Traditional Salvation Violates God’s Justice

[Bociferous]

.

Here is what Paul says to you adding to his gospel, because you think it isn't far enough.

Galatians 1

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.



1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
Romans 5

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.



Made up.

Thanks for picking out a single sentence from one of my recent posts and offering your opinion on it.

So, do you agree of disagree with what was proposed in the op? If you disagree, what's the basis of your disagreement?

 

[Hawkins]

Thanks for responding Samie.

Do you care to comment on the logical conundrum specified in the op?

I am not Samie. But from what I can tell, you are arguing from a wrong premise.

God's purpose for earth is for the righteous to be told apart openly from the wicked when measured by a covenant a humans is subject to.

The Bible serves the main purpose of calling His sheep. As long as all His sheep answer the call, His job is done. He's no obligation whatsoever to make the wicked to understand His Bible. Somehow the opposite may be true;

Matthew 25:29 (NIV)
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.


The Bible was written as a matter of human witnessing, God will ensure that it will convey the same message of salvation.

The salvation message is rather simple to pick up. That is, by the New Covenant granted you will be saved by Faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Samie]

Thanks for responding Samie.

Do you care to comment on the logical conundrum specified in the op?

You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.

 

[Bociferous]

You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.

Sorry, getting late...I will reread your post and respond tomorrow.

 

[Bociferous]

I am not Samie. But from what I can tell, you are arguing from a wrong premise.

Hi Hawkins,

No, I know you're not Samie. I was actually responding to Samie above.

But after noting a wrong premise, you use your personal theology or interpretation of Scripture to suggest how what I posted is wrong. This, as I noted earlier, skirts the issue at hand. I simply ask if the premises stated are reasonable on their own ground. I'm asking readers to set aside their theological presuppositions and consider the op purely from the standpoint of its ability to satisfy basic truth tests.

For example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

 

[chair]

All are condemned because of one.

You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[WizardofOz]

You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

As opposed to Judaism where only a specific group are chosen. Salvation is open to all in Christianity. Which is more just?

 

[genuineoriginal]

And I see your problem. You have little idea how to conduct a rational discussion. Despite your contemptuous tone and insults I’ll try to explain how you might respond appropriately.

Now, if you’re willing to play nice and be honest, let’s discuss. If not, play somewhere else or alone, please.

I did play nice and honest, but you did a quick bait-and-switch move when I did so.
You know that you are not handling the Word of God in an honest manner with your "logic problem".

I simply ask if the premises stated are reasonable on their own ground.

No, you don't.

I showed that the premises stated are unreasonable, at which point you went into full-blown "educated idiot" mode.

You haven't learned how to properly read the Bible for understanding, and the techniques you have been taught regarding debate are not serving you any good here.

Now, if you would like to honestly discuss the problems with the OP, start by answering my primary objection to your premises instead of running away from it.

Here it is again:
The Bible shows that justice is based on the assumption that the entire person receives punishment for the sin of the person, not a piece of the person receiving punishment for the sin.

 

[chair]

As opposed to Judaism where only a specific group are chosen. Salvation is open to all in Christianity. Which is more just?

Learn something about Judaism before you say silly things. This whole "salvation" business is a Christian thing.

And trying to excuse your twisted morality by pointing fingers at others doesn't change the basic fact that your "morality" is amoral.

 

[WizardofOz]

Learn something about Judaism before you say silly things. This whole "salvation" business is a Christian thing.

And trying to excuse your twisted morality by pointing fingers at others doesn't change the basic fact that your "morality" is amoral.

Give me a break chair. I understand the difference between Jewish salvation and Christian salvation. For years you've done the same song and dance. Attacking an easy target like Nick M is just your way of doing what you're here to do; attack Christianity. Is it strange that you talk negatively about one religion instead of talking positively about yours?

 

[God's Truth]

[/SIZE]The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of God’s justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.

The story of God’s discussion with Abraham on the road to Damascus (Gen 18) is a metaphor that, combined with Sodom’s destruction (Gen 19), identifies certain spiritual principles. Briefly, the story contains these elements:
1. Abraham challenges God by asking Him if He would destroy Sodom if only a few righteous existed there. God answered that He would not. (Gen 18:17-33)
2. God then proceeds to remove righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it. (Gen 19:1-24)

In this metaphor—a symbolic depiction of God’s work in human spirit or the soul—God establishes at minimum the principles that,
A. He will not destroy a whole (Sodom) in which any good exists;
B. The soul exists in a “one and many” organization or multiplicity of “value elements”. [Analogical to but not to be confused with elements of substance.]

Salvation is revealed to be the removal and destruction of the false or bad elements of the soul (as shown in the Gen 18-19 passages) and their restoration or resurrection to a good or true state (as shown elsewhere in Scripture).

THE PROBLEM

Abraham identifies the logical problem in Gen 18:25: "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?"(NASB)

God, if He is the God of the Bible, is necessarily perfect in all His attributes—love, justice, wisdom, etc. Abraham pointed out that the destruction of any good violates the perfection of His justice. God then confirms Abraham’s point by separating good (righteous) parts from bad before destroying the latter.

Both Annihilationism and eternal punishment violate the perfection of God’s justice, the former by destroying good and the latter by eternal separation and punishment of wholes (persons) in whom at least some good arguably still exists.

THE SOLUTION

In separation of good and bad parts from a whole, God shows the first of the dual aspect [death and resurrection] of Christian salvation and reveals that because all are enlightened (Jn 1:9) destroying wicked components from human essence and restoring them to a wholly true or righteous state [and thus restoration of the whole] is His plan and work of salvation in every human being. Using the Gen 18-19 passages as a supervising metaphor establishing these principles, there are dozens of other semantically unified metaphors from both Testaments that form a systematic support. This view is unavailable to a literal understanding of the Bible.

I’ve posted this elsewhere. There’ve been no adequate refutations to date.

Questions, comments?

We are flesh and spirit. Our spirits do not die. Jesus came and all have a chance to be saved from the lake of fire; however, not all will submit to him and be saved.

 

[chair]

Give me a break chair. I understand the difference between Jewish salvation and Christian salvation. For years you've done the same song and dance. Attacking an easy target like Nick M is just your way of doing what you're here to do; attack Christianity. Is it strange that you talk negatively about one religion instead of talking positively about yours?

Sorry, no breaks or discounts here. This is a Christian forum that allows some (limited, mind you) criticism and question-raising about Christianity. So I will continue to point out that what many consider to be basic in Christianity is amoral.

 

[Bociferous]

You are welcome, brother.

You presented a problem and wanted a solution for it. So I laid out the solution that God had provided long before you came out with the problem.

Should you have any doubt about the solution provided or in your evaluation it does not adequately address the problem you presented, then I'd like to know why.

Samie, at the end of the day you have the unrighteous annihilated. While this is more merciful than the idea of eternal torture, the op presented a couple primary reasons from Scripture why this violates God's justice.

Like all others who have posted thus far, you're attempting to answer my interpretation with another interpretation. I explained in a post yesterday why using one's personal interpretation or doctrine is not an appropriate test for truth of another. The question remains, do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?

 

[Pamella]

'The doctrines of Annihilationism and eternal punishment both violate the perfection of God’s justice. Only the allegorical approach to the salvation of all in the Bible is able to resolve these violations.' OP

Hi. :wave: Not on here to throw insults, but to understand where you are coming from.

My first thought was you are one of the several, or many as far as I know, who do not believe God sends people to hell. Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks.

 

[genuineoriginal]

do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?

Are you ever going to address the fact that the logic problem posed in the OP has no merit because of this:
The Bible shows that justice is based on the assumption that the entire person receives punishment for the sin of the person, not a piece of the person receiving punishment for the sin.

 

[Bociferous]

You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

Though this is off-topic, are you saying the doctrine of the fall doesn't make sense?

 

[Bociferous]

Hi. :wave: Not on here to throw insults, but to understand where you are coming from.

My first thought was you are one of the several, or many as far as I know, who do not believe God sends people to hell. Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks.

Well, it's refreshing that someone wants to know where I'm coming from. Though the subject of hell is off-topic I'll favor you. No, I actually believe God commits all humans (more accurately, most of every person) to hell, though for me hell isn't a place but--like heaven--is an experience. The mystery literalism is unable to solve is to explain how hell is both eternal yet doesn't last forever. You can get a sense of what I believe about hell here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MUINRM_9U

So, do you have a take on what was posted in the op Pamella?

 

[genuineoriginal]

boisterous
rough and noisy; noisily jolly or rowdy; clamorous; unrestrained:

vociferous
crying out noisily; clamorous.

Bociferous
both boisterous and vociferous
like a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal

 

[Samie]

Samie, at the end of the day you have the unrighteous annihilated. While this is more merciful than the idea of eternal torture, the op presented a couple primary reasons from Scripture why this violates God's justice.

Like all others who have posted thus far, you're attempting to answer my interpretation with another interpretation. I explained in a post yesterday why using one's personal interpretation or doctrine is not an appropriate test for truth of another. The question remains, do you have a critique of the logical problem posed in the op on its own merits?

Sorry. I am not able to understand you.

In the OP, you noted how Abraham understood God's justice that God won't annihilate the righteous along with the wicked. And you said God did that in Sodom and Gomorrah: He separated the righteous before He annihilated the wicked.

Did that Sodom & Gomorrah account violate God's justice?

If you say Yes, then you should not have used that account as basis for your interpretation that annihilating the wicked violates God's justice. Because in so doing you have God violating His own justice system when He annihilated the inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah.

If No, then you have no reason to complain with the Scriptural solution I presented because all the elements you wanted in God's justice system are all there.

God restored humanity to what you described as "wholly true or righteous state" when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son. But those who won't live up according to His standards, will be separated from the Body, thus the BODY as a whole REMAINS in the "wholly true or righteous state". The Body is not annihilated. It will stay on forever. It's the wicked that will be annihilated. Nothing good remains in them having been removed from the Source of all good.

 

[Nick M]

You say this (or more precisely, Paul says this), then go on to say God is just. Some how it never strikes you, ( as well as many other Christians ) that this doesn't make any sense at all.

Would you drink from a cup with poison in it?