to God's presence, to bring salvation to souls. And that depends on man's free will responses to His invitations. Those in the lake of fire will be tormented "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.20:10; cf 14:9-11).

12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

BarWi · Jan 3, 2019

ClementofA said:
However passages re destruction (e.g. Mt.10:28; 2 Thess.1:9) have nothing to do with a positive/beneficial destruction of the "falsity" that is in persons.

What I think you mean is that you don’t understand the methodology by which the metaphysic presented is compatible with—and thus provides a reasonable account of--the destruction passages in the Bible in the allegorical context defended. Rather than get into a lengthy text-proofing battle about whether destruction is a concept woven by God into His word, I’ll offer an observation. I suspect you’re setting yourself stubbornly against [what is to me and, I believe, many other Christians] the plain and obvious concept of destruction God wove into His word in order to defend a particular literalist account of Universalism. I admit I don’t understand exactly where you’re coming from, but if we continue our walk for a bit I expect your position will become more clear.

they refer either to the ruin of souls/persons and/or to the death of the person. Yet even these negative things Love Omnipotent uses for the ultimate good of the offenders. Just as His wrath is for their ultimate good, even though it is not a pleasant thing in and of itself

How are souls or persons “ruined”? Ruined in what sense, or in what way? By death of the person do you mean simply physical death? If not, please elaborate what you mean by this?

Even Satan was in His presence (Job 2) & it did nothing to purify that evil being.

The book of Job is poetic wisdom. Satan is a metaphor for the inherent evil in human spirit. The allegorical system allows one to release awkward literal readings and accept the inspired, holy and spiritual Bible as God intends it to be understood.

It takes Truth penetrating a person's inner being, not just being drawn near to God's presence, to bring salvation to souls.

Agreed. Please explain how the metaphysical approach of falsity in human spirit denies this truth.

And that depends on man's free will responses to His invitations. Those in the lake of fire will be tormented "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.20:10; cf 14:9-11).

Man’s “free will” is paltry and not held by God in nearly as high esteem as my Arminian brethren would like to think. Does the parent respect and hold in esteem the child’s wish to climb the fence and play on the freeway? Free will popularly defined as “The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies” is laid to rest in the allegorical system, a common error shared by atheist and theist alike. The micro removal of falsity from human essence over time in sanctification creates a “value orientation” in the macro operation of intellect [i.e., in thoughts, reasons, dispositions, motivations, etc.] with regard to one’s “positioning” toward prescriptive or absolute truth. This is explained in the paper whose link was provided earlier. In other words by removing falsity gradually in time one is brought to greater union with Truth Himself. The will is being set free to accept truth it naturally reists in a falsified condition. This is true freedom of the will. This is how faith is established in time so that the believer has the proper “wedding clothes” to avoid the wholesale wrath [cleansing] necessary to restore one’s spirit to a wholly true state in the fearful lake of fire presence of God in the last moments of life.

This process was briefly explained in post #14, the L2 metaphor of Israel in the Exodus, probably the most powerful and revealing metaphor of God’s work in human spirit.

I contend that God’s work is performed so that no person enters the permanence and immovability of eternity with falsity in their soul. Mutability belongs to time. God will not allow falsity in the “New Jerusalem” [state of wholly true (perfect) being in the afterlife]. Asked by an antagonist once how saint and sinner can expect the same treatment from God, I explained that he didn’t understand. God controls time; within the last second before physical death in an unconscious state, as the final breath leaves the lungs in a “death rattle”, God can—from the perspective of the sinner uncovered by the shed blood of righteousness by faith—enact a small eternity spent in the roaring lake of His presence: Truth/hellfire, which is fearful annihilation to unshielded falsity. But the thing destroyed/killed [falsity] is reborn and restored to life [truth]: "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), and “…And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand…” (Isa 28:18)

To interpret 2 Thess.1:9 "aionion destruction/ruin/death" as meaning an endless annihilation of a bad part of persons is a twisting of the Scriptures IMO.

I don’t argue for an “endless annihilation”. This is incoherent; annihilation isn’t annihilation if it goes on endlessly.

As to your opinion that “annihilation of [bad parts] of persons” is a twisting of the Scriptures, I’ll comment on why I suspect you take this position.

I provided strong evidence re the L2 metaphor of the Israel in the Exodus, mentioned above, which depicts in great detail this very process of the removal, via destruction, of bad parts from within the whole. I explained as carefully and concisely as I could the parts/whole relationship God laid out in the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 that sets the stage for the interpretive Standard. I demonstrated in a number of L1 metaphors how the parts/whole pattern is distributed throughout both Testaments of the Bible. And to top this off, I patiently explained in multiple posts that contrary to the accusations of the champions of literalism, this allegorical system sustains with an notable degree of authority commonly accepted truth criteria like coherence, congruity, non-contradiction, consistency, correspondence, etc.

It appears you throw your lot in with the literalist “mountains of Israel” (religious hierarchy), for example:

“If you approach Biblical content in an allegorical manner, you are taking the Bible's claim of being and containing absolute truth, and you are placing the Bible in the foreign realm of relativism.”
http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/5397/bible-truth-or-allegory

God has spoken in his Word. When he spoke, he didn’t mumble or speak in riddles or have vague notions in mind that could be taken a multiple ways depending on what the meaning of “is” is. Again, some texts might be applied differently on some occasions or have a different significance, but there is only one, God-intended meaning behind the text of the Bible.
http://magnifychrist.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-bible-has-so-many-meanings/

“The priority or goal of interpretation is simply to know the meaning of the Bible. But how do we know the meaning of the Bible? This paper suggests that, in order to know the meaning of the Bible, we must know the author's meaning. More specifically, then, the goal of interpretation is to know the author's intended meaning as expressed in the text. To put it another way, the goal is to discover what the text meant in the mind of its original author for his intended audience.”
The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2000 36-50, AUTHORIAL INTENT,
Dr. William Arp Professor of New Testament and Greek Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania

I’ve ascertained two primary modes of approach to message board discussion. The first, when presented with a different way of looking at things, considers carefully what is posted, then asks intelligent, well-reasoned questions to make sure he/she understands before responding with an equally carefully thought-out critique.

The second is the “ravenous wolf”, whose response is to sift through a presentation armed only with the intent to pick apart, refute, tear down. The first has been cleansed to desire knowledge and truth. The second has no interest in any truth but his own and is ravenous to maintain his own status quo. 95% of theology message board posters are in the second category. These rarely answer questions asked of them, just post opinions and repudiations. I’m sorry to say I have myself too often participated with relish in the second category over the years.

In light of all the evidence I presented in previous posts—none of which you have directly addressed—your charge that my presentation of “…destruction/ruin/death" as meaning an "endless annihilation of a bad part of persons is a twisting of the Scriptures…” demonstrates a stark lack of willingness to understand or discuss what has been posted in the thread. In order to mount a meaningful discussion you should first try to understand the position you want to refute, with due respect.

ClementofA · Jan 3, 2019

BarWi said:
In light of all the evidence I presented in previous posts—none of which you have directly addressed—your charge that my presentation of “…destruction/ruin/death" as meaning an "endless annihilation of a bad part of persons is a twisting of the Scriptures…” demonstrates a stark lack of willingness to understand or discuss what has been posted in the thread. In order to mount a meaningful discussion you should first try to understand the position you want to refute, with due respect.

As i've already implied earlier in the thread, i suggest you dumb down your entire position. Such as to the level of 9th grade which you claim as your own level of education achieved. And sum up your entire basic position of this thread in one brief paragraph. Perhaps you are familiar with the acronym K.I.S.S.?

Over 90% of posters are not going to read your long posts due to their length. And of the remaining 10% over 90% of them can't understand what you are droning on about. So less than one percent are getting what you are trying to say. Which explains the poor response to you over the decades you claim to be trying to share your ideas on this topic.

If you are unable to present your position in K.I.S.S. language, then perhaps someone else will give it a try. I think one poster earlier in the thread may have made something of an attempt at it, but then gave up after my response to him.

2 Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid, lest by any means, as the serpent in his craftiness deceived Eve, your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity in Christ.

1 Cor.1:26For consider your calling, brothers, that not many were wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. 27But God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world that He might shame the strong; 28and the low-born of the world, and the things being despised, God also chose—the things not being—that He might annul the things being, 29so that all flesh may not boast before God.

BarWi · Jan 3, 2019

ClementofA said:
As i've already implied earlier in the thread, i suggest you dumb down your entire position. Such as to the level of 9th grade which you claim as your own level of education achieved. And sum up your entire basic position of this thread in one brief paragraph. Perhaps you are familiar with the acronym K.I.S.S.?

Over 90% of posters are not going to read your long posts due to their length. And of the remaining 10% over 90% of them can't understand what you are droning on about. So less than one percent are getting what you are trying to say. Which explains the poor response to you over the decades you claim to be trying to share your ideas on this topic.

If you are unable to present your position in K.I.S.S. language, then perhaps someone else will give it a try. I think one poster earlier in the thread may have made something of an attempt at it, but then gave up after my response to him.

2 Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid, lest by any means, as the serpent in his craftiness deceived Eve, your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity in Christ.

1 Cor.1:26For consider your calling, brothers, that not many were wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. 27But God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world that He might shame the strong; 28and the low-born of the world, and the things being despised, God also chose—the things not being—that He might annul the things being, 29so that all flesh may not boast before God.

The sad thing is, the ideas are not difficult to grasp. You are placing yourself and others here in a pretty low category.

So be it. Finis

Tayla · Jan 3, 2019

BarWi said:
A considerable segment of Christianity has responded in the last 150 years or so by creating a highly literal interpretive method of Scripture

The problem is, once you allow for figures of speech and allegory, the clear and certain meaning vanishes, because the meaning can then only be known by interpretation.

ClementofA · Jan 3, 2019

BarWi said:
I suspect you’re setting yourself stubbornly against [what is to me and, I believe, many other Christians] the plain and obvious concept of destruction God wove into His word in order to defend a particular literalist account of Universalism.

The view that "destruction" (2 Thess.1:9) means annihilation is probably a small minority amongst Christians. As opposed to the orthodox view that "destruction" means ruin & not annihilation. As it has been for some 1800+ years.

BarWi said:
How are souls or persons “ruined”? Ruined in what sense, or in what way?

What does it matter? How can God ruin a person's soul? Are there not countless ways. Use your imagination. Consider what He did to the king in Daniel 4, for example.

BarWi said:
The book of Job is poetic wisdom. Satan is a metaphor for the inherent evil in human spirit. The allegorical system allows one to release awkward literal readings and accept the inspired, holy and spiritual Bible as God intends it to be understood.

I suspected your theology would include more unorthodox notions. What other unorthodox views do you support?

BarWi said:
Man’s “free will” is paltry and not held by God in nearly as high esteem as my Arminian brethren would like to think. Does the parent respect and hold in esteem the child’s wish to climb the fence and play on the freeway? Free will popularly defined as “The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies” is laid to rest in the allegorical system, a common error shared by atheist and theist alike. The micro removal of falsity from human essence over time in sanctification creates a “value orientation” in the macro operation of intellect [i.e., in thoughts, reasons, dispositions, motivations, etc.] with regard to one’s “positioning” toward prescriptive or absolute truth. This is explained in the paper whose link was provided earlier. In other words by removing falsity gradually in time one is brought to greater union with Truth Himself. The will is being set free to accept truth it naturally reists in a falsified condition. This is true freedom of the will. This is how faith is established in time so that the believer has the proper “wedding clothes” to avoid the wholesale wrath [cleansing] necessary to restore one’s spirit to a wholly true state in the fearful lake of fire presence of God in the last moments of life.

If created beings do not have libertarian free will, then they are just puppets or robots God is playing with like toys.

It's not because "God can't" but because He has chosen not to. Instead He delighted to created human beings with a truly free will (not the Calvinist kind of in bondage enlaved unfree "free will"), i.e. libertarian free will - LFW. Yet Love Omnipotent can Sovereignly override or render inoperative anyone's LFW at any time He wishes to accomplish His purposes, e.g. hardening Pharoah's heart, blinding people, etc.

Would you prefer to (1) program a robot wife to say "I love you" to yourself, or (2) have a real wife say "I love you" from her own libertarian free will?

"If I found out that my wife’s love for me has all these years been determined by some biochip in her brain by a will or wills other than her, by forces or persons other than her, my opinion and experience of HER (as friend, lover, partner, etc.) would drastically change. I would no longer be able to perceive her love for me as HER love for me."

"...What makes me feel right about her loving me is knowing that it’s HER who is loving me. Libertarian choice is just a necessary by-product of this that comes in further down the line."

"... If God determined your daughter’s ‘love’ for you, then in my view you can’t say “My daughter loves me and if God…” since in my view it’s GOD loving you by means of your daughter who is just merely the instrumentation of God’s actions. That’s functionally equivalent to pantheism in my view."

"...To clarify, what I mean by charade in my previous post is God's call of sinners to repentance, His plea for them to turn from sin by the declaration that He doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, His command for them to humble themselves, His "regret" that He had made man before the flood, etc. The calvinist understanding of God could be characterized by a man in his room holding a sock puppet on each hand, talking to them and voicing like a ventriloquist their responses, one puppet being the bad guy and the other the "good" guy. Then, after a long ridiculous show with pretentious loud drama, he rips the bad sock off and throws it in his fireplace, while the "good" puppet cheers him on."

"...God is a God of infinite and unconditional love... And determinism is also not on the menu because ‘love requires freedom’...Libertarian freedom is power to the contrary."

BarWi said:
I contend that God’s work is performed so that no person enters the permanence and immovability of eternity with falsity in their soul. Mutability belongs to time. God will not allow falsity in the “New Jerusalem” [state of wholly true (perfect) being in the afterlife]. Asked by an antagonist once how saint and sinner can expect the same treatment from God, I explained that he didn’t understand. God controls time; within the last second before physical death in an unconscious state, as the final breath leaves the lungs in a “death rattle”, God can—from the perspective of the sinner uncovered by the shed blood of righteousness by faith—enact a small eternity spent in the roaring lake of His presence: Truth/hellfire, which is fearful annihilation to unshielded falsity. But the thing destroyed/killed [falsity] is reborn and restored to life [truth]: "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), and “…And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand…” (Isa 28:18)

There is much speculation, with precious little Scripture, in those remarks.

BarWi said:
I don’t argue for an “endless annihilation”. This is incoherent; annihilation isn’t annihilation if it goes on endlessly.

Annihilation occurs when a person's soul ceases to have consciousness, feelings, thoughts. JW's believe this occurs to every person who dies. And when they are resurrected back to life, that annihilation ends. So the annihilation was temporary. OTOH the wicked will be annihilated forever, not just temporarily. This explains how the phrase "endless annihilation" is coherent.

If you are not arguing for an "endless annihilation" of some undesirable part in the human beings referred to in 2 Thess. 1:9, then you should explain what your interpretation of that verse is & how it differs from that. What you said re 1 Cor.15:28 & what you state below seems to confirm that as your view:

BarWi said:
As to your opinion that “annihilation of [bad parts] of persons” is a twisting of the Scriptures, I’ll comment on why I suspect you take this position.

I provided strong evidence re the L2 metaphor of the Israel in the Exodus, mentioned above, which depicts in great detail this very process of the removal, via destruction, of bad parts from within the whole. I explained as carefully and concisely as I could the parts/whole relationship God laid out in the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 that sets the stage for the interpretive Standard. I demonstrated in a number of L1 metaphors how the parts/whole pattern is distributed throughout both Testaments of the Bible. And to top this off, I patiently explained in multiple posts that contrary to the accusations of the champions of literalism, this allegorical system sustains with an notable degree of authority commonly accepted truth criteria like coherence, congruity, non-contradiction, consistency, correspondence, etc.

Do you have a point in quoting all the following?

BarWi said:
It appears you throw your lot in with the literalist “mountains of Israel” (religious hierarchy), for example:

“If you approach Biblical content in an allegorical manner, you are taking the Bible's claim of being and containing absolute truth, and you are placing the Bible in the foreign realm of relativism.”
http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/5397/bible-truth-or-allegory

God has spoken in his Word. When he spoke, he didn’t mumble or speak in riddles or have vague notions in mind that could be taken a multiple ways depending on what the meaning of “is” is. Again, some texts might be applied differently on some occasions or have a different significance, but there is only one, God-intended meaning behind the text of the Bible.
http://magnifychrist.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-bible-has-so-many-meanings/

“The priority or goal of interpretation is simply to know the meaning of the Bible. But how do we know the meaning of the Bible? This paper suggests that, in order to know the meaning of the Bible, we must know the author's meaning. More specifically, then, the goal of interpretation is to know the author's intended meaning as expressed in the text. To put it another way, the goal is to discover what the text meant in the mind of its original author for his intended audience.”
The Journal of Ministry & Theology Spring 2000 36-50, AUTHORIAL INTENT,
Dr. William Arp Professor of New Testament and Greek Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania

And regarding:

BarWi said:
I’ve ascertained two primary modes of approach to message board discussion. The first, when presented with a different way of looking at things, considers carefully what is posted, then asks intelligent, well-reasoned questions to make sure he/she understands before responding with an equally carefully thought-out critique.

Evidently most people here can't take your ideas seriously enough to even comment. That is, if they even (1) read & (2) understood them. Again, K.I.S.S.

BarWi said:
The second is the “ravenous wolf”, whose response is to sift through a presentation armed only with the intent to pick apart, refute, tear down. The first has been cleansed to desire knowledge and truth. The second has no interest in any truth but his own and is ravenous to maintain his own status quo. 95% of theology message board posters are in the second category. These rarely answer questions asked of them, just post opinions and repudiations. I’m sorry to say I have myself too often participated with relish in the second category over the years.

In light of all the evidence I presented in previous posts—none of which you have directly addressed—your charge that my presentation of “…destruction/ruin/death" as meaning an "endless annihilation of a bad part of persons is a twisting of the Scriptures…” demonstrates a stark lack of willingness to understand or discuss what has been posted in the thread. In order to mount a meaningful discussion you should first try to understand the position you want to refute, with due respect.

You implied you have a thick skin, asked for a critique & got it.

ClementofA · Jan 3, 2019

BarWi said:
The sad thing is, the ideas are not difficult to grasp.

I have a university education & much of what you write might as well be Chinese.

Are you familiar with philosophy professor Thomas Talbott? Some of his ideas are the same as yours. AFAIK, if i've understood him correctly, he sees the destruction of 2 Thess.1:9 as the annihilation of some bad parts in persons for their benefit:

II Thessalonians 1:8-9

BarWi · Jan 8, 2019

ClementofA said:
You implied you have a thick skin, asked for a critique & got it.

No, what I actually asked for in the early posts is a well-reasoned, intelligent critique. And I haven't received it in this thread.

Criticism based on literalist dogma is insufficient to properly judge a competing system because, as was carefully explained in previous posts, the Standard creates its own interpretive conventions and contexts. These conventions and contexts must themselves be appraised as they stand, in their own right—not compared to some common, established system of analysis. To use a manmade standard of truth (H-G literalism) to judge a competing interpretive system is next to useless because all it’s doing is comparing a different system to itself, using its own dogma as the standard of truth. This is circular and useless. Doctrine and/or literalism are not identical to truth. They contain some measure of truth, but should not be used as truth standards in and of themselves. This is why literalists—universalists, eternal tormentists and annihilationists alike—just end up beating themselves over the heads day in and day out, ad nauseum with nuances in meanings of Greek words, in contexts you can twist to “prove” the other guy wrong, etc. Rather than use actual truth standards to see if your or their doctrine is warranted (or to determine which actually has maximum warrant), you use your own doctrines as the standard by which the others are judged. How are so many people unable to understand these basic, simple truths? (Answer furnished below.)

The legitimate, objective method of critique is to use actual (not manmade) truth tests or truth criteria (which have also been referenced in posts here, to no avail) to judge whether the allegorical system is able to pass those tests. To use the H-G system as you and the few others who posted in this thread have done only takes us into the same drivel 95% of theology message board posters are mired in.

I intended my last communiqué to be the final, but decided today to do this last post.

Though I never mention it anymore either in public venues like this or in personal dialog, the allegorical system presented in this thread was impressed on me by the Lord Himself over a three year period almost 25 years ago. The concepts that make up this experience were given in random order that made little sense at the time. Because of this it’s taken this long to piece what was shown me together into a coherent whole. This includes reading almost all Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles one winter (1999) as well as frequent access of philosophy sites online to self-learn the philosophical/metaphysical fundamentals necessary to put the puzzle pieces together.

The fact that in the first several weeks of this experience (a rough go in which I lost job, savings house and nearly my marriage by the end of the three years) the first topic the Lord burned into my mind was truth. This was confusing. Later ‘further’ [metaphoric] meanings within dozens or hundreds of passages from the Bible were shown, again in no logical order. The Lord then withdrew with the charge to “Write! Teach! Preach!” This is the only reason I still occasionally post to message boards, the only venue I know…even though I already know how and why my critics will react. I’ve been testing what the Lord taught me about truth the last 25 years and His principles never fail. If up to me I would gladly have abandoned trying to discuss these things with people I already know are only capable of railing against it and spent my last days comfortably alone in my own world.

Though most won’t hear this, the main reason people can’t “see” the truth of the allegorical system is because we resist truth we haven't yet been cleansed to unite with. This principle is the point of the linked paper. Many create the normal delusions to not believe: “BarWi is arrogant, he can’t be ‘of God’. What kind of crap is he trying to feed us?” After reading this post, I can predict a new response from readers: “What a self-righteous *!$#! this guy is! To pretend to know anything about my relationship with God is ridiculous. This guy reaches the height of self-importance!”

Yet these are the things the Lord Himself taught me. They’re not my opinions. The three years opened with a simple, strong communication, an epiphany under a starry sky in the fall of 1991. Though there was no actual sound, I could hear the Lord’s voice clearly in my mind. Though the exact wording has faded over the last quarter century, His message is still clear: “No one seeks or desires Me.” I stared at the sky, stunned, and whispered something like, “You mean non-Christians, Lord…right?” His words came a second time: “Not one seeks me.” There was no mistaking His meaning. This indicted literally all men. There was no judgment, no anger—just firm, factual meaning. It all boils down to truth. He is it. We hate it. To the degree we hate actual truth, not manufactured [our] truth, we hate God.

The one rightly hungry to know truth will seek it with all her heart. That I am arrogant is meaningless—and is just the kind of delusion we fool ourselves with to practice our natural unbelief. We’re all the same. If folks were really interested in learning/knowing the truth—if minds weren’t blocking out truths we don’t want to hear—we would look past the shortcomings of messengers and study their messages objectively, driven by a hunger to discern if any of the truth that is so precious to us lies within the message itself. The fact, as pointed out above, that all grow to love and hold tightly to their own doctrines and dogmas instead of seeking the truth of a matter is in precise alignment with the Lord’s words and teachings that followed the next three years. I went through my own three years of hell while the mortar of my own dogmas were smashed. That it took something this dramatic to make the small change in my mind from what I formerly believed to what I now embrace (from a more distant hold on truth to a more refined) makes me shudder and concur with Peter: “AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?” (1Pet 4:18)

The paper I linked to is the precursor for understanding the allegorical system. That people find the going “too hard” [interpretation: I’m not interested enough in truth to break out of my intellectual laziness to read this stuff.] and yet then show themselves unwilling to come out of the darkness to depart their beloved dogmas to objectively investigate the truth-compatibility of the allegorical system is in keeping with the principles the Lord burned into my hard head 20+ years ago. The KISS idea you keep promoting is mostly just a workaround for intellectual laziness, Clement.

We hate truth because it’s the two-edged sword (Heb 4:12, Rev 1:16, etc.) that annihilates the falsity which produces the darkness we so love. The One who saves us is He who seeks to kill and annihilate us from the depths of His love, that we may be set free. God bless you in your walk.

Finis….finale

Pneuma3 · Jan 9, 2019

ClementofA said:
If you are unable to present your position in K.I.S.S. language, then perhaps someone else will give it a try. I think one poster earlier in the thread may have made something of an attempt at it, but then gave up after my response to him.

That would have been me, and I did not bow out because of what anyone wrote I bowed out because I knew from my own past experience that this thread would deteriorate and turn brother against brother.

I did try to warn you guys.

Pneuma3 · Jan 9, 2019

jesus316 said:
The problem is, once you allow for figures of speech and allegory, the clear and certain meaning vanishes, because the meaning can then only be known by interpretation.

Hence the Holy Spirit to guide us, if everything is so plain why the need of the Holy Spirit?

Pneuma3 · Jan 9, 2019

BarWi said:
We hate truth because it’s the two-edged sword (Heb 4:12, Rev 1:16, etc.) that annihilates the falsity which produces the darkness we so love. The One who saves us is He who seeks to kill and annihilate us from the depths of His love, that we may be set free. God bless you in your walk.

Amen. that brings to my mind how God sought to kill Moses.

Symbolic Biblical Universalism

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads