Symbolic Biblical Universalism

[BarWi]

The OT prophets, quickened by the Holy Spirit, mostly prophesied in figurative language. Most Old Testament books are understood by many to have some measure of figurative meaning; some books (Psalms, Job, Daniel, etc.) are typically considered to be highly or entirely metaphoric in nature. Jesus’ teachings were almost all one type of symbolism or another. And John’s vision in Revelation ends the Bible in fine metaphoric tradition.

A considerable segment of Christianity has responded in the last 150 years or so by creating a highly literal interpretive method of Scripture, often teaching that those who seek out higher meaning in God’s word are not to be believed and should be shunned or chastised for their unrestrained imaginations.

See anything wrong with this picture?
A. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit can clearly be seen to have produced varieties of highly metaphoric response in the Bible’s authors and personalities.
B. Much of Christianity rejects metaphoric meaning beyond the blatantly obvious symbolic passages a consensus of literalist Christians agree to allow as legitimate.

The form of universal Christian salvation defended in this thread is highly symbolic. Symbolic interpretations of the Bible are usually dismissed as the “imaginations of spiritualizers” or some such. I view this as an unwillingness of those who exert power over what God is allowed to say in His word to relinquish control. I.e., for all its pretense of righteousness, the emergence of historical-grammatical literalism can be regarded as a (mostly unconscious) rein-tightening of interpretive control of the Bible and its authority placed firmly in the sphere of human scholarship. Literalism is in essence a manmade interpretive technique which lies at odds with the very idea of a book filled with God-inspired symbolism. I intend to demonstrate in this thread that a rational interpretation can be drawn from the symbolism of multiple passages from both Testaments of the Bible. Further, it will be shown that God intends to save all and the methodology He uses to accomplish it—all woven into the same allegoric structure. What’s more, as the allegorical method unfolds it will lay to rest a number of tensions inherent in the arguments of Annihilationists, Eternal Tormentists and Universalists.

A cursory study of the structure of symbolic language itself reveals a dizzying variety of opinions on how the many forms of figurative language in the Bible should be structured. Because there is no clear consensus on this, I feel justified in presenting a simple allegorical organization—a collection of semantically linked metaphors—by which God’s plan to save all can be seen to exist in plain sight.

I’ve attempted to discuss this organization at different venues for several years with little headway. 20-20 hindsight now suggests that almost certainly the biggest impediment is that most Christian laymen like me engaged in theological discussion have been trained to conduct these debates according to primarily historical-grammatical (H-G) methods with some higher criticism thrown in from time to time. The symbolic structure presented here requires setting aside the literalist presuppositions brought into these discussions, and the ability/willingness to consider Scripture with a refreshed set of assumptions. These will be explained in more detail in the future posts.

In order to limit the thread to interested and properly equipped participants, I ask contributors to first read a paper, that can be found here...
The Mechanism of Value
I apologize in advance for this request, but have bogged down repeatedly in useless discussions because folks couldn’t seem to get their heads around enough of this approach to mount proper arguments. The paper provides the metaphysical structure that precedes and supplies organization to the symbolic theology in the next couple posts. It’s not that the concepts are hard to understand—though the metaphysical foundation is a bit abstract—but it involves a different interpretive approach that folks aren’t used to. If the metaphysical ideas that precede it are missed, the interpretive method will be difficult to wade through without this point of reference.

Although this approach is largely disconnected from historical-grammatical literalism, it is quite connected to recognized conventions for testing truth claims: non-contradiction, validity, consistency, congruency, coherence, correspondence, etc. The former is only able to test the truth of a man-made system. The latter goes to the meat of truth itself.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Laz, for one, wants to hear more.

 

[SkyWriting]

The OT prophets, quickened by the Holy Spirit, mostly prophesied in figurative language. Most Old Testament books are understood by many to have some measure of figurative meaning; some books (Psalms, Job, Daniel, etc.) are typically considered to be highly or entirely metaphoric in nature. Jesus’ teachings were almost all one type of symbolism or another. And John’s vision in Revelation ends the Bible in fine metaphoric tradition.

A considerable segment of Christianity has responded in the last 150 years or so by creating a highly literal interpretive method of Scripture, often teaching that those who seek out higher meaning in God’s word are not to be believed and should be shunned or chastised for their unrestrained imaginations.

See anything wrong with this picture?
A. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit can clearly be seen to have produced varieties of highly metaphoric response in the Bible’s authors and personalities.
B. Much of Christianity rejects metaphoric meaning beyond the blatantly obvious symbolic passages a consensus of literalist Christians agree to allow as legitimate.

The form of universal Christian salvation defended in this thread is highly symbolic. Symbolic interpretations of the Bible are usually dismissed as the “imaginations of spiritualizers” or some such. I view this as an unwillingness of those who exert power over what God is allowed to say in His word to relinquish control. I.e., for all its pretense of righteousness, the emergence of historical-grammatical literalism can be regarded as a (mostly unconscious) rein-tightening of interpretive control of the Bible and its authority placed firmly in the sphere of human scholarship. Literalism is in essence a manmade interpretive technique which lies at odds with the very idea of a book filled with God-inspired symbolism. I intend to demonstrate in this thread that a rational interpretation can be drawn from the symbolism of multiple passages from both Testaments of the Bible. Further, it will be shown that God intends to save all and the methodology He uses to accomplish it—all woven into the same allegoric structure. What’s more, as the allegorical method unfolds it will lay to rest a number of tensions inherent in the arguments of Annihilationists, Eternal Tormentists and Universalists.

A cursory study of the structure of symbolic language itself reveals a dizzying variety of opinions on how the many forms of figurative language in the Bible should be structured. Because there is no clear consensus on this, I feel justified in presenting a simple allegorical organization—a collection of semantically linked metaphors—by which God’s plan to save all can be seen to exist in plain sight.

I’ve attempted to discuss this organization at different venues for several years with little headway. 20-20 hindsight now suggests that almost certainly the biggest impediment is that most Christian laymen like me engaged in theological discussion have been trained to conduct these debates according to primarily historical-grammatical (H-G) methods with some higher criticism thrown in from time to time. The symbolic structure presented here requires setting aside the literalist presuppositions brought into these discussions, and the ability/willingness to consider Scripture with a refreshed set of assumptions. These will be explained in more detail in the future posts.

In order to limit the thread to interested and properly equipped participants, I ask contributors to first read a paper, that can be found here...
The Mechanism of Value
I apologize in advance for this request, but have bogged down repeatedly in useless discussions because folks couldn’t seem to get their heads around enough of this approach to mount proper arguments. The paper provides the metaphysical structure that precedes and supplies organization to the symbolic theology in the next couple posts. It’s not that the concepts are hard to understand—though the metaphysical foundation is a bit abstract—but it involves a different interpretive approach that folks aren’t used to. If the metaphysical ideas that precede it are missed, the interpretive method will be difficult to wade through without this point of reference.

Although this approach is largely disconnected from historical-grammatical literalism, it is quite connected to recognized conventions for testing truth claims: non-contradiction, validity, consistency, congruency, coherence, correspondence, etc. The former is only able to test the truth of a man-made system. The latter goes to the meat of truth itself.

ok. I've held that there are multiple layers of symbolism worked out in reality for us to enjoy. Usually literalism first, then symbolism added to the literal event. Assuming God controls every atom in the Cosmos, this should be an expected result.

 

[bcbsr]

The OT prophets, quickened by the Holy Spirit, mostly prophesied in figurative language. Most Old Testament books are understood by many to have some measure of figurative meaning; some books (Psalms, Job, Daniel, etc.) are typically considered to be highly or entirely metaphoric in nature. Jesus’ teachings were almost all one type of symbolism or another. And John’s vision in Revelation ends the Bible in fine metaphoric tradition.

A considerable segment of Christianity has responded in the last 150 years or so by creating a highly literal interpretive method of Scripture, often teaching that those who seek out higher meaning in God’s word are not to be believed and should be shunned or chastised for their unrestrained imaginations.

See anything wrong with this picture?
A. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit can clearly be seen to have produced varieties of highly metaphoric response in the Bible’s authors and personalities.
B. Much of Christianity rejects metaphoric meaning beyond the blatantly obvious symbolic passages a consensus of literalist Christians agree to allow as legitimate.

The form of universal Christian salvation defended in this thread is highly symbolic. Symbolic interpretations of the Bible are usually dismissed as the “imaginations of spiritualizers” or some such. I view this as an unwillingness of those who exert power over what God is allowed to say in His word to relinquish control. I.e., for all its pretense of righteousness, the emergence of historical-grammatical literalism can be regarded as a (mostly unconscious) rein-tightening of interpretive control of the Bible and its authority placed firmly in the sphere of human scholarship. Literalism is in essence a manmade interpretive technique which lies at odds with the very idea of a book filled with God-inspired symbolism. I intend to demonstrate in this thread that a rational interpretation can be drawn from the symbolism of multiple passages from both Testaments of the Bible. Further, it will be shown that God intends to save all and the methodology He uses to accomplish it—all woven into the same allegoric structure. What’s more, as the allegorical method unfolds it will lay to rest a number of tensions inherent in the arguments of Annihilationists, Eternal Tormentists and Universalists.

A cursory study of the structure of symbolic language itself reveals a dizzying variety of opinions on how the many forms of figurative language in the Bible should be structured. Because there is no clear consensus on this, I feel justified in presenting a simple allegorical organization—a collection of semantically linked metaphors—by which God’s plan to save all can be seen to exist in plain sight.

I’ve attempted to discuss this organization at different venues for several years with little headway. 20-20 hindsight now suggests that almost certainly the biggest impediment is that most Christian laymen like me engaged in theological discussion have been trained to conduct these debates according to primarily historical-grammatical (H-G) methods with some higher criticism thrown in from time to time. The symbolic structure presented here requires setting aside the literalist presuppositions brought into these discussions, and the ability/willingness to consider Scripture with a refreshed set of assumptions. These will be explained in more detail in the future posts.

In order to limit the thread to interested and properly equipped participants, I ask contributors to first read a paper, that can be found here...
The Mechanism of Value
I apologize in advance for this request, but have bogged down repeatedly in useless discussions because folks couldn’t seem to get their heads around enough of this approach to mount proper arguments. The paper provides the metaphysical structure that precedes and supplies organization to the symbolic theology in the next couple posts. It’s not that the concepts are hard to understand—though the metaphysical foundation is a bit abstract—but it involves a different interpretive approach that folks aren’t used to. If the metaphysical ideas that precede it are missed, the interpretive method will be difficult to wade through without this point of reference.

Although this approach is largely disconnected from historical-grammatical literalism, it is quite connected to recognized conventions for testing truth claims: non-contradiction, validity, consistency, congruency, coherence, correspondence, etc. The former is only able to test the truth of a man-made system. The latter goes to the meat of truth itself.

The thing is, while there are things in the Bible which are obscure, there are also things which are clear and emphatic. The things that are obscure should be interpreted in light of what is clearly an unambiguously written. So often I find people who try to make the Bible say whatever they want by referencing obscure passages and reading into them whatever they want, while ignoring other places in scripture that clearly contradict their hypothesis.

 

[BarWi]

The Standard

The NASB is used unless otherwise noted.

The allegorical system rests on the understanding that God is the author of Scripture. While this can be seen secondarily in the tenets of a literal of the Bible, God's unique authorship is observed by His startling orchestration of distinctive, coherent patterns woven into the metaphoric language of multiple authors, separated in many cases by decades and centuries. This unified symbolic structure reveals its interpretive authority over the three modern Christian salvific schemas—eternal torment, Annihilationism and universalism, all based on a literal understanding of the Bible—in its ability to reinterpret these three as harmonious parts of the symbolic whole by which God reveals that it has always been His plan to restore every human being to perfection.

The allegoric organization isn’t complicated. Its structure is demonstrated in the graphic below. Beginning with a single set of passages from Genesis chapters 18 and 19, a “Standard” (i.e., interpretive standard) is established from a single primary metaphor that grounds and provides the organizing principle for associated metaphors to combine into a common allegoric organization. But the use of a single metaphor does not itself a legitimate interpretation make. The Gen 18-19 metaphor is authenticated by Level One (L1) metaphors. The Standard then presents novel interpretive conventions that disclose Level Two (L2) metaphors. L2s, sharing in certain elements of the symbolic patterning by which L1 metaphors are recognized, are metaphors that the Standard discloses.

Thus, multiple metaphors from both Testaments form a common allegorical blueprint, a diagram of how God saves all and metaphysically suggests the "spiritual mechanics" He uses to accomplish salvation.

The Supervising Metaphor of Gen 18 & 19
Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham struck up a conversation with his Creator. A logical problem arises in chapter 18 vv. 23-25 in Abraham's question, "...Abraham came near and said, 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 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?'" (my emph.)

The Problem:
There is one supervising characteristic of God which seems to govern all His other attributes: perfection. We may assert that God is wise, just, merciful, faithful, etc. But if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture. Abraham identifies this difficulty when he exclaimed, "Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike…Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Lot’s righteousness is attested to in 2Pet chapter 2]

Abraham identified the problem: God, whose essence is pure Truth—from which, arguably, all goods derive—violates the perfection of His justice in destroying good (the righteous). For God—as the greatest Good, Truth Himself—to destroy good is appropriately identified by Abraham in v. 25 to be a violation of His own nature and perfection.

Resolution of the Problem
In removing Lot and family (good parts) from Sodom [the whole] before destroying the wicked in it [bad parts] in Gen 19:1-29, God demonstrates symbolically how the perfection of His justice is accomplished in establishing a simple but resolute moral axiom that sets the stage for how He saves all humans: He will not destroy a whole in which some good exists. Rather, good and evil are separated prior to evil's destruction.

The supervising metaphor of Gen 18/19 produces these essential interpretive conventions:
a) Representation of a "one and many" or a "whole and its parts" configuration.
b) Each whole (soul or spirit) is value-fragmented in the familiar true (good) and false (evil) dualism according to the "one and many" pattern identified in "a".
c) Godly fire (or sword, hail, wind, etc.) devastates only false elements [the wicked; Sodomites]
This function moves from the emotional concept of “wrath” in the literal sense to an act of God’s love in its higher, symbolic meaning, a purification and cleansing of false value components in the soul.
d) While Godly destruction or wrath is always directed only to corrupt constituents within a whole, this destruction is followed in some L1 and L2 metaphors (in agreement with God's pattern in the Bible of wrath followed by blessing) by a restoration or bringing forth of "offspring", a common concept found frequently in the Old Testament prophets (Isa 43:5, 65:9, Jer 30:10, Ezek 17:22-24, etc.). This post-wrath blessing of the restoration of what was lost being restored by the bringing forth of new life identifies the process as corrective in nature. In short, the work of God is to remove [destroy] falsity discretely and elementally from within the information of souls, restoring each element to a true state.

Next post: L1 metaphors

 

[BarWi]

The thing is, while there are things in the Bible which are obscure, there are also things which are clear and emphatic. The things that are obscure should be interpreted in light of what is clearly an unambiguously written. So often I find people who try to make the Bible say whatever they want by referencing obscure passages and reading into them whatever they want, while ignoring other places in scripture that clearly contradict their hypothesis.

Thanks for the response bcbsr. I'll gently suggest that before you start trotting out the same tired literalist arguments, please reread the op. You didn't come up with these ideas on your own but have been taught them by the writings of others, bcbsr. I've been doing this for a long time and am quite familiar with the status quo.

Again, please read the op, then wait for succeeding posts. I apologize for slowness, life is unusually busy at this time and I debated waiting till after the holidays to post. For good or evil decided to start now, though will be traveling for a few days soon and may not be able to keep up with responses as quickly as I'd like.

I promised that the op will be accompanied by future posts that will provide content able imo to satisfy the demands of warrant for belief. I welcome well reasoned arguments against this position, but ask contributors to bypass the trite stuff and let's dialog intelligently. In order to do this, one needs to grasp the entire presentation in order to mount good arguments for or against. Thanks.

 

[Pneuma3]

I am with you so far barW as I see the OT as written in shadow and mythos under a vail which is only taken away in Christ.

much of it is, if not the whole, is dealing with that which is in man, which is the temple of God and how God is cleansing that temple.

Keep it coming.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for the response bcbsr. I'll gently suggest that before you start trotting out the same tired literalist arguments, please reread the op. You didn't come up with these ideas on your own but have been taught them by the writings of others, bcbsr. I've been doing this for a long time and am quite familiar with the status quo.
Again, please read the op, then wait for succeeding posts. I apologize for slowness, life is unusually busy at this time and I debated waiting till after the holidays to post. For good or evil decided to start now, though will be traveling for a few days soon and may not be able to keep up with responses as quickly as I'd like.
I promised that the op will be accompanied by future posts that will provide content able imo to satisfy the demands of warrant for belief. I welcome well reasoned arguments against this position, but ask contributors to bypass the trite stuff and let's dialog intelligently. In order to do this, one needs to grasp the entire presentation in order to mount good arguments for or against. Thanks.

.....And we have heard all of the S.P.A.M.-Fig arguments i.e. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, and figurative. Unfortunately there are dozens of heterodox groups around; JW, LS, WWCG, UPCI, OP, etc. pushing their S.P.A.M-Fig interpretations. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. How does someone decide which one of these S.P.A.M.-Fig, if any, is the correct one?
.....If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense. So I'll go with Abraham Lincoln on this one. When Lincoln was criticized about how he was conducting the civil war he said,

“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”​

 

[BarWi]

L1 Metaphors

When the allegoric Standard is employed in pointing up a spiritual function in the human soul, God's wrath can be seen to as remedial and restorative. But interpretation of the Gen 18-19 account in the previous post requires Scriptural verification if it is to be granted warrant for belief. I suggest that L1 metaphors provide this authentication.

Substantiation comes by the fact that L1 metaphors correspond to the format for a destruction of false elements from within a value-fragmented whole [this is where knowledge of the paper prefacing this view pays off] which God lays out in Gen 18-19. Some go a step further and describe a restoration to the same whole God works His “wrath” in, re the familiar Old Testament conception of bringing forth "offspring" or by other, parallel expressions. This restorative process, following destructive cleansing in the whole, completes a spiritual "death and resurrection" cycle in concurrence with the pattern of Christian salvation, arguably the greatest of all Bible metaphors which Christ Himself underwent, illuminating God's design for the restoration, or salvation, of every human soul.

Here are a few L1 metaphors that conform and give authority to the supervising Genesis metaphor:

Mat 13:24-30, parable of wheat and tares: good elements (wheat) and bad (tares), are separated from the whole (field), the good retained and bad destroyed.
Ezek 21:2-5 The sword of God cuts off the righteous from the wicked (separation of good and bad parts) from "all flesh" in the land of Israel (the whole).
Jer 5:10-11 Destruction of false elements (bad branches) in the whole (vine), "But do not execute a complete destruction" (in accord with the Standard).
Jer 24 Separation of good figs (true value) from bad figs (false value) representing the inhabitants of Judah (the whole), the bad sent to destruction and the good to a promise of eventual "planting", symbolizing growth (brining forth new life).
Isa 65:8-9 This is one of the more powerful of the L1 metaphors, in which God declares through Isaiah, "…'As the new wine [good grapes] is found in the cluster', And one says, 'Do not destroy it, for there is benefit in it,’ So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them'" These verses suggest a whole (cluster) in which both good and bad grapes exist. The One who stands as intercessor, preventing a complete destruction is obviously Christ. Once the false elements are removed, a rebirth to new life is promised: "'And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, And an heir of My mountains from Judah; Even My chosen ones shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.'"
Amos 9:8-10 Though God will destroy the "sinful nation" (falsehood in the human soul) from the face of the earth, yet He "will not totally destroy the house of Jacob" (His chosen ones, representative of righteous portions or components in the whole, accord with Gen 18/19). Though shaken "as grain is shaken in a sieve" , not a kernel (element of good) will fall to the ground, but all "sinners" (bad elements) will die by the sword.
Mat 25:32-46 From the whole (all nations) sheep (true components) are separated from goats (false components), with destruction decreed for the latter and benefit to the former.
Zech 13:8-9 In the whole (all the land), "two parts in it [bad elements] will be cut off and perish", yet, "the third [good parts] will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine [purification of Godly fire] them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" Being exposed to Godly fire results in a greater good (restoration) to the whole.
Jn 15:1-6 The vine (the whole) has associated parts—branches—some of which are cut off and burned (v. 6) while others bear fruit (vv. 2, 4-5), an analogy for restoration to new life.


The Genesis 18-19 and L1 metaphors together reveal the interpretive pattern that can now be used to discover shared meaning in L2 metaphors from the figurative language of both Testaments of the Bible. There is no stronger testament to the spiritual nature of the Bible than the unity of this allegoric system as inspired in authors from various levels of society, with differing levels of education, separated in many cases by decades and centuries from each other. Only God has the power to orchestrate such a wonderful proposal by shaping history’s circumstances and breathing His Spirit of inspiration into fallen humans to rise up to proclaim in different words the same beautiful message: God will never let a single person in whom even a shred of good exists escape His love and restoration to perfection.

"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)

 

[Hillsage]

The OT prophets, quickened by the Holy Spirit, mostly prophesied in figurative language. Most Old Testament books are understood by many to have some measure of figurative meaning; some books (Psalms, Job, Daniel, etc.) are typically considered to be highly or entirely metaphoric in nature. Jesus’ teachings were almost all one type of symbolism or another. And John’s vision in Revelation ends the Bible in fine metaphoric tradition.

A considerable segment of Christianity has responded in the last 150 years or so by creating a highly literal interpretive method of Scripture, often teaching that those who seek out higher meaning in God’s word are not to be believed and should be shunned or chastised for their unrestrained imaginations.

See anything wrong with this picture?
A. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit can clearly be seen to have produced varieties of highly metaphoric response in the Bible’s authors and personalities.
B. Much of Christianity rejects metaphoric meaning beyond the blatantly obvious symbolic passages a consensus of literalist Christians agree to allow as legitimate.

The form of universal Christian salvation defended in this thread is highly symbolic. Symbolic interpretations of the Bible are usually dismissed as the “imaginations of spiritualizers” or some such. I view this as an unwillingness of those who exert power over what God is allowed to say in His word to relinquish control. I.e., for all its pretense of righteousness, the emergence of historical-grammatical literalism can be regarded as a (mostly unconscious) rein-tightening of interpretive control of the Bible and its authority placed firmly in the sphere of human scholarship. Literalism is in essence a manmade interpretive technique which lies at odds with the very idea of a book filled with God-inspired symbolism. I intend to demonstrate in this thread that a rational interpretation can be drawn from the symbolism of multiple passages from both Testaments of the Bible. Further, it will be shown that God intends to save all and the methodology He uses to accomplish it—all woven into the same allegoric structure. What’s more, as the allegorical method unfolds it will lay to rest a number of tensions inherent in the arguments of Annihilationists, Eternal Tormentists and Universalists.

A cursory study of the structure of symbolic language itself reveals a dizzying variety of opinions on how the many forms of figurative language in the Bible should be structured. Because there is no clear consensus on this, I feel justified in presenting a simple allegorical organization—a collection of semantically linked metaphors—by which God’s plan to save all can be seen to exist in plain sight.

I’ve attempted to discuss this organization at different venues for several years with little headway. 20-20 hindsight now suggests that almost certainly the biggest impediment is that most Christian laymen like me engaged in theological discussion have been trained to conduct these debates according to primarily historical-grammatical (H-G) methods with some higher criticism thrown in from time to time. The symbolic structure presented here requires setting aside the literalist presuppositions brought into these discussions, and the ability/willingness to consider Scripture with a refreshed set of assumptions. These will be explained in more detail in the future posts.

In order to limit the thread to interested and properly equipped participants, I ask contributors to first read a paper, that can be found here...
The Mechanism of Value
I apologize in advance for this request, but have bogged down repeatedly in useless discussions because folks couldn’t seem to get their heads around enough of this approach to mount proper arguments. The paper provides the metaphysical structure that precedes and supplies organization to the symbolic theology in the next couple posts. It’s not that the concepts are hard to understand—though the metaphysical foundation is a bit abstract—but it involves a different interpretive approach that folks aren’t used to. If the metaphysical ideas that precede it are missed, the interpretive method will be difficult to wade through without this point of reference.

Although this approach is largely disconnected from historical-grammatical literalism, it is quite connected to recognized conventions for testing truth claims: non-contradiction, validity, consistency, congruency, coherence, correspondence, etc. The former is only able to test the truth of a man-made system. The latter goes to the meat of truth itself.

As a committed Ultimate Reconciliationist/Christian Universalist for 40 years, I have to admit the following; If a mental comprehension of "The Mechanism of Value" is required for a 'biblical understanding of the truth' concerning this topic, I'll certainly be at a loss to post. I struggled through half of the article before deciding that adding more darkness to my comprehension probably wasn't going to end in a sudden burst illuminating light IMO. But I will see if "the Spirit of truth" can make up for my mental shortcomings in any future posting here.

 

[FineLinen]

As a committed Ultimate Reconciliationist/Christian Universalist for 40 years, I have to admit the following; If a mental comprehension of "The Mechanism of Value" is required for a 'biblical understanding of the truth' concerning this topic, I'll certainly be at a loss to post. I struggled through half of the article before deciding that adding more darkness to my comprehension probably wasn't going to end in a sudden burst illuminating light IMO. But I will see if "the Spirit of truth" can make up for my mental shortcomings in any future posting here.

Dear Hillsage: My brother seeing you is always a wonderful pleasure! I am pleased Bar W. has begun this link, and expect to hear more out of his years of experience in our God.

I also know you have sat with the Master. Mental short comings are where I also sit. If the Mighty God of Glory had not taken me into His Glory my short comings would be much more intense, "But God", and His "illuminating light" totally sidetracks the dumbest of the dumb! May His mighty Presence lift us more fully into the outer laminar spheres of His unspeakable unknown.

 

[Hillsage]

Dear Hillsage: My brother seeing you is always a wonderful pleasure! I am pleased Bar W. has begun this link, and expect to hear more out of his years of experience in our God.

And it is truly a joy to 'hear' from you again also dear brother. It sounds as though you have former knowledge of Bar W.

I also know you have sat with the Master. Mental short comings are where I also sit. If the Mighty God of Glory had not taken me into His Glory my short comings would be much more intense, "But God", and His "illuminating light" totally sidetracks the dumbest of the dumb! May His mighty Presence lift us more fully into the outer laminar spheres of His unspeakable unknown.

I am admittedly interested also, as to what this link may bring. And truly yes, His "illuminating light" has come through for me in the past, sitting at His feet. Hopefully I am still worthy of more darkness fleeing with His marvelous light of truth. But the "outer laminar spheres of His unspeakable unknown" you mention leaves me with more imaginary of the second heaven's rings of Saturn, than the "heaven of heavens" over which he reigns .

 

[FineLinen]

And it is truly a joy to 'hear' from you again also dear brother. It sounds as though you have former knowledge of Bar W.

I am admittedly interested also, as to what this link may bring. And truly yes, His "illuminating light" has come through for me in the past, sitting at His feet. Hopefully I am still worthy of more darkness fleeing with His marvelous light of truth. But the "outer laminar spheres of His unspeakable unknown" you mention leaves me with more imaginary of the second heaven's rings of Saturn, than the "heaven of heavens" over which he reigns .

Dear Hillsage: The longing within us is to be worthy of more darkness fleeing from His glorious Presence as He encompasses us in Himself. Coming within mere degrees of His unspeakable unknown may have a certain ring of the imaginary of the second heaven, and indeed it does. After this brief walk with Him I am finding the mere degrees awakening a longing for more & more small increments of the "unspeakable"!

The Lord bless you, my brother, as He leads you, and all of us, into the unspeakable aspects of His great love & grace.

 

[BarWi]

L2 Metaphors Part 1

The Exodus of Israel (drawn from Exodus and Numbers) is arguably the paramount L2 metaphor in the Bible confirming God's work in the human soul by the principles established in the Standard. The Exodus story as a complex metaphor is an example of sanctification, the establishment in Israel of faith by means of inner purification. One might argue that sanctification and salvation are two different things. I respond that the interpretive conventions produced by the Standard reveal that the process for both is one and the same: the destruction of the false and restoration to true. Sanctification is a limited application of the salvific process to affect an objective. The only difference is that sanctification in some contexts may, once the purpose it was designed to produce is achieved, fade as the person may re-falsify his essence in mutable time.[1]

In the Exodus passages, the nation of Israel is a symbol for a single individual (whole) made up of many parts (see Exo 12:37-38). The false elements in Israel compel him to complain time and again. After two years of wandering these false elements provoke doubt, prevent Israel from taking the promised land in faith [Num 13:26-33, 14:1-4). Moses (as Christ) intercedes for Israel and prevents his destruction (Num 14:11-20). Israel is sent instead back into the wilderness, undergoing hardships, which gradually destroy the false "complaining parts" while at the same time bringing forth new offspring (spiritual birth). As a result, Israel gains a newfound faith.

Many died from being bitten by serpents (Num 21). Some worshipped false gods and 24,000 died of plague because of it (Num 25). Over the generation of wandering, the old complaining portions of Israel died off and were replaced by offspring.

Israel was transformed. He remained the same “person”, even as elements within him were being destroyed in the wilderness and replaced with new. As a result of this regenerative process (see Num 14:29-38), a change took place; as the “troublemakers” (falsity) within Israel were cut off and destroyed, offspring (truth) were born in the process who did not retain their ancestors’ unbelief. As these new additions to Israel appeared on an inner, microscopic level to replace those destroyed, he was changed macroscopically to a state of faith in the midst of his tribulation.

This complex metaphor produces every element of the Genesis 18/19 pattern. Its plethora of symbolic elements correspond strongly to the pattern identified in the Standard.

Psalms 1:1-6 yields to the metaphoric pattern. The Psalmist notes the effects (goods) proceeding from a true spirit, which the Standard allows the reader to see as a causal consequence of God's work in human spirit: "How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers..." [avoids falsification]. This passage includes an allusion to the bringing forth of new life in the good man, "…he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season, And its leaf does not wither…" . The destruction of “chaff” or the false completes the good/evil distinction and confirms this passage's relationship to the Standard as an L2 affiliate: "The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish."

 

[BarWi]

L2 Metaphors Part 2

The Standard can be seen to establish some of its own contexts. For example, the exhortation to pursue virtue is usually (but not always) directed to the whole person in the literal, while His decrees of retribution take aim at fragmental evil or false components within the whole. One feature of the allegoric system is that intention often switches from individual to value elements—and in some cases, describes the effects in moral value brought about by this spiritual work in the individual—in the same passage or set of passages. This context requires that passages be read through the filter of the principles established in the Standard.

For example, given the principle of the natural protection of good it follows that the devastation of persons is necessarily symbolic.[2] The symbol demonstrates that wholesale destruction is only “wholly so” from the perspective of matters in time and space. What the eye sees of the physical misses what God is accomplishing in the spiritual.

One interpretive convention revealed by the Standard is this form of the temporal/eternal distinction: simultaneous with physical suffering (possibly up to and including death) is a coordinated, ongoing death and rebirth of human spirit. Spiritual cleansing is described in the Bible as “destruction”. This, coupled with the idea of inner cleansing taking place in affliction, suggests the notion that 'behind the scene' in suffering God effects a concurrent fragmental cleansing from false value in the human soul, accompanied by a restoration to a true state, erasing the stain of sin and preparing the soul for eternal perfection. Thus, there is not only no contradiction between literal and allegorical, but each actually describes a coordinated combination of events taking place concurrently in each as the soul is prepared for perpetuity.[3]

Isaiah 33:11-16 is another L2 example. Verses 11-14 begin with the recognizable retribution toward those who embrace the false, "You have conceived chaff [falsified your soul], you will give birth to stubble; My breath will consume you like a fire. And the peoples will be burned to lime, Like cut thorns which are burned in the fire." The notion of "chaff", "stubble" and "cut thorns" is in keeping with the concept of a multiplicity of bad or false value components in the soul. As is common in Scripture, the ruination of the false is accomplished by Godly fire: "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?" The pure, absolute Truth of God's essence is a continuing roaring fire to the chaff and stubble of falsity, suggesting that God's mere nearness to a falsified human soul produces this destruction. This idea has support in passages like Deut 5:24-26, Mal 3:5, etc.

Following the passages in Isa 33:11-14, there is a sudden transition to the positive effects produced by fiery destruction in human spirit in vv. 15-16 to answer who is able to withstand the 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; He will dwell on the heights; His refuge will be the impregnable rock; His bread will be given him; His water will be sure." Those moral goods which proceed from and represent truth withstand the fire because they are one in kind: absolute Truth in union with the true. To the degree the soul exists in a state of truth, to that same extent the individual refuses to listen to evil and deals honestly in worldly matters.

An example of an L2 metaphor in language not typically considered to be metaphoric in nature is Paul's multiple use of the terms "spirit" and "flesh", into which the terms true and false may be consistently substituted without offense to Paul's message. See Rom 8:4-13, 1Cor 5:5, Gal 3:3, Gal 4:29, Gal 5:16-17, Gal 6:8, Phlp 3:3. The linguistic arrangement of Rom 8:6 is a good fit for the concepts elicited by the Standard. For instance, "…the mind set on the flesh is death" is congruous with the notion of falsity as a "stain" in spirit, creating those features of spiritual death found in ones ability to form value judgments (1Cor 2:14). Paul confirms this also in verse 7 of Rom 8 that, "…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so…". Conversely, "…the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace" is seen as the sanctified mind liberates one from the tension and resistance falsity imposes on moral judgment. Life, harmony, peace etc. are goods natural to a true-true relationship. Truth in human essence is consequentially in harmony with Truth in God's. Increasing levels of truth (following decreasing levels of falsity) in human spirit brings about in the whole person those spiritual fruits which proceed from the true—higher levels of moral/spiritual understanding, faith, unity with the like minded, etc. common to this merger.

There are, of course, passages from Paul that are clearly a comparison of physical flesh to spirit (2Cor 7:1, 1Tim 3:16), but these differences are easy to spot by context. Jesus, whose language was virtually always symbolic, also used the flesh-spirit contrast, which can be read in the same metaphoric framework (Mark 14:38, Jn 3:6 & 6:63) as did Peter (1Pet 4:6).

A wonderful example of Jesus addressing, in His customary figurative language, the principle of separation conveyed by the Standard is found in the 18th chapter of Matthew, verses 8-9: "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell." This call to conform to Christ's "spiritual surgery" in sanctification in time is an affirmation by the Son of the principle demonstrated by the Father in Gen 18/19. This is just one of several contributions by the Lord Himself to the collection of L2 metaphors of Scripture.


1. The faith God works to establish saving faith may, in its early stages for example, begin to decline by lack of faith in mutable time. But losing faith in the one destined to perfection brings further refinement (the wrath of God against all unrighteousness, Rom 1:18), which is actually the love of God in tearing up and destroying so He can rebuild the soul of the individual. Eventually, after perhaps several deaths and rebirths, immovable saving faith is established in the person which is carried within him the rest of his days.
2. This presupposes the position that some measure of good (truth) exists in every person. This position is logically defensible, and can be discussed if objections are raised about its legitimacy.
3. This assumes that the micro destruction of falsity in essence has correlations to various afflictions—pain, suffering, hardship, misery, distress, torment, etc.—in macro existence, i.e., spiritual destruction either produces or is coordinated in some way with life’s afflictions. (James 1:2-3, 2Thes 1:4-5, Heb 12:5-6, 2Tim 3:12, 2Cor 4:17, etc.)

 

[ClementofA]

Much of Christianity rejects metaphoric meaning beyond the blatantly obvious symbolic passages a consensus of literalist Christians agree to allow as legitimate...

The form of universal Christian salvation defended in this thread is highly symbolic...

What’s more, as the allegorical method unfolds it will lay to rest a number of tensions inherent in the arguments of Annihilationists, Eternal Tormentists and Universalists...

I’ve attempted to discuss this organization at different venues for several years with little headway...

That's because most of what you post is beyond the pay grade of 99% of the posters here, especially this paper:

In order to limit the thread to interested and properly equipped participants, I ask contributors to first read a paper, that can be found here...
The Mechanism of Value

Is that your authorship? If you can rewrite that as you would for a 6 or 13 year old at least half of the members here [and on similar internet forums] should be able to comprehend it. It is more suited for a highly educated philosophical forum, of which i am familiar with a couple.

 

[BarWi]

That's because most of what you post is beyond the pay grade of 99% of the posters here, especially this paper:

This is discouraging. I wrote the value metaphysic after several years of working on the theology (or soteriology) posted in this thread because, 1) people were not understanding the theology with its "parts and whole" format, 2) I needed to flesh out a value system that made sense to me to fit the allegorical framework.

The message board venue is the only one I know. My formal education is 9th grade (got a GED years after quitting school), this is part of why I still believe it's more the unorthodox approach that trips folks up--I've just been working on this long enough the concepts aren't cumbersome to me. I know from experience learning philosophical concepts on my own that the mind is inherently lazy [resistant] when it encounters new ideas/jargon.

If the theology can be discussed properly without the value mechanism, fine.

 

[BarWi]

The first important feature that should be noted is that the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 clearly refutes the orthodox position that eternal hell is necessary to preserve God's justice.

To the contrary, God shows us through the metaphor of the Sodom narrative the logic that to destroy a whole in which some good exists violates the perfection of His justice. Astute readers will also realize that in these few verses, God also shows us how He saves, in ways that harmonize other soteriological positions.

In his ReKnew blog or website (rarely read blogs and not sure of the difference between the two), in the article “The Case for Annihilationism”, author and theologian Greg Boyd writes,

“…Scripture certainly teaches that the wicked are punished eternally, but not that the wicked endure eternal punishment. The wicked suffer “eternal punishment”(Mt 25:46), “eternal judgment” (Heb 6:2) and “eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9) the same way the elect experience “eternal redemption” (Heb 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction. But once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever. Hell is eternal in consequence, not duration. The wicked are “destroyed forever” (Ps 92:7), but they are not forever being destroyed.”

This much of the Annihilationist position lines up well with the salvation of all, but suffers essentially the same problem as the eternal torment doctrine: to remove a whole in which any good exists—either by destruction (annihilation) or separation to eternal punishment—violates the perfection of God’s justice as laid out in the Gen 18-19 pattern. This contradiction must be resolved to be corrected toward truth in interpretation.

Using the Standard as an interpretive starting point, the passages used that appear to support Annihilationism are ‘autocorrected’ to their proper, non-contradictory meaning. Consider:

"But transgressors will be altogether destroyed; The posterity of the wicked will be cut off." (Psa 37:38)
"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed." (Exo 22:20)
In these examples if what causes transgression is altogether destroyed (and so with other of the total destruction passages), God's justice is preserved as per the parameters noted above.

Utter destruction of the quality of falsity from within the whole is in agreement with the preservation of perfect justice. Burning chaff with “unquenchable fire” (Mat 3:12), branches thrown into the fire (Mat 7:19), destruction of [those offending parts of] the soul (Mat 10:28), the destruction of the ungodly (2Pet 3:7), all conform seamlessly to the Standard when it is recognized that this speaks to the removal and destruction of corrupt components from within the spirit of each human being.

Movement from literal to allegorical meaning is always from a base to a deeper understanding of God’s ways and character. Paul’s quote from the OT, “…it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:13), read through the lens of the Standard, reinterprets verses like this to, “truth I loved, but falsity I hated”. This is a justified "spiritual" interpretation from the perspective that falsity is technically the cause of sin. For God to hate a human in whom good exists is as much a desecration of His purity as it would be to obliterate good. Again, inconsistency via contradiction evaporates when truth and falsity are exchanged for love and hate. The elimination of contradiction is a recognized criteria for possession of truth in interpretation.

 

[Pneuma3]

This is discouraging. I wrote the value metaphysic after several years of working on the theology (or soteriology) posted in this thread because, 1) people were not understanding the theology with its "parts and whole" format, 2) I needed to flesh out a value system that made sense to me to fit the allegorical framework.

The message board venue is the only one I know. My formal education is 9th grade (got a GED years after quitting school), this is part of why I still believe it's more the unorthodox approach that trips folks up--I've just been working on this long enough the concepts aren't cumbersome to me. I know from experience learning philosophical concepts on my own that the mind is inherently lazy [resistant] when it encounters new ideas/jargon.

If the theology can be discussed properly without the value mechanism, fine.

BarWi what you right about on the thread is easy enough to understand without this

The Mechanism of Value

Which to me was just to confusing. That it was helpful to you in coming to understand the cleansing of the temple of all dross, the destruction of the old man is very good. as that is what I see you saying in the above thread, however for many like me it was just to confusing.

This is not a slight on what you wrote in The Mechanism of Value it just confused me more then it helped me.

That said the way you presented that Mechanism in this thread was easy for me to understand. That is if what I believe you are saying is all or mostly about the cleansing out of man the dross.

 

[ClementofA]

Using the Standard as an interpretive starting point, the passages used that appear to support Annihilationism are ‘autocorrected’ to their proper, non-contradictory meaning. Consider:

"But transgressors will be altogether destroyed; The posterity of the wicked will be cut off." (Psa 37:38)
"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed." (Exo 22:20)
In these examples if what causes transgression is altogether destroyed (and so with other of the total destruction passages), God's justice is preserved as per the parameters noted above.

With the understanding that to be "cut off" or "destroyed" is simply referring to death, none of these passages appear to support annihilationism. Here are some alternate translations of Exo.22:20:

New International Version
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
He that sacrifices to any gods but to the Lord alone, shall be destroyed by death.
Douay-Rheims Bible
He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord.
Darby Bible Translation
-- He that sacrificeth to [any] god, save to Jehovah only, shall be devoted to destruction.

Note: neither passage speaks of the removal (e.g. by destruction) of a bad part of the persons referred to, but the persons themselves.

Utter destruction of the quality of falsity from within the whole is in agreement with the preservation of perfect justice. Burning chaff with “unquenchable fire” (Mat 3:12), branches thrown into the fire (Mat 7:19), destruction of [those offending parts of] the soul (Mat 10:28), the destruction of the ungodly (2Pet 3:7), all conform seamlessly to the Standard when it is recognized that this speaks to the removal and destruction of corrupt components from within the spirit of each human being.

Chaff (Mt.3:12) could refer to the bad part of a person which is burned up. I have often suggested the same myself. OTOH 2 Thess.1:9 refers to the destruction of the persons, not a bad part of them.

Movement from literal to allegorical meaning is always from a base to a deeper understanding of God’s ways and character. Paul’s quote from the OT, “…it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:13), read through the lens of the Standard, reinterprets verses like this to, “truth I loved, but falsity I hated”. This is a justified "spiritual" interpretation from the perspective that falsity is technically the cause of sin. For God to hate a human in whom good exists is as much a desecration of His purity as it would be to obliterate good. Again, inconsistency via contradiction evaporates when truth and falsity are exchanged for love and hate. The elimination of contradiction is a recognized criteria for possession of truth in interpretation.

Romans 9:13 and at Malachi 1:3 God hated Esau....

"Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” "

The meaning of "hate" here:

Luke_14:26
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple.

is shown to mean not love them more than Jesus here:

Matthew 10:37
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;

"Regarding God's hate to Esau, Vincent's Word Studies has this to say:

The expression (hatred) is intentionally strong as an expression of moral antipathy. Compare Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26. No idea of malice is implied of course."

Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

"There you have it, according to them. God does not just hate the sin, but the sinner as well. Case closed, we should all go home right? Wait a minute. Let's take a
close look at that. Let's find out whether this verse really is about God hating a sinner:

Rom 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her (Rebecca), The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This is not even a scripture about God hating a sinner. According to the Bible, God had made a decision about Esau, and Jacob without them "having done any good or evil." "


Jason Pratt said:

"The quick answer is that Paul is quoting one of the prophets talking about how God is going to make Israel instead of Edom the prime nation in the world, even though both nations have been horribly sinful and both nations are going to be destroyed to death. Edom is restored later as prophesied elsewhere, but Israel will be restored first and in authority (and not due to Israel’s own righteousness but due to God’s gracious choice.)

"The Jacob/Esau story in Genesis behind this (Edom being the nation descended from Esau), involves Isaac blessing Esau in Jacob even though Jacob will be the inheritor; and Esau and Jacob eventually reconciling with each other in one of the most beautiful and famous stories of the Bible. So Esau isn’t hopelessly punished, no moreso than Jacob/Israel is (who acted like a satan to Esau in order to get the inheritance blessing from Isaac).

In a nutshell, universalism has...?