Christian Universalism is a school of Christian theology which includes the belief in the doctrine of universal reconciliation, the view that all human beings and fallen angels will ultimately be restored to right relationship with God in Heaven.

Salvation of All is Allegoric

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Salvation of All is Allegoric

    THE ALLEGORIC STANDARD

    I propose that God has orchestrated His plan to save all humans in the Bible in an allegorical configuration. This symbolic organization is systematic, coherent, non-contradictory and found in dozens of passages in both Old and New Testaments. This arrangement has the following organizational form and components:

    ORGANIZTION
    A single supervising metaphor establishes interpretive conventions to which multiple associated metaphors in the Bible conform. The semantic structure is similar to the way words are grouped to form sentences, but here metaphors are grouped to form a coherent allegoric system revealing God’s plan of salvation for the human race made available by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

    COMPONENTS
    1. The primary metaphor as the interpretive standard (what I call the “Standard”) outlines the key features of the salvation process, a blueprint of sorts for the “spiritual mechanics” God uses to restore [save] souls.
    2. There exist dozens of metaphoric passages in the figurative language from multiple books of the Bible that correspond to the Standard by virtue of their possession of one or more of the interpretive features set forth in the Standard. I call these Level One (L1) metaphors.
    3. In addition to L1 metaphors, there are multiple passages in the Bible’s non-figurative language, or text not normally considered to be metaphoric in nature that conform to the conventions of the Standard. These I term Level Two (L2) metaphors. L1 and L2 metaphors differs in that L1 metaphors combine with the Gen 18/19 pattern as in immediate harmony with the interpretive framework of the Standard, while L2 metaphors are revealed to be such by the Standard. Another way of putting it is that the combination of the Standard and its L1 examples reveal the L2 metaphors’ interpretive alliance with this framework in a subsequent role.

    Interestingly, the Standard which establishes the allegoric scheme is itself a Level 2 metaphor as it seems typically understood in tradition as merely one of the characteristic set of passages contributing to God’s basic moral code, told in an interesting story.

    The supervising metaphor is found in passages in Genesis chapters 18 and 19, established in Abraham’s well known conversation with God regarding Sodom’s destruction and ends with the event itself in chapter 19. In this event, God presents a logical problem in announcing His intention to destroy Sodom for its evil, prompting Abraham’s well-known protest in Genesis 18:23-25, "... '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?'"

    Abraham correctly identifies the violation of God’s perfection here. For God to destroy good along with bad, righteous with unrighteous denies the perfection of God’s justice. I propose that perfection is the supervising principle for all God’s attributes. If God’s justice, love, holiness, wisdom, etc. are anything less than perfect, God is not the God revealed to us in Scripture. Abraham saw this problem 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?" The first interpretive principle is thus established:

    1) God will not destroy a whole in which good exists.

    God then reveals the solution to the problem and establishes the spiritual parameters of salvation by separating and removing righteous Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it and the unrighteous residents. A second interpretive convention is established here in two parts, culminating in what I call the principle of the fragmented spirit:

    2) Spirit or soul is value-fragmented. In God’s treatment of the residents of Sodom,
    a) Human spirit or soul is portrayed metaphorically as analogous to the physical body, a whole made up of many parts, and,
    b) each part consists in a single value state, true or false. Goods derive from the true, evils from the false; i.e., sin obtains from the fragmentally falsified soul, therefore falsity is the object of God’s (Who is pure Truth) wrath.

    In short, the story of Abraham's and God's conversation and God's subsequent treatment of Sodom represent both how the problem of the violation of perfection of His justice is resolved and provides a glimpse at the blueprint God designed to accomplish the spiritual work of salvation.

    These are the primary interpretive conventions established in the Genesis Standard. These passages depict the first part (destruction) of the twofold pattern of Christian salvation, DEATH and RESURRECTION, which the Lord underwent as the greatest of all metaphors as a symbol for the methodology God planned for the salvation of every human soul. Restoration as the second part of God’s plan is found in many of the metaphors supporting the Standard. This format is nothing new, it’s pattern is easily recognized in the Bible’s literal understanding as the accounts of God’s wrath typically followed by descriptions of His healing and grace.

    I’ll wait to post supporting L1 and L2 metaphors until discussion has run its course as the Universalism I contend for essentially hinges on whether I am justified in making the claims above. I’ve gone to some effort in the “Is Universalism Biblical?” thread to identify the typical errors in approach my literalist brethren have used in their characteristically zealous rebuttals to my views in the past. Hopefully these kinds of mistakes can be avoided in this thread. For the sake of valid, intellectually honest discussion please avoid the circularity of using the tenets of literalism as “proofs” that all can’t be saved, e.g., “The Bible says ____________, therefore universalism is false!” This is a discussion about a view of the Bible’s meaning that competes with grammatical-historical literalism. Questions that need to be answered will refer to things like proper metaphoric structure, whether one is warranted, given the established attributes, character and modus operandi of God, in believing that He has orchestrated or would use an underlying allegoric structure in the Bible, whether it’s semantically reasonable to propose the interpretive standards above from the passages used, etc.

    It might be beneficial to remember, metaphor is established by the use of specific literal things, persons, circumstances and events. If you wish to claim that passages I use as metaphors are only literal, please explain on what basis you find this to be true.

  • #2
    Spiffy, I want to understand what you're saying, but what I'm getting is: God won't destroy the good with the bad, therefore God saves the bad, as well as the good.

    I didn't get #2 at all.


    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
      Spiffy, I want to understand what you're saying, but what I'm getting is: God won't destroy the good with the bad, therefore God saves the bad, as well as the good.

      I didn't get #2 at all.
      That's exactly what I was thinking, Cornelius. Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra, and others like them, who worshipped God in purity in their own country, were suddenly hurried away into exile. Seems Spiffy is ignoring an evident discrimination that'll take place, a separation of: wheat, tares, sheep, and goats. Abraham asked God to spare the people of Sodom, because he had a good hope of the repentance of the wicked. Seems to me the obvious is being overlooked, Sodom was not spared, because there were not ten righteous persons in Sodom - Romans 3:10-11. Lastly, God does not bind himself to a rule in Genesis 18:23-25, the rule has been established by Spiffy, one that would make it unlawful for God to bring the wicked and the just together to punishment, because God sees good. For example, God refused to grant the same pardon to Sodom on account of ten righteous persons to Jerusalem - Matthew 11:24. Do not ignore Romans 3:5-6 and detract from the honor of God's righteousness.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
        Spiffy, I want to understand what you're saying, but what I'm getting is: God won't destroy the good with the bad, therefore God saves the bad, as well as the good.

        I didn't get #2 at all.

        Sorry I didn't make it more clear. No, God does destroy the bad. I assumed this went without saying based on His action taken against Sodom. He separated the righteous parts (Lot and family) and destroyed the unrighteous parts (Sodomites).

        There are two primary points established in the metaphor,
        1) God destroys only the bad, never the good.

        2) The structure God shows in this metaphor is of a multiplicity of value elements. Since righteousness and unrighteousness are terms associated with moral status rather than actual literal states when applied to persons--and since strong arguments can be made that good and evil can be found in every saint and sinner--it seems an obvious conclusion that the metaphor represents a spiritual, not physical state. Supporting metaphors solidly bear this distinction out. In the Gen 18-19 metaphor God is showing us how the violation of His perfection, properly identified by Abraham, is resolved: He separates good and bad and destroys [and, we will later find out , restores] the bad while saving the good. The separation of good from bad in essence or spirit and destruction of evil in that same spirit is a display of perfect justice.

        I might note: the good/evil dualism is common to Christian conversation, but good/evil or righteousness/unrighteousness are effects, not causes. I agree with Aquinas Summa, P1, Q16, a4) that truth logically precedes the good. This being so, I tend to move discussion to what I feel is a more technically correct sense by substituting the terms true and false for good and evil when referencing the Gen 18-19 metaphor and the principle of salvation it engenders . By destroying the false God removes impediment from the human soul as falsity logically causes all manner of imperfections resulting in unrighteousness, sin, badness, etc. as effects produced in human thinking and behavior. This, I intend to show if the thread advances far enough, is Biblical salvation.

        As to William's comment,

        God does not bind himself to a rule in Genesis 18:23-25 the rule has been established by Spiffy, one that would make it unlawful for God to bring the wicked and the just together to punishment, because God sees good.
        You did exactly what I asked folks to avoid, William, you offer an opinion with no basis for showing how the rule I have allegedly imposed is inconsistent with Scripture or why/how the principle I noted is false. Do you feel it is logically correct for God to destroy good or is it illogical to suppose that He destroys only bad? Please elaborate. In my defense I simply interpreted what God inspired His author to write. Your implying that I "established a rule" is patently false--not only is the destruction evil and preservation of good well within the dictates of logic and consistent with the character of God, this principle is also uniformly supported throughout the entirety of the Bible. If you know of a place in the Bible that God indiscriminately destroys good, please share it. It is God who placed the rule in Scripture, not I.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by spiffy75 View Post
          strong arguments can be made that good and evil can be found in every saint and sinner

          I agree with that. And, I'll even raise you. Most people we think of as good aren't as good as we think. And, most people we think of as bad aren't as bad as we think. And, yet, if we break one law of God, we're guilty of breaking all the laws of God. Even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God.

          Is it your argument that because none of us are pure evil that all of us will be saved? Why don't you speak clearly?
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
            Is it your argument that because none of us are pure evil that all of us will be saved? Why don't you speak clearly?
            I don't know why you think I'm not speaking "clearly" but this may have something to do with your having to consider a theological position from a viewpoint [abstract] you're not used to. It's simplistic to suggest it's my argument that because none are pure evil all will be saved. Pure evil is a logical impossibility because the nature of evil--defect, corruption, decay, hatred, etc.--leads to chaos and death. We self-destruct long before our spirit reaches a state of total falsification.

            It's my argument that none are wholly evil and all will be saved because--as I stated in the op--I understand God to be revealing this in the Gen 18-19 passages.​ I believe this not because those passages state that explicitly, but because once the interpretive Standard is established in these passages there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of passages that qualify as supporting metaphors leading to the same conclusion. If true, there is not another view I know of in Christianity able to provide stronger evidence of God's authorship of the Bible. He has in this view orchestrated in His word dozens of unified, coherent metaphors from multiple authors experiencing different cultures, educational backgrounds and separated by centuries of time, from both Testaments of the Bible--all building to the same view of salvation through the atonement of Christ Jesus. This is completely beyond the capability of human ability and superior to God's authorship portrayed by secularized grammatical-historical literalism..

            Do you have arguments to show my presentation of the Genesis Standard is invalid?
            Comment>

            • #7
              As a Calvinist I hold to the five points of TULIP. The T is Total Depravity. Apart from God, we are wholly evil.

              When God destroyed Sodom, destroyed the kingdom of Israel, flooded the world, and other acts of judgement, everyone who died still died in spite of your position that they weren't wholly evil.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                When God destroyed Sodom, destroyed the kingdom of Israel, flooded the world, and other acts of judgement, everyone who died still died in spite of your position that they weren't wholly evil.
                Yes, they did. The fact that you noted, "...in spite of your position" tells me you don't yet understand what was presented. Your comment is completely irrelevant. How do you suppose the fact the Sodomites died negatively impacts my position?
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by spiffy75 View Post
                  Your comment is completely irrelevant.
                  You're language is vague and I believe it leads to a dead end, anyway.

                  Originally posted by spiffy75 View Post
                  ) God will not destroy a whole in which good exists.
                  You assume a premise that you haven't supported, that there is good in everyone. So, it's irrelevant to your position that God will not destroy a whole in which good exists therefor he won't destroy anyone. Even if I assume there is good in everyone, God has destroyed people in spite of that good. Jesus even withered a perfectly good fig tree.

                  When God has spared people from his judgement, I don't think it was so much for their goodness. I doubt Noah's family were the only "good" people in the whole world, yet God only spared Noah's family. Preserving mankind was necessary to the sake of Christ. God spared Judea (until after Jesus came) while he destroyed Israel, even though he said Judea was even more wicked than Israel. God spared Judea to preserve the line of Jesus. Even Sodom, a mere town any good person could just walk away from, as with every other example of judgment in which people are spared, there's the message that God will destroy the wicked, i.e. that they won't be saved.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Just a few posts ago I stated, “strong arguments can be made that good and evil can be found in every saint and sinner” to which you replied, I agree with that.” Now you suddenly take the opposite position:

                    You assume a premise that you haven't supported, that there is good in everyone. So, it's irrelevant to your position that God will not destroy a whole in which good exists therefore he won't destroy anyone
                    .

                    On top of this sudden reversal, you prove my earlier pointt that you don’t seem to grasp my posts by stating,

                    Even if I assume there is good in everyone, God has destroyed people in spite of that good. When God has spared people from his judgment, I don't think it was so much for their goodness. I doubt Noah's family were the only "good" people in the whole world, yet God only spared Noah's family. Preserving mankind was necessary to the sake of Christ…
                    I suspect the literalist-theological mind has trouble breaking free from thinking along those lines. The Gen 18/19 Standard requires that basic logical, metaphysical, epistemological and semantic questions be answered prior to establishing its doctrinal value or lack of it. Literalists only seem to know how (or want) to discuss doctrine. I think you’re unable to break away from looking at the issue through eyes that only see issues from a theological and personal doctrinal standpoint.

                    It matters not a whit that the Sodomites died [literalist doctrinal view] because the Genesis Standard establishes
                    1) a logical point [Abraham’s noting the violation of the perfection of God’s justice in destroying good],

                    2) a metaphysical point [God shows us the resolution of the problem using the philosophical problem of ‘the one and the many’ (human spirit and God’s work in it is presented in a multiplicity of parts); Question: are you a single person or an entity made up of many parts? This is the problem of the one and the many; it’s a metaphysical format that aids understanding.],

                    3) a spiritual view is developed in His orchestration of people and events as a metaphor to reveal how sanctification and salvation are achieved in human essence;

                    4) a question of semantics [affirming or denying that the structure of the presented metaphor is appropriate to the meaning asserted] and

                    5) requires epistemic scrutiny [am I justified in claiming that what is presented leads to warranted belief, i.e., is it able to meet basic truth criteria?]

                    To point out that the Sodomites died anyway stands completely outside the issues that should be considered. Because my claim is that the revelation of the Genesis 18-19 account sets an explanatory stage for revealing the spiritual principles and mechanics of salvation, physical death is irrelevant because God is revealing what He accomplishes in human spirit leading up to [sanctification] and in the final moments [or possibly postmortem] of each person’s physical death. Physical death is unimportant; this is about what happens to the soul.

                    Jesus even withered a perfectly good fig tree.
                    Same principle, God causing physical life to cease reveals nothing to the human eye about His treatment of animation. Besides, though vegetation is life it’s not prescriptive in nature like human spirit…the designation “good” applied to the fig tree is goodness of a different aspect or category from the goodness of the spiritual. God never pronounced salvation to trees.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by spiffy75 View Post
                      Just a few posts ago I stated, “strong arguments can be made that good and evil can be found in every saint and sinner” to which you replied, I agree with that.” Now you suddenly take the opposite position:
                      Those are your words. I agreed with it, but with the caveat that "If we break one law of God, we're guilty of breaking all the laws of God. Even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God." What we see as good in others still isn't good in God's eyes. If there is any good in wicked people, in God's eyes, it's by the grace of God, goodness that is from God, not from the sinner. And, God is free to withdraw his grace at any time. We are totally depraved, apart from God. I've made no reversal.

                      Your premise is that all men have some goodness in them, apart from God. I don't accept that promise without proof and I think the Bible is very clear to the contrary.




                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                        I agreed with it, but with the caveat that "If we break one law of God, we're guilty of breaking all the laws of God. Even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God." What we see as good in others still isn't good in God's eyes. If there is any good in wicked people, in God's eyes, it's by the grace of God, goodness that is from God, not from the sinner.
                        But this rambling doesn't mean anything, Cornelius. Talk about imputed righteousness and making unsupported claims (If there is any good in wicked people, in God's eyes, it's by the grace of God) that have nothing to do with the subject at hand do nothing to advance the discussion. As I tried to explain in last post, this isn't about your take on Bible doctrine. In fact, I did offer evidence for my claim. I pointed out that a wholly falsified or evil soul is a logical impossibility. You've offered no rebuttal. It can also be claimed that every good act only ever arises from truth (good) in the fabric of spirit. One doesn't get apples from an oak tree, and moral properties have to fit their proper spiritual, moral and intellectual categories.

                        The presentation in the op requires metaphysical--not doctrinal--attention.

                        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                        Your premise is that all men have some goodness in them, apart from God. I don't accept that promise without proof and I think the Bible is very clear to the contrary.
                        If you have "very clear" evidence from the Bible to show that not all humans have goodness in them, don't offer this as an opinion.....show it.

                        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                        Those are your words. I agreed with it
                        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                        We are totally depraved, apart from God. I've made no reversal.
                        1) You quite clearly have made a reversal. 2) Total depravity doesn't require a totally falsified soul, it only requires a soul falsified to the extent it's unable to unite in intellectual operation with external (absolute) moral truth:
                        "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1Cor 2:14)
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by spiffy75 View Post
                          Total depravity doesn't require a totally falsified soul, it only requires a soul falsified to the extent it's unable to unite in intellectual operation with external (absolute) moral truth:
                          Total means total, not merely just to a significant extent. If righteousness were intelligence, on our own, we'd have IQs of zero. We wouldn't just be marginally dumb enough to not understand the things of God.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                            Total means total, not merely just to a significant extent. If righteousness were intelligence, on our own, we'd have IQs of zero. We wouldn't just be marginally dumb enough to not understand the things of God.
                            It would benefit you to dig deeper Cornelius. Everything isn't black and white, though it would be easier for us if this were so. A state of total depravity doesn't logically necessitate a wholly falsified soul. In fact, I pointed out that pure evil or falsity is a logical impossibility. You've presented no refutation of this, yet still seem to reject the idea that total depravity need not be equated with a wholly evil soul. You now appear to take the same stance as most traditionalists I've corresponded with in the past--determined to 'refute' every statement with whatever gets dreamed up on the spur of the moment. No fruitful discussion can come from a conversation in which someone only has a mind to dismiss his opponent's comments on virtually any basis whatever.

                            Car tires are typically inflated to 32 psi. if the tire leaks and pressure falls to 3 psi, the tire is considered flat...the car is now riding on the rim. The tire need not completely lose all its air to be deemed "flat", it only has to be rendered incapable of proper operation. Likewise, a mind only needs to be sufficiently falsified to be unable to unite with absolute truth to be totally depraved. Dig deeper.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              To continue....

                              Here are a few examples of the dozens of metaphors that align with the Standard by their possession of one or more of the its interpretive principles.

                              Mat 13:24-30 is the parable of wheat and tares where wheat represents elements of truth or good in the soul and tares symbolize the false, which are separated from the whole and destroyed, in accordance with the Gen 18-19 metaphor.

                              Ezek 21:2-5 speaks of the sword of God cutting off the righteous from the wicked from a whole, Israel. This is another representation of the internal separation of good and bad parts from the soul. Note this is decreed by God through Ezekiel to be to "all flesh".

                              Jer 5:10-11 speaks to the destruction of false elements (bad branches) in the whole (vine). God’s command to "…not execute a complete destruction" is in accord with the metaphor of Sodom’s destruction, where the few righteous were separated and the unrighteous majority were then destroyed.

                              In the 24th chapter of Jeremiah true and false elements are portrayed by good figs and bad. The good were being separated from the whole of Israel and sent to wilderness captivity to be spared while the bad were left in the land to meet their destruction. Included is God’s promise to the good of salvation’s second phase of restoration—“…I will set My eyes on them for good, and I will bring them again to this land; and I will build them up and not overthrow them, and I will plant them and not pluck them up. And I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.” When God plants, things grow, and they grow properly.

                              Isa 65:8-9 is one of the more powerful metaphors, in which God declares through Isaiah, "…'As the new wine [or 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'" The decree to not destroy the whole because of the intrinsic benefit that parts of the cluster were good echoes the substance of the Genesis 18 metaphor. These verses present the cluster as a whole 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.'"

                              In Amos 9:8-10 Although 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". The house of Jacob is used here to represent the whole. Truth in the soul produces a proclivity for righteous thought and act in the whole, and again the whole person is marked for salvation by the principle that God will not destroy a whole in which good exists. Though shaken "as grain is shaken in a sieve", not a kernel (or no component of truth) will fall to the ground, but all "sinners" (false elements) are given over to the sword. This is yet another metaphor in agreement with the features of the supervising metaphor of Sodom’s destruction.

                              Mat 25:32-46 is one of the more popular salvation passages in the New Testament. Here, the concept of “all nations” is the whole. Sheep or true value components are separated from goats as false parts, with destruction decreed for the latter and benefit to the former. The eternal punishment decreed in v. 46 moves in symbolic language from individuals to the false [goat] portions within each person. Eternality also takes on new shape in the allegorical; here it’s not applied as duration of separation and punishment of individuals, but is a decree of the banishment of all things false from the perfection of existence in the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21, a type of heaven. Good example of how God has designed the wrath of the literal to be nullified to grace in the allegorical.

                              Zech 13:8-9 In the totality of “all the land”, true and false parts are portrayed in a somewhat unusual quotient of measurement by Zechariah as "two parts in it [the bad] will be cut off and perish", yet, "the third [or the good] will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them [note the purification of Godly fire] 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 the greater good of restoration to the whole. This is one example among many in the Bible that hell is itself a metaphor for cleansing and restoration, not an eternal place of separation and suffering for individuals as the literal leads us to suppose.

                              1Cor 3:11-15 The products of the true (goods represented by gold, silver, precious stones) or false (wood, hay, straw) inherent in the whole person are tested in the purifying fire of absolute Truth. The false is destroyed from the whole, the true remains. Yet another passage consistent in its metaphoric sense with the parameters established in the Standard.

                              These are just a few of dozens of Level One metaphors. Using the interpretive dictates established in the Genesis Standard, Level One metaphors can be spotted throughout both Testaments, primarily in the prophets whose startling declarations of wrath were inspired by God as the literal building blocks and harbingers of His plan to restore all souls to the only qualitative state [wholly true] possible for personal union with Him. Again, this plan portrays the twofold salvific principles of Christianity—death and resurrection. The literal is grounded in death, separation and annihilation, and the allegoric reveals how even His wrath is supervised by His love and grace. This blueprint begins with the Genesis Standard and is hidden in plain sight throughout the Bible. It’s worth mentioning again that this coherent, symbolic blueprint for salvation would have been completely impossible for human understanding to engineer. Only God could orchestrate the magnificence of dozens of unified metaphors by authors of highly varying backgrounds and educations scattered over centuries of time—and cause them to culminate in a congruous, allegoric whole able to resolve the logical tensions imposed by the literal reading of the Bible. There is no more compelling evidence I know of for the existence of God and His authorship of the Bible than these facts.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap