Symbolic Biblical Universalism

[BarWi]

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:

On the Patheos website in an article titled, “Biblical Support for Annihilation” Preston Sprinkle writes:
“…most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality.” Supporters of any of the salvation views can go through various translations to find different wording. Reasonable people should be able to concede with the spirit of Preston Sprinkle’s point that there are verses in Scripture (of varying legitimacy, true) able to lend warrant to the annihilationist position or any of the three views of salvation noted in a previous post.

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

2 Thess.1:9 refers to the destruction of the persons, not a bad part of them.

Arguments like this miss completely the primary claims of my earlier posts. The point was that in the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 God confirms the edict that He will not destroy a whole in which good exists. This establishes the basis for the allegory’s interpretive authority. To continue in the literal claim that any verse in the Bible points to the destruction of whole persons thus violates the promise of God and the perfection of His justice. This is the foundation, established in the first book of the bible, for the salvation of every soul.

I don’t fault you for arguing this way; virtually all Christians have been indoctrinated to think and debate from this literal point of view. To lay aside literal pedagogics to try another approach to interpretation is difficult for the human mind to lay hold of.

One strength of the allegorical view is its ability to allow the reader to separate and identify literal and metaphoric meanings within Scripture. Using literal methodology is wholly incapable of accomplishing this. The proof of this lies in the fact that the same positions have been and continue to be argued ad infinitum, day in and day out under the same literal methodology, without resolution for any of the salvific positions. Allegory is virtually always accused of lacking coherent structure, but I have argued—and feel I’ve provided reasonable warrant for—the notion that this allegoric system produces a coherent, congruous structure able to produce the interpretive conventions noted (plus several I haven’t yet covered).

Focused arguments would be to dispute that my reading of Gen 18-19’s meaning lacks merit, or to argue against the novel interpretive conventions it’s claimed to employ.

"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.” "

"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." "

Methinks you’re ‘overcooking’ the issue, my friend. The point was that an interpretive response to this idea of God hating one individual and loving another (which those of more fundamentalist persuasion often argue) demonstrates a more coherent connection to Scripture than the literal understanding. The transformation of the emotional literal application of love and hate (as with other moral contraries in Scripture) to a more technical true/false reading is a common convention the Standard discloses of these passages.

 

[ClementofA]

On the Patheos website in an article titled, “Biblical Support for Annihilation” Preston Sprinkle writes:
“…most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality.”

I disagree with that quote.

Supporters of any of the salvation views can go through various translations to find different wording. Reasonable people should be able to concede with the spirit of Preston Sprinkle’s point that there are verses in Scripture (of varying legitimacy, true) able to lend warrant to the annihilationist position or any of the three views of salvation noted in a previous post.

Given that Scripture is harmonious in its teaching re final destiny, only one of the three views can be correct. Like many universalists since the first century A.D., i find Scripture supports universalism without the need to resort to your method of explaining certain texts. I find other explanations more reasonable. Evidently you think your allegorical explanation is more reasonable.

Arguments like this miss completely the primary claims of my earlier posts. The point was that in the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 God confirms the edict that He will not destroy a whole in which good exists. This establishes the basis for the allegory’s interpretive authority.

Genesis 18-19 speaks about the destruction (i.e. killing) of certain persons, not the bad parts of those persons. When God destroyed Sodom He destroyed perfectly good functioning bodies (which He will restore via resurrection, so their destruction did not equate to endless annihilation). So how is it, as you claim, that He doesn't destroy "a whole in which good exists"? What "good" was there in the killed of Sodom that He did not destroy? Did He purify their souls from its wickedness when He destroyed their bodies?

To continue in the literal claim that any verse in the Bible points to the destruction of whole persons thus violates the promise of God and the perfection of His justice.

How is that? Are you assuming the original language words mean to annihilate out of existence forever as annihilationists do, in contradiction to Scriptural Universalism? Even the English word "destroy" has various meanings including those that do not support annihilationist assumptions.

This is the foundation, established in the first book of the bible, for the salvation of every soul.

In Genesis we see Adam & Eve were covered by God with the skins of an animal, which typifies Christ Who is the Saviour of mankind. In Genesis we are told that through Abraham all families would be blessed.

 

[Pneuma3]

On the Patheos website in an article titled, “Biblical Support for Annihilation” Preston Sprinkle writes:
“…most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality.

I disagree with that quote.

I would just add to barwi quote "if taken in a literal English of the translation of the original language"

 

[Pneuma3]

Arguments like this miss completely the primary claims of my earlier posts. The point was that in the supervising metaphor of Gen 18-19 God confirms the edict that He will not destroy a whole in which good exists. This establishes the basis for the allegory’s interpretive authority. To continue in the literal claim that any verse in the Bible points to the destruction of whole persons thus violates the promise of God and the perfection of His justice. This is the foundation, established in the first book of the bible, for the salvation of every soul.

agreed

 

[Pneuma3]

Given that Scripture is harmonious in its teaching re final destiny, only one of the three views can be correct. Like many universalists since the first century A.D., i find Scripture supports universalism without the need to resort to your method of explaining certain texts. I find other explanations more reasonable. Evidently you think your allegorical explanation is more reasonable.

I agree with both methods.

Genesis 18-19 speaks about the destruction (i.e. killing) of certain persons, not the bad parts of those persons. When God destroyed Sodom He destroyed perfectly good functioning bodies (which He will restore via resurrection, so their destruction did not equate to endless annihilation). So how is it, as you claim, that He doesn't destroy "a whole in which good exists"? What "good" was there in the killed of Sodom that He did not destroy? Did He purify their souls from its wickedness when He destroyed their bodies?

God did not destroy the whole, lot ( the good) was taken out of the city and was not destroyed.
I believe what Bar is pointing out is that the fire and brimstone of God does not destroy the whole but only the bad that is in the whole.

If we take that analogy and apply it to the WHOLE man it show God's fire and brimstone will destroy all the bad and only the good will remain or said another way it will cleanse the temple of all the dross. We are the temple.

Remember this is an example of that which will and does take place via God's fire and brimstone. Gods fire and brimstone does not destroy the man, it just destroys all the bad or dross within man.

 

[BarWi]

I disagree with that quote.

In disagreeing you show the weakness of the literalist universalist position, my friend.

Given that Scripture is harmonious in its teaching re final destiny, only one of the three views can be correct. Like many universalists since the first century A.D., i find Scripture supports universalism without the need to resort to your method of explaining certain texts. I find other explanations more reasonable. Evidently you think your allegorical explanation is more reasonable.

...Are you assuming the original language words mean to annihilate out of existence forever as annihilationists do, in contradiction to Scriptural Universalism?

The strength of symbolic Universalism lies in its ability to reconcile without the 'jerky dance moves' of literalism the truths of eternal hell and annihilationism. Yes, I assume "annihilate out of existence" is absolutely true, else God would never be able to save all. That hell is eternal must also be true if the salvation of all is to be accomplished. The interpretive conventions the Standard raises addresses these issues squarely.

The strength of the symbolic position is that its interpretive authority automatically reconciles both of these great truths. My Universalist brethren who play in the same fields [literalism] as our eternal hell and annihilationist brethren are necessarily caught up in the same interpretive convolutions and are only able to "defeat" these doctrines the same way they defeat yours: by denying or misplacing the Biblical truths of the others.

Maybe the biggest problem is that so few seem to recognize the importance of establishing their positions by means of the recognized truth criteria. I demonstrated to a harsh literalist eternal tormentist in another thread that, for example, literalist doctrines have absolutely no power to uncover simple Biblical types which virtually all Christians of every stripe recognize. This truth was so painful to him he danced around the issue and pretended it wasn't there. This is not uncommon in religious discussions. Making Scripture "harmonious" too often means ignoring the contradictions that butt up against our own position...but they don't go away.

Will be traveling over the holidays and won't be able to dialog for a few days. Hope all have a blessed Christmas.

 

[ClementofA]

God did not destroy the whole, lot ( the good) was taken out of the city and was not destroyed.

God took the righteous - person - Lot - out of the city before He destroyed the whole city. In Genesis 18-19 He didn't destroy the unrighteous part of the unrighteous people & transform them into righteous people. So IMO Genesis 18-19 does not support the view that destruction in the Bible means separating a person's bad part from himself when it says God destroys the person (e.g. 2 Thess.1:9).

 

[ClementofA]

In disagreeing you show the weakness of the literalist universalist position, my friend.

That's like saying to someone who says they disagree with "the earth is flat" that said disagreement shows the weakness of the anti-flat earth position. Instead of such a remark you should be presenting evidence for the claim of the quote that i disagreed with.

The strength of symbolic Universalism lies in its ability to reconcile without the 'jerky dance moves' of literalism the truths of eternal hell and annihilationism.

Such remarks as "jerky dance moves" add nothing to the discussion & could just as easily be pointed back at your position.

Yes, I assume "annihilate out of existence" is absolutely true, else God would never be able to save all.

Except Scripture never uses such language as "annihilate out of existence", let alone eternally annihilate.

That hell is eternal must also be true if the salvation of all is to be accomplished.

IMO that is simply illogical and ridiculous.

The strength of the symbolic position is that its interpretive authority automatically reconciles both of these great truths. My Universalist brethren who play in the same fields [literalism] as our eternal hell and annihilationist brethren are necessarily caught up in the same interpretive convolutions and are only able to "defeat" these doctrines the same way they defeat yours: by denying or misplacing the Biblical truths of the others.

What is your interpretation of Genesis 18-19, etc, but another "convolution"? What you demean as "interpretative convolutions" others call rightly dividing the word of truth & the harmonization of the Scriptures.

 

[Pneuma3]

God took the righteous - person - Lot - out of the city before He destroyed the whole city. In Genesis 18-19 He didn't destroy the unrighteous part of the unrighteous people & transform them into righteous people. So IMO Genesis 18-19 does not support the view that destruction in the Bible means separating a person's bad part from himself when it says God destroys the person (e.g. 2 Thess.1:9).

that is because you are only looking at it in a literal understanding. The OT is written in shadow of the truth thus it is not clear but seen in shadow. Apply those scriptures inwardly via mythos and you can see that it is talking about cleaning the temple, destroying all the dross in that temple.

If taken literally and it is an example what do you do with the fire and brimstone in Rev.? according to the literal it would mean the destruction of the WHOLE man.

That lot was taken out of the city is the same as separating the wheat from the chaff

 

[ClementofA]

that is because you are only looking at it in a literal understanding. The OT is written in shadow of the truth thus it is not clear but seen in shadow. Apply those scriptures inwardly via mythos and you can see that it is talking about cleaning the temple, destroying all the dross in that temple.

What "scriptures" are "talking about cleaning the temple, destroying all the dross in that temple"? Genesis 18-19? Are we talking about the same scriptures?

If taken literally and it is an example what do you do with the fire and brimstone in Rev.? according to the literal it would mean the destruction of the WHOLE man.

Why would "fire & brimstone...according to the literal...mean the destruction of the WHOLE man"? Fire & brimstone means fire & brimstone. Not destruction of anything. Is there a verse in Revelation you have in mind? In the case of Sodom fire & brimstone was used to kill the bodies of some people. Genesis 18-19 neither affirms or denies that the people who were killed by fire and brimstone were annihilated forever. Elsewhere Scripture reveals they will be resurrected, Sodom will be restored & everyone will be saved. In Revelation certain people will be cast into a lake of fire, be tormented, but nothing is said of this meaning "the destruction of the WHOLE man".

That lot was taken out of the city is the same as separating the wheat from the chaff

Then the separating of the chaff from the wheat would mean chaff refers to wicked persons (e.g. those killed in Sodom) & wheat refers to different persons (e.g. the righteous, e.g. Lot). But the Bible doesn't tell us they are "the same". That conclusion is in the realm of opinion, interpretation, guesswork.

 

[Pneuma3]

What "scriptures" are "talking about cleaning the temple, destroying all the dross in that temple"? Genesis 18-19? Are we talking about the same scriptures?



Why would "fire & brimstone...according to the literal...mean the destruction of the WHOLE man"? Fire & brimstone means fire & brimstone. Not destruction of anything. Is there a verse in Revelation you have in mind? In the case of Sodom fire & brimstone was used to kill the bodies of some people. Genesis 18-19 neither affirms or denies that the people who were killed by fire and brimstone were annihilated forever. Elsewhere Scripture reveals they will be resurrected, Sodom will be restored & everyone will be saved. In Revelation certain people will be cast into a lake of fire, be tormented, but nothing is said of this meaning "the destruction of the WHOLE man".



Then the separating of the chaff from the wheat would mean chaff refers to wicked persons (e.g. those killed in Sodom) & wheat refers to different persons (e.g. the righteous, e.g. Lot). But the Bible doesn't tell us they are "the same". That conclusion is in the realm of opinion, interpretation, guesswork.

Oh boy did not realize you were such a literalist clement, so I am not going to get into this with you as I have lost to many friends because of my view on things. Suffice it to say I agree with both you and barwi and have used both styles of address when speaking with people. Is one way better then the other? that would depend on the audience. for those who understand scripture as literal a literal teaching will work better then one in mythos. For people who believe most of the OT is written in mythos a mythos teaching works better.

That you cannot understand my posts, which is clear by your replies above I will only point out a good book that speaks in mythos that you might want to read.

the book is called type in genesis by Andrew Jukes

you can read it for free at this link.


Types in Genesis - Andrew Jukes

 

[ClementofA]

Here's one view of "biblical literalism":

What is biblical literalism?

"Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists."

 

[Pneuma3]

Here's one view of "biblical literalism":

What is biblical literalism?

"Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists."

I know but I don't believe you can take a shadow literally. that's just my take.

 

[BarWi]

That's like saying to someone who says they disagree with "the earth is flat" that said disagreement shows the weakness of the anti-flat earth position. Instead of such a remark you should be presenting evidence for the claim of the quote that i disagreed with.

I use terms like "jerky dance moves" to refer to the nature of literalist arguments--ad infinitum, ad nauseam arguments about the nuances of word meanings, the constant text-proofing and poring over minutia in efforts to disprove those of others, etc. that pour into personal discussions and message board posts, day after day, with nothing being accomplished. Rarely is a mind ever changed in these discussions. The literalist universalist refuses to accept passages used as warrant for eternal torment or annihilationism , the literalist eternal tormentist does the same and so does the annihilationist. Only rarely do any concede warrant for the interpretations of the others. I also will resist getting into these sorts of unproductive arguments in this thread.

I hope you aren't thin skinned. I've never been accused of being tactful, and often use such phrases to underscore what I believe to be the truth of a position. I hold that literalism is fine for scholarship of secular texts and for establishing the same foundations for the Bible as for any other text. But I argue that some Christian scholars have advanced literalist doctrines (historical-grammatical and higher critical methods) as sufficient to rightly interpret all that God intends to convey in His word. I expressed some reasons for disagreement with this position in my first post.

Such remarks as "jerky dance moves" add nothing to the discussion & could just as easily be pointed back at your position.

Please do. Critique away; that's why I started the thread.

Scripture never uses such language as "annihilate out of existence", let alone eternally annihilate.

Demands for precise language is the kind of dancing referred to. Many, including myself, believe that the Bible provides conceptually justified evidence for "annihilation out of existence" and many other cognitively or intellectually discerned ideas. Annihilation out of existence must be true if 1Cor 15:28 is to be fulfilled. The word trinity doesn't appear in the Bible. Do you believe the doctrine of the trinity?

IMO that is simply illogical and ridiculous.

I understand. Might your response be caused by the way we've been trained to interpret the Bible? I'll explain the solution to the seeming conundrum in a future post

What is your interpretation of Genesis 18-19, etc, but another "convolution"?

Please provide a basis for this opinion. I've provided a basis for literalist convolutions or dance moves. Now it's your turn.

 

[BarWi]

Oh boy did not realize you were such a literalist clement, so I am not going to get into this with you as I have lost to many friends because of my view on things. Suffice it to say I agree with both you and barwi and have used both styles of address when speaking with people. Is one way better then the other? that would depend on the audience. for those who understand scripture as literal a literal teaching will work better then one in mythos. For people who believe most of the OT is written in mythos a mythos teaching works better.

That you cannot understand my posts, which is clear by your replies above I will only point out a good book that speaks in mythos that you might want to read.

the book is called type in genesis by Andrew Jukes

you can read it for free at this link.


Types in Genesis - Andrew Jukes

Pneuma3, you show a remarkable grasp of both sides of what is being discussed here. I say remarkable because i can count on the fingers of one hand folks who understood the allegoric patterning presented in previous posts in the last 10-15 years I've tried discussing this.

 

[BarWi]

What "scriptures" are "talking about cleaning the temple, destroying all the dross in that temple"? Genesis 18-19? Are we talking about the same scriptures?

Maybe we're needlessly talking past each other. 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). Virtually all Christians recognize that not all is destroyed in the destruction passages. Even Annihilationists (those I've corresponded with) hold that the spirit awaits judgment before being annihilated. The pattern for this destruction is, as noted numerous times, established in multiple metaphors that share the same meaning elements. I feel this was adequately established in previous posts.

Why would "fire & brimstone...according to the literal...mean the destruction of the WHOLE man"? Fire & brimstone means fire & brimstone. Not destruction of anything. Is there a verse in Revelation you have in mind? In the case of Sodom fire & brimstone was used to kill the bodies of some people. Genesis 18-19 neither affirms or denies that the people who were killed by fire and brimstone were annihilated forever. Elsewhere Scripture reveals they will be resurrected, Sodom will be restored & everyone will be saved. In Revelation certain people will be cast into a lake of fire, be tormented, but nothing is said of this meaning "the destruction of the WHOLE man".

Destruction of the whole [physical] man is a fair reading. Even though we know scientifically that matter merely changes state and is never actually destroyed, a person's ability to function as a physical, living being is destroyed if and when the body is destroyed. Your comment above made me suspect we're talking past one another. I doubt that if we sort out the semantics we have any significant disagreement about destruction of persons in the senses being discussed here.

Then the separating of the chaff from the wheat would mean chaff refers to wicked persons (e.g. those killed in Sodom) & wheat refers to different persons (e.g. the righteous, e.g. Lot). But the Bible doesn't tell us they are "the same". That conclusion is in the realm of opinion, interpretation, guesswork.

Aquinas summed up the issue well when he taught in the Summa that things signified by literal words can themselves signify other things. In light of the amount of evidence posted previously I find it astonishing that you'd mount the argument that the shared meaning elements of those metaphors that speak to removal and destruction of parts within a whole is "...in the realm of opinion, interpretation, guesswork."

Interpretation, yes. That these comparisons are opinion and guesswork have, I feel, been shown by previous posts to be false. I only posted a few of the L1 and L2 metaphors that confirm the legitimacy of the Gen 18-19 metaphor; there are many more spread throughout the Bible. Did you read these posts? Or are you so upset by my charges against literalism that you can be led to water to drink but stubbornly refuse, despite the evidence provided? Can you explain how the many shared meaning metaphors I provided only amount to "opinion" and "guesswork"? [these charges are themselves only opinion and guesswork you know] I didn't make the metaphors up. They're from the pages of the Bible.

Not sure if you consider the Bible to be inspired by God, but the fact that the veracity of this allegorical system is authoritatively demonstrated shows at least a couple things:
1. That only God could place multiple metaphors corresponding to the same pattern across centuries of time in authors of differing backgrounds and bring them together in a single book. This is wholly beyond human ability.
2. That the allegorical system defended here is able to rise above the common charge by the champions of the historical-grammatical method that allegory is unable to offer any sort of systematic proof or get past the opinions and imaginations of those who interpret allegorically.

If you can disprove #1 or prove #2, please do so.

 

[Pneuma3]

Paul does a good job showing the mythos in scripture when he said.

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.



Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

The mythos is in the scripture we just have to be able to discern them.

 

[ClementofA]

Annihilation out of existence must be true if 1Cor 15:28 is to be fulfilled.

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

 

[ClementofA]

Destruction of the whole [physical] man is a fair reading. Even though we know scientifically that matter merely changes state and is never actually destroyed, a person's ability to function as a physical, living being is destroyed if and when the body is destroyed. Your comment above made me suspect we're talking past one another. I doubt that if we sort out the semantics we have any significant disagreement about destruction of persons in the senses being discussed here.

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.

 

[ClementofA]

The literalist universalist refuses to accept passages used as warrant for eternal torment or annihilationism , the literalist eternal tormentist does the same and so does the annihilationist. Only rarely do any concede warrant for the interpretations of the others.

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.

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.