Originally Posted by dumpsterdiver45
The allegoric structure of the Bible arises as a logical, coherent organization of meaning from Scripture and establishes its own rules of interpretation. More accurately, God has woven into His word the proper rules by which He intends the Bible to be understood. This structure is automatically inimical to the literalist, whose mind is set on standards for interpretation that are applied by man to the Scriptures. This is not to say man has no grasp of truth to apply to interpreting the Bible, but that the move over the centuries away from trying to understand the symbolism of God's word in favor of the establishment of secular rules of interpretation necessarily keeps us from the deeper truths of Scripture.
God orchestrated the Bible such that this allegoric structure is applied congruously across its breadth and width, from OT to New. Once understood, it leads us to where and how the allegoric may be applied in such a way that tensions are resolved--as opposed to the human regulations for interpretation in the literal, which leads us only to meaning allowed within the confines of its rules.
Literalists of various persuasions seem largely unaware--or stubbornly indifferent--to the tensions their doctrines create. Have you ever noticed that Eternal Torment, Annihilationism and Universalism can all three find a sufficient basis or starting point for making an interpretive argument? But each, carried out according to popular literalist interpretive standards, is unable to seal the deal.
The removal of tensions can never be arrived at in any of the three using the primarily literal reading of the Bible. The Annihilationist will ignore universalist and eternal torment passages, universalist will ignore their opponents and so on for the ETer.
I'll try to condense into an example why the allegorical is the superior interpretive standard.
Most arguments between the three rest on passages that are clearly metaphoric. in nature. This automatically focuses Jesus' teachings, which are pretty much all symbolic, as are the prophets, Revelation, Song of Solomon, Job, etc. but the structure applies to at least portions of other books as well.
Jesus is speaking figuratively when He teaches about sheep and goats in Mat 25. Taken as an isolated example, it seems logical to apply this to individuals. But it's not isolated. There are wheat and tares in Mat 13 along with seed sown and good and bad ground, good figs and rotten figs in Jer 24, the cutting off of righteous from unrighteous in Ezek 21, the removal of bad branches from the vine row in Jer 5, distinction between green tree and dry tree in Ezek 17 and Luke 23, the separation, parts cut off and remaining parts brought through the fire of refinement in Zech 13, and many more throughout the Bible sufficient to suggest the legitimacy [Suggest is not proof! DA]of the principle that evil is separated and destroyed from the individual.
The distinction of separation by various forms of destruction of the unrighteous and salvation of the righteous is established many times throughout the Bible. Now turn to the principle established in Gen 18 where God shows in symbolic form the supervising principle of His justice: God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists. Note the same underlying structure, the separation of righteous from unrighteous.
Also, the allegoric structure is well known and understood: literal elements--people, places, circumstances and the human actions and reactions that take place in it--are arranged in ways that point to higher meaning. Even though the basic organization is unquestionable, literalists on theology boards refuse to even discuss its relevance as a literary method. I suggest this is because literalism has been a cancer in the intellectual operation of religious man since forever. Many literalists fear that if they concede that this structure exists, it will weaken their own position--which brings to bear the question of intellectual honesty.
In exerting its harsh rules, the literal doesn't allow the literalist to "see" this obvious and coherent allegoric structure--much less acknowledge its obvious supporting tenets. This bears a striking resemblance to the loathing the atheist has for the supernatural, this enmity exhibited in their "hiding" in matter to avoid the light of prescriptive truth.
In this system, it becomes apparent (meaning the concept shows it is coherent, bears unity with the rest of the structure, is harmonious and does not contradict) that God's wrath can on its highest level be read as applying fragmentally to bad elements within each person, already established in dozens of passages throughout Scripture as noted above, while His decrees of blessing apply to the whole individual. This is a congruous part of the overarching allegoric pattern.
Hence, instead of interpreting everything literally--as applying to individuals, which is shown to violate the perfection of God's justice in Gen 18--the Bible as a spiritual book has to be interpreted according to the right admixture of its literal and allegoric meaning. Take your Psa 1:4-6 example, where the sinners who will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, when allegoric and literal are properly joined, translates into the understanding that the stain of sin will be removed from the soul of the individual, who will stand in the righteousness of perfection. This is in accordance with Paul's distinction of the same all (interpreted literally as whole individuals)who die in Adam as the same all who will be made alive in Christ. It coheres with the glory and honor of the nations (whole individuals of all nations made pure and true) admitted into the holy city distinct from all things unclean (false portions annihilated from their souls) denied entrance to it (Rev. 21:26-27). It's simultaneously harmonious that smoke of the torment of sinners--the residue of falsity from the human soul burned up as kindling by Godly fire--is what goes up forever and ever. A parallel presentation is in Mal 4:2-3: "But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing," says the LORD of hosts.", in which the individual restored to a true state (perfection) is likened to the skipping calf treading over the ashes of his former falsity, burned out of his soul by the same Godly fire which establishes righteousness in time in sanctification of believers as that which becomes a roaring lake of fire to false elements of unbelief in individuals who refused to conform in time.
The problem defending this position is that theology board antagonists of Biblical universalism continually use their doctrine--i.e., their literal interpretation--as "proof" that universalism is wrong. Assigning the certitude of truth to a doctrine containing many tensions is a corruption. To judge an interpretation using one's own interpretation as the very standard of truth against which all competing explication is automatically wrong is circular and demeans proper, logical argument. Each should be considered on its own merits and judged by how it stands according to proper criteria for truth instead of whether it measures up to my view.
The Annihilationist does come halfway to the truth and is able to overcome the Torturer of traditional salvation, but still denies God the perfection of His justice by having Him destroy individuals in whom some good yet exists. Only the salvation of all by the methods noted above is able to wholly overcome this tension.
Evasive copout with no, zero, none evidence of any kind just unsupported opinion.
Have to admit, I'm impressed by your willingness and ability to take each distinguishing detail I presented and provide a thoughtful, point by point rebuttal for each.
Posted previously by Der Alter:
I do indeed post with a high degree of intellectual honesty.
)
